No Nukes
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
makes perfect sense...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/13
No Nukes
A generation of Americans has grown up without a single nuclear power plant being brought on line since before the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island structure in 1979. They have not been exposed to the enormous costs, risks and national security dangers associated with their operations and the large amount of radioactive wastes still without a safe, permanent storage place for tens of thousands of years.
All Americans better get informed soon, for a resurgent atomic power lobby wants the taxpayers to pick up the tab for relaunching this industry. Unless you get Congress to stop this insanely dirty and complex way to boil water to generate steam for electricity, you'll be paying for the industry's research, the industry's loan guarantees and the estimated trillion dollars (inflation-adjusted) cost of just one meltdown, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, plus vast immediate and long-range casualties.
The Russian roulette-playing nuclear industry claims a class nine meltdown will never happen. That none of the thousands of rail cars, trucks and barges with radioactive wastes will ever have a catastrophic accident. That terrorists will forgo striking a nuclear plant or hijacking deadly materials, and go for far less consequential disasters.
The worst nuclear reactor accident occurred in 1986 at Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine. Although of a different design than most U.S. reactors, the resultant breach of containment released a radioactive cloud that spread around the globe but concentrated most intensively in Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia and secondarily over 40% of Europe.
For different reasons, both governmental and commercial interests were intent on downplaying both the immediate radioactively-caused deaths and diseases and the longer term devastations from this silent, invisible form of violence. They also were not eager to fund follow up monitoring and research.
Now comes the English translation of the most comprehensive, scientific report to date titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment whose senior author is biologist Alexey V. Yablokov, a member of the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences.
Purchasable from the New York Academy of Sciences (visit nyas.org/annals), this densely referenced analysis covers the acute radiation inflicted on both the first-responders (called "liquidators") and on residents nearby, who suffer chronic radioactive sicknesses. "Today," asserts the report, "more than 6 million people live on land with dangerous levels of contamination--land that will continue to be contaminated for decades to centuries."
Back to the U.S., where, deplorably, President Obama has called for more so-called "safe, clean nuclear power plants." He just sent a budget request for another $54 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees on top of a previous $18 billion passed under Bush. You see, Wall Street financiers will not loan electric companies money to build new nuclear plants which cost $12 billion and up, unless Uncle Sam guarantees one hundred percent of the loan.
Strange, if these nuclear power plants are so efficient, so safe, why can't they be built with unguaranteed private risk capital? The answer to this question came from testimony by Amory B. Lovins, chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, in March 2008 before the [House of Representatives of the U.S.] Select Committee on Energy Independence (rmi.org). His thesis: "expanding nuclear power would reduce and retard climate protection and energy security...but can't survive free-market capitalism."
Making his case with brilliant concision, Lovins, a consultant to business and the Defense Department, demonstrated with numbers and other data that nuclear power "is being dramatically outcompeted in the global marketplace by no and low-carbon power resources that deliver far more climate solution per dollar, far faster."
Lovins doesn't even include the accident or sabotage risks. He testified that "because it's [nuclear power] uneconomic and unnecessary, we needn't inquire into its other attributes." Renewable energy (eg. wind power), cogeneration and energy efficiencies (megawatts) are now far superior to maintain.
I challenge anybody in the nuclear industry or academia to debate Lovins at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., with a neutral moderator, or before a Congressional Committee.
However, the swarm of nuclear power lobbyists is gaining headway in Congress, spreading their money everywhere and falsely exploiting the concern with global warming fed by fossil fuels.
The powerful nuclear power critics in Congress want the House energy bill to focus on climate change. To diminish the opposition, they entered into a bargain that gave nuclear reactors status with loan guarantees and other subsidies in the same legislation which has passed the House and, as is usual, languishing in the Senate.
Long-time, staunch opponents of atomic power who are leaders in countering climate change, such as Cong. Ed Markey (D-MA), have quieted themselves for the time being, while the Republicans (loving the taxpayer subsidies) and some Democrats are hollering for the nukes. All this undermines the valiant efforts of the Union of Concerned Scientists, NIRS, Friends of the Earth, and other established citizen groups who favor a far safer, more efficient, faster and more secure energy future for our country and the world.
Just recently, a well-designed and documented pamphlet from Beyond Nuclear summarize the case against nuclear power as "Expensive, Dangerous and Dirty." The clear, precise detail and documentation makes for expeditious education of your friends, neighbors and co-workers.
You can download it free and reprint it for wider distribution from www.BeyondNuclear.org. It is very well worth the 10 to 15 minutes it takes to absorb the truth about this troubled technology--replete with delays and large cost-overruns--that has been on government welfare since the 1950s.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/13
No Nukes
A generation of Americans has grown up without a single nuclear power plant being brought on line since before the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island structure in 1979. They have not been exposed to the enormous costs, risks and national security dangers associated with their operations and the large amount of radioactive wastes still without a safe, permanent storage place for tens of thousands of years.
All Americans better get informed soon, for a resurgent atomic power lobby wants the taxpayers to pick up the tab for relaunching this industry. Unless you get Congress to stop this insanely dirty and complex way to boil water to generate steam for electricity, you'll be paying for the industry's research, the industry's loan guarantees and the estimated trillion dollars (inflation-adjusted) cost of just one meltdown, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, plus vast immediate and long-range casualties.
The Russian roulette-playing nuclear industry claims a class nine meltdown will never happen. That none of the thousands of rail cars, trucks and barges with radioactive wastes will ever have a catastrophic accident. That terrorists will forgo striking a nuclear plant or hijacking deadly materials, and go for far less consequential disasters.
The worst nuclear reactor accident occurred in 1986 at Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine. Although of a different design than most U.S. reactors, the resultant breach of containment released a radioactive cloud that spread around the globe but concentrated most intensively in Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia and secondarily over 40% of Europe.
For different reasons, both governmental and commercial interests were intent on downplaying both the immediate radioactively-caused deaths and diseases and the longer term devastations from this silent, invisible form of violence. They also were not eager to fund follow up monitoring and research.
Now comes the English translation of the most comprehensive, scientific report to date titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment whose senior author is biologist Alexey V. Yablokov, a member of the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences.
Purchasable from the New York Academy of Sciences (visit nyas.org/annals), this densely referenced analysis covers the acute radiation inflicted on both the first-responders (called "liquidators") and on residents nearby, who suffer chronic radioactive sicknesses. "Today," asserts the report, "more than 6 million people live on land with dangerous levels of contamination--land that will continue to be contaminated for decades to centuries."
Back to the U.S., where, deplorably, President Obama has called for more so-called "safe, clean nuclear power plants." He just sent a budget request for another $54 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees on top of a previous $18 billion passed under Bush. You see, Wall Street financiers will not loan electric companies money to build new nuclear plants which cost $12 billion and up, unless Uncle Sam guarantees one hundred percent of the loan.
Strange, if these nuclear power plants are so efficient, so safe, why can't they be built with unguaranteed private risk capital? The answer to this question came from testimony by Amory B. Lovins, chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, in March 2008 before the [House of Representatives of the U.S.] Select Committee on Energy Independence (rmi.org). His thesis: "expanding nuclear power would reduce and retard climate protection and energy security...but can't survive free-market capitalism."
Making his case with brilliant concision, Lovins, a consultant to business and the Defense Department, demonstrated with numbers and other data that nuclear power "is being dramatically outcompeted in the global marketplace by no and low-carbon power resources that deliver far more climate solution per dollar, far faster."
Lovins doesn't even include the accident or sabotage risks. He testified that "because it's [nuclear power] uneconomic and unnecessary, we needn't inquire into its other attributes." Renewable energy (eg. wind power), cogeneration and energy efficiencies (megawatts) are now far superior to maintain.
I challenge anybody in the nuclear industry or academia to debate Lovins at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., with a neutral moderator, or before a Congressional Committee.
However, the swarm of nuclear power lobbyists is gaining headway in Congress, spreading their money everywhere and falsely exploiting the concern with global warming fed by fossil fuels.
The powerful nuclear power critics in Congress want the House energy bill to focus on climate change. To diminish the opposition, they entered into a bargain that gave nuclear reactors status with loan guarantees and other subsidies in the same legislation which has passed the House and, as is usual, languishing in the Senate.
Long-time, staunch opponents of atomic power who are leaders in countering climate change, such as Cong. Ed Markey (D-MA), have quieted themselves for the time being, while the Republicans (loving the taxpayer subsidies) and some Democrats are hollering for the nukes. All this undermines the valiant efforts of the Union of Concerned Scientists, NIRS, Friends of the Earth, and other established citizen groups who favor a far safer, more efficient, faster and more secure energy future for our country and the world.
Just recently, a well-designed and documented pamphlet from Beyond Nuclear summarize the case against nuclear power as "Expensive, Dangerous and Dirty." The clear, precise detail and documentation makes for expeditious education of your friends, neighbors and co-workers.
You can download it free and reprint it for wider distribution from www.BeyondNuclear.org. It is very well worth the 10 to 15 minutes it takes to absorb the truth about this troubled technology--replete with delays and large cost-overruns--that has been on government welfare since the 1950s.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I can not wait to be part of nuclear power's rebirth. I hope I am lucky enough to witness my company building more reactors.
where are you going to store the waste?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
The real question you should be asking is not where will spent fuel be stored but where it should be reprocessed. See storage anywhere is temporary, we need to burn the remaining life left on the rods to nothing. There are systems for doing so, reactors that burn the fuel down to near nothing, but we can't do it, for at least two reasons. The first is that any new reactor needs NRC licensing, the second is the anti-nuke crowd. Every time building one of these facilities is brought up people cry about moving the rods and how they could fall into the hands of terrorists. This isn't the movies. These casks are so heavy and thick that the terrorists would have to bring along their huge crane to lift them up to drive away with them. They are so thick that they can withstand being hit by a train, so I've heard. So Osama isn't going to show up and just put one of these into the back of his pickup.
The anti-nuke crowd can't have it both ways, either the stuff needs to be transported somewhere or it sits on site waiting for the processing facility to be build. Either way nuclear power is coming back whether you want it to or not. These facilities create thousands of construction jobs and almost 1000 permanent jobs, that employs a lot of people and this country needs jobs. You can't have it both ways.
Shit or get off the pot.
first, i hope you aren't implying the only type of waste in nuclear plants is spent rods? what about the legacy waste the DOE has said caused "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water." the DOE has also stated in the US there are already "millions of gallons of radioactive waste" as well as "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material"
which lasts for thousands of years to millions of years, so, how are you going to contain that for all that time? the DOE already said stuff has to be eventually moved from Yucca Mountain because it has been leaking and the mountain is porous.
so you can reuse rods, that is only a small part of nuclear waste, what about the rest of it? some of that stuff is hazardous to us and virtually everything else for hundreds of thousands of years, some for millions. the amount of high level waste increases something like 12,000 metric tons every year.
secondly, i have never heard anyone say they are against nuclear power because a terrorist may steal a rod so no one is asking for it both ways there.
who will pay to build all these new nuclear power plants? surely it's not gonna be the nuclear power industry, it will be done with our tax money. and didn't just a few years ago France have problems with porosity in the cement used for their nuclear power plants?
here's an artcie not even 2 years old about a nuclear plant in France contaminating rivers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... try.france
Last month an accident at the treatment centre during a draining operation saw liquid containing untreated uranium overflow out of a faulty tank. About 75kg of uranium seeped into the ground and into the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers which flow into the Rhône.
build your own reactors and plants, don't use our tax money if you are so hung up on it and it's such a good idea, use that tax money to help non radioactive means of energy
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I think it is almost funny how Chernobyl is still used as an example of why new nuclear plants shouldn't be built. Except Chernobyl was built in the 70's and the reason for the accident was operator error. By that logic cars should be outlawed since cars in the 70's didn't have very many safety features and there are a lot of really bad drivers out there.
Actually since it is a Soviet design that system does not exist in the United States.
This is not France, this is not Ukraine.
Most non-fuel waste is low level from the plants themselves, it is called DAW Dry Active Waste. A lot of it is less radiation that smoking a cigarette, flying on an airplane, or getting an X-Ray.
And yes there are people who are against the transportation of fuel because they are scared of an attack. It's the not in my backyard crowd.
from:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... position/1
Both the Congressional Budget Office (2003) and the Government Accountability Office (2008) have estimated that the risk of default for new nuclear reactors could be as high as 50 percent based on the industry's history of cost overruns and plant cancellations. In 2007, six of Wall Street's largest investment banks told the Department of Energy that they were unwilling to accept any financial risk for nuclear power loans.
At the conservative Heritage Foundation, David Kreutzer, a senior policy analyst in energy economic and climate change, warned against expanding loan guarantees in a recent post;
This authorized $18.5 billion in loan guarantees will help build a handful of new nuclear reactors but any expansion of subsidies, tax credits or loan guarantees is a bad idea for taxpayers, consumers and long-term industry competitiveness.
Continuing subsidies reduce the incentive to contain costs, create government dependence and stifle competition and technological development within the nuclear energy industry.
Another scholar, economist Dr. Mark Cooper at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, authored a report in June that found it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.
Peter Bradord, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, writes that new nuclear plants cost at least $6 billion each and are not worth it:
Of 26 new nuclear reactor license applications submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2007, nine have been canceled or suspended indefinitely in the last 10 months. Ten more have been delayed by one to five years. The Tennessee Valley Authority has canceled plans to revive a partially built unit.
Much of this chaos is because cost estimates for new reactors tripled while natural gas prices declined precipitously.
nuclear power is too slow. if there is a storm or earthquake or something happens causing the plant to go down it takes 2 weeks to get it back up and running at 100%
from:
http://rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion
Unlike scheduled outages, many nuclear units can also fail simultaneously and without
warning in regional blackouts, which necessarily and instantly shut down nuclear plants
for safety. But nuclear physics then makes restart slow and delicate: certain neutronabsorbing
fission products must decay before there are enough surplus neutrons for stable
operation. Thus at the start of the 14 August 2003 northeast North American blackout,
nine U.S. nuclear units totaling 7,851 MW were running perfectly at 100% output, but after
emergency shutdown, they took two weeks to restart fully. They achieved 0% output
on the first day after the midafternoon blackout, 0.3% the second day, 5.7% the third,
38.4% the fourth, 55.2% the fifth, and 66.8% the sixth. The average capacity loss was
97.5% for three days, 62.5% for five days, 59.4% for 7 days, and 53.2% for 12 days102—
hardly a reliable resource no matter how exemplary its normal operation. Canada’s restart
was even rougher, with Toronto teetering for days on the brink of complete grid failure
despite desperate appeals to turn everything off. This nuclear-physics characteristic of
nuclear plants makes them “anti-peakers”—guaranteed unavailable when they’re most
needed.
even with the new technology the increase in output is very small for nuclear. In 2006
worldwide, nuclear power added less net capacity (1.44 GW) than photovoltaics added (1.74
GW), or one-tenth as much as windpower added (15.1 GW). In 2007, nuclear capacity added or
uprated by 2.5 GW of net capacity according to the IAEA or 3.2 GW according to the World
Nuclear Association,129 while windpower alone added ~20.6 GW, including 5.2 GW in the
United States,130 3.5 GW in Spain (now one-tenth wind-powered), and 3.2 GW in China.
during 2004–07, micropower added ~14× more capacity (~20× in actual installations
without upratings of old nuclear plants) and ~3× more electrical output than nuclear, and is pulling
away. The nuclear industry projects that its gross additions (excluding retirements and upratings)
will total 17 GW during the five years 2006–2010, but micropower is now adding 17 GW
about every 15 weeks—17× faster.
take this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN151 ... arketsNews
they want $8.8billion to build 2 nuclear plants that *may* be operational by 2016 and 2017?? really? $8.8billion in taxpayer money to build 2 plants that might be ready to work in 6-7 years doesn't seem worth it to me, there are much better options like photovoltaics and wind power. Kucinich had a plan to retrofit buildings and homes to use technology like photovoltaics which would've created plenty of jobs, use of technologies like that could generate more energy for $8.8billion in a much shorter time frame than nuclear and you don't have to deal with toxic waste that lasts anywhere from thousands of years to millions.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
except there is a pretty big difference between the damage a nuclear plant can cause compared to an automobile...
you're right, the 70's was a long time ago...however, less than 2 years ago:
and just this year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Ya ... itium_leak
In May 2009, Jay Thayer, the vice-president of operations at Vermont Yankee at the time, told the Vermont Public Service Board under oath that there was no underground piping at Vermont Yankee. [19] In October 2009, Arnie Gundersen, a member of a special oversight panel of nuclear experts convened by the Vermont legislature, confirmed the presence of contaminated underground pipes. An Entergy spokesperson told Vermont Public Radio that the denial of any underground pipes was a "miscommunication." [20]
On January 7, 2010, groundwater wells at the Vermont Yankee site were reported contaminated with tritium, in a probable leak. According to experts, the discovery of tritium at the plant indicated that an underground pipe or tank was leaking somewhere at the plant. However, levels of the isotope were below the maximum amount deemed acceptable for drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency. [21] By mid-January, however, levels of tritium had continued to rise up to 20,000 picocuries per liter, the federal limit for drinking water. Vermont's congressional delegation said in a joint statement that they wanted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to undertake an investigation into Entergy's lack of disclosure about the potential for radioactive leaks.[22] By late-January, the head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Vermont’s congressional delegation that the agency will devote more resources to addressing concerns about Vermont Yankee, and expects to find the source of the tritium leak there within the next several weeks, according to the lawmakers.[23]
On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee reported that groundwater samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor were measured at about 775,000 picocuries per liter (more than 37 times the federal safe drinking water limit). On February 5, 2010 samples from an underground vault tested positive for 2.7 million picocuries per liter.[24] The following day, a ground water test measured 2.45 million picocuries per liter. As a comparison, straight reactor water averages 2.9 million picocuries per liter.[25]
The Vermont Department of Health suspects that tritium may be leaking into the Connecticut River. Samples taken from the river have shown "no detectable levels" of tritium, but may be too diluted to be measured. [26]
this also doesn't make me feel better about nuclear power:
On February 9, 2010, information came out that security forces at the Vermont Yankee site had allowed uninspected access to the plant by a truck making a one-time delivery. The driver said he had been astounded to be waved into the plant without inspection. He had made regular deliveries to the plant for a different merchant several years earlier, and said that his vehicle had been regularly searched at that time. The fact that he was given access to the grounds in a closed truck without being searched lead the driver to view the incident as a serious lapse of security. VY spokesman Rob Williams told the press there were many layers of security, and that the truck had only got through the first, but the driver pointed out that his truck was large enough to hold twenty armed people.[27]
Vermont Yankee has had security problems in the past. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave it the lowest grade for security of all nuclear plants in the United States in August 2001. Part of the problem citizens have with evaluating this is that information on security issues is intentionally, and publicly, suppressed. A security breach in 2008 was reported to the public, but the nature of the breach was not revealed. This is said to be for security reasons. [28][29]
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
In regards to the restart, do you start your car and slam it into gear first thing on a cold day and rev the engine to 8000 rpm?
You need to understand that ramping these units up is not only a procedure for safety but it is simply required. Water needs to be heated, pumps need to start in a certain order, motors need to turn on and off, breakers need to open and close, etc. These so called slow starts are a good thing. I'm pretty sure the startup times depend on a design, I'll find out exactly tomorrow what ours are.
Those are loans, designed to be paid back with interest. They are not grants. If you have a beef with what the money will go to once paid back I suggest contacting Barack Obama over it. He is signing the check. One reactor generates revenue of over $1M a day. So even though that is a lot not many companies have $10B to just drop on new construction. Should small business owners no longer be able to seek any type of assistance either?
We've got Sellafield in our county, if nuclear power/reprocessing is so safe, why on the east coast of Cumbria has there been an increase in childhood leukemia in the surrounding area?
Development in alternative energies is where the money should be spent.
I use quotation marks because it is "clean" in regards to the pollution left behind by everyday burning of fuel. That "smoke" you see coming out the stack is just steam. But there are obvious risks to the process... there could be another Chernobyl... and there is by-product that will remain radioactive for thousands of years that must be stored somewhere safe.
I'm still on the fence. Call me equivocal...
Why don't we just load up the waste in rockets and fire the rockets into the sun?
Your right there is a big difference, there were about 50 direct deaths and about 4000 people exposed to possibly deadly levels of radiation at Chernobyl. There are more than 40,000 deaths due to car accidents in the US every year.
And since there hasn't been an accident like Chernobyl since then, I would call that a pretty good safety record.
in ontario - we recently scrapped plans for a major nuclear investment for 3 main reasons:
1. public pressure to acknowledge to high costs of nuclear
2. no one in the nuclear industry could guarantee that it would not go over budget
3. we've actually decreased our consumption in ontario - a large part because our manufacturing industry has decimated similar to most of north america - economic recovery or not, it's not likely that it will be a huge sector in the future ... also, people have started to conserve ... and it's only the beginning ...
if your product is so great it should be able to compete in a free market.
i understand the restart takes time because of all that goes into it, that doesn't change my point that safer, cheaper and more efficient technologies wouldn't have nearly the same restart time
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
unless you live in Vermont and drink water......
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
but there's no standard or regulation regarding security at nuclear facilities, right? after 9/11 the dept of homeland security said these were huge targets but the nuclear industry was against any sort of regulation to security so Bush allowed them to come up with their own security guidelines and even then it wasn't mandatory. i'm sure there are several sites that take security very seriously just as i'm sure there are those that don't as much. as i already posted, the plant leaking waste into the ground water allowed a truck to enter the plant without any inspection, what if that truck was filled with explosives?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Go to NRC.gov I'm sure most standards of security can be found there and yes there have been huge upgrades for security since 9/11. They are still building them as we speak, I know the current project adds more gates, makes us park further away, and is adding the new GE detectors. It really is state of the art. We also have biometrics, X-rays, metal detectors, and explosive detectors to go through as an individual before I'm allowed access into the protected area. Oh and there is a security screening off the entrance road probably 1/4 mile away from the plant.
We took over our security and made it in house two years ago, it is no longer being contracted out. I just read yesterday that there are new fitness standards being put into place soon for the guards, they are being warned to start running and doing their pushups now.
Don't go off believing those anti-nuke sites right away. Yeah there are some issues but all issues are being resolved, I don't believe anyone is trying to pull a fast one. They have so many rules in place it is amazing any work even gets done, nothing is done without a procedure in hand, everything needs to be documented step by step. It is the strictest work environment I've ever dealt with in regards to rules.
ok, let's take a look at the numbers, shall we?
you say once a reactor is 100% it will generate $1million each day, so $365million a year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN151 ... arketsNews
The two reactors, which some experts estimate will cost $8.8 billion to build, could be in service in 2016 and 2017.
for the sake of argument i will accept the $8.8 number, though, as often happens nuclear power plants generally end up costing more than was estimated.
so, let's say $4.4billion each. they won't be operational until *maybe* 2016 and 2017. if we assume in 2016 and 2017 both will be 100% that means if they put 100% of their profits into repaying the loans it will take at least 12 years for each plant to recoup the $4.4billion. so, assuming the 1st reactor comes online in 2016 that means they will pay the money back in 2028? and what about the costs until then?
in my opinion it doesn't seem worth it to sink so much money into something that at the earliest wouldn't be paid back until 2028 and 2029 and that's only if they put every penny of profit into repayment. Obama won't be in office then so how can i voice my beef to him? if that money was put into other alternatives like photovoltaics and wind power, which has a greater energy capacity compared to costs, it wouldn't take nearly as long to be fully operational. also, with those 2 alternatives you don't have to worry about leaking pipes contaminating the ground water like is happening right now in Vermont
also, in 1999 a report stated a group of solar panels 100milesx100miles could provide all the power for the US. that was 11 years ago, technology has expanded and they are even more efficient which would bring that size way down. they could easily be placed on top of buildings and shutters, like my city has done
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Probably still better then living next to a coal fired plant and breathing the air. My basic point though is that there is risk in everything and it seems foolish to completely eliminate one form of power generation just because there is a small threat that people might die. But we don't eliminate bathtubs or cars when those kill a lot of people. Natural Gas heating kills way more people each year than nuclear power and no one is calling for that to be outlawed. And even a dam burst in Indonesia last year killing 58 people (about the same number that Chernobyl killed directly). So why is there there no threads saying "no hydroelectric"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7967205.stm
unless you live in Vermont and drink water......[/quote]
Probably still better then living next to a coal fired plant and breathing the air. My basic point though is that there is risk in everything and it seems foolish to completely eliminate one form of power generation just because there is a small threat that people might die. But we don't eliminate bathtubs or cars when those kill a lot of people. Natural Gas heating kills way more people each year than nuclear power and no one is calling for that to be outlawed. And even a dam burst in Indonesia last year killing 58 people (about the same number that Chernobyl killed directly). So why is there there no threads saying "no hydroelectric"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7967205.stm[/quote]
to each their own, i'd rather put money into something that won't take 6 or more years to be operational and take more than twice that to repay
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'