No Nukes

2»

Comments

  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Like I said I don't know specifics but as a bit of an insider I can tell you there are multiple points where vehicles are stopped at my place that they usually don't get the final inspection until the last, simply for logistics. Even that entrance is far away from vital areas. On our old system there were six points that would stop a vehicle before it could gain access to the protected area. I also know that the driver would have an armed escort with him in that area as well, if he was not a badged individual.

    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.
  • Pepe Silvia
    Pepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    unsung wrote:
    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.

    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
    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'
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    edited February 2010
    Pepe Silvia wrote:
    Pepe Silvia wrote:
    Kel Varnsen wrote:



    except there is a pretty big difference between the damage a nuclear plant can cause compared to an automobile...

    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.

    unless you live in Vermont and drink water......

    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
    Post edited by Kel Varnsen on
  • Pepe Silvia
    Pepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Pepe Silvia wrote:
    Kel Varnsen wrote:


    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.


    except there is a pretty big difference between the damage a nuclear plant can cause compared to an automobile...

    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.

    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
    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'

Categories