• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So I guess we're going to have new nuke plants.

techs

techs

Lifer
I haven't heard the new push for nuke power plants discussed much.

I would like to tell you of my experience living less than 10 miles from the oldest nuke plant in the country.

About 6 months a water cooling tower collapsed.

About 2 months ago Entergy the owner of the plant proposed spinning off nuke plants into separate corporations. So if one melts down Entergy won't be bankrupted.

About 1 month ago Entergy admitted they weren't putting enough away for the eventual decommissioning of the plant. So they pony up another quarter billion. Oh, btw, even when the plant goes offline there still won't be enough to decommision it. It will have to sit for 20 years after the plant closes while the money grows in the stock market, T-bills, etc. At least they hope there will enough 20 years after the plant closes. Of course, if there isn't, no problem. Entergy won't have to pay. Since the plant will be an independent corporation. And will just go bankrupt. And you and I will pay.

About 3 weeks ago they found tritium in the ground water around the plant. They can't figure out where the leak is. It's not much. At least for now. Eventually they say it will reach the Connecticutt River.
 
There's a nuclear power plant proposal around here. It's downwind from me and about 100km away so I support it.

But nuke plants in general, NIMBY!
 
nice! when will my neighbors dog have an extra talking head? I better start wearing my rad suit from now on.
 
Bignate603 said:
This sounds more like a lousy company than anything to do with nuclear power.
Click to expand...
Entergy is actually the second leading nuclear generator in the country, Exelon is first I believe. I don't know the specifics about this plant, but the only issue that is more than very minor is the decommissioning. Which isn't entirely the utility's fault...politics and government.
 
Gibsons said:
I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my neighborhood than a coal plant.
Click to expand...
Nuke plants are almost valueless nowadays for property tax purposes and they take up a rather large portion of real estate. So, the town its in gets screwed royally on taxes. Not to mention that your house would be worthless in the event of another accident at any nuke power plant in the world.
 
Gibsons said:
I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my neighborhood than a coal plant.
Click to expand...

This. There hasn't been a new plant constructed in the US in what, like, 20 years? Any new plant that gets built is going to be vastly more safe then any existing plant...and even those are very, very safe. We have exponentially more to fear from chemical companies and coal fired plants than from nuclear power. And i'm an Environmental Technology major. Someone please find me a study that proves a nuclear power plant poses a local chronic health risk. And no, Chernobyl doesn't count -.-

No, seriously. There is statistically no health or safety argument against the use of nuclear power. Coal on the other hand, hell yes. And coal is CURRENTLY the alternative for large scale power production. Hopefully that sees a dramatic shift in the next few decades, towards nuclear and renewable.

If you don't like nuclear power, stop complaining. Your only choice is really to support renewable energy projects. So, check that box on your power bill.
 
Last edited:
techs said:
Nuke plants are almost valueless nowadays for property tax purposes and they take up a rather large portion of real estate. So, the town its in gets screwed royally on taxes. Not to mention that your house would be worthless in the event of another accident at any nuke power plant in the world.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about the pollution and health issues, if either one is a mile or two from my house, which one is most likely to cause me a real problem? I think it's coal.
 
Hyperlite said:
This. There hasn't been a new plant constructed in the US in what, like, 20 years? Any new plant that gets built is going to be vastly more safe then any existing plant...and even those are very, very safe. We have exponentially more to fear from chemical companies and coal fired plants than from nuclear power. And i'm an Environmental Technology major. Someone please find me a study that proves a nuclear power plant poses a local chronic health risk. And no, Chernobyl doesn't count -.-
Click to expand...


I believe the OP mentioned a health risk in his post...🙁
 
I'm happy with our Hydro electric dams. 😀 They produce hardly any pollution, if any. They do have other impacts but I'd say they're not as bad.

I have nothing against nuclear provided that they have tons of serious regulations and such, and find an environmentally friendly way of disposing of the waste. Putting into barrels and dumping into the sea or an old mine is not my idea of environmentally friendly.

Problem is with today's economy you can guarantee there would be stupid stuff like cut backs, jerry rigs, and other stuff that prevents the plant from being run properly, and something would eventually go wrong.
 
Oh, btw, even when the plant goes offline there still won't be enough to decommision it. It will have to sit for 20 years after the plant closes while the money grows in the stock market, T-bills, etc.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that decommissioning plants is a bureaucratic nightmare. I think it takes quite a few years to get through all the paperwork and red tape, and it's probably also necessary to let the radioactivity die down a bit before sending people in to tear the plant apart. Companies can't just bring in bulldozers and start tearing things down, they need to formulate a plan for decommissioning and get it approved by the NRC and other agencies. The issue isn't them not having enough money.
 
RedSquirrel said:
Problem is with today's economy you can guarantee there would be stupid stuff like cut backs, jerry rigs, and other stuff that prevents the plant from being run properly, and something would eventually go wrong.
Click to expand...
It's a regulated industry, so utilities aren't hit as hard by the economy as other sectors.
 
dartworth said:
I believe the OP mentioned a health risk in his post...🙁
Click to expand...

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-tritium.html

Point taken, though i think that comes back to poor management. I should say, there is no health risk with proper regulation and operation. I understand this is out of the public's control, which is a damn shame.

"There is no safe dose," said Gunter, who spoke at the church at the request of the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance, a local anti-nuclear group. "The more you take in, the more risk you have."
Click to expand...

http://www.timesargus.com/article/20100127/NEWS02/1270331/1003/NEWS02

This frustrates me. The public feeds on this shit, and too often it's FUD. OF COURSE that statement is true. It's also true of just about every metal and metalloid on the periodic table. Too much of anything is bad...

i'm not saying the apparent widespread tritium release is to be ignored. The fact of the matter appears to be that no one really has any idea of it's toxicological significance.
 
Last edited:
Mercury comes from your fav tuna fish sandwich.

I lived near TMI and in the day. I set up emergency communications for the PA State Police to move HQ to Hamburg-er. I heard all of the communications on both sides. And, as we know now, as well as shortly after then ... there was/is nothing of concern. Bull shit is still bull shit & ppl need to question more. After all, do you (does anyone) believe anything that Katie Couric says???

I father-ed 4 kids before (possibly during) and after, they are all as normal as normal does. 🙂

I would bet, that nuclear power is greener than solar or wind.:hmm: No. I don't know, but I have read a lot about the green technologies & listen to the financial analysts. Just because it sounds green, doesn't mean that it is. Who knew???

I should change my ID to theSkeptic instead of Psi*. Prove it too me in words that do not come from a politician.
 
Last edited:
Hyperlite said:
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20100127/NEWS02/1270331/1003/NEWS02

This frustrates me. The public feeds on this shit, and too often it's FUD. OF COURSE that statement is true. It's also true of just about every metal and metalloid on the periodic table. Too much of anything is bad...
Click to expand...
There isn't even any scientific evidence that small doses are bad for you. The NRC and other agencies have adopted the "Linear Non-Threshold" (LNTH) model, which assumes that any dose is bad - just because they want to be as conservative as possible. But there is no scientific evidence backing this - there are a large number of people in the field that believe small doses could be beneficial.
 
Last edited:
rcpratt said:
There isn't even any scientific evidence that small doses are bad for you. The NRC and other agencies have adopted the "Linear Non-Threshold" (LNTH) model, which assumes that any dose is bad - just because they want to be as conservative as possible. But there is no scientific evidence backing this - there are a large number of people in the field that believe small doses could be beneficial.
Click to expand...

Don't think of it as "radiation". Think of it as "sunshine units".:twisted:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top