Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: ScavengerType] * 1
    #12026087 - 02/14/10 07:54 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

First off, zappa knows nothing about either of these things, In fact it is arguable that he knows nothing else but how to perpetuate partisan bickering. He is an old man (near or past retirement age) who frequents this forum far to often for someone who believes in everything right-wing, except the war on drugs. He's commonly known for hijacking threads and ruining perfectly civil discussions (trolling). He is also below Luddite (the no word link spammer) on the list of names I would take off my ignore list. I would recommend a similar position to others, but to each their own.




I'm sure you could have made your post without this stupid shit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Redstorm]
    #12026110 - 02/14/10 08:04 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

I thought that was his post.  It made more sense than the rest of it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: ScavengerType]
    #12032526 - 02/15/10 08:17 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Hey, you think you could provide some sources to your claims that nuclear power is absurdly expensive?



http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Quote:

Then the costs of decommissioning a plant which is expensive and if the utilities don't save for this inevitability, guess who pays for it.




The utilities pay for it with a surcharge on your electricity bill.  A tenth of a cent per killowatt-hour is added to your electric bill for plant decommissioning and waste storage costs.  But hey, you want to talk about who pays for the waste?  The nuclear utilities PAID $22 BILLION DOLLARS to the construction of Yukka Mountain.  And now the politicians, after promising that they would be able to store their waste there, have said, "it's no longer a viable solution".  Furthermore, because the promise has been broken, the utilities had to dish out money to come up with new strategies for storing their waste and guess what, THE PLANTS ARE STILL PROFITABLE.

Quote:

Storage costs for waste that will not break down for millions of years.




Thousands of years, not millions.  And if reprocessed, the figure drops to hundreds.

Quote:

pay for it's construction to meet strict regulations and codes to prevent incidents (something that caused Chernobyl/3MI)




You don't think plants are engineered to withstand such incidents?  The insane number of safety features are part of the huge cost of building these plants.  BTW, you do realize that when you mention Chernobyl and TMI, you're comparing apples to oranges, right?  TMI is a PWR-style reactor while Chernobyl was the hugely unstable RBMK, which are no longer even built.  First design flaw of the RBMK -- NO FULL CONTAINMENT.  Hence the steam explosion that blew the building open.  It isn't legal to build a nuclear plant in the US without a full containment.  Second major design flaw -- it had a positive void coefficient, meaning, by it's very nature, it was unstable.  It is also required in the US that reactors have a negative void coefficient, meaning temperature excursions will case a drop in reactivity.  Apples to oranges, man... Chernobyl will NEVER happen in the US.  It's physically impossible.  Going back to TMI, the safety features worked as intended and there was no radiation release to the environment and no casualties.  In fact, the only reason the disaster went as far as it did was because the operators interferred with the engineered safety systems.  The operator would have been better off going into the containment and firing a rocket propelled grenade at the reactor cold leg because the plant was designed to safely shut down in minutes of a large break loss of coolant accident.  It was their fucking around with the safety systems that caused the core to melt.  That won't happen again after the tremendous overall of the nuclear community that took place.

Quote:

Something seldom discussed is that nuclear has huge water demands (sorry California and others) and is only viable in large cities.




So use ocean water then like Pilgrim Nuclear Station in Mass.  I'm pretty sure CA has enough ocean water to meet the demands.

Quote:

but also the problem is that many of these heavily populated urban areas with good water supplies are already stocked with nuclear or beginning to see water problems.




such as....

Quote:

Obviously many places with low water and/or moderate power demands are stuck on options like coal or whatever, even with a green light on nuclear.




Coal plants, gas plants, oil plants, nuclear plants, biofuel plants, all use the Rankine power cycle.  Do you know how that works?  It heats up water by burning whatever will burn or produce heat and extracts the thermal energy and converts it to electrical energy by dissipating the energy to the environment.  All heat engines need a cooling mechanism.  Whether it be water from a river, the ocean, or evaporative cooling using cooling towers.  Doesn't matter if it's nuclear powered, coal powered, or gas powered.

Quote:

There are probibly some places in the US where Nuclear is a positive option, but not as many as some make it seem.




A private utility that has shareholders and a bottom line to meet will not build a nuclear power plant somewhere where it is not cost effective to do so.

Quote:

Further, comparisons to wind and solar and hydro are relatively unfair, since wind/solar are modular and decentralized (work well in environments where nuclear doesn't). Also, all three are relatively clear in their upfront costs and have been shown to pay back initial investments, whereas nuclear is/has not (some hydro projects have these problems as well).




Yeah, the fact that nuclear power accounts for 20% of the electricity produced in this country doesn't demonstrate the fact that it has been successful in paying back its upfront costs.  Nor does the fact that nearly every utility that owns nuclear power plants that are approaching end of life have submitted life-extension applications to the NRC.  Now why would they do such a thing if the plants weren't hugely profitable?  You are right about one thing, though, it's unfair to compare nuclear power to wind/solar.  Wind/solar can in no way compete with the efficiency, availability, and cost-effectivness (without the tremendous subsidies they receive, of course) of nuclear power and can not be a large-scale energy solution.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGI_Luvmoney
Vote Republican!
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 939
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: pothead_bob]
    #12054713 - 02/18/10 03:10 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes

A new type of nuclear reactor—smaller than a rail car and one tenth the cost of a big plant—is emerging as a contender to reshape the nation's resurgent nuclear power industry.

Three big utilities, Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp., on Wednesday signed an agreement with McDermott International Inc.'s Babcock & Wilcox subsidiary, committing to get the new reactor approved for commercial use in the U.S.

Although none have agreed to buy a reactor, the utilities' commitment should help build momentum behind the technology and hasten its adoption across the industry. It's a crucial first step toward getting the reactor design certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Early support from the three utilities, and four others that are mulling the agreement, increases the odds that customers will come forward in the future.

The news comes just as President Barack Obama announced more than $8 billion in loan guarantees this week that would pave the way for the first nuclear power plant in the U.S. in almost 30 years. He has proposed accelerating nuclear development by tripling the amount of federal loan guarantees for reactor construction to $54 billion.

The smaller Babcock & Wilcox reactor can generate only 125 to 140 megawatts of power, about a tenth as much as a big one. But the utilities are betting that these smaller, simpler reactors can be manufactured quickly and installed at potentially dozens of existing nuclear sites or replace coal-fired plants that may become obsolete with looming emissions restrictions.

"We see significant benefits from the new, modular technology," said Donald Moul, vice president of nuclear support for First Energy, an Ohio-based utility company.

He said First Energy, which operates four reactors at three sites in Ohio and Pennsylvania, has made no decision to build any new reactor and noted there's "a lot of heavy lifting to do to get this reactor certified" by the NRC for U.S. use.

Indeed, the smaller reactors still could incite major opposition. They face the same unresolved issues of where to put the waste and public fear of contamination, in the event of an accident. They could also raise alarms about creating possible terrorism targets in populated areas.

Still, the sudden interest in small reactors illustrates a growing unease with the route that nuclear power has taken for half a century. What many regard as the first commercial reactor built in the U.S., in 1957 at Shippingport, Pa., was only about 60 megawatts in size. By the time construction petered out three decades later, reactors had grown progressively bigger, ending up at about 1,000 megawatts of capacity.

Now, after a two-decade lull in construction, the U.S. is gearing up for a robust revival of nuclear power. Expanding the nuclear sector, which currently produces 20% of the nation's electricity, is considered essential to slashing carbon emissions.

Companies such as NRG Energy Inc., Duke Energy Corp. and Southern Co. are planning large reactors that cost up to $10 billion apiece and can generate enough electricity to power a city the size of Tulsa, Okla.

But there is growing investor worry that reactors may have grown so big that they could sink the utilities that buy them. An increasingly global supply chain for big reactors also worries investors.

"We think the probability that things will go wrong with these large projects is greater than the probability that things will go right," said Jim Hempstead, senior vice president at Moody's Investors Service. He warns that nuclear-aspiring utilities with "bet the farm" projects face possible credit downgrades.

The large price tag has begun to spook some utility executives. John Rowe, the chief executive of Exelon Corp., which operates the nation's largest fleet of nuclear plants, had hoped to build a new reactor in Texas. But, having failed to get federal loan guarantees, he recently said he's having second thoughts.

Instead, his company is expanding the capacity of its existing nuclear plants and is looking at Babcock & Wilcox's design. Amir Shakarami, Exelon's senior vice president, said mPower provides "an alternative that is practical and scalable," offering a way to add zero-emission power in small amounts and avoid the rate shocks that accompanied big reactors in the past.

Already, the high cost of large reactors is generating friction among partners. CPS Energy and NRG Energy Inc. sued each other recently when CPS, a city-owned utility in San Antonio got cold feet about investing in a new nuclear plant that could push up power costs for its customers. On Wednesday, the two agreed to a settlement in which CPS will reduce its stake in the project to 7.6% from 50% in exchange for a $90 million payment from NRG and dropping its lawsuit.

The two agreed Wednesday to a settlement in which NRG will pay CPS $1 billion to reduce its ownership interest in the project so it can proceed.

For utilities, a small reactor has several advantages, starting with cost. Small reactors are expected to cost about $5,000 per kilowatt of capacity, or $750 million or so for one of Babcock & Wilcox's units. Large reactors cost $5 billion to $10 billion for reactors that would range from 1,100 to 1,700 megawatts of generating capacity.

While large reactors are built on site, a process that can take five years, the mPower reactors would be manufactured in Babcock & Wilcox's factories in Indiana, Ohio or Virginia and transported by rail or barge. That could cut construction times in half, experts believe.

Because they could be water-cooled or air-cooled, mPower reactors wouldn't have to be located near large sources of water, another problem for big reactors that require millions of gallons of water each day. That could open up parts of the arid West for nuclear development.

The first units likely would be built adjacent to existing nuclear plants, many of which were originally permitted to have two to four units but usually have only one or two.

Down the road, utilities could replace existing coal-fired power plants with small reactors in order to take advantage of sites already served by transmission lines and, in some cases, needed for grid support. Like any other power plants, these small reactors could be easily hooked up to the power grid.

One of the biggest attractions, however, is that utilities could start with a few reactors and add more as needed. By contrast, with big reactors, utilities have what is called "single-shaft risk," where billions of dollars are tied up in a single plant.

Another advantage: mPower reactors will store all of their waste on each site for the estimated 60-year life of each reactor.

Nuclear development moves at a glacial pace. The next wave of large reactors won't begin coming on line until 2016 or 2017, at the earliest. The first certification request for a small reactor design is expected to be Babcock & Wilcox's request in 2012. The first units could come on line after 2018.

However, some experts believe that if the industry embraces small reactors, nuclear power in the U.S. could become pervasive because more utilities would be able to afford them.

"There's a higher likelihood that there are more sites that could support designs for small reactors than large ones," said David Matthews, head of new reactor licensing at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

That twist has some observers worried. "Nuclear power requires high-level security and expertise to operate safely," said Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It seems like something that should be concentrated rather than distributed" or dispersed.

Experts believe small reactors should be as safe, or safer, than large ones. One reason is that they are simpler and have fewer moving parts that can fail. Small reactors also contain a smaller nuclear reaction and generate less heat. That means that it's easier to shut them down, if there is a malfunction.

"With a large reactor, the response to a malfunction tends to be quick, whereas in smaller ones, they respond more slowly" which means they're somewhat easier to control, said Michael Mayfield, director of the advanced reactor program at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Once on site, each reactor would be housed in a two-story containment structure that would be buried beneath the ground for added security. They would run round the clock, stopping to refuel every five years instead of 18 to 24 months, like existing reactors.

For communities looking for job creation, the smaller reactors promise fewer jobs than a large plant, which offers 700 to 1,000 permanent jobs. Small plants would have to satisfy the same security and safety standards as large plants but likely would require a somewhat smaller work force because they would run much longer between refueling outages.

Some critics are convinced that nuclear power will never be cost effective, no matter what the size. Amory Lovins, founder of the environmental think tank, the Rocky Mountain Institute, said it's a "fantasy" to imagine that small reactors will be any better than big ones. He notes that nuclear energy is inherently expensive because of the special precautions that must be taken in the handling of nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, which are radioactive, not to mention the tight security at nuclear plants. Also, there still is no permanent federal site for nuclear waste.

The electricity industry was burned once before by nuclear power, and many utilities remain skittish.

Forty out of 48 utilities that issued debt for nuclear projects during the past construction cycle—20 to 30 years ago—suffered credit hits in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, most with downgrades of four notches, said Moody's Investors Service.

Now some of these same companies are looking at the nuclear option again. Energy Northwest is a wholesale utility in Richland, Wash. It's the successor to the Washington Public Power Supply System, which acquired the unfortunate nickname of "Whoops," after it canceled construction of two partly built reactors in the 1980s.

At the time, the utility thought demand would grow briskly. Instead, the economy slowed and so did demand. Nuclear plant costs for the five units it planned to build swelled to nearly $24 billion in 1982 from $5 billion in the 1970s That set the stage for WPPSS's $2 billion bond default, at the time the largest in U.S. history.

Today, Energy Northwest is talking to NuScale Power Inc. in Corvallis, Ore., about a reactor design which measures 15 feet by 60 feet. Each unit would be capable of turning out 45 megawatts of electricity.

Jack Baker, Energy Northwest's head of business development, says he was initially skeptical about small reactors because of the "lack of economies of scale." But he says he now thinks small reactors "could have a cost advantage" because their simpler design means faster construction and "you don't need as much concrete, steel, pumps and valves."

"They have made a convert of me," he says.

Babcock & Wilcox's roots go back to 1867 and it has been making equipment for utilities since the advent of electrification, even furnishing boilers to Thomas Edison's Pearl Street generating stations that brought street lighting to New York City in 1882.

Based in Lynchburg, Va., the company has been building small reactors for ships since the 1950s. In addition to reactors for U.S. Navy submarines and aircraft carriers, it built a reactor for the USS NS Savannah, a commercial vessel which is now a floating museum in Baltimore harbor. It also built eight big reactors, in the past construction cycle, including one for the ill-fated Three Mile Island plant.

When a U.S. nuclear revival looked imminent, the company debated what role it could play.

"Instead of asking, 'How big a reactor could we make?,' this time, we asked, 'What's the largest thing we could build at our existing plants and ship by rail?' " said Christofer Mowry, president of Modular Nuclear Energy LLC, Babcock's recently created small-reactor division. "That's what drove the design."

As interest in small reactors grows, other makers of big reactors are dusting off old designs.

Westinghouse, a unit of Toshiba Corp., is taking another look at its 335-megawatt reactor called Iris. Mario Carelli, Westinghouse chief scientist, said his firm is considering marketing Iris to nations with small grids, "where a big reactor won't fit." He figures that's 80% of the world's grids.

Many obstacles remain. The NRC still is reviewing certification requests for five big reactors and won't be able to consider certifications of small reactors until its work load lightens. But Mr. Matthews of the NRC says he expects the commission will review as many as four small-reactor designs in the next two or three years.

Meantime, interest in small reactors is likely to grow.

"If we can't figure out how to build large plants economically, then small ones may be the way to go," said Ronaldo Szilard, director of nuclear science and engineering at the Idaho National Lab, part of the Department of Energy.

Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDJ_avocado
SardinoBambino
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/19/09
Posts: 743
Loc: Hawai'i, USA Flag
Last seen: 10 months, 24 days
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: GI_Luvmoney]
    #12059950 - 02/19/10 01:37 PM (14 years, 2 months ago)

Small reactor or big reactor, we still need a place to put the waste.  I am amazed that science has brought such a machine into existence, the most important question still remains.

What are we going to do with the waste?

Until I know, I will always be anti nuclear energy.  No amount of energy will be worth poisoning the planet and possibly destroying ourselves.  The consequences are great for not thinking ahead,  far too great.  But I will agreed that the benefits are spectacular!

Quote:

GI_Luvmoney said:


"With a large reactor, the response to a malfunction tends to be quick, whereas in smaller ones, they respond more slowly" which means they're somewhat easier to control, said Michael Mayfield, director of the advanced reactor program at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Once on site, each reactor would be housed in a two-story containment structure that would be buried beneath the ground for added security. They would run round the clock, stopping to refuel every five years instead of 18 to 24 months, like existing reactors.

For communities looking for job creation, the smaller reactors promise




  Holy shit, every 5 years?

BUT THOU WILST NOT TEMPT ME!  TIS' NOT WORTH THE PRICE OF NOT PLANNING AHEAD!  HOW I YEARN FOR INFINITE ENERGY AND A REACTOR IN EVERY HOME, BUT ALAS.........I ALSO DON'T WANT TO JEOPARDIZE


OUR



LIVING



PLANET.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: pothead_bob]
    #12062535 - 02/19/10 09:24 PM (14 years, 2 months ago)

*sigh*
Bob do you know what kind of source you are citing here? the WNA is a confederation of various nuclear power providers and related companies under a group to speak for their interests. In other words it is a lobby group for the nuclear industry. They are in a conflict of interest to be a fully impartial judge of the economics of nuclear power plants.

Further, that graph is obviously wrong. The last time wind power was that expensive, there wasn't even a thing called euros and you may have to go back beyond the time where there was even written agreement that eventually something would exist that is now called euros. That price is entirely made up, and go figure so is the nuclear figure. In fact the nuclear figure doesn't even cover the real costs per mwh of construction (before delays).

Don't believe me? Where am I getting this information?

Well for starters I've read a few books on GW policy solutions and the future of energy policy/energy solutions and every single one of them, believe it or not, has a chapter on nuclear energy. And every single one of them calls it expensive, some call it necessary, but they all call it expensive.

What if a financial institution whom would hypothetically be asked to pony up funds for private nuclear projects in the future were to state the issues of the economics of nuclear power plainly and simply?
New Nuclear – The Economics Say No - Citigroup-Research feb.12.2010
Quote:

Highlights:
• We calculate that a new nuclear station will require €65/MWh in real terms year in year out to hit its breakeven hurdle rate.
• The returns for new nuclear development will need to be underpinned by the government and the risks shared with the taxpayer / consumer.
• Evidence to date suggests time delays in new nuclear construction can be significant.
• Construction delays and planning problems have led to a 77% increase in construction costs at the Olkiluoto site [in Finland].
• In a purely merchant market (such as the UK) where wholesale power prices need to cover construction costs over the life of the project, there is no active way for a developer to recover cost overruns.
• Neither the UK nor the US have yet approved any designs and although it will be a lengthy process anyway, amendments and additional configurations for each country’s demands could be highly problematic




The only thing that could make these plants financially worthwhile would be a severe carbon taxation scheme and even then there issues of fuel shortages.


The problems with saving for decommissioning a nuclear plant is that it is a major expense that is externalized from the rate price. Like the surcharge for example. This is a subsidy that the plant is receiving from the utility. Charging the surcharge separate of the kilowatt-hourly rate. Further I had left a citation of some reactors where changing economic circumstances were endangering their ability to pay such costs. Not many plants have reached their decommissioning ages yet and there could be problems with some plants when their time comes.

Yucca mountain was a nuclear waste processing and storage facility that was almost built on an earthquake fault-line. I don't think it stands as a positive example of storage problems with nuclear waste. Also according to this article, only $8bn had been spent on it before making this discovery. From a $58bn total budget. I am pretty sure the storage company (one: Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects) will only have to nick the lost cash off their customers or shareholders (taxpayers).

Perhaps I am wrong for saying that this presents a problem?

Quote:

And if reprocessed, the figure drops to hundreds.



IF, it is than that is what will happen, but alternatively in a far more likely IF, the agencies whom are responsible for storage probibly won't recuperate their investment in a timely enough manner to justify the process. The process will only be undertaken if it becomes mandated by nuclear regulatory agencies and will also add another hidden cost to the nuclear mix.


I will have to assume you are right about the dangers of nuclear incidents from new reactors. It is an obvious field of speculation and it requires too much reading in a field I am not interested or knowledgeable in.

Quote:

Quote:

Something seldom discussed is that nuclear has huge water demands (sorry California and others) and is only viable in large cities.




So use ocean water then like Pilgrim Nuclear Station in Mass.  I'm pretty sure CA has enough ocean water to meet the demands.





You are right, I was unaware that ocean water could be used and in fact desalinization can be a byproduct of a plant if it is designed to co-generate with a nuclear plant (something relatively new in design). However there are a lot of landlocked areas with water shortages.

However it is possible to cool the water back to liquid form and reuse it, so long as these additional costs are factored for in the construction and hot days may put the breaks on nuclear power if a cool source can not be obtained.

Quote:

Quote:

but also the problem is that many of these heavily populated urban areas with good water supplies are already stocked with nuclear or beginning to see water problems.




such as....



Here's a map of areas where water demands could be a problem.



Quote:

A private utility that has shareholders and a bottom line to meet will not build a nuclear power plant somewhere where it is not cost effective to do so.



see the citybank paper I cited earlier.



Just as some companies are profitable, some have also had serious cost overruns and even loan defaults. For these reasons the US has to subsidize the industry by guaranteeing loans to cretin amounts. In the abcense of these loan gaurentees, few banks (0) have been jumping at the prospects of funding a nuclear plant construction. In fact some banks are coming out with papers critical of such measures (see above).

Meanwhile, were it that the US was to offer similar loan guarantees to persons trying to put up wind turbines or solar cells, (even if it were restricted to an approval process that assessed their plans for capability of power production) banks would finance them en mass.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Edited by ScavengerType (02/19/10 09:34 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: ScavengerType]
    #12063912 - 02/20/10 04:22 AM (14 years, 2 months ago)

I'm not going to fisk that entire thing, but your own link regarding Yucca mountain says this:
Quote:


DOE has stated that seismic and tectonic effects on the natural systems at Yucca Mountain will not significantly affect repository performance. Yucca Mountain lies in a region of ongoing tectonic deformation, but the deformation rates are too slow to significantly affect the mountain during the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period. Rises in the water table caused by seismic activity would be, at most, a few tens of meters and would not reach the repository. The fractured and faulted volcanic tuff that Yucca Mountain comprises reflects the occurrence of many earthquake-faulting and strong ground motion events during the last several million years, and the hydrological characteristics of the rock would not be changed significantly by seismic events that may occur in the next 10,000 years. The engineered barrier system components will reportedly provide substantial protection of the waste form from seepage water, even under severe seismic loading.[9]




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGI_Luvmoney
Vote Republican!
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 939
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: DJ_avocado]
    #12066976 - 02/20/10 06:10 PM (14 years, 2 months ago)

What have we done with the waste from the super nova explosions billions of years ago?  Some of the background radiation comes from natural uranium and thorium in the ground which came from super nova explosions.  Radon is a decay product from both of these elements. 
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2006/07/radon-from-thorium-i-dont-think-so.html
Cosmic rays from space continually bombard the earth.  Also, burning coal tends to produce uranium pollution which is spread through the air.  I don't know if coal deposits everywhere have enough uranium in them to be a problem.  There are different types of coal.


--------------------

Edited by GI_Luvmoney (02/20/10 06:13 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDJ_avocado
SardinoBambino
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/19/09
Posts: 743
Loc: Hawai'i, USA Flag
Last seen: 10 months, 24 days
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: GI_Luvmoney]
    #12067413 - 02/20/10 07:23 PM (14 years, 2 months ago)

Radioactive waste can be produced naturally by the universe, but it dissipates differently across the universe compared to being created by us.  We have the knowledge of what radiation does to a human.

Burns, deformities ( including being born without skin, eyes, or even a SHAPE.)  Poisons food, water, and land for generations, people in the Pacific are still suffering from the effects 60-70 years ago.

Saying that there will be no trace of nuclear energy production on earth is ridiculous. Radiation permeates damn near everything, and you can't even feel it.  I think it's too deep of a hole for us to dig and we're going to find ourselves genetically destroyed.  Just my two cents, I got something against nuclear testing in the past...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: ScavengerType]
    #12070490 - 02/21/10 11:26 AM (14 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

and even then there issues of fuel shortages.




This is a non-issue.  If the industry picks back up, there will be increased investing into fuel development to meet the demand.  That's how economics works.

Quote:

The problems with saving for decommissioning a nuclear plant is that it is a major expense that is externalized from the rate price.




and the problem in that is? 

Quote:

Further I had left a citation of some reactors where changing economic circumstances were endangering their ability to pay such costs.




where?

Quote:

Not many plants have reached their decommissioning ages yet and there could be problems with some plants when their time comes.




Lots of plants have reached their decomissioning age, but hardly any have decomissioned.  That's because the units are so profitable that nearly all utilities are filing for lifetime extensions to the NRC. 

Quote:

I don't think it stands as a positive example of storage problems with nuclear waste.




I never said it was a positive example of nuclear waste storage.  I think it's an example of how fucking inept the US government is.  I believe we should reprocess the waste.

Quote:

IF, it is than that is what will happen, but alternatively in a far more likely IF, the agencies whom are responsible for storage probibly won't recuperate their investment in a timely enough manner to justify the process. The process will only be undertaken if it becomes mandated by nuclear regulatory agencies and will also add another hidden cost to the nuclear mix.





Not true, reprocessing will be undertaken if it is economically viable to do so.  When the price of mining uranium ore becomes prohibitive, or when the cost of storing the high level nuclear waste becomes prohibitive, or when further advancements are made in reprocessing technology, then reprocessing will be the obvious solution.  Until then, the storage of the nuclear waste is not a problem.  It has been safely stored for many decades now on site and nuclear power plants across the country.

Quote:

However it is possible to cool the water back to liquid form and reuse it, so long as these additional costs are factored for in the construction and hot days may put the breaks on nuclear power if a cool source can not be obtained.




Once again, what is your point?  This is not a nuclear power problem, it's a power generating problem in general (if you even want to call it a problem).  The majority of our electricity production comes from the Rankine cycle, which requires an environmental temperature sink. 

Quote:

Just as some companies are profitable, some have also had serious cost overruns and even loan defaults. For these reasons the US has to subsidize the industry by guaranteeing loans to cretin amounts. In the abcense of these loan gaurentees, few banks (0) have been jumping at the prospects of funding a nuclear plant construction. In fact some banks are coming out with papers critical of such measures (see above).




Yeah, and a big problem with the delays in construction was the faulty regulatory structure.  The utility was first required to get a site permit just to build the plant.  Before they got the permit, the public could interject and protest.  Once the utility invested billions and built the plant, they then had to get an operating permit to turn the thing on.  Once again, the public could interject.  That's bullshit.  The public should be given one chance to file lawsuits.  You can't let the utilities build these plants and then not let them turn them on.  Thankfully, the NRC has changed the regulatory process so now the utility can get a combined construction and operating license.  In other words, if they are approved to build, they are approved to operate.

Another thing that has changed is that vendors have now went to standardized reactor designs.  Back in the 70's, plants were custom built for each site.  Now, the vendors do all the design work and make one standard cookie-cutter design, they take the plans to the NRC and get their design licensed.  That saves time and expenses when a utility actually goes to build one since the design will already be licensed.

The loan guarentees will cost the taxpayers nothing so long as the plant is completed and starts to generate power.  Of course there is some risk, but what do you propose we do for power?  What about the risk associated with fuel price swings that coal-fired power plants are susceptible to?  What about the possibility of new greenhouse gas emission legislation?  Forcing the coal industry to clean up after itself would cripple it.  And who wants to live next to a coal-fired power plant anyways?  They dump tons of shit into the air and actually release radiation to the environment.  With environmentalists blackballing the coal power industry, I ask what exactly we will do for power in this country?

Quote:

Meanwhile, were it that the US was to offer similar loan guarantees to persons trying to put up wind turbines or solar cells, (even if it were restricted to an approval process that assessed their plans for capability of power production) banks would finance them en mass.




What and wind and solar power aren't subsidized?  You complain that nuclear power is expensive and then you offer wind and solar power as a cost-effective means of solving the energy crisis?  Here's a figure from the Wall Street Journal showing pre-subsidized costs of various forms of energy.  Look at the cost of wind and solar compared to coal and gas. 



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126290539750320495.html

And then what about the footprint of these solar and wind farms?  The newely built Nevada Solar One 64 MW plant covers 400 acres.  Compare this to Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant near New York City, which generates just over 2 GW of power and sits on 239 acres of land.  For a solar field to generate as much as Indian Point, it would need to cover 12,500 acres.  That's 52 times more land covered.  What kind of environmental impact do you think that would have?  And what about the impact of manufacturing all those solar panels.  And that's just to replace one nuclear power plant.  Let's calculate the amount of land coverage required to generate 20% of the US power requirements.  In 2007, the US generated 4,119 billion kwh of power (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states#tab1).  20% is 823 billion kwh.  In 2007, Nevada Solar One was estimated to generate 134 million kwh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One).  You would need 6,141 Nevada Solar Ones to generate 20% of the US power demands.  That's 2,460,000 acres of land coverage.  Then there's the issue of cleaning and maintaining all those solar panels.

I think the take-home message is that we need to get power from somewhere.  All sources have their pros and cons.  Nuclear power should remain a viable option and should account for a significant portion of our power generation as it currently is.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: DJ_avocado]
    #12070506 - 02/21/10 11:32 AM (14 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Saying that there will be no trace of nuclear energy production on earth is ridiculous. Radiation permeates damn near everything, and you can't even feel it.  I think it's too deep of a hole for us to dig and we're going to find ourselves genetically destroyed.  Just my two cents, I got something against nuclear testing in the past...




What do you mean that radiation permeates everything?  It has been safely contained by US nuclear power plants for their decades of operation.  You get the majority of your yearly radiation dose from the earth's crust.  Then comes medical x-rays and consumer products and food (do you like to eat bananas?).  In total, the average American gets 360 millirems of radiation per year.  Less than 2 millirems come from fallout from all the nuclear weapons testing ever done http://www.jlab.org/div_dept/train/rad_guide/sources.html.  By the way, there's a big difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: pothead_bob]
    #12091535 - 02/24/10 08:25 PM (14 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
This is a non-issue.  If the industry picks back up, there will be increased investing into fuel development to meet the demand.  That's how economics works




This report was that from lack of development and from growing international demand. Without large projects to develop new resources for nuclear fuel the price will likely go higher, without significant development, the price is not likely to fall. I'm sure that if the industry can't get enough development on it's own it will just sit there twiddling it's thumbs and rolling it's eyes while the government is forced to do something.

Quote:

Quote:

The problems with saving for decommissioning a nuclear plant is that it is a major expense that is externalized from the rate price.



and the problem in that is?


 

Externalizing the cost by charging a surcharge for it rather than saving from revenues is an additional subsidy.

Quote:

Quote:

Further I had left a citation of some reactors where changing economic circumstances were endangering their ability to pay such costs.




where?



Go and see my first post for the link of plants that the NRC said were having shortfalls on funding their decommission. *repost*

Quote:

Lots of plants have reached their decommissioning age, but hardly any have decommissioned.  That's because the units are so profitable that nearly all utilities are filing for lifetime extensions to the NRC.



No it's because the utilities have low maintenance costs while running and ridiculously high costs while being constructed/deconstructed. Further it has a lot to do with the fact that many utilities would have a difficult time replacing the power-load occupied by these plants.


Quote:

I never said it was a positive example of nuclear waste storage.  I think it's an example of how fucking inept the US government is.  I believe we should reprocess the waste.




Yes, because only people in the government make mistakes not people in the buisness sector. However, have you contemplated the possibility that all people make mistakes regardless of who they work for? Like this individual who claimed the yacca incident cost $22b when it really cost $8b. Was he private or public sector? Does it matter?

Quote:

Not true, reprocessing will be undertaken if it is economically viable to do so.



I believe that is what I said. My point was that it's not. I mean can you imagine making an investment with a return that would only come after a couple hundred years? Interest bro, not gonna happen.

Quote:

Thankfully, the NRC has changed the regulatory process so now the utility can get a combined construction and operating license.  In other words, if they are approved to build, they are approved to operate.




So when banks don't fund private plants (they won't), in the coming years I should bunp this thread? How long should I wait till I use the word liar?
I should add that many other countries have high levels of delays with different nuclear regulatory structures. Do you mean to say that every country where nuclear power plants have been built (often on public money or loan guarantees) allows lawsuits to prevent the start-up of the plant? Further are you not downplaying seismic related issues as well as other logistical construction complications as an issue of certification? If your going to continue claiming this sort of thing I'm going to need a credible citation.

Quote:

Another thing that has changed is that vendors have now went to standardized reactor designs.  Back in the 70's, plants were custom built for each site.  Now, the vendors do all the design work and make one standard cookie-cutter design, they take the plans to the NRC and get their design licensed.  That saves time and expenses when a utility actually goes to build one since the design will already be licensed.



I agree, and this is good for a few reasons, particularly in cross-troubleshooting and diagnostics information exchange and comparisons. It makes it some what safer as well as more economical.

Quote:

The loan guarentees will cost the taxpayers nothing so long as the plant is completed and starts to generate power.  Of course there is some risk, but what do you propose we do for power?  What about the risk associated with fuel price swings that coal-fired power plants are susceptible to?  What about the possibility of new greenhouse gas emission legislation?  Forcing the coal industry to clean up after itself would cripple it.  And who wants to live next to a coal-fired power plant anyways?  They dump tons of shit into the air and actually release radiation to the environment.  With environmentalists blackballing the coal power industry, I ask what exactly we will do for power in this country?




Hey I agree with you here, this is the #1 reason why nuclear has a chapter in all GW policy books (ever produced?) I've read. I never said that it was entirely a bad idea, I only said that it has a limited capacity and it would be negligent to give excessively to nuclear, as if it were some sort of goose that lays golden eggs or something.


Quote:

What and wind and solar power aren't subsidized?  You complain that nuclear power is expensive and then you offer wind and solar power as a cost-effective means of solving the energy crisis?  Here's a figure from the Wall Street Journal showing pre-subsidized costs of various forms of energy.  Look at the cost of wind and solar compared to coal and gas. 



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126290539750320495.html





These are somewhat anti-green energy figures. I think a more solid comparison for non-subsidy costs was best done by the ozzys in a report cited here a few other places.

Quote:

Levelised energy costs for different generation technologies in Australian Dollars (2006)
Technology  ↓ Cost (AUD/MWh)  ↓
Nuclear (to COTS plan) 40–70
Nuclear (to suit site; typical) 75–105
Coal  28–38
Coal: IGCC + CCS 53–98
Coal: supercritical pulverised + CCS 64–106
Open-cycle Gas Turbine 101
Hot fractured rocks  89
Gas: combined cycle 37–54
Gas: combined cycle + CCS 53–93
Small Hydro power 55
Wind power: high capacity factor 55
Solar thermal 85
Biomass 88
Photovoltaics 120




Quote:

I do not know where you got these figures, but I suspect they are biased



Hey man the feeling is obviously mutual, your figures look like they are from mars to me. The first one was an obvious misinformation, but the latter could be true based on current running models (not future running models or current selling ones). However to be fair the figgures in the paper I cited were not exclusive of subsidies. I only argued that the costs of nuclear subsidy (much greater than other "renewables") were being externalized.

Further, I know that PVs always look like they cost more than they are really worth. It is important to note that PVs make power almost exclusively during hours of peek demand. As a supplement to otherwise expensive peek power generation it is actually quite profitable for how it looks.


Quote:

And then what about the footprint of these solar and wind farms?  The newly built Nevada Solar One 64 MW plant covers 400 acres.  Compare this to Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant near New York City, which generates just over 2 GW of power and sits on 239 acres of land.  For a solar field to generate as much as Indian Point, it would need to cover 12,500 acres.  That's 52 times more land covered.  What kind of environmental impact do you think that would have?




First off, a lot of wind resources are on farms and I don't know if you know this but a relatively small amount of ground land is covered by the turbines.

Secondly in places like nevada, cali and other desert locations with prime solar resources, many solar resources are built right in sand. The environmental impact to sticking a solar collector in the desert is basicly that maybe there will be enough shade that moisture can stay long enough that something green may actually be able to grow up from the ground (Provided good rain/dew/whatever remaining "soil" resources).


Quote:

I think the take-home message is that we need to get power from somewhere.  All sources have their pros and cons.  Nuclear power should remain a viable option and should account for a significant portion of our power generation as it currently is.




Other than your use of the word should I agree. I do not think that nuclear should be significantly expanded, particularly if it is going to have future problems like this:
In Historic Vote, Vermont Poised to Shut Down Lone Nuclear Reactor Vermont yankee

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: ScavengerType]
    #12091569 - 02/24/10 08:31 PM (14 years, 2 months ago)

You say that nuclear has limited capacity.  Is that not even more true of solar, wind and geothermal?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDJ_avocado
SardinoBambino
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/19/09
Posts: 743
Loc: Hawai'i, USA Flag
Last seen: 10 months, 24 days
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: pothead_bob]
    #12092825 - 02/25/10 12:02 AM (14 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Saying that there will be no trace of nuclear energy production on earth is ridiculous. Radiation permeates damn near everything, and you can't even feel it.  I think it's too deep of a hole for us to dig and we're going to find ourselves genetically destroyed.  Just my two cents, I got something against nuclear testing in the past...




What do you mean that radiation permeates everything?  It has been safely contained by US nuclear power plants for their decades of operation.  You get the majority of your yearly radiation dose from the earth's crust.  Then comes medical x-rays and consumer products and food (do you like to eat bananas?).  In total, the average American gets 360 millirems of radiation per year.  Less than 2 millirems come from fallout from all the nuclear weapons testing ever done http://www.jlab.org/div_dept/train/rad_guide/sources.html.  By the way, there's a big difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.




Look.

I fuckin love bananas.  I don't think the radiation in a banana amounts to anything.  There'd have to be a lot of fuckin radiation in them for being so tasty.  I knew it!


Less than 2mrem a year from residual fallout is an average taken, probably, from all parts of the world.  NOT Bikini atoll.  among many affected.  Islanders were transported and studied in America and were found to have many times the amount of radiation an average human accumulates in a life time.  No I don't have a link, I learned this in my Hawaiian history class, on video...so sad.

I know that energy and weapons aren't the same, but they both deal with that same type of power. Only in one were trying to manage and and harness it. I don't think that a power of this magnitude should be unleashed upon the world.  I just watched Jurassic Park, Jeff Goldblum owns that shit, predicting that the dinosaurs would adapt and reproduce, that mo'fucker, he knew that shit would adapt!  That's why I don't think we should be tinkering with shit like this.:macdre:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,392
Last seen: 2 days, 15 hours
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: DJ_avocado]
    #12093434 - 02/25/10 04:34 AM (14 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I don't think that a power of this magnitude should be unleashed upon the world.




It is unfortunate that you are trying to take away the only practical clean energy solution ever invented.

In the future, food will be delivered to supermarkets using bicycles with trailers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #12093460 - 02/25/10 04:53 AM (14 years, 2 months ago)

> It is unfortunate that you are trying to take away the only practical clean energy solution ever invented.

Clean?  Fission based nuclear power?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,392
Last seen: 2 days, 15 hours
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Seuss]
    #12093523 - 02/25/10 05:52 AM (14 years, 2 months ago)

Just read the whole thread.  It is very interesting and I learned a lot. 

Next time I will read the thread before posting.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: ScavengerType]
    #12093803 - 02/25/10 08:18 AM (14 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I'm sure that if the industry can't get enough development on it's own it will just sit there twiddling it's thumbs and rolling it's eyes while the government is forced to do something.




Haha, yeah, just like they sat on their asses when the government broke its promise to open Yukka Mountain on time.  Every plant that has been running out of space in the spent fuel pool has been building dry-cask storage facilities on site for several years while the government sat on its collective ass getting nothing accomplished.

Quote:

Externalizing the cost by charging a surcharge for it rather than saving from revenues is an additional subsidy.




A subsidy paid by the users of the power.  What's the problem here?  Should they attempt to collect the subsidy from the US taxpayers?

Quote:

Go and see my first post for the link of plants that the NRC said were having shortfalls on funding their decommission. *repost*





From your link...
Quote:

This is not a current safety issue, but the plants do have to prove to us they’re setting aside money appropriately.


 

I think your overblowing this issue.  The utilties only have 40 years till decomissioning, dear god.  And the NRC is on their ass already to make sure they're going to have funds when the time comes, proving how much of a non-issue this is. 

Quote:

No it's because the utilities have low maintenance costs while running and ridiculously high costs while being constructed/deconstructed. Further it has a lot to do with the fact that many utilities would have a difficult time replacing the power-load occupied by these plants.




Exactly!  They'd have a difficult time replacing the base-load.  Now why is that?  Could it be because the local citizens don't want a filthy pollutant-spewing coal plant in their backyards - they probably couldn't even get a license to build one.  Or could it be because 'green' energy would cost way too much to build?  Or would it be because you could never generate the same amount of power from 'green' energy without covering 50 times the land area with noisy, unsightly, bird-killing windmills?

Quote:

Yes, because only people in the government make mistakes not people in the buisness sector. However, have you contemplated the possibility that all people make mistakes regardless of who they work for? Like this individual who claimed the yacca incident cost $22b when it really cost $8b. Was he private or public sector? Does it matter?




Are you denying the fact that the government is slow and inefficient?

Quote:

I believe that is what I said. My point was that it's not. I mean can you imagine making an investment with a return that would only come after a couple hundred years? Interest bro, not gonna happen.




Where did you get the 'couple hundred years' figure from?  Whoever does the reprocessing will be paid to take the waste.  Then they'll be paid again on the other side of the cycle when the sell the newley-made fuel to the vendors.  The utilities will be saving money on long-term storage design, construction and maintenance.  You mentioned that fuel prices may go up... if they go up enough, it will be cheaper for the utilities to buy recycled fuel, thus saving them money again.  The whole process will just be shifting the costs from one type of waste disposal to another.

Quote:

So when banks don't fund private plants (they won't), in the coming years I should bunp this thread? How long should I wait till I use the word liar?
I should add that many other countries have high levels of delays with different nuclear regulatory structures. Do you mean to say that every country where nuclear power plants have been built (often on public money or loan guarantees) allows lawsuits to prevent the start-up of the plant? Further are you not downplaying seismic related issues as well as other logistical construction complications as an issue of certification? If your going to continue claiming this sort of thing I'm going to need a credible citation.




Do you mean without loan guarentees?  Your assertation that banks won't fund is incorrect, btw.  They'll fund, but they will charge much higher interest to account for their perceived risk.  The government's guarentee to pay if the utilty defaults brings the cost of interest down.  So long as the utility doesn't default, everybody wins and it costs the taxpayers nothing extra.  But they do, however, end up getting a cleaner power source as opposed to having dirty fossil-fired power plants built in nuclear power's place. 

No, I don't mean to say that every country allows lawsuits.  How'd you get that out of my talk on the licensing process?  Geographical issues, such as seismic activity and weather activity (huricanes, tornadoes) is covered in the licensing process.  First, a utility will apply for an Early Site Permit.  This covers the above-mentioned site saftey issues, environmental issues, plans for coping with emergencies, but doesn't go into details about the specific plant design.  The NRC will also contact the public and let them know when they can participate in the licensing process.  They tell them when they are allowed to interject, basically.  The utility can secure the ESP for little cost and the license is good for 10-20 years from the issuance.  When the utility decides they want to build a pre-certified reactor design, they submit the Combined License application.  This covers plant-specific issues, in detail.  Along with the COL application, the NRC receives a plethora of information and analysis from the utility.  The NRC reviews the information and brings up any safety issues they have concern for and request additional information from the utility.  Additionally, they keep the public informed of all isues every step of the way.  THIS IS WHEN THE PUBLIC MAY RAISE CONCERN.  If they have any safety issues, they bring them up at that point.  The utility must resolve all issues before the COL is issued.  Prior to the issuance, there is one last public meeting, which is the public's last chance to raise legitimate concerns.  Once the COL is issued, the utility may build and operate the plant.  The only remaining task they have is to submit a Final Safety Analysis Report, which details all the hypothetical accident situations and any necessary changes that were made.  So long as the FSAR is in agreement with the terms of the COL, the utility is able to start up the plant without getting their balls busted by the regulators.

Now, if there is some issue that comes up that was unforseen and it is legitimate, the NRC will ask the utility to provide proof that it won't be an issue or they will ask them to take measures to correct the issue, but it is highly unlikely that it will be an issue that will prevent the plant from running and generating boatloads of $$$.  It's unlikely because the utility takes everything into consideration and designs are very conservative.  Just look at Turkey Point outside of Miami.  In 1992 it got hit head-the-fuck-on by Hurricane Andrew, a category 5 hurricane and the only damage was to a water tank and a smoke stack on one of the fossil-fired units.

Quote:

I only said that it has a limited capacity and it would be negligent to give excessively to nuclear, as if it were some sort of goose that lays golden eggs or something.




Of course it isn't perfect.  My point is that nothing is and we need power from somewhere.  I believe it is highly competitive with other energy forms considering its cleanliness, low operating cost, great safety record, and small footprint.

Quote:

I do not think that nuclear should be significantly expanded, particularly if it is going to have future problems like this:
In Historic Vote, Vermont Poised to Shut Down Lone Nuclear Reactor Vermont yankee




You make a link between future nuclear power and a 40 year old plant?  Christ man, a lot has changed in 40 years.  That plant was the flagship and the accidents were minor.  What about boiler explosions in coal-fired plants that literally killed people?  Oh yeah, that only made page 10 in the newspaper because everybody understands coal power.  Nuclear power, though, shit now there's the fear factor.  We can sell that story.

Quote:

I don't think the radiation in a banana amounts to anything.




Of course you don't, you don't know anything about how radiation works.  Your typical banana will give you 0.01 millirems of radiation exposure.  If you eat one banan a day, that's 3.6 millirems a year.  That's almost fucking TWICE the yearly exposure you get from ALL OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTING EVER DONE.  You worry about weapons testing, which is mostly banned now, and yet you're probably getting more radiation dose from K-40 from eating bananas.

Quote:

I know that energy and weapons aren't the same, but they both deal with that same type of power.




No, they don't.  A nuclear weapon is an uncontrolled reaction with the intent of releasing as much energy possible in the shortest amount of time.  It's designed by teams of engineers and physicist for PRECISELY this purpose.  Nuclear power is designed for the purpose of providing a controlled source of thermal energy over long periods of time, SAFELY.  It is physically impossible for a nuclear power reactor to release the kind of energy that a nuclear weapon does.  IMPOSSIBLE.  Your use of the word, unleashed, is interesting and also quite deceiving.  Nuclear power is one of the most highly regulated and safe industries around.  Here's some interesting info for you:  In the world, between 1970 and 1992, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths in coal-fired power plants, 1,200 on-the-job deaths in natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths to the GENERAL PUBLIC caused by hydro-electric power station disasters.  Nuclear power plants experienced 39 on-the-job deaths.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#cite_note-ComparativeDeathRates-5

If you're on a crusade, you should probably go boycott hydropower.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDJ_avocado
SardinoBambino
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/19/09
Posts: 743
Loc: Hawai'i, USA Flag
Last seen: 10 months, 24 days
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: pothead_bob]
    #12094629 - 02/25/10 11:16 AM (14 years, 2 months ago)

Certainly the energy that is created is awesome and would solve the energy crisis...I just don't trust the human race with containing that much power.  I'm sure that it is extremely safe and energy producing, but I'm a firm believer in "SHIT WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN".  I would give it more thought maybe if there were plans for disposing of the waste...

You are very thorough pothead_bob, you know your shit.  I'm not on a crusade, I'll just go with the flow.  But history shows that we don't always know what we're doing and shit that can go wrong will go wrong.  I just don't think that nuclear energy should be an option.

I wouldn't say that I'm scared or anything, maybe concerned, but assuming that in the future, energy is produced solely from nuclear plants....and something goes wrong for whatever reason.  LIke a big fuckin mistake, giant plant takes out Australia or something, and now Earth is really fucked.  ( I don't know specifically what will happen).  But assuming shit goes wrong,  would you still be for nuclear power after that happens?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: DJ_avocado]
    #12094746 - 02/25/10 11:32 AM (14 years, 2 months ago)

Here's the first major item you need to look at - we need power.  So I ask, where will we get it from?  Just from my figures alone, you can see that nuclear power is far safer than coal, gas, and hydro power.  I don't have a figure for biomass, but the logging industry is one of the deadliest, so you can throw that on the list too.  Would you rather live next to a coal fired power plant, which releases over 100 times the amount of radiation that a nuclear power plant does amongst tons of other shit like mercury and sulfer, which contributes to acid rain, or would you rather live next to a nuclear power plant?  I, for one, would go with the nuclear power plant.  Wind and solar are great for certain regions of the country and at certain times of the day, but we, as a country, will never base-load with wind or sun power.

The second issue you need to look at is - what is going to happen?  Really, what can go wrong?  Forget Chernobyl.  It was an RBMK, a design which would never make it through the US regulatory process (or any country's regulatory process anymore, for that sake).  I understand your concerns, but I can guarantee that they stem from lack of knowledge about how nuclear power works.  Personally, I can't even conjure up what kind of situation would need to occur for a nuclear power plant mistake to wipe out Australia. 

Shit has went wrong in the past - such as the vessel degradation at Davis-Besse or the steam dump radiation release at Indian point, or the more notable example of Three Mile Island - but I'm still for nuclear.  If anything, events like this strengthen my support because each event proves that the plant operated as expected.  The engineered safety systems did their job.  Meanwhile, you have coal mines collapsing and coal power plant boilers exploding, which actually kills people.  Furthermore, each event adds a little more knowledge to the utilities and regulators so that future accidents can be more rigorously defended against.

You are right to say that shit can go wrong, but we need the power from somewhere.  At least nuclear power plants are designed ultra-conservatively and have a proven safety track record behind them.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Russia delays start-up of Iran nuclear power plant by one ye wingnutx 713 1 10/13/03 07:08 PM
by lysergic
* Nuclear revival
( 1 2 3 4 all )
JesusChrist 5,226 63 04/01/05 01:50 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Going Nuclear Again
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 1,875 33 11/15/04 01:25 PM
by BleaK
* Iran Will Allow U.N. Inspections of Nuclear Sites Zahid 719 3 10/22/03 11:50 PM
by Zahid
* UN Pre-action to anticipated US action towards North Koreas nuclear stance SoopaX 845 1 02/24/05 03:39 AM
by tak
* New US Nuclear Plan. 7 Countries Named Targets. Ellis Dee 1,957 17 03/12/02 11:06 PM
by Jammer
* Worldwide Power Outages
( 1 2 3 all )
catalyst777 1,958 40 10/02/03 03:11 PM
by wingnutx
* Israel Ready to Strike Iranian Nuclear Sites Zahid 1,185 13 10/13/03 08:18 PM
by trendal

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
13,640 topic views. 4 members, 4 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 13 queries.