heres a question for nuke supporters, do the plants carry insurance and are willing to pay if a accident similiar to chernobyl does occur?
one that makes permanetely uninhabitible a big chunk of our country, and the possiblity of loss of life and sickness that would go with such a accident?
pay everyone to move, for all lost property? expenses and health troubles?
The Kennedys, Kerry and Romney don't have any credibility in the alternate energy debate. They are the ones who fought tooth and nail to try to stop a wind farm in Massacheucetts ... right where they need more power and where they can't build any other kind of plant.
Yes, up to a federally mandated maximum.
But, have you yet figured out you can't have a Chernobyl (I surely wish you'd correct the capitalization even if you can't get anything else right) physically cannot occur w/o a Chernobyl-type reactor and even if the reactor design were similar, the simple expedient of actually having a containment (w/o which _NO_ reactor would ever be licensed in the US hence making the question of one w/o containment moot for the US) would mitigate such an event?
--
" snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote in news:53ec47bc-af2f-4449-bdcd- snipped-for-privacy@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
since we do not use graphite-moderated reactors for power generation in the US,a "Chernobyl-type accident" cannot occur.
Note that the Three Mile Island accident was a good example of US nuke safety.Very little real effect on the environment,the safety systems worked as designed.France and Japan both generate a significant amount of their nations electric power very safely.(using pressurized-water reactors)
Have you researched "pebble bed reactors" yet? They self-moderate,inherently safe.
on 2/28/2008 11:18 PM Jim Yanik said the following:
Doesn't matter. As long as the words 'nuclear', or 'reactor' is associated with the plant, it is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe we should just call them Fission Energy Generators. The Anties won't know what that means. They'll probably think it is energy generated from fishes. :-)
Elevators in our condo were update last year with a feature that uses gravity to automatically return them to the bottom floor if the power fails. No emergency power required.
maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?
this way a unforseen accident takes out a rural area, rather than downtown new york?
this compromiise would probably make everyone reasonably content. nuke power industry gets to grow and make boatloads of money, away from most people centers.
hey why not put the plants in mexico? far away from the us border?
it would provide jobs for mexicans, lessening their desire to immigrate here, still provide the power needed, perhaps use supercold transmission lines to reduce line losses? and a accident although still terrible wouldnt effect our country so bad.............
You know, I've wondered about that for a long time too. It would seem that it would be a great business idea for some investors. With Mexico's govt culture of corruption, it should be easy to get approvals and start building with a hell of a lot less opposition and regulation that you get here. For Mexico, the govt gets $$$, the politicians get $$$, the locals get lots of jobs during construction, etc.
For the US, we get power, but no jobs and add to the trade deficit. And then, if they put the nukes near Tijuana, you get a bunch of them that you have no regulatory control over how safely they are built and run and if it someday has the accident you're so worried about, San Diego is right next door. Sounds like the best for everyone!
BTW, it's a swell idea you have to suggest putting something you consider so potentially lethal in Mexico, where they get take the risk. May I suggest that it suggests you have some deep rooted issues that are surfacing?
" snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote in news:3882fc40-e4b8-4beb-b226- snipped-for-privacy@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Why,when there's never been any real problem with US nuke plants?
How far would make you *feel better*? ("reasonably content";define "reasonable")
and yet you worry about nuke security at US plants.....
Its not the US job or responsibility to provide jobs for Mexicans. Let MEXICO worry about Mexicans.
With all the reactors operating in all the countries of the world,and only ONE bad accident in RUSSIA,and you worry about uncontained disasters; that sounds like an *unreasonable* fear to me.
Have you researched "pebble-bed" reactors yet? Inherently safe.
Yeah, but how fast does it go down?
Good idea.
We could put one in an uninhabited area, say Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and no one would complain.
nevada has decided it shouldnt be the countries nuke graveyard, despite its past.
heres a good question.
if a nuke plant has a accident today, just what is its federally mandated max insurance cap? i got news for you its trivial, and a excuusion on everyones homeowners policy too.
essentially you lost so sorry................
those effected would be forced to move with no compensation, no homes no anything. our government would be forced to help somehow. given how many might be effected katrina victims would of been considered lucky
while the pro nuke advocates talk of safety, they ignore federal investigations of safety troubles and bad wiring that could of caused a disaster.
the nuke power industry like everyone else wants to cut costs, and have created their own public relations nightmare.
oh and do note i suggested nuke plants in mexico far from our country. southern mexico would be ideal.
Even the most conservative regulator would not approve a NEW site NEAR any significant population.
Not a chance, hal.
Based on your words of late, I suspect you are of the same mindset as those that subscribe to the [any nuke is a BAD nuke] prejudice.
Oh, gawd. There's nothing quite like an ethnic distraction from a legitimate debate. Way to go...
On Feb 29, 9:31=EF=BF=BDam, Jim Redelfs wrot= e:
legitimate
not a distraction a honest suggestion.
we the people need to rise up demonstrarte, complain to congress to stop the building of new reactors in the us..........
let other countries find the troubles.........
note you failed to address my comments about bad wiring
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: ...
They've all been built since K&T went out of style, Haller.
PLONK.
--
Jim Yanik wrote: ...
In fact, if the operators had just sat back and done essentially nothing instead of intervening, there would have been no "TMI" anybody would remember. Only a short outage similar to that in FL the other day...
...
"haller" and "research" in the same sentence? There's an oxymoron for ya! :(
--
" snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote in news:35f1ecaf-da87-4a26-8702- snipped-for-privacy@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
but haven't.
NIMBY.
ote:
a legitimate
It's quite interesting that you don't see your proposal to place nukes in Mexico for what it is.. You consider them lethal accidents waiting to happen and don't want them here. Yet, you have no problem suggesting that they be built in Mexico.
I'm not a big fan of playing the race card, but in this case, I'd sure like to hear what makes Mexican lives worth less than American ones.
Oh, just for the record, I live about 25 miles from the oldest nuke in the US and I sleep well every night.
Reference please?
--
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.