FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed

Page 2 of 10  
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Most definitely.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tell me why you disagree with the decision to shut it down.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Primarily to rile you, Joe.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's exactly why I asked a completely open ended question.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

And I answered that way because we went thru this at length only a few months ago.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Immaterial - we're not talking about a 30 year old reactor design. Do you still drive a Ford Pinto?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The design is irrelevant. The location is relevant. Only the location is relevant. No other factor is relevant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I'll bite: why is location relevant? Because people live nearby?
The U.S. mortality rate per megawatt is infinitely higher for coal-fired plants than nuclear powered ones. As an aside, do you know the most dangerous type of commercial power plants?
Hydroelectric. Dams don't fail often, but when they do...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In another message, you pretended to know something about the Shoreham plant. Your information was obviously incomplete. Go look at a map.

Irrelevant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah, why should folks living near NYC take any risk at all related to the energy they consume, no matter how small? Much better to let others die in coal mines in West VA or from lung diseases caused by air pollution in Ohio. Or we can just all put our heads in the sand like Joe and dream of power from moon beams to come.....
And why is it that Joe just likes to argue about everything, but rarely adds anything intelligent to the discussion and more oftent than not, has the facts all wrong?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, why should folks living near NYC take any risk at all related to the energy they consume, no matter how small? Much better to let others die in coal mines in West VA or from lung diseases caused by air pollution in Ohio. Or we can just all put our heads in the sand like Joe and dream of power from moon beams to come.....
And why is it that Joe just likes to argue about everything, but rarely adds anything intelligent to the discussion and more oftent than not, has the facts all wrong?
========== In your imagination, you believe that I'm opposed to all nuclear power plants. Please explain where you got that idea from.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ...

Unfortunately, Joe's type of discussion is for the most part the epitome of that type of public involvement decried by Chairmen Klein in the speech I posted a piece of yesterday.
I highly recommend reading the rest as he has a discussion on that issue later on I snipped for posting brevity to concentrate on the licensing and construction schedules at that time.
Joe also seems to have a very short recollection of stuff that has been hashed over previously. This very sidebar he and I went over ad nauseum not that long ago.
Their Guv did them no favors then as ours is playing current political winds by holding up a license for a new fossil generation unit here.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote: ...

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2009/s-09-009.html
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ringing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How long ago? I haven't frequented this group in quite some time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

Well, mea culpa, sorry...the rhetoric was so similar I was thinking you were a participant -- turns out according to google you weren't actually in the thread I'm recalling about the first of the year.
But, my opinion is still that it was a hysterical overreaction to a problem perceived that was and is not a real problem at all in reality of consequence enough to warrant the concern raised.
The consequences (or lack thereof) of TMI-II are ample empirical evidence.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My point is that we really don't know every possible disaster scenario connected with nuclear power plants. There are people who claim otherwise, but it wasn't that long ago that airplanes took down a couple of office buildings, which nobody really expected.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

In precise detail we can never predict _any_ potential incident. However, it isn't reasonable to prohibit all activity on that basis, either.
OTOH, we can (and have) designed these systems to handle the consequences of equipment failures and/or operator error including large scale LOCA. As noted above, there has even been a full-scale demonstration of the effectiveness of containment and recovery systems in an extreme condition to prove the modeling and design on which the systems were built actually operated.
The incident at TMI-II was initiated as an operational incident and then drastically increased in severity by a sequence of operator mis-actions that were then corrected. The result was an unintended demonstration of the ability of the systems to be recovered without any undue hazards to operating personnel actually onsite, what more offsite to the general public.
_MY_ point is that we have nearly 5000 operating-reactor years of experience with _no_ injuries even, what more fatalities attributable to nuclear causes from commercial LWR reactors in the US alone.
That is pretty much prima facie evidence that the technology is safe enough in comparison to other risks taken routinely.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We don't know every possible disaster scenario connected with supper. That is a way too high bar to set.
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The odds of there being a fire in my home are pretty low. Does this mean I should make all the windows impossible to open, since the odds of having to escape through a window are so low?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.