FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed

Page 3 of 10  
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

Now you really are beginning sound like the uninformed intervenor that Chairman Klein discussed, unfortunately. :(
The likelihood of the fire in the house is far higher than the likelihood of needing massive evacuation would have been required from an operating Shoreham plant.
I have not actually been to the Shoreham site (it was a competitor's reactor) but such facilities generally are not situated in prime residential areas. I would venture that there were/are other industrial operations in the proximate area of far higher likelihood for chemical or other releases than Shoreham would have ever been.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again: Should I make my windows impossible to open? That's an absolutely accurate analogy to the traffic situation in Long Island at the time when Shoreham almost became operational.

In the event of a major catastrophe involving a nuclear plant, what would you consider a safe distance from prime residential areas?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

About a block. :)
There were no offsite releases of any real significance at TMI, people continued to work onsite safely throughout.
Frankly, the largest danger was being that of being trampled by the newshounds when trying to get out for lunch.
This has now devolved into the ludicrous.
Read Commissioner Klein's speech and take it to heart along w/ the statistic I provided previously of 5000 reactor-years w/o a single fatality or even injury from a nuclear-related cause at a LWR reactor in the US.
Unless you have something far more substantive to discuss, I'm done.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Okay, I'll play. My windows are impossible to open (from the outside and somewhat cumbersome from the inside) due to burglar bars. There's a tradeoff. The tradeoff is the likelihood of an emergency evacuation vs the chance of a burglar. Burglaries are more common than fires.
In the case of Shoreham, perhaps those in charge felt the availability of power was more necessary than the need for evacuation.
Still, I'll wager dollars to donuts that even if the Shoreham owners gave everybod on Long Island a boat or a helicopter such that 3 million people could get a hundred miles away in two hours, there'd still have been objections.
What they COULD have done is erect those cute little signs on the sides of the roads. You know, the ones that read: "Hurricane (Snow emergency, Volcano, etc. ) evacuation route," except it would say: "Nuclear Emergency Boogie Blvd." This would have provided the psychological security desperately needed by the folks on Long Island and Shoreham could have proceeded with nary a concern.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, but that is an easily known disaster scenario that will occur with enough frequency to plan for in an effective way. A few light years from the "don't know every possible disaster scenario" your posts suggests is the criteria for nuclear power plants. A decision to not allow houses because there might be a fire and window that is stuck is closer to that.
--
"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:

I think it's safe to say that nobody else in this discussion spent any time in Long Island during the Shoreham debacle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I live in NJ, easily within range of Shoreham for your mega disaster scenarios, both from any fallout, as well as the economic consequences to the NYC area. I also live about 25 miles from Oyster Creek, the oldest operating nuke in the country. That plant just received a 20 year extension on it's operating license, despite the attempts of all the environmental extremists to force it to close. I sleep well every night. I'd sleep even better if we had a nuke in my own municipality, where it could cut my property taxes in half, like Oyster Creek has done for Lacey township. That's what's killing us here, high taxes, caused by left wing nut jobs like you, not the nukes.
So, once again, you don't know what you're talking about, eh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I live in NJ, easily within range of Shoreham for your mega disaster scenarios, both from any fallout, as well as the economic consequences to the NYC area. I also live about 25 miles from Oyster Creek, the oldest operating nuke in the country. That plant just received a 20 year extension on it's operating license, despite the attempts of all the environmental extremists to force it to close. I sleep well every night. I'd sleep even better if we had a nuke in my own municipality, where it could cut my property taxes in half, like Oyster Creek has done for Lacey township. That's what's killing us here, high taxes, caused by left wing nut jobs like you, not the nukes.
So, once again, you don't know what you're talking about, eh? =================== How often did you attempt to commute on the LIE in the 1970s, on weekdays, between 5:00 AM and 10:00 PM?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: -

He may not be a left-wing nut job - he may be a serious victim of nuclear phobia. Like fear of heights or clowns, it is simply not possible to argue or persuade someone to NOT be afraid of their phobia object - one simply has to deal with what one has.
In the case of acrophobia, the best solution is to move to a flat place, like Nebraska. For a fear of clowns, one must embrace mirthless, depressing places to maximize the avoidance of comical performers. Like progressive websites or Democratic Party rallies.
Even then, one must be careful, what with the preponderance of colorful wigs, grotesque painted faces, and unusually large footwear.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Agreed. But we do have people here who spent time in caves, overseas, atop trees, in jail, flying airplanes, and negotiating with a roofing contractor during the Shoreham debacle. They had as much connection to the "deficiencies" at Shoreham as anybody living on the same block.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

I said I had never been specifically to the Shoreham site, not that I had never been on Long Island.
But, it's still immaterial to the fact that the hysteria made over the evacuation plan ended up in a shortsighted decision made from ill-formed opinion and was not based on any demonstrated threat the operation of the plant would have posed.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1) There was no evac plan because at the time, none could work. Imagine having to evacuate Madison Square Garden in 5 minutes, with only one door.
2) "demonstrated threat". We can't predict them all. But we can avoid making lousy plans when those plans are obviously lousy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

We're back to the same problem -- we _CAN_ and _DO_ design for the consequences of losing primary cooling; the fundamental threat to reactor integrity irrespective of how, specifically, it might be initiated. We have demonstrated empirical evidence those systems work. We also have a long history of operational evidence the overall technology is as safe as or safer than other technologies which we routinely accept.
It comes back again to the points made by Chairman Klein of unproductive participation. Did you ever read the text of the full speech?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, I read the speech.
You used the term "fundamental threat". Before 9/11, what do you suppose was considered the fundamental threat to the World Trade Center?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'd say the fundamental threat pre 9/11 was Islamic extremists. That was evidenced by their prior attempt a decade earlier to bring the towers down using a truck bomb. Of course to do something about it requred someone with the ability to realize they were at war with us.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

And????
Well, it's fundamentally immaterial, but...
The WTC (and all other high rise buildings as well, of course) was designed to a specific set of impact, wind, seismic, and fire loadings.
The towers both withstood the impacts as expected/designed; they fell because the actual fire loading was greater than the design criteria.
The difference in the reactor is it isn't postulated "how", it is presumed that a LOCA can occur and there are systems in place to mitigate the results thereof. The design basis is a complete guillotine break--"if the pipe is broke it can't get any broker" and it isn't assumed that it is repaired. Consequently, there isn't the question of whether a different initiating event caused the break--the break is assumed to have "just happened".
So, the comparison is a red herring that distracts and obfuscates and plays on fears but doesn't contribute--precisely Chairman Klein's point.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All discussions of nuke plant safety are based on WHAT'S EXPECTED.
And I'll repeat this, since you obviously missed it last time I said it (in this thread): I am not opposed to all nuclear power plants.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

Not in the sense of which you have raised the red herrings, no, not exactly. You keep raising the specter of initiating events; in reality the design is based on mitigating consequences irrespective of the initiating event.
There is a fundamental difference between how long or how hot a fire is, say, as opposed to saying an operational system is unavailable. Once it's unavailable, it can't become any more so--therefore the consequences of losing that system are bounded. The alternate way _can_, agreed, produce a longer, hotter fire. But if I have no primary flow postulated, it doesn't matter whether it was a 50-cent fuse that propagated a chain of events or somehow the welds all failed simultaneously and a section of 4-ft diameter pipe just magically fell out--it's gone either way and the system must deal with the consequences. That's why the auxiliary systems are there to compensate. OTOH, there were no auxiliary support systems in the WTC--once the columns were compromised the buildings were doomed.

No; I did _NOT_ miss that--we are (or at least I am) discussing why the perceived need for near-instantaneous evacuation of Long Island was an illogical requirement for adequately safe operation of Shoreham. And, in passing, I'm trying to fight the NIMBY syndrome you're exhibiting--"it's fine for somewhere else, but youse guys do it, not here" that you're exhibiting by making the statements whether you're intending that or not.
Secondarily, we are discussing why the comparisons you're making to other events/disasters are not conducive to logical thinking with respect to nuclear safety because the same arguments are made by others and used by activists because they understand and use the fear factor and also rely on the lack of critical thinking to cause instinctive reaction that can be turned into public pressure.
Yet again I emphasize Chairman Klein's concerns.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Of course not. You're only opposed to the nukes we already have and any new ones being built. The pie in the sky theoretical ones, they're OK. Just like the environmental extremists who rag on about using wind and solar. Yet, when it comes time to actually put up windmills or a solar farm, well guess who's there blocking that? Same folks. It's happening here in NJ with windmills and just happened in the Mojave desert too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course not. You're only opposed to the nukes we already have and any new ones being built.
================= I never said or even remotely implied any such thing. If you disagree, you know the drill. Find one or messages written by me which support your delusion.
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.