FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed

Page 5 of 10  


I'm willing to bet that Joe (and about 250 million other US citizens just like him) grew up believing that PBS televised childrens programming and unbiased news, 60 Minutes would never rig a car test and that Walter Cronkite was about as middle America as you could find.
The problem is that very few people understand complicated subjects, and that schools were long ago converted into social conditioning centers instead of places were people learned critical thinking skills. Hence they become prime targets for the fear industry.
You get someone like Meryl Streep whipping up a phoney crisis about apples and 100M people go into cardiac arrest. As as the prime advisor to our current president is quoted as stating "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

TMI-II was shut down because it broke.
TMI-I was also shut down. For obviously political reasons.
Every month that TMI-I was offline, three people died.
That's because, in that area, the loss of generating power from TMI-I is generated by coal. To mine enough coal and transport it from Montana, industrial accidents, train collisions, etc., pro-rated by megawatts generated, yield three deaths and about 55 injuries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote: ...

No.
TMI-I continues to operate. NRC current status report indicates its at nominal 100% power as we speak.
AmerGen submitted licensee renewal for additional 20 years operation to NRC in Jan, 2008. <http://www.threemileislandinfo.com/news/detail.aspx?id=7
Overall generation statistics for 2008 -- Total site net capacity: 852 megawatts 2008 net generation: 7.365 billion kilowatt hours 2008 capacity factor: 100.2 percent*
<http://www.threemileislandinfo.com/lib/pdf/TMI-PlantFactSheet.pdf
* There's obviously a rounding error in the quoted CF but since iirc the initial licensed power was closer to 800 MWe the difference in upgraded power and what was used as divisor and integrated power explains it. I didn't check the EIA monthly production figures for more precision.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Yes. The event at Three Mile Island took place in 1979. The operating permit for Unit I was suspended almost immediately and wasn't reinstated until 1985.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

But you didn't say "temporarily shut down" -- the prior posting implied it was closed permanently. I wanted to correct that impression for any who might not know.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Ah, thanks. I was trying to emphasize the political decision process trumping the scientific decision process.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

No it's not. We've already made the decision about energy vs. potential deaths. If we're willing to accept some number of deaths due to coal, natural gas, hydroelecric, gerbils on wheely-things, and so on, then that same acceptance should apply to nuclear.
If it can be shown that the actual deaths and disease (or their risk) from nuclear power is less or the same as other forms of energy generation, than that issue should be completely off the table.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now you sound like the fools who say that the number of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq weren't such a big deal compared to how many Americans die in car accidents each year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

No, that's apples and orangutans. We've already made the decision that we're willing to tolerate "x" deaths per Gigawatt generated. If some form of energy generation comes in at "y" where "y" is substantially less than "x", then it's disingenuous to criticize this generation process for causing "y" deaths.
A similar argument would be: "Air travel results in 2,000 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, and therefore should be banned" when we've already accepted 81,000 automobile deaths for the same passenger distance. Or space exploration should be curtailed because we've had seven deaths in 100 gazillion miles traveled.
Nothing is absolutely safe. With radiation, there are three, and only three, hazards to health.
* Radiation sickness. You either die or get completely over it. * Genetic mutation. There has never been a case of such in human history. * Cancer. Cancer is the most studied disease on the planet, and we're making strides against it daily.
We don't even know the NAMES of all the stuff that comes out of a coal-powered plant's smokestack!
As an aside, military deaths in Iraq are NOT a big deal, or at least no more so than a mountain climbing accident, a sky-diving death, a NASCAR collision, or time on the International Space Station. Our soldiers joined volunteered for the opportunity to kill people and blow things up. They accepted the risk of personal disaster for the thrill of adventure, just like Sir Edmund Hillary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Chicago is surrounded by nuke plants, more than anywhere else in the US. Our highways suck because of govt mismanagement. Evacuation here would be a mess as even an average rush hour proves. Drive into Illinois on any interstate from any adjoining state and it's pot-hole city. We have never had a nuclear accident, and I feel perfectly safe with them, even knowing there would be no hope for evacuation unless you are in an outlying county.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Chicago is surrounded by nuke plants, more than anywhere else in the US. Our highways suck because of govt mismanagement. Evacuation here would be a mess as even an average rush hour proves. Drive into Illinois on any interstate from any adjoining state and it's pot-hole city. We have never had a nuclear accident, and I feel perfectly safe with them, even knowing there would be no hope for evacuation unless you are in an outlying county. =========== Good for you! Not everyone shares your views, which should not be surprising.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RickH wrote:

WAIT!
I've driven to Chicago.
On all the freeways I travelled, I saw signs that say "Chicago is a nuclear free city."
What's with that, then?
Chicago used to have NO potholes. The former mayor Daley got private enterprise into the act. You could drive your pickup to the city's public works lot and get a load of pot-hole-filling-material for some modest sum.
You would then drive to your neighborhood and fill potholes, tallying the holes you filled, their location, and their size. Then you turn in your tally-sheet and the city paid you based on the number and size of the holes you filled. Inspectors would randomly check your work (hence the address).
Once implemented, Chicago became a city with a SHORTAGE of pot-holes.
I don't know when or why the program was cancelled.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Water used to be un-metered too, sounds crazy now but all water was free. Maybe too many people were using that asphalt to build patios in their back yards.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Politi-speak is whassup w/ that...
Note RickH said Chicago _is surrounded_ by nuclear units, not that they're inside the city limits of Chicago. Another case (similar to the California ruse) of taking the benefits and pretending they are somehow pure.
There are eight or ten units within roughly 100 miles of the outskirts of Chicago and a total of about 30 inside a circle of about 300 miles or so around the Chicago area.
<http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't know anything about that plant. I do live within rad range of a nuke plant. If that makes any difference to anyone.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rick Samuel wrote:

30 years ago, yes (although as one who worked as design engineer for a particular reactor vendor in those days, there was more genericity than not, even then. The devil was in the details and that there was no procedure to _reference/incorporate_ from one application to another even the parts that were identical). Now, no.
The NRC Chairman gave a pretty pertinent speech just yesterday, actually...
<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2009/s-09-009.html
It's well worth reading but the most pertinent to the subthread points are--

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

And, just for some additional perspective (and since I really didn't know and got curious), the total output power of the eight reactors is (according to Wikipedia) 210 MW. Assuming something on the order of 25% overall efficiency, that would translate to a total of roughly 900 MWt reactor power. Thus each reactor would be roughly 110 MWt or so.
In comparison, a current-generation commercial reactor would be roughly 1000-1200 MWe or about 3000 MWt. So, the plant turbines and other secondary systems have to be sized capable of handling 5X the size of the carrier.
By another niche in history the NSS Savannah was about 20,000 shp. It preceded my career w/ the reactor vendor by about 10 years, unfortunately, so I missed out on it.
Just an interesting (at least to me) sidelight... :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

If you have specific information any operator of facility is not fully compliant with all applicable NRC guidelines, the NRC would definitely like to know about it.
While I don't think you have any knowledge at all about nuclear power facilities or would recognize a safety issue if you saw one, here's the perquisite information.
<http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations/safety-concern.html

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

I thought not... :(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Busy. Stay tuned. I'll resurrect this in a new thread that'll be easy to spot.
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.