Sites Chosen for First U.S. Nuclear Plants in 30 Years

[Matt25]

ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2005/2005-09-23-01.asp

WASHINGTON, DC, September 23, 2005 (ENS) - The country’s largest consortium of nuclear power companies said Thursday it has selected two sites, in Alabama and in Mississippi, to build two nuclear reactors. If their applications for construction and operating licenses are approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, these will be the first new nuclear power plants built in the United States since the 1970s. NuStart Energy Development LLC, a consortium of 11 companies that operate nuclear generating plants around the country, selected the two sites from a candidate list of six…

But the environmental community objects to plugging in nuclear power as a solution to climate change. Responding to an industry campaign in June promoting new nuclear reactors as a solution to global warming, some 300 international, national, regional and local environmental, consumer, and safe energy groups reiterated their concerns and rejected the argument that nuclear power can solve global warming. “Throwing a few billion dollars of taxpayer money at the nuclear industry might make some utility executives happy, but would do virtually nothing to reduce carbon emissions,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “In fact, by diverting limited resources that should be used for sustainable technologies, subsidizing nuclear power would be counterproductive.”

“This would exacerbate all of the problems of the technology: more terrorist targets, more cost - potentially trillions of dollars - less safety, need for a new Yucca Mountain-sized waste site every four or five years, more proliferation of nuclear materials and technologies, dozens of new uranium enrichment plants, and even then, a severe shortage of uranium even within this century - while displacing the resources needed to ensure a real solution to the climate change issue,” the groups said in a joint statement. They urged instead a focus on clean and renewable sources of energy, efficiency and conservation.

 

[gilliam]

We need to get out from under oil. France knew that a long time ago. We have a nuclear plant in AZ and it is doing just fine, thank you very much.

IMHO we need more of them.

Selecting sites is the first step.

 

[Fitz]

Would it be wise to have a nuclear power plant in a state that can be so affected with hurricanes, like Mississippi? Just wondering.

 

[gilliam]

Fitz:

Would it be wise to have a nuclear power plant in a state that can be so affected with hurricanes, like Mississippi? Just wondering.

Put them inland

Ours is in the middle of the desert

 

[Fitz]

gilliam:

Put them inland

Ours is in the middle of the desert

Yeah, I guess inland would work. We have one in Illinois about 15 miles away from my house I think.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

We need to get out from under oil. France knew that a long time ago. We have a nuclear plant in AZ and it is doing just fine, thank you very much.

IMHO we need more of them.

Selecting sites is the first step.

Who do you mean by “we”? Is every country in the world enitled to build nuclear power stations? How do you decide which countries can or cannot build them? Why not invest in energy conservation and slow down oil consumption until we can find clean safe alternative means of power generation? Are you really praising The French???

Please note none of these questions are rhetorical. Except maybe the last one

 

[cargopilot]

Matt25:

Why not invest in energy conservation and slow down oil consumption until we can find clean safe alternative means of power generation?

That is truly a noble ideal, but there just isn’t enough savings possible in oil conservation. What will you give up? Air conditioning? Refrigeration? Your car? Lifesaving equipment? How about the ships, trucks, trains and, of course, airplanes that bring all this stuff to us? Perhaps some of the many items we now consider a ‘necessity’ that I couldn’t even dream of when I was a kid.

My friends, we need nuclear power right now. It’s clean, safe and can produce gobs of power we so love to consume. These hurricanes have taught us some lessons, one of which is our precarious stance on petro-products. With regard to the price of petroleum products, the hurricanes are really just a blip on the oil radar screen, but it points the way. My dear friends, China will put pressure on the price of a barrel of oil, the likes of which we’ve never seen before. They will become the next super-consumer. You think a gallon of gas is high now, baby just hang onto your hats, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

 

[Jay74]

Matt25:

Who do you mean by “we”? Is every country in the world enitled to build nuclear power stations? How do you decide which countries can or cannot build them? Why not invest in energy conservation and slow down oil consumption until we can find clean safe alternative means of power generation? Are you really praising The French???

Please note none of these questions are rhetorical. Except maybe the last one

We disagree on almost everything, but I will tell you that I think those are good and fair questions.

I think every country in the world is entitled to energy. It gets a little trickier when terrorist states who believe they have a religious duty to annihilate another want nuclear power, especially when you have good reason believe they are using energy as a cover for another agenda.

Deciding which countries can and can’t have them is always a hard question. If Scotland wanted them, it is reasonable to believe it is for energy. Iran isn’t that simple. I wish it were.

I think we should conserve. I think the United States should tap into its abundance in Alaska, even though environmentalists will protest. After all, I think its hypocritical for us to consume an enormous amount that is sucked from another countries environment, but then say our environment is to precious to drill from.

I wish there were answers about nuclear energy. In one way, it is the most feasible alternative to oil. On the other hand, it can be dangerous.

Blessings.

 

[atsheeran]

gilliam:

Put them inland

Ours is in the middle of the desert

In all fairness, I think they should go in Nevada. Nevada will probably be the place where all the waste is shipped to anyway. That way Nevada can get some of the benefits (jobs, revenue from the plant, etc.) along with the detriments.

 

[KathleenElsie]

gilliam:

Put them inland

Ours is in the middle of the desert

A little know fact is that at one point they had plans to “float” them in the gulf off of Texas. I read the origional papers on the plan when working for the legal defense team of Weshinghouse Electric. The utility companies in Texas almost were granted permits for two or three nukes off the shore around Brownsville, TX.

Now floating nukes IMHO is a bad idea. But, if built properly can be placed almost anywhere else. Most of the problems have been with the lack of co-operation brtween the utility companies and the mfgs of the core product. I would not fear living near one that was properly built and run.

 

[Matt25]

One of the major problems about nuclear power is disposing of the waste. This remains dangerous for hundreds of years and who knows what may happen to it.

Another difficulty would be cost. Nuclear power requires massive state support. States often provide this in order to get military product out of it. India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons as a result of just such a programme. Alternative energy sources like wind, wave and solar power are cheaper and lack the military potential.

Nuclear power is dangerous. People in Arizona might be happy with an American power station but what about half a dozen Mexican nuclear power stations within radioactive cloud distance? Safety standards around the world are not uniformly high. The former Soviet Union is a ticking time bomb as far as its civil nuclear programme is concerned.

Here’s another non-rhetorical question to think about. If Iraq turns into a stable, multi-party democracy would you be happy to see them developing a nuclear power industry? If not why not?

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

One of the major problems about nuclear power is disposing of the waste. This remains dangerous for hundreds of years and who knows what may happen to it.

Another difficulty would be cost. Nuclear power requires massive state support. States often provide this in order to get military product out of it. India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons as a result of just such a programme. Alternative energy sources like wind, wave and solar power are cheaper and lack the military potential.

Nuclear power is dangerous. People in Arizona might be happy with an American power station but what about half a dozen Mexican nuclear power stations within radioactive cloud distance? Safety standards around the world are not uniformly high. The former Soviet Union is a ticking time bomb as far as its civil nuclear programme is concerned.

Here’s another non-rhetorical question to think about. If Iraq turns into a stable, multi-party democracy would you be happy to see them developing a nuclear power industry? If not why not?

I’ll agree there, I don’t think it is the answer for everyone.

 

[Franze]

It´s good news, very good news, all the reduction of pollution and the dependence for the oil is good and necessary, and respect the residues, well, they have to be in a good and a safe place, but the nuclear problems are less difficult that for example petroleum, that has created the islamic terrorism, not the “opression”

 

[Matt25]

Franze:

…but the nuclear problems are less difficult that for example petroleum, that has created the islamic terrorism, not the “opression”

Really so why did John Paul II say-

zenit.org/english/war/visualizza.phtml?sid=24822

“History, in fact, shows that the recruitment of terrorists is more easily achieved in areas where human rights are trampled upon and where injustice is a part of daily life,”…

“This is not to say that the inequalities and abuses existing in the world excuse acts of terrorism,” he added. “There can never, of course, be any justification for violence and disregard for human life.” …

“However, the international community can no longer overlook the underlying causes that lead, young people especially, to despair of humanity, of life itself, and of the future, and to fall prey to the temptations of violence, hatred and desire for revenge at any cost,” the Pope added.

 

[rlg94086]

Matt25:

Alternative energy sources like wind, wave and solar power are cheaper.

When you say cheaper, do you mean per kilowatt? I don’t think that is true. If they are cheaper, then people would be falling all over themselves marketing it. The reason some sources of energy are not being implemented (like our abundance of shale oil), is because they are cost prohibitive. If a solar farm outperformed a nuclear power plant, Arizona and/or Nevada would be covered with panels by now.

Pax,

Robert

 

[rlg94086]

Jay74:

If Scotland wanted them, it is reasonable to believe it is for energy. .

I wouldn’t be so sure…I saw Braveheart.

 

[Franze]

Matt25:

Really so why did John Paul II say-

zenit.org/english/war/visualizza.phtml?sid=24822

Are rwanda a factor of the terrorism or other countries of the subsaharian countries? no, because they´re christians. And we know that wahabbism, radical mosques, petroleum and terrorism are very linked.
I want that things like Israel-Palestine solve, but palestinians don´t want, look, the 40 rockets launched by Hamas and others against Israel.
Respect the thread, nuclear enery is much better than petroleum.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

rlg94086:

When you say cheaper, do you mean per kilowatt? I don’t think that is true. If they are cheaper, then people would be falling all over themselves marketing it. The reason some sources of energy are not being implemented (like our abundance of shale oil), is because they are cost prohibitive. If a solar farm outperformed a nuclear power plant, Arizona and/or Nevada would be covered with panels by now.

Years ago I proposed something along the lines of microgrids when I was in school. My profs didn’t even understand it let alone think it was feasible. Some of the reasons ideas are not put into practice is because they are impractical ideas. Other reasons are that the existing powers are invested in the status quo – for various reasons – and therefore resist anything new no matter how rock-solid the idea may be.

One thing to consider (in good faith) about this conservativism is that there is a phenomenal amount of money and policy invested in the status quo. What is there is big money, big policy, big infrastructure. People who run big utilities believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Well how are they defining ‘ain’t broke’? Believe me, the folks I met while going to school were big on operational equipment and not well versed on operational communities, eco-systems, and so on.

Wind turbines, solar panels, and so on are more amenable to micro-users like small farms or small housing developments. While they may or may not allow the user to ‘leave the grid completely,’ the charges incurred for the use of big utilities may be radically reduced. It is wise imho to spread utility management over a broader base – and this means micro-grids.

Microgrids as peer-to-peer energy: small networks could transform electricity network

That is not to say I am opposed to nuclear energy. Nuclear energy – obviously – is something so big in start-up costs that only a big utility provider can invest in it. Also the dangers and the engineering and management regulation is not something the small farm can – or should – handle.

 

[Matt25]

rlg94086:

When you say cheaper, do you mean per kilowatt? I don’t think that is true. If they are cheaper, then people would be falling all over themselves marketing it. The reason some sources of energy are not being implemented (like our abundance of shale oil), is because they are cost prohibitive. If a solar farm outperformed a nuclear power plant, Arizona and/or Nevada would be covered with panels by now.

Pax,

Robert

It depends on what you factor in as a cost. Storing waste for several centuries raises the cost. So does the cost of safely de-commisioning a plant at the end of its life. The Nuclear industry is subsidised because of its military potential. If other forms of energy generation had the same kind of investment in R&D that the military gets then watch that unit cost come down.

theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12835747%5E12332,00.html

The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidised by the US government. The true cost of the industry’s liability in the case of an accident in the US is estimated to be $US560billion ($726billion), but the industry pays only $US9.1billion - 98per cent of the insurance liability is covered by the US federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing US nuclear reactors is estimated to be $US33billion. These costs - plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years - are not now included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity…

But the long-term storage of radioactive waste continues to pose a problem. The US Congress in 1987 chose Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 150km northwest of Las Vegas, as a repository for America’s high-level waste. But Yucca Mountain has subsequently been found to be unsuitable for the long-term storage of high-level waste because it is a volcanic mountain made of permeable pumice stone and it is transected by 32 earthquake faults. Last week a congressional committee discovered fabricated data about water infiltration and cask corrosion in Yucca Mountain that had been produced by personnel in the US Geological Survey…

To make matters worse, a study released last week by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core, are subject to catastrophic attacks by terrorists, which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly radiation – significantly worse than the radiation released by Chernobyl, according to some scientists.

This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste contained in the cooling pools at 103 nuclear power plants in the US includes hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases.

 

[rlg94086]

Ani Ibi:

Years ago I proposed something along the lines of microgrids when I was in school. My profs didn’t even understand it let alone think it was feasible. Some of the reasons ideas are not put into practice is because they are impractical ideas. Other reasons are that the existing powers are invested in the status quo – for various reasons – and therefore resist anything new no matter how rock-solid the idea may be.

One thing to consider (in good faith) about this conservativism is that there is a phenomenal amount of money and policy invested in the status quo. What is there is big money, big policy, big infrastructure. People who run big utilities believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Well how are they defining ‘ain’t broke’? Believe me, the folks I met while going to school were big on operational equipment and not well versed on operational communities, eco-systems, and so on.

Wind turbines, solar panels, and so on are more amenable to micro-users like small farms or small housing developments. While they may or may not allow the user to ‘leave the grid completely,’ the charges incurred for the use of big utilities may be radically reduced. It is wise imho to spread utility management over a broader base – and this means micro-grids.

Microgrids as peer-to-peer energy: small networks could transform electricity network

That is not to say I am opposed to nuclear energy. Nuclear energy – obviously – is something so big in start-up costs that only a big utility provider can invest in it. Also the dangers and the engineering and management regulation is not something the small farm can – or should – handle.

Sounds great, and it sounds like progress is being made to spread the use of Microgrids? My only point is that if there are great advantages to users from a cost standpoint, then market away! People will buy it and/or finance it, if it will make and/or save money.

The best way for us to change energy sources is to use the free market to our advantage. I know pure idealists don’t like to hear it, but it is easier to get the general populace to change things for economic gain than it is to change for altruism.