Vermont Yankee closing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
11,196
Location
NY Capital District
http://www.dailytech.com/Vermonts+Only+N...rticle33258.htm


Well, it's only a matter of time now. Now that fossil fuels are again cheap, and the buzz around solar and wind are at a fever pitch, it's inevitable that our only truly long term sustainable source of electricity is going to go away. All because of FUD and misunderstanding around the nuclear industry.

That, and the attitude "We can just buy electricity from "x" (insert: Quebec, New York, etc) but if those places do the same thing, eventually who is left actually generating the electricity? In the end, as usual, it all comes down to money.

I firmly believe that Nuclear energy is safe, and sustainable. People who say that our nuclear power plants can "go chernobyl" obviously does not understand what actually happened at chernobyl, or how nuclear power really works. My dad is a 20 year veteran of the US Navy, working with Nuclear reactors for that entire time. Guess what? I would live next to the containment structure of a nuclear power plant and not even think about it.


But people don't want that, people are going to listen to the greenies who say and think that chinese built solar panels, and large, unsightly, unsafe (see infrasound and wind turbines) are the best way to go. Because they don't understand the economics of it. New, generation IV nuclear reactors are safe, reliable, and clean. And before people bring up nuclear waste, I want you to ask yourself how much waste is produced in china, by the people, and companies, manufacturing solar panels. A LOT. And most of it goes int he air and landfills.

But again, that isn't what the people who want "renewable" energy sources want. They say it's unsafe. They say that fukushima could happen anywhere. Again, same argument as Chernobyl. They don't understand WHY it happened. WHAT happened. They see news articles and think that they are smart and know all about it. When the truth is they only know how to regurgitate what the mass media tells them. They don't want to take the time to read for themselves. To learn about it. They are too lazy for that. They just want to act smart and talk the talk.

Let's be abundantly clear: Solar and wind on a large enough scale to completely replace fossil fuels and nuclear are NOT economically feasible. They are far too expensive, and take up far too much space, and are far too unreliable and unable to change quickly to meet rapidly shifting demand, as steam power plants are able to.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is that we are "hip" and do what the cool kids are doing, and complain about nuclear power when we don't understand it.

For this reason, I have no hope for the human race.


/end of rant
 
Hard to relate to anyone who professes to believe that nuclear energy generation is "safe."

The real problem is not sourcing the energy, it's the fact that we have 7 billion people trying to survive on a planet that will only sustain 1 billion long term. We are just way overdue for some sort of plague or conflagration to right the ship.
 
Originally Posted By: Maximus1966
Hard to relate to anyone who professes to believe that nuclear energy generation is "safe."

The real problem is not sourcing the energy, it's the fact that we have 7 billion people trying to survive on a planet that will only sustain 1 billion long term. We are just way overdue for some sort of plague or conflagration to right the ship.



It's completely safe, as long as it's well designed, and well maintained, and operated by people who know what they are doing. And our plants, for the most part, are. I can point to the US Navy who has never had a single reactor accident, ever. And that is hundreds of reactors, over decades.
 
At our grocery store the people who complain about GMO foods which allow us to feed the 7 billion people in this world, are the one with 7 children in tow.
 
Decisions, at least in this country, are not based upon facts but often upon scare tactics by misinformed and uneducated people. Sadly, most of the "education" of the general public nowadays come in the form of a sound bite.

Nuclear power is safe and has proven to be. You do need to respect it though.

With any activity there comes a risk. It's part of life. Thinking that you can legislate away risk is just idiotic.
 
I play hockey with two guys that work in a nuclear plant near me, some of their stories make me a bit nervous to be honest.
Its a business, costs are cut to make profits, sub-contractors are brought in, things happen that shouldn't... Some techs are better than others, etc...
Equipment gets recertified to 2-3 times its original design life...
Then there is the waste, that builds up and up, all dependent on pools of concrete staying together in moderate earthquake zone. Or the racks of waste not folding up and putting everything into a nice hot pile.
Odds are nothing will happen, but if it ever does, its a bigger problem then properly disposing of solar panel production by products...
What has Chernobyl cost in total? Eventually 100's of billions in lost productivity of the land.
Imagine 100's of billions spent on improving efficiency and renewable energy production? Maybe we wouldn't need nuclear then?
 
Vermont Yankee is a smallish plant and was no longer very profitable. Connecticut Yankee closed several years ago. Both around 40 years old.

There are a few new nuclear plants under construction, but its not like you can pop one together in 6 months.

But people (including me) do like to be warm in the winter and take hot showers year round. That takes energy.

In NY they are against hydro fracking for natural gas. There are actually other methods of fracking than using water. One is a propane gel. I am not sure its the fracking that is bad, its the billions of gallons of water used.

Fossil fuels are bad for the air. Coal mines rip up the land big time, and coal mines are dangerous. Oil wells may leak. Foreign oil dependence causes many problems.

People look at Japan and assume all nuclear power plants are as bad.

Renewable energy:
The bulk is hydro power. Then comes a little from wind. Solar is not enough to be measured.
 
There actually is enough untapped wind and solar energy out there in the USA too make us nowhere near reliable on fossil fuels as we currently are right now.

We lack a government too quit focusing on making oil barons richer too do so.

Im no tree hugger by any means and would like too see the people who lost jobs be able too step into something related too the power industry quick, but its highly unlikely.
 
Solar and wind are NOT viable. We have them around here.

Half of the time (or more like 3/4 of the time), the wind mills are DRAWING power to keep rotating. Otherwise, if they stop, it's a huge deal to get them going again.

Solar is extremely expensive.

Yes, I'm sure we could exist on solar or wind energy. But everyone's electric bill would quadrouple.
 
The NIMBY and BANANA Chicken Littles pretty much killed nuclear power.
frown.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
...It's completely safe...


Everything is completely safe....until something goes wrong. With nuclear you have widespread destruction with a catastrophic failure as well as the huge ongoing problem of wastes that never really go away. Savannah River Site is for weapons grade, but still exemplifies the problem. Leukemia and pleural cancers among workers and citizens downstream. No "safe" solutions for storage after decades of trying. Whole different ballgame than your Pinto gas tank blowing up in a collision.

It may very well be a useful source of energy, but it darned well is not to be considered "safe."
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Solar and wind are NOT viable. We have them around here.

Half of the time (or more like 3/4 of the time), the wind mills are DRAWING power to keep rotating. Otherwise, if they stop, it's a huge deal to get them going again.

Solar is extremely expensive.

Yes, I'm sure we could exist on solar or wind energy. But everyone's electric bill would quadrouple.


Pure hogwash.

Iowa has almost 25% of it's electrical power generated from wind energy, and is getting ready to set up a system to send 4000 MW of wind to the east coast via the Rock Island Clean Line High Voltage project.

If your assertions were correct, since 25% of our electric power is generated from wind energy we'd have some of the highest electric rates in the country. However, we're 8th lowest at an average of 7.56 cents per kilowatt hour. And in my location, about 50-60% of our household electricity is generated from wind power.

There are plans in the works for a lot more wind capacity to be built in the next few years. The project's 656 new turbines will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in property tax revenues and will arrive at zero extra expense to utility customers. In fact, after only a few years of operation, ratepayers will see a decrease in electricity bills thanks to the 1050 megawatts of new wind. That will give Iowa, a state with 1.2 million households, enough wind power for 1.1 million households.

Each region has the potential for different types of power generation-some areas wind energy works well, in some areas hydro-electric works, and in coastal areas tidal generators have some potential. Each area has to assess which energy source is best suited for their needs and resources.
 
Originally Posted By: MrQuackers
How many bald eagles are sacrificed for wind energy?


I don't know.

I know one hydro dam in Canada, Churchill Falls, by itself, generates 5,428 MW of power. And will be producing 9,252 MW once the Muskrat falls upgrades are complete.

This facility is located in uninhabited land in Labrador.

We also have the Robert-Bourassa generating station in Quebec (that makes 20% of Quebec's power when you combine La-Grande 2 and 2A) that, combined, produces 7,722 MW.

I look at these figures, the reliability of these systems and then contrast that to the wind and solar efforts and I fail to see why we don't continue to invest in hydro electric
21.gif
 
For me solar and wind power is a viable source as long as it is built in the right areas. Just to put out a wind turbine or solar panels without the right conditions will make it a loser for sure. Nuclear power in the Navy is good and safe, but it isn't the same plants that is used for civilan use. I also spent time in the Navy on a sub tender doing work with the reactor plants and there is waste and it has to go someplace. However everybody wants it to be someplace else. Plus this stuff stays dangerous for decades afterwards. There is a place for it, but to try to make believe that it is totally safe is a pie in the sky. They Navy generally kept a close and controlled eye on their systems. The civilan ones are run for money and if they can cut corners they will.
 
Originally Posted By: 65cuda
The civilan ones are run for money and if they can cut corners they will.


As someone who has worked on projects for nuclear plants, I can tell you that "corners" are not "cut". Certifying nuclear plants has nothing to do with cost-cutting. You aren't even allowed to turn a screw on a control cabinet without being nuclear-certified. And the screwdriver has to be regularly calibrated and traceable.
 
Originally Posted By: Maximus1966
Originally Posted By: Nick R
...It's completely safe...


Everything is completely safe....until something goes wrong. With nuclear you have widespread destruction with a catastrophic failure as well as the huge ongoing problem of wastes that never really go away. Savannah River Site is for weapons grade, but still exemplifies the problem. Leukemia and pleural cancers among workers and citizens downstream. No "safe" solutions for storage after decades of trying. Whole different ballgame than your Pinto gas tank blowing up in a collision.

It may very well be a useful source of energy, but it darned well is not to be considered "safe."


There are new reactors that greatly reduce waste, and one that entirely eliminates it. (Indeed: it CONSUMES waste!) But the NIMBY and BANANA crowd won't les them be built...they hear the word "nuclear" and reflexively shriek, "THE SKY IS FALLING!!
 
sorry but cutting corners is in place in any business. Maybe for inspection purposes it is all by the book, but after a while the people learn what to take shortcuts on. Either way nuclear power plants aren't the totally safe energy plant that some would want you to believe.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R



It's completely safe, as long as it's well designed, and well maintained, and operated by people who know what they are doing. And our plants, for the most part, are. I can point to the US Navy who has never had a single reactor accident, ever. And that is hundreds of reactors, over decades.


(SSN 593) USS Thresher?

Nuclear plants are designed by humans like everything else. So far they've been good at not making the same mistake twice. But the answer to a major incident is a shrug and a "Who'd have thought that???" Wrecking habitable land is the ultimate private profit, public responsibility problem.

Nothing's perfect so I still like the things... concentrated waste in one mountain somewhere beats coal smoke smothering the planet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom