Vermont Yankee closing

Status
Not open for further replies.
What exactly is your point about the USS Thresher? The reactor scrammed as designed. There was no release of radiation?

Around this part of the country people are pulling NIMBY with wind turbines. They create vibrations that disturb them.

Face it. We all went cheap and clean power but NOBODY wants it near them.
 
Originally Posted By: Donald

Fossil fuels are bad for the air.


1st - they are not necessarily fossil fuels. The Abiotic Oil Theory has been growing some legs lately and has been shown to be true.

2nd - Man Made Climate Change is just that - man made hoax. Yes, the Earth may be warming. And it has warmed and cooled many times throughout the billions of years it has been around. To suggest some sketchy science over 100-200 years is indicative of a trend that we caused is lunacy. It also tends to discount in the 70's we were cooling and this year has been a "cool" summer for parts of the USA (including PA where we have not hit 90 in something like 40 days).

3rd - Living down the road from TMI - nuclear does not bother me at all.
 
Around here hydro seems to be the only viable "green" energy source.

In the winter we only get maybe 8 or 9 hours of sun a day, and it's not a very direct sun.
 
Originally Posted By: AandPDan
What exactly is your point about the USS Thresher? The reactor scrammed as designed. There was no release of radiation?


A pipe blew, valves iced over, and people died. Engineers said, jeez, we hadn't thought of that. Operations staff didn't have a workaround. My point is of the arrogance of man, particularly engineers, who think they know it all.
 
All it takes is for someone to bring that energy to the market at a competitive price and folks will RUN from fossil fuels.

Everyone wants to blame someone else for why alternative energy sources are not more prevalent.

The bottom line is, provide it at the same cost or less as the incumbent sources and folks will buy it.

Originally Posted By: JANDSZIRKLE
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.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Around here hydro seems to be the only viable "green" energy source.


Hydro isn't as "green" as it's made out to be. By altering the flow of water you change the habitats for many forms of life that depends upon the free flow of water.

Face it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a risk with any form of energy.
 
Originally Posted By: AandPDan
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Around here hydro seems to be the only viable "green" energy source.


Hydro isn't as "green" as it's made out to be. By altering the flow of water you change the habitats for many forms of life that depends upon the free flow of water.

Face it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a risk with any form of energy.



This is quite true. But many times these alternations simply create a new habitat that nature seems to exploit just fine. We have many a hydro-electric dam where I live and there is no shortage of wildlife above and below them that is thriving.

The really nice things about hydro-electric are:

1. Reliable/consistent (unlike wind and solar)
2. Long lasting and not usually affected by the weather (unlike wind and in some cases solar)
3. Tried and tested mature technology
4. Zero pollution generated in terms of waste byproducts and the like. Yes, there are ecosystem alterations that occur during the construction but you aren't burning fossil fuels and polluting the air/water, or using Uranium or Plutonium and generating radioactive waste that needs to be contained.

IMHO, as far as current power generation technologies go, hydro-electric is about the closest thing we have to a free lunch. It still has its pitfalls and caveats of course however.
 
I'm liking the hydro setups where they pump the water uphill at 3 am and release it again later during peak times into a 2nd lower reservoir.
 
They probably have latex allergy's.
laugh.gif

Originally Posted By: Hermann
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.
 
Nick, it's nothing about being green or a greenie. the practical way the world, systems, and people, work, makes nuclear power unsafe. I used to feel like you.

Frankly I am surprised bridges and buildings stand up as long as they do.

edit - where you have the topography, build dams and use hydropower. Like you think people should get over their nuclear phobia, i think people should get over their dam building phobia.
Where you don't have the topography, well maybe geothermal could one day work.

For now coal burning remains the way to go for base load in the most cases where hydro doesn't work. ... that's reality .

It's ironic that the "greenest" state that boast their green credentials, Tasmania, has almost full hydropower sourced from those naughty dams the greenies don't like.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul once asked some interesting questions after the Fukushima disaster.
1. How many people were kept alive because that energy created heat in the winter, A/C in the summer, and all the hospital machinery functioning?
2. How many people get hurt from oil drilling and coal mining for energy, versus using nuclear energy?
 
Originally Posted By: AandPDan
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.





1+
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
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


Good commentary.

I too am a Nuclear proponent and I have hope for the human race but we must do a better job of educating the public and weeding through the media bias and envirowhackism that pervades our society.

We have to give new nuclear technologies a chance.
 
It's crazy that the "greens" will call for taxpayer subsidies for solar, as it's "emerging", but won't kick the can for Thorium because it's "unproven"...

It's code word for "we don't want it regardless".

I've got a reasonable idea how power is made, and some of the statements in this thread are either wrong or ill informed.

IndyIan stated that equipment gets certified to 2-3 times it's design life.

Yep, that's true, and it's a process (not nuclear, but the same) that I've been involved in for 20 years.

A power station is "designed" for 25 years/150,000 hours. It doesn't mean that it's due to fall apart at that point.

There are a number of assumptions that are made at the design stage. Number of hot starts, number of cold starts, number of hours of off design operation, as assumption made on he size and the scale of defects in the original metallurgy.

As the plant ages, more is known about the suite of defects that the plant was built with, coupled with more powerful means of detection, sizing, and with computing power, finite element analysis methods that can critically analyse even the shape of a defect, how the machine is operated into the future, and can actually predict when a crack is likely to form.

Some parts fail before the design life (and are generally picked up through inspection), some parts are good for 5 times design life...some will be removed and taken to other stations to extend their economic life.

Then informed asset management carries out a cost/risk/benefit analysis and decides on the profile that they want to run into the future.

This group http://www.epri.com/Pages/Default.aspx have members globally, and collect operating and maintenance data from thousands of power stations, assembling failure and ageing data, issuing bulletins, and actively getting involved in life assessment and management.

Operating past the "design" envelope is what nearly everyone here does with their cars. The power industry just does it with more science.
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
I'm liking the hydro setups where they pump the water uphill at 3 am and release it again later during peak times into a 2nd lower reservoir.


Still need baseload to provide the energy for pumped storage, and that baseload is best provided by coal/nukes, which operate less efficiently when turned down for the night (or worse still stopped)
 
Originally Posted By: 65cuda
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.


Assuming 100% efficiency, and they are nowhere near that, sunlight averages, what, 200 watts per square metre of land ?

Look at your power bill, your daily consumption, turn that into square metres, and multiply by 5 to bring the efficiency down to 20%, which is about as good as it gets.

Multiply that by the number of households, and then try to factor in storage for when the sun isn't shining...technology that we don't really have as yet, particulary as you'll need to store energy during the day to run the night, which will increase the area factor by another 60 percent.

Take your household bill, and consider that every kWHr per day will need 1.1-1.2 square metres of solar dedicated to you, located somewhere, and a storage system that we don't yet have
 
Is there anyone educated here enough to state what happens to the spent fuel?

Maybe false impression on my part but I understand it takes 1000 of years for it to go to half life. I don't believe anything created now will contain it after a few hundred years but I could way off base.

I must live within blast zone of one as there is a warning siren that is tested occasionally related to an emergency with our local nuclear plant.
 
WRT half lives etc. etc...look what's around in nature, and what's man made in terms of what's "hot" and "not".

The nuclear fuels that we have were the result of a supernova somewhere, which made a lot of stuff.

The really hot stuff has short half lives, and was all gone before we ever came onto the scene.

Reactors make that stuff, and it's really radioactive, and it can have half lives of milliseconds, seconds, hours, and days. That's the really bad stuff that needs to sit in the tanks and "cool", and stay away from people.

The stuff that's there for thousands of years is the more innocuous stuff, and importantly, the stuff that can be re-used for fuel.

Other countries do it, but the US refuses to, for a number of reasons, and if you follow the money it's not for safety, or non-proliferation.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclea...X/#.UicOQ9JkOSo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom