Nuc Plants on the war path!! - Page 2 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 16th, 2011, 07:23 PM   #21
dougstephvoor
Supreme Chancelor!
 
dougstephvoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-21-10
Location: Saranac/Michigan
Posts: 2,212
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post
sorry, I quoted the wrong asshole. It was directed at alter ego's claim that no one has ever died due to nuclear power and it was heavy on the sarcasm.
I would bet some one working on that plant also died while driving to work their, and likely a construction worker died of alcohol related liver failure while working on the construction, do you attribute this to the actual use of the nuclear fuel to produce electricity?

Stay on subject?
dougstephvoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old March 16th, 2011, 07:23 PM   #22
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Have any of you ever been to a uranium mine in person?
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 07:25 PM   #23
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,837
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post
Not a nuke - a dirt burner.

Cooling tower <> nuclear.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 07:25 PM   #24
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougstephvoor View Post
I would bet some one working on that plant also died while driving to work their, and likely a construction worker died of alcohol related liver failure while working on the construction, do you attribute this to the actual use of the nuclear fuel to produce electricity?

Stay on subject?
no, since they were not killed by a nuclear power plant like the 51 killed in the accident.

unwedge your panties from your vagina?
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 07:31 PM   #25
steveo
In the band!
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: montana/wyoming
Posts: 20,293
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Not a nuke - a dirt burner.

Cooling tower <> nuclear.
you are right and I am wrong. savor that, I dont admit it much.
steveo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 07:31 PM   #26
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 21,304
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Default

Not to mention how many U.S. Naval ships are safely powered by nukes?
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 07:41 PM   #27
dougstephvoor
Supreme Chancelor!
 
dougstephvoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-21-10
Location: Saranac/Michigan
Posts: 2,212
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo View Post
no, since they were not killed by a nuclear power plant like the 51 killed in the accident.

unwedge your panties from your vagina?
I don't wear panties.

We are currently building a battery plant in Holland, I am concerned that we are missing the opratunity here to build the infrastructure to provide the power necessary to charge the batteries we are going to build.

The city of Holland applied for a permit to build a new Co Gen, and was denied the permit by the Grand Mole administration.

I simply want some one to answer the question, where will the new energy come from to power the grid, and in turn charge the battery.

Magic Ferry dust does not exist, we are building no refineries, we are eliminating drilling, mining, building of nuclear power, discussing stopping subsidizing of bio fuels. I do not believe any one out their believes wind and solar will be able to produce a measurable percentage of the existing requirements let alone the new load coming on line from all the battery operated cars.

What the F is the intent here, where is the electricity going to come from, Will a Democrat / Liberal answer this question please.
dougstephvoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 07:44 PM   #28
upchuck
Senior Member
 
upchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-16-07
Location: grand rapids, Michigan
Posts: 1,100
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Taxpayers not only subsidize the plants, but are on the hook for any liability other than the utes insurance coverage on the plant itself. It's safe, but they don't want liability. That says it
upchuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 07:58 PM   #29
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,837
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by upchuck View Post
Taxpayers not only subsidize the plants, but are on the hook for any liability other than the utes insurance coverage on the plant itself. It's safe, but they don't want liability. That says it

How are they subsidized?

As for insurance, Price-Anderson only applies in the event that the utility's insurance coverage - which is the maximum amount of insurance available - is unable to cover losses.

Price-Anderson losses would them be paid by all reactor licensees up to $100M+ per licensee - which would be over $10B. Only then would Price-Anderson call for taxpayer intervention.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 08:20 PM   #30
Ebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: MI
Posts: 3,361
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I haven't been following the play by play in Japan, but didn't their current problems start from all these auxiliary diesel generators failing?

I haven't heard more about that. Are they installed at ground level and got flooded out?
Ebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 08:27 PM   #31
Brods
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-21-07
Location: Salem, Mi
Posts: 704
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
How are they subsidized?

.......
Isn't the taxpayer on the hook for a waste disposal facility? Who is paying for the shipping containers? Who will pay for the transportation to the facility? Who will pay for the security to protect the shipments?

Oh and before you know who gets his panties all knotted again Id have no problem with a nuke in my backyard. Still, it is hard to shake the feeling there will be a steep price to pay down the road, either for the waste disposal or because of pollution remediation or both, and if not in our lifetimes then generations from now. That is my beef with nuclear, that we are shortsightedly passing our waste problem on to future generations.
Brods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 08:29 PM   #32
dougstephvoor
Supreme Chancelor!
 
dougstephvoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-21-10
Location: Saranac/Michigan
Posts: 2,212
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebs View Post
I haven't been following the play by play in Japan, but didn't their current problems start from all these auxiliary diesel generators failing?

I haven't heard more about that. Are they installed at ground level and got flooded out?
I believe their problems started with the fifth largest earth quake recorded and second with a tsunami wave that measured 43 feet in some places.

The diesel generators failing were fifth maybe sixth.
dougstephvoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 08:33 PM   #33
Ebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: MI
Posts: 3,361
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougstephvoor View Post
I believe their problems started with the fifth largest earth quake recorded and second with a tsunami wave that measured 43 feet in some places.

The diesel generators failing were fifth maybe sixth.
Look out, nothing gets by you.
Ebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 08:38 PM   #34
FlatFender
Tap Tap Splat
 
FlatFender's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 15,782
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Where I sit right now, I am about 3 miles from a small reactor at NC State University, and within 20 miles from Shearon Harris Nuclear plant in Holly Springs, NC. Currently, the Harris plant is only running one reactor, but they are talking about building 3 additional reactors that were part of the original construction plans, but they ran out of money.

I'm all for it. I believe nuclear power is safe, we just need to open the Yucca mountain site to store the waste.

Duffman, what are your thoughts on re-conditioning the fuel rods like they do in France to cut down on the waste?
FlatFender is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2011, 09:20 PM   #35
Stan
I got a gold chain
 
Stan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Shelby Twp.
Posts: 15,691
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
How are they subsidized?

As for insurance, Price-Anderson only applies in the event that the utility's insurance coverage - which is the maximum amount of insurance available - is unable to cover losses.

Price-Anderson losses would them be paid by all reactor licensees up to $100M+ per licensee - which would be over $10B. Only then would Price-Anderson call for taxpayer intervention.
MSNBC didn't tell him that so it can't be true. We must power the country on daisy petals.

Last edited by Stan; March 17th, 2011 at 09:13 AM.
Stan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2011, 06:45 AM   #36
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,837
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brods View Post
Isn't the taxpayer on the hook for a waste disposal facility? Who is paying for the shipping containers? Who will pay for the transportation to the facility? Who will pay for the security to protect the shipments?

Oh and before you know who gets his panties all knotted again I’d have no problem with a nuke in my backyard. Still, it is hard to shake the feeling there will be a steep price to pay down the road, either for the waste disposal or because of pollution remediation or both, and if not in our lifetimes then generations from now. That is my beef with nuclear, that we are shortsightedly passing our waste problem on to future generations.
No.

Nuclear utility ratepayers have already paid for a long-term high-level (i.e. spent fuel) waste repository at Yucca Mountain in NV. 1000s of man-years of geologic evaluation, development of passive cooling storage units requiring no intervention/maintenance, etc... Bought, paid for, and almost fully constructed.

Nuclear utility ratepayers pay into a fund to support that site moving forward and cover shipping, etc... Not tax $ - utility rate $.

Except that a Senator from NV (Harry Reid, surprise) decided that once all of the $$$ was spent and NV benfitted that he didn't want "that stuff" being shipped through NV. No issues with the facility (it is a wonder), just didn't want spent fuel being transported in NV. So it sits, empty and unused. Politicians spent ratepayer money (not tax money, but money collected on utility bills) and then decided to not deliver. That money needs to be paid back or the facility opened. Period.

While nutjobs will rail on about flaws in the Yucca Mtn site, the reality is that it is probably as close to perfect as there is. That's why they're focusing on transportation as the weak link.

Not a technical issue, but a (lack of) leadership issue.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2011, 06:52 AM   #37
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,837
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlatFender View Post
Where I sit right now, I am about 3 miles from a small reactor at NC State University, and within 20 miles from Shearon Harris Nuclear plant in Holly Springs, NC. Currently, the Harris plant is only running one reactor, but they are talking about building 3 additional reactors that were part of the original construction plans, but they ran out of money.

I'm all for it. I believe nuclear power is safe, we just need to open the Yucca mountain site to store the waste.

Duffman, what are your thoughts on re-conditioning the fuel rods like they do in France to cut down on the waste?
Fuel reprocessing as a waste reduction tactic is a mixed bag.

It makes the fuel we have go further (conservation), and reduces the volume of spent fuel waste.

However, the fuel reprocessing cycle generates some really nasty byproducts - that are not only radiologically nasty, but chemically toxic and unstable. So you trade one type of stable and relatively easy to store waste (intact spent fuel can be stored and air-cooled once it decays a bit) for a mixed waste stream with nasty chemicals and radiological hazards.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2011, 08:21 PM   #38
Brods
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-21-07
Location: Salem, Mi
Posts: 704
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Guess I should have done some research before posting last time. Is the following accurate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
The cost of the facility is being paid for by a combination of a tax on each kilowatt hour of nuclear power and by the taxpayers for disposal of weapons and naval nuclear waste. Based on the 2001 cost estimate, approximately 73 percent is funded from consumers of nuclear powered electricity and 27 percent by the taxpayers.

It is inconceivable that they are shutting down the Yucca Mountain project. I dont know how I missed that in the news. The only way Yucca should be allowed to be stopped is if a suitable alternative is built and is accepting waste prior to shutting Yucca down. It appears they just shut it down without even having any plan in place. Is that true???

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/04/tracking-taxes-high-price-nuclear-waste/
The federal government agreed in 1982 to build a permanent storage site for radioactive waste and signed contracts to begin accepting it by 1998. Failure to meet that obligation has already cost the government $565 million in settlements and the Department of Energy estimates it will cost another $11 billion over the next decade in court costs and judgments.
"For every summary judgment, for every litigation, that they lose, for every settlement they have to pay, that is money coming out of the taxpayers pocket," Paige told Fox News.
Maybe in theory commercial nuclear waste was not going to be subsidized with taxpayer funds, while it might not be the fault of the industry, it sure looks like it will wind up costing taxpayers plenty. And this is only the beginning.
.. and there is still no resolution of the waste issue. It is just unbelievable what our government does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
...Not a technical issue, but a (lack of) leadership issue.
X11Billion
Brods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2011, 09:12 PM   #39
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,837
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Yucca Mtn funding sounds about right - I'm not an expert on the funding and all my friends there have bailed.

All these plants are building dry cask storage - even though they've already paid for Yucca Mtn - because there's no alternative. After all the work was done and $ spent, Harry Reid stopped it.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2011, 07:09 AM   #40
84Scrambler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Lansing
Posts: 5,942
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 84Scrambler
Default

Coal generation has a mortality rate of 278 deaths per TWh generated.
Nuclear has a mortality rate of 0.04 deaths per TWh generated.
For reference Hydro and Wind have mortality rates of 1.4/TWh and 0.15/TWh, respectively.

So, wind power is 375% more dangerous that nuclear power.
84Scrambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.32843 seconds with 80 queries