100 nuclear plants: The answer? 15

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Going Green Posted 5:55 pm
   17 Jul 2009

   I really don't get why more people aren't talking about solar updraft towers.  Even though they take up a lot of groundspace, it seems like such a smarter concept.Lindsey
   http://www.Greenjoyment.com

   Permalink

2. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 4:17 pm
   18 Jul 2009

   I've said it before and I'll say it again...anyone who thinks we can build 100 nuclear plants in just 20 or 30 years has had their intelligence affected by too much radioactivity.Anyone who suggests otherwise probably has absolutely no idea how much technical detail has to go into designing just one of these leviathans, much less 100 of them.

   Permalink

   1. 

      enviroperk Posted 8:08 pm
      19 Jul 2009

      Yes, they can. China is using the new AP 1000 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 ) design to mass produce 100 of them by 2020. They have already started and are ahead of schedule. ( http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_575073.html ) .
      This Grist clip is slanted toward the big construction ( and the Architects ).  Though I am not a big fan of Nuclear power, I am less of fan of global warming. This is how China is helping solve the problem. 

      Permalink

      1. 

         Tasermons Partner Posted 12:27 pm
         20 Jul 2009

         Yes, and they'll suffer 'cause of it (and I also seriously doubt they'll meet their deadline or their budget, for that matter).  Nuclear plants need to be built site-specific and project specific.  Mass production of power plants almost always later leads to problems at sites where certain factors weren't taken into account.This goes double for China, considering it's lax regulation and corner-cutting contractors and under-the-table-money-lovin' government middle-men.Also, given the large amount of concrete and steel that go into making even the smaller plants, they still contribute greatly to global warming (most plants take several years to offset the emissions that went into their construction, not including the emissions from rail/transport and mining).

         Permalink

   2. 

      sttr Posted 10:18 pm
      28 Jul 2009

      I agree with you Tasermons Partner. We need deep thinking about the nature and the future.  Thanks.. saraciye kemer ayakkab? aksesuarlar?
      

      Permalink

3. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 9:53 pm
   18 Jul 2009

   With today's passive nuclear tower designs, we could throw up 100 of these babies in 5 years.It would be the right thing to do, even if it only carries us until 2045.  

   Permalink

4. 

   solargroupies Posted 7:01 pm
   19 Jul 2009

   1) Who will pay for, and where will we safely store radioactive waste for it's half-million year half-life?2) Who will pay for the decommissioning of retired plants at a cost of up to 1 BILLION dollars apiece (in today's dollars)? 

   Permalink

   1. 

      Max8806 Posted 10:51 am
      20 Jul 2009

      1) Mercury is toxic for infinity years. What will we do with all the old thermometers? Unlike Mercury and its many many sources toxic nuclear waste is not in the water you drink or the tuna you eat, and never will be, so chill out. Hat tip to Ted Rockwell on point about the infinite toxicity of many chemicals we never even think about. The fact that it is solid scares people but its a huge benefit because you can isolate it from the environment easily. 2) Every nuclear power plant has a decommissioning fund that is funded upfront with a portion of the revenue from sales of electricity. It turns out if you put a surprisingly little bit of money away every month for 60 years, you end up with a ton of money. Waste decommissioning costs do not end up materially impacting the cost of a kwh of electricity from fission. Miracle of compound interest.

      Permalink

      1. 

         solargroupies Posted 6:26 pm
         20 Jul 2009

         Sorry to say Max that every nuclear power plant does not have a decommissioning fund that is actually funded with real money. If you don't believe this check out VT Yankee. Entergy is threatening legal action because the state wants to require them to have a fund! We, the rate payers and our children will be paying so I won't chill out just yet.   Yes, mercury is a problem and there are others as well but that shouldn't distract us from the issue of radioactive waste and the genetic damage it can do to humans. And terrorists have yet to make weapons with mercury. All kinds of radioactive isotopes have gone missing from facilities all over the world during the past few decades and we STILL don't have a safe place to store it and it is not conceivable we will in the near future.

         Permalink

5. 

   Morgan Posted 12:01 pm
   20 Jul 2009

   Though personally one soda can of nuclear waste per human on the planet sounds like too much to me--when you consider that one plutomium particle can generate cancerous tumors--I found this survey by Steven Kotler on the nuclear industry to be balanced and informative:http://www.ecohearth.com/eco-zine/green-issues/391-meltdown-or-mother-lode-the-new-truth-about-nuclear-power.html

   Permalink

6. 

   Max8806 Posted 6:48 pm
   20 Jul 2009

   Solargroupies, every invested fund in the country has taken a major hit recently, but since all or virtually all nuc plants will be running another 20 years at least, the money will reaccumulate. And for those that won't be on target the NRC will make them up their contributions a bit. The NRC has already required plans for making up the shortfall for nuc plants that might otherwise be short. The case of VT Yankee is a farce where the state is trying to throw up roadblocks to its license being extended, using the threat of suddenly having to makeup the funding shortfall after the market crash to gain rate concessions. If I were Entergy and the NRC approved me for another 20 years but the state tried to wipe out my asset for no technical/safety reason I wouldn't want to pony up a ton of extra money for them either. VT will come to its senses, realize all of NE is vulnerable enough to natural gas already, let the reactor alone and the decommissioning fund will be refilled in total.Terrorists have also yet to make weapons with spent nuclear fuel. Since you're worried about loose nuclear material though, you'll be glad to hear that the Megatons to Megawatts program is blending down weapons grade nuclear material to run in reactors right now. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf13.html

   Permalink

   1. 

      solargroupies Posted 7:14 pm
      20 Jul 2009

      Max, I would say we have vastly different beliefs about the eventual solvency of a decommissioning fund that is insolvent, with large corporations becoming bankrupt and with enormous liability to the public. VT prides itself in having a low C footprint, in part because of Yankee, but we are realistic enough to be skeptical of companies that don't want to fund the decommissioning fund and then threaten to sue us when we ask them to. We are skeptical of large corporations who put their own interests before the public, and who can blame us? We remember what has happened to the global economy in the past year. And the same people who reassure us that the corporations will regulate themselves and that their wealth will trickle down, are the first to complain when our taxes go up when we need to bail them out after they fail. The safety issues at the rotting old Yankee plant are alarming. Despite reassurances after numerous violations and shutdowns a huge part of a cooling tower blew out and resulted in an enormous emergency and plant shut down last year. You are either not clear on your facts or you are distorting them for the benefit of your argument. Meanwhile, we are storing radioactive waste on site at plants around the country, aging plants continue to rot and fall apart and corporations continue to cut corners to improve the bottom line. Your first argument was based on distracting us away from radioactive waste (mercury) and now you are trying to use fear (natural gas) to make your point. I think Vermonters and other consumers are smart enough to diversify into greener sources of power, instead of relying on expensive, poison power.

      Permalink

      1. 

         Max8806 Posted 7:32 pm
         20 Jul 2009

         Most everything you purchase in your lifetime you will purchase from a corporation. It must be hard to be paranoid of all corporations. I'm familiar with VT Yankee's issues but not every issue is a safety related near-miss. 3 mile island's core was deprived of coolant to the point where the core actually melted (hence "meltdown") and no radiation escaped to the environment. It was a b**** of a mess and cost a lot of money, but even so not nearly enough to invoke theoretical public liability from price-andersen, the supposed infinite subsidy. Do you know what's in the cooling tower at VT Yankee? Water.
         I'm not for corporate self-regulation and cited NRC actions for your concern above (decommissioning fund), but if you refuse to acknowledge that a diversified fund invested by professionals will have more dollars in it 20 years from now than today, then you have far bigger problems than nuclear energy to worry about. Like finding enough mattresses to harbor enough cash for a comfortable retirement. Coming up with all that cash upfront is gonna be hard work too.On site storage is also incredibly secure, if you ever feel like looking into it. I would worry about coal ash.

         Permalink

7. 

   kandimba Posted 8:59 am
   21 Jul 2009

   Choosing between nuclear and coal power reminds me of the part in "Cidade de Deus" where a criminal asks a kid if he wants to be shot in the hand or the foot. We have loads of scientific studies that show that world energy needs can be satisfied with solar or wind power. Of course it's expensive, but so is nuclear energy (according to the MIT, the second most expensive, after solar).http://cooltheearth.wordpress.com/

   Permalink

8. 

   Going Green Posted 10:02 pm
   21 Jul 2009

   I thought I would re-post this, because no one has really commented on it yet.Does anyone here know why more people aren't talking about solar updraft towers.  Even though they take up a lot of groundspace, it seems like such a smarter concept.Lindsey
   http://www.Greenjoyment.com

   Permalink