New Nuclear Power Plant for Georgia or Anywhere Agree or Disagree

^OH?
Tell me more, please!

I can see where Texacans wouldn't want non-hydrocarbon energy sources interfering with their state's primary income stream, but really, you live in the state that very VERY likely consumes the most energy in the nation both per capita and as a whole. At least you guys have a few reactors in your state, so you're not completely part of the NIMBY crowd. (I don't count the Pantex plant, since it's not used for power generation per se.. )

I suspect that this "evil waste" that you saw, and claim to know sooooo much about doesn't have much to do with 'civilian' reactors.

It's not a risk-free, problem-free solution to be sure, but what's the alternative?
Fracking?
Mountaintop removal mining?
Yeah.....right.

Like I said earlier...we can solve this problem by solving the problem, instead of spewing hate and FUD.
It's like the national debt.
We're all fighting like alley cats, and we haven't even gotten to the point where we're making reductions in our current energy usage, to say nothing of preparing for future usage and replacing obsolete technologies.

 

The problem with the nuclear waste is that we are still generating it in massive amounts. Approximately 1/3 of the core's fuel rods get put into the waste stream every 18 months on an operating nuclear power plant. I would mention that Georgia (as well as most other states) have no choice other than to store this waste at the plant....but thats not disposal, it's "storage".

Just a note. The French are struggling to come up with a deep earth storage facility at Bure. So are many other European countries. Just because the French have been reprocessing their waste does not mean it goes away, it means that it piles up at a slower rate.

 

we need not look at better ways of producing energy but realise that we need to look at better use of and less use of the energy we can safely produce

 

And fracking isn't going to stop either, it should, its not a great alternative. But, here is where the real metal is, if we don't invest in better alternatives, we'll keep investing trillions, and that is trillions, in current energy consumption, and end up with nothing but funding foreign countries. One of the reasons we need to drastically cut back on military funding, all it ends up doing is either protecting the oil companies or foreign governments, not the American taxpayer.

And all I know is from what I saw and was told by the people who should know, an actual retired nuclear researcher who was our guide.
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site[/ame]

 

i agree with fwd, do we really need our high rises lit up all nite long? we shut the lites off where i work on the way out each nite, why can't everybody?

 

people became lazy.....

 

it has to be another law, unfortunately. we'll never solve these problems letting people do whatever they want.

 

I voted no. I find it rather incredible that people still think it's a viable option. Man, are we ever stupid.

 

It's a viable option in the short term if you don't care what happens to future generations in regard to radioactive waste. One of the shortcomings of our political system is that decisions are made largely by old, white, men who are either wealthy or are beholden to people who are. One consequence of this is a very short time horizon when making decisions that have ramifications for the future. They are very concerned about next quarter's profits, but don't care too much about what happens in 20 or 30 years because they don't expect to live that long.

 

South Texas is the largest and probably safest nuclear plant in the nation. Us Texicans in Austin and San Antonio voted against expansion by saying we did not want to buy the power. That left Houston needing a partner. The only one they could find was TEPCO, you know Tokyo Electric. Even though TEPCO wouldn't have anything to do with day to day operation, its failure killed expansion plans. Austin is in the process of adding wind, biomass, and solar, and slowly geting rid of its coal generation. San Antonio is going to switch from one of its dirty coal plants to a new one that actually will use the CO2 for oil production, the SO2 for sulfuric acid, and NOx to make fertilizer. That IGCC plant is only possible with DOE money other wise the power would be more expensive. South Texas is not close to either city, but we care about our environment. That federal money gong to the clean coal plant is much less than the nuclear subsidies would be going to the plant expansion. None of the South Texas owners want to shut it down, but two of them want to use more reusable energy along with cleaner burning fossil fuels instead of expanding it. The two nucs at south texas had huge cost over runs, and we expect that in the expansion over runs would make the nuclear power more expensive than things like wind and natural gas.

We are working on the solution down here. Biomass and wind can be much larger as well as solar. Fracking along with clean burning gas combined cycle and maybe some more coal IGCC with CCS are on the table. Those natural gas wells and coal mines can and should be done in a more environmentally sensitive manner. I am not oposed to a few new nuclear plants as long as someone other than the tax payer provides insurance

infighting is not good. All options should be open.

 

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

 

Its hard to believe nuclear is lower than wind, or that hydro is not higher. How do they count?

 

Actually, according to GWB, it's "nuc-u-lur."

 

They only count deaths from nuclear if they can be proved. Cancer is a statistical disease, and it's virtually impossible to prove the cause in any given case.

Number of provable deaths is only one factor in evaluating a power source. Risk of such catastrophes as Fukushima must be taken into account, as well as the future consequences of continuing to amass radioactive waste with no disposal method. There's also the cost of decommissioning plants at their end of life (who's paying for that, the owners or the taxpayers?) and the hidden cost to the taxpayers of the federal liability limit.

 

It shouldn't even be considered unless the companies building, and running it, are willing to insure with their own money. U.S. plants are generally insured by the federal government with OUR money. This is just another scam to move money from our pockets to those of the very rich. They get the profits; we get the risks.

 

We have a winner. :cheer2:

 

Hopefully the new reactor design is as safe as stated.
Hard to believe this makes economic sense with natural gas heading for $1.xx

 

how much did the nuke industry kick into o'bama's coffers?

 

We already have all the nuclear power we need. The reactor's located at a safe distance, disposal of the waste isn't an issue, and the fuel supply is good for another few billion years. The radiation can be a problem, but it's easy enough to control our exposure.