Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(138,847 posts)
Tue Oct 1, 2024, 08:21 AM Tuesday

Michigan nuclear plant will restart to deliver new power to rural communities

Source: Scripps News

Posted 9:59 PM, Sep 30, 2024


A nuclear plant in Michigan is closer to restarting thanks to a $1.5 billion loan from the federal government. The U.S. Department of Energy will give a loan to the Palisades nuclear plant in Covert Township, Michigan. The plant is slated to restart in 2025, powering some 800,000 homes and bringing about 600 new jobs to the area.

Nuclear reactors are hugely expensive to refurbish, especially ones that were almost sure to be shuttered forever like the Palisades plant was slated to be until very recently.

Two cooperatives that provide power to south and southwestern Michigan said they're going to use energy from the reactor to power rural communities.

But neighbors who live near the reactor have long been concerned about nuclear waste. They have appealed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure that the reactor opens in accordance with all relevant regulations.


Read more: https://www.scrippsnews.com/science-and-tech/energy/michigan-nuclear-plant-will-restart-to-deliver-new-power-to-rural-communities

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Michigan nuclear plant will restart to deliver new power to rural communities (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Tuesday OP
I strongly object to selective attention designating used nuclear fuel as "waste," with no comment on fossil fuel waste. NNadir Tuesday #1
Announcement from the Department of Energy erronis Tuesday #2

NNadir

(34,214 posts)
1. I strongly object to selective attention designating used nuclear fuel as "waste," with no comment on fossil fuel waste.
Tue Oct 1, 2024, 09:21 AM
Tuesday

Unlike so called "nuclear waste" - which I personally regard as a resource available to the future generations we screwed - fossil fuel waste, not limited to the extreme global warming it is causing - fossil fuel waste has a tremendous record of killing people. As I often repeat:

Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249). This study is a huge undertaking and the list of authors from around the world is rather long. These studies are always open sourced; and I invite people who want to carry on about Fukushima to open it and search the word "radiation." It appears once. Radon, a side product brought to the surface by fracking while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, appears however: Household radon, from the decay of natural uranium, which has been cycling through the environment ever since oxygen appeared in the Earth's atmosphere.

Here is what it says about air pollution deaths in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Survey, if one is too busy to open it oneself because one is too busy carrying on about Fukushima:

The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·49–6·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·5–22·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·78–4·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·8–16·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·40–3·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·4–15·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·53–3·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·0–12·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·68–3·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·5–13·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·02–7·10) deaths (21·4% [20·5–22·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·90–6·29) deaths (18·2% [16·2–20·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·65–5·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·0–17·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·31–4·24] deaths (12·2% [11·0–13·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·70–4·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·9–14·1] of all male deaths in 2019).




I defy anyone who wants to talk about so called "nuclear waste," to show that the storage of used nuclear fuel, through all of its 70 year history of accumulation, has killed as many people as will die in the next ten hours from fossil fuel waste, aka "air pollution," about 8,000 people.

The Pavlovian response to the opening, or reopening of a nuclear plant, a discussion of so called "waste," is only remarkable because the number of people who have comment on the opening of a gas plant about extreme global heating is next to zero.

The key to the rapid scale up of nuclear energy which will be required to save what is left to save, and restore what can be restored is fissionable nuclei. One of the best sources of fissionable nuclei is used nuclear fuel, especially the plutonium therein.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Michigan nuclear plant wi...