Tritium leaks are contaminating groundwater at (at least) 6 nuclear plants

[jpak]

Tritium Leaks at Nuclear Power Plants Contaminate Groundwater

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/reactor_safety/articles.cfm?ID=15089

The nuclear industry has recently come under fire for leaking tritium - a radioactive isotope of hydrogen - into the groundwater of areas surrounding nuclear plants. Leaks have been reported at the Braidwood, Byron, and Dresden reactors in Illinois, the Palo Verde reactors in Arizona, and the Indian Point nuclear plant near New York City. Even worse, nuclear energy companies have kept the discoveries of these leaks from the public, sometimes for several years. Tritium is a byproduct of nuclear generation and can enter the body through ingestion, absorption or inhalation. Long-term exposure can increase the risk of cancer, birth defects and genetic damage. In June 2005, the most recent study from National Academies of Science (NAS) reaffirmed that there is no level of radiation exposure that is harmless or beneficial, and that even the smallest dose of ionizing radiation is capable of contributing to the development of cancer. Tritium takes about 250 years to decay to negligible levels, and is very difficult to remove from water.

<more>

NRC confirms Vermont Yankee had earlier (tritium) leak

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2010/02/24/nrc_confirms_2005_tritium_leak_at_vermont_yankee_plant/

MONTPELIER - The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant had a radioactive leak years before the one found last month, confirming a disclosure last week by a consultant to the Legislature that a plant employee told him of a previous leak at the reactor, federal officials say.

Donald Jackson, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission section chief, confirmed in a conference call between NRC officials and reporters Monday that the 2005 leak occurred in the same pipe system that is the focus of the search for the source of the current leak. “In 2005, within the confines of this pipe tunnel, there was a problem with one of the pipes,’’ he said.

Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that has been linked to cancer when ingested in large amounts, but the NRC officials said the tritium leak first reported at Vermont Yankee on Jan. 7 posed no immediate threat to public health and safety.

Plant officials admitted last month that they had misled state officials, sometimes under oath, by saying the plant did not have the sort of underground pipes that could carry tritium.

<more>

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Doc Ock asks, "What's the BFD?"

[Zoeisright]

2. Not surprising. Those plants produce poison that is impossible to contain.

Why anyone would think they should be part of green energy is beyond me.

[madokie]

3. The lying is why I detest nuclear energy

"Plant officials admitted last month that they had misled state officials, sometimes under oath, by saying the plant did not have the sort of underground pipes that could carry tritium."

They lie even when the truth would be better. The fact that they lie was a decision made by the industry years ago.

[jpak]

4. When the VT legislature blocked the relicensing VT Yankee - pronucular whackjobs called them rapists

right here on DU.

yup!

[madokie]

5. Shore 'nuf

They did. I've been down this road before and will go down it again. We stopped pso's blackfox nuclear power plant that was to be built upwind about 15 miles of me.

[Statistical]

20. What a "win" today Oklahom has one of the highest uses of fossil fuels in the country

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05ok.xls

Coal: 47.6%
Natural Gas: 44.2%
Hydro (net): 4.8%
Other renewables: 3.3%

When you prevented the nuclear plant from being built utilities simply built a ton more coal plants. What a win. Today 92% of electrical power in Oklahoma is produced by fossil fuels. 92% friggin percent. I am sure the planet will have no problem with the trillions of tons of CO2 release.

Then again you think cooling heat causes global warming not CO2 so I guess ignorance is bliss.

Time and time again we see this pattern when a reactor isn't built or is closed it is replaced with fossil fuels.
After decades of that pattern the anti-nukers want to tell us it is different while we watch utilities build more fossil fuel plants.

[madokie]

23. you are so

stupid if you think I insinuated that cooling heat is causing global warming instead of co2. I simply say it is adding to the problem.

[madokie]

24. Tell that to grda who has a well functioning pumped storage lake

about 15 miles from me. in fact they say it is one of the biggest sources of their income but you won't be able to follow what I'm saying there either.

see ya'

splchk

[Statistical]

26. Never said Oklahoma generates 100% of their electricity by fossil fuels, just 92%.

It is "merely" 92%. Which is far, far worse than the national average.

If the nations energy supply is dirty well OK is downright filthy. millions of tons of poisonous pollutions released each year into air, earth, and water. When you add the CO2 costs to that it is downright sickening.

Of course you know pumped-storage doesn't generate energy. It is a battery, a battery that uses flow of water to charge or discharge.
In OK 92% of power is produced by fossil fuels so 92% of the energy that is pump-stored is from fossil fuels.

Pumped storage is very important because to-date it is only our cost effect method of storing large amounts of energy however if the energy produced is dirty it doesn't get clean just because you use pump-storage.

[madokie]

29. But when its all hydro its crystal clean as is the case here

Give me a reputable link to the 92% figure and not that tripe you posted earlier.

[Statistical]

30. That "tripe" is the US Dept of Energy annual state by state profiles.

One of their mandates from congress is to track and record energy usage, consumption, generation, imports, etc.

Notice the letters "D", "O", and "E" along with the ".GOV" in the tripe url
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05ok.xls

The reality is Oklamahoma generates 92% of electricity by fossil fuels FAR higher than the national average of 69% and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.

OK consumers 78 billion kWh of electricity. That single nuclear plant (2 reactors) would have provided 16 billion kWh or roughly 20% of the state's electrical consumption. While 72% fossil fuel use isn't good it is a help of a lot better than 92%.

Don't worry the situation is "improving". A decade ago 93.5% of electricity in OK was fossil fuels, today it is "only" 92%.
So fossil fuel share has gone down a whole 1.5%. Maybe in another four of five decades years it will go down enough to offset that reactor you helped prevent. Of course even then you can't "undo" the billions of tons of CO2 released every year for decades.

[kristopher]

41. Run, RUN, RUN - jump from the coal frying pan into the nuclear fire. HURRY!

Before you realize what they are trying to pull (another trillion dollar rip off of the taxpayer).

The logic stats uses goes thus-
"We didn't build nuclear when the nuclear INDUSTRY wanted to and we are still using coal, therefore we should build nuclear.

I counter with

We didn't build out renewables when the PEOPLE wanted to and we are still using coal, therefore we should build renewables.

That leaves us with the decision of which is better renewables or nuclear.

Since renewables are FAR cheaper, FAR cleaner, FAR faster to deploy and FAR more accepted by the public;

we should therefore abandon nuclear and build more renewables.

[Statistical]

46. Except we won't or at least not enough.

The wind lobbies MOST optimistic (and even in their opinion not likely) projection is 20% wind by 2030.
We have 20% nuclear now. Stopping nuclear and building 20% wind gets us no closer to emission free power than we are today.

When the people making wind turbines OWN projections are only 20% by 2030 anything more than that is pie in the sky.

Nobody except your joke studies (by people not in economic, govt, or industrial power) show a higher penetration.

[kristopher]

49. Poor little feller just ain't got a clue...

Do you know the difference between RENEWABLES and WInd?

Renewables can do the job is as short or as long a time as the political system want them to. When replacing nuclear it is far faster, far cheaper, far cleaner, far more RELIABLE and far more popular to do it with renewable energy than with more nuclear.

You know nuclear is a dead fish and it is driving you nuts, isn't it?

[Statistical]

52. Wind is the largest share of GROWING renewables.

Nobody estimate for solar, tidal, geothermal are growing by the amounts needed to provide a significant amount of power in next decade.
Hydro provides a lot of power but its growth is tapped. The DOE study projects hydro DECLINING slightly.

Total renewable by 2020 per State Dept are 636 billion MWh. Nuclear provides 809 billion kWh.

Nobody except you and your pie-in-the-sky fantasies are projecting the kind of growth necessary for renewables to cut CO2 emissions alone.

Another way to look at it. Almost 60% of power is fossil fuels. Until the fossil fuels % is 0.00% it is kinda stupid to plan on phasing nuclear energy out.

Unless your goal is to kill nuclear at the expense of higher emissions.

When the WIND LOBBY & SOLAR LOBBY most optimistic projections are a fraction of what you think will happen then maybe just maybe you "goals" are simply fantasies.

[kristopher]

55. Again with the same red herring?

You really need a new routine, 'nnads has been using that one for years and no one buys it.

You are the one trying to hold back renewables. EVERY FUCKING STUDY IN THE WORLD AGREES they are the PROVEN best solution to climate change - nuclear is NEVER more than a bit player that MIGHT be included if corporate con artists get their way (See the Shoreham fiasco and "Confessions of an Economic Hitman)

IF you were actually concerned about climate change and the totality of environmental considerations you'd abandon the relentless misinformation campaign you've been waging to promote filthy nuclear power and you'd stop maligning renewable energy every chance you get. The fact that you ceaselessly pursue the course you do disproves your assertions that you are motivated by the desire for a solution to climate change. All you are doing is using AGW as an excuse to promote a dirty dangerous corporate feeding on public funds.

[Statistical]

58. In the real world (as opposed to the one occupied by fantasy cheerleaders)

there are finitite limits on realistic rollout. Limits based on land-use, manufacturing capability, risk to companies in expanding production facilities.

Maybe if you were God Emperor and could dictate the entire world policy and force manufacturing capacity to grow beyond projects, force utilities to adopt wind, force people to accept you will as divine word of God then maybe maybe it would be possible.

Most of us live in the real world and a combined solution. nuclear + Hydro + Wind + Solar + Efficiency is the only realistic solution to reducing GHG in any meaningful manner.

Abandoning nuclear moves the ball 20% down the field in wrong direction. The next 20% of wind capacity (which will take until 2030) will simply fill the nuclear whole. 20 years later and no meaningful reduction in CO2.

Nobody except you and your anti-nuke at all costs clowns are considering that.

The President isn't considering that
The State Dept isn't considering that.
The Congress (climate change bill has provision for nuclear) isn't considering that.
The Low Carbon Europe 2050 study isn't considering that.
Public non profit utilities aren't considering that.


Nobody of any power or influence (nobody who can actually do anything) is considering your fantasyland cheerleading. Nobody. Not a single credible international or govt agency.

[kristopher]

61. Prove that nuclear is faster, cheaper, less environmentally harmful than renewables.

The entire world believes that renewables are faster, cheaper, less harmful and more popular than nuclear.

In the face of that make the Republican case for nuclear power. Show how, when the existing plants wear out, it will be cheaper, faster, less harmful and more popular to replace them with more nuclear than with renewables.

PROVE IT.

[bananas]

35. What kind of sick person would say something like that?

[NNadir]

6. You detest nuclear energy for the same reason as the writer of the OP.

You are completely ignorant of the subject and have a non-existant comprehension of risk.

You insist that only nuclear energy be risk free and that all the stuff you also don't know about can kill at will.

If you knew anything at all about tritium, a shred, a modicum, a fragment, a smidgen, you might be concerned about pollution leaks from wood burning facilities, which actually kill people.

Instead, you elevate a subject you know nothing about, and which is harmless to a crisis.

Have a nice, dumbed down day.

[jpak]

9. blah blah blah ambien blah blah blah ambien

:rofl:

The NRC (National Academy of Sciences) says you are wrong.

So how's your backyard molten salt breeder reactor coming along anyway???

:rofl:

[madokie]

7. Guess what nnads

you are to never be heard from again.

[Duchess]

8. So...

What's the biological half-life of tritium? What type of radiation does it emit? What is the average energy of the emitted radiation? What are the biological effects of the radiation? How does that compare to other common radiation sources? Once you can answer those questions you might be a little less worried (and have a better understanding of the issue).

It is true that any amount of radiation will cause an increased risk of cancer. But the risks associated with regulated nuclear power are low and properly mitigated.

Compare the risks of tritium to Coal ash ponds. BTW, one is regulated and monitored and one is not.

IF the executives are lying...that is a problem. Good thing we have an active regulatory agency to ferret that crap out when it happens.

Worry about this if you want but I think you are wasting your time.

[jpak]

10. I've worked with tritium - and it is hard to contain once released into the environment

it's a beta emitter - 18.6 keV (and you have to know this to set up scint counters)

do you know what a scint counter is and how it operates?

have you ever used one?

do you know you have to have an NRC license to work with tritium?

do you know that tritium easily exchanges with biological molecules?

Do you know that biological half-life is determined from a single initial dose?

Do you know you will maintain a significant body burden of tritium if you continually ingest it - through drinking water or water vapor?

Do you know there is no safe dose of radiation of any type or emission energy?



Didn't think so...
:rofl:

[Duchess]

11. Yes to all

Now compare the risks of the public exposure due to the VY leakage to other everyday risks (and environmental radiation exposure).

[jpak]

12. Whelp - we could bottle all that insignificant tritium leakage and let you and your family drink it!

yup

:rofl:

[Duchess]

13. Sure...

I'll drink the same amount of tritium that any single person in the population around VY has ingested.

[jpak]

14. Disengenious (not) Vt. Yankee's contamination has not spread off site

But it has in Ilinois - there are dozens of homeowners near Braidwood nuclear plant that have tritium contamination in their groundwater

Radioactive leak taints water in Will

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-25/news/0601250209_1_tritium-exelon-groundwater

January 25, 2006|By Michael Hawthorne and Hal Dardick, Tribune staff reporters.

A plume of radioactive tritium seeping into groundwater near a Will County nuclear power plant has prompted Exelon Corp. to buy out one nearby property owner and offer to compensate 14 others for any loss in home value.

Levels of the radioactive isotope found outside the Braidwood Generating Station so far have been well below the amount the federal government considers unhealthy. But the company acknowledged Tuesday that there is more tritium in the nearby groundwater than occurs naturally and vowed to clean it up.

In one well on Exelon's property, the amount of tritium was more than 11 times higher than the federal limit for groundwater, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

<more>

Excelon is going to pay homeowners a cool million to take care of this "insigificant" problem

[Duchess]

16. OK

Well, I'll drink that water too without worry.

The reason that Excelon is making the deal is because they broke the rules...and because of quotes like the ones below:

"There's a lot that has been running through my mind," said Bawcum, toting two plastic jugs of bottled water. "I'm scared."

"I want it shut down," said Edward Riordan, 42, of Vernon, smoking a cigarette outside Nesbitt's Portside Tavern after lunch Tuesday. "There's radioactivity leaking all over the place."

Mr. Riordan has a better chance of getting cancer from that cigarette he's smoking. But he doesn't know it.

[joshcryer]

17. That quote rivals the picture of the pregnant woman smoking.

[Statistical]

21. "well below the amount the federal government considers unhealthy." n/t

[BigDog01]

18. There you go again ...

Spouting out nonsense with no real understanding: "Do you know there is no safe dose of radiation of any type or emission energy?"

Is radioactivity unique?
The earth has always been radioactive. Everyone and everything that has ever lived has been radioactive. In fact, the natural radioactivity in the environment is just about the same today as it was at the beginning of the Neolithic Age, more than 10,000 years ago.

Is there radioactivity in our bodies?
Yes. During our lifetime, our bodies harbor more than 200 billion billion radioactive atoms. About half of the radioactivity in our bodies comes from Potassium-40, a naturally-occurring radioactive form of potassium. Potassium is a vital nutrient and is especially important for the brain and muscles. Most of the rest of our bodies' radioactivity is from Carbon-14 and tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen. These naturally-occurring radioactive substances expose our bodies to about 25 "millirem" per year, abbreviated as "mrem/yr".

Is there radioactivity in food and water?
Yes. Most radioactive substances enter our bodies as part of food, water or air. Our bodies use the radioactive as well as the nonradioactive forms of vital nutrients such as iodine and sodium. Radioactivity can be found at every step of the food chain. It is even in our drinking water. In a few areas of the United States, the naturally-occurring radioactivity in the drinking water can result in a dose of more than 1,000 millirem in one year.

What kinds of radioactivity are in food?
In general, the foods we eat contain varying concentrations of radium-226, thorium-232, potassium-40, carbon-14, and hydrogen-3, also known as tritium.

How much of these radionuclides are in foods?
Well, it depends, of course, on the food item. The U. S. Department of Energy gives the following concentrations as examples: Salad Oil 4,900 pCi/l; Milk 1,400 pCi/l; Whiskey 1,200 pCi/l; Beer 390 pCi/l; Tap Water 20 pCi/l; Brazil Nuts 14.00 pCi/g; Bananas 3.00 pCi/g; Tea 0.40 pCi/g; Flour 0.14 pCi/g; and Peanuts and Peanut butter 0.12 pCi/g.

http://www.iem-inc.com/prevery.html

We live in a radioactive soup, and these minor (yes, I said minor) tritium spills are nothing -- zero, zilch, nada. Please spread more of your alarmist anti-nuclear views. Go ahead. I need a laugh.

[jpak]

19. Good luck with the RW pseudoscience BigDog01 and the Ronald Reagan quotes

The science is on my side

not yours

:rofl:

[BigDog01]

22. There you go again ...

Again, you wiggle and jiggle, but you have no real answer.

Nature is source of 80% of exposure
More than 80 percent of the radiation we are exposed to comes from such natural sources as sunlight, soil, and certain types of rocks. Cosmic rays filtering down through the atmosphere, and radon gas filtering up through the soil, are sources of natural radiation. This radiation is called background radiation. It is present everywhere, all the time and varies greatly depending on our geographical location.

In addition, people are exposed to radiation from man-made sources such as color televisions, smoke detectors, computer monitors, and X-rays. These sources account for less than one-fifth of our total radiation exposure.

There is no difference between natural radiation and its effects and man-made radiation and its effects.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0403.shtml

Yet another chuckle at your expense. Go ahead. Make me laugh some more.

[jpak]

15. My bad - it's more like 10 nuclear plants that are leaking tritium

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-149569319.html

Aug. 16--The release of tritium underneath the Kewaunee nuclear plant doesn't pose a health risk because the radioactive substance hasn't been found in drinking water, federal nuclear regulators said.

The radioactive isotope of hydrogen was found in four groundwater samples taken from narrow shafts underneath the nuclear plant, located in the Kewaunee County Town of Carlton, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Dominion Resources Inc., which owns Kewaunee, stressed that no unsafe levels of tritium have been detected at monitoring wells near the plant or outside the plant's boundary.

Kewaunee is one of 10 plants around the country where tritium leaks have been found. The nuclear industry is stepping up testing for tritium after a series of leaks at several plants. Testing at Exelon Corp.'s Braidwood plant in Illinois detected tritium in a nearby homeowner's well. …

[BigDog01]

28. Definitely your bad

It's actually 13

You really don't have a clue.

Go ahead. I'm ready for another chuckle.

[jpak]

31. Yes- it is WORSE than first reported: 13 out of 104 operating reactors = 12.5%

double digits

not good news for the pronucluar morans

nope!

[Nederland]

25. How many coal plants are leaking Sulfur Dioxide and Mercury?

Anyone know?

[FBaggins]

27. How many car owners change their own oil and dump the waste in the storm drain?

Any one of which likely does more damage to the environment (and citizens' health) than one of these tritium leaks.

[jpak]

32. Yeah they burn lotsa coal to produce electricity for uranium enrichment plants in OH & KY

and still more during the heyday of the Oak Ridge enrichment plants in TN.

lotsa sulfur and mercury leakage for them puppies

yup

[FBaggins]

33. And how does that compare...

... to the output from all the coal plants running for decades to produce the electricity that isn't procuced by nuclear plants that were oppsed by your crowd?

Bet it's more than 100:1

And it isn't as if the electricity for those purposes HAS to come from coal. Wind, OTOH, must have backup generation available... and it's rarely clean.

[jpak]

34. I'm sorry but the anti-nuclear = pro-coal argument is a lame High Order Bullshit Canard

a fraudulent fictitious red herring *made-up* by the pronucuclar crowd.

yup

:rofl:

[FBaggins]

36. Similar "High Order Bullshit Canards"`

You oppose any sex education apart from abstinence-only and oppose any contraceptive availability for teens... but pointing out that your position will result in higher teen pregnancy rates is a lame High Order Bullshit Canard.

You refuse to learn to swim and oppose wearing a life vest, and insist on being dropped into the middle of the ocean alone... but pointing out that you are effectively pro-drowning is a lame High Order Bullshit Canard.


Yeah... you're not really in favor of coal. Perhaps you're just too dense to see that it's the inevitable result of your position. But I prefered to give you the benefit of the doubt. :rofl:

[Kolesar]

37. The nuclear industry has "blown it" in the PR and finance world, that means coal is inevitable

Because it is obvious that they are not going to finish one hundred plants in this next decade and another thousand plants before 2050.

At least according to your logic.

[FBaggins]

39. Care to try again?

That didn't appear to make any sense at all.

[Statistical]

40. China will build 100 reactors in next 2 decades alone.

There are 55 reactors under construction globally right now.

That isn't planned or proposed but actual construction.

[kristopher]

42. China has moved away from central thermal to distributed renewables.

What is currently in the pipeline is going to represent the peak of their effort at centralized thermal generation. Their new regulatory structure is CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY designed to promote the build out of their huge renewable base. Now just before that revision to the law, in August 2009, an official in Guangdong province was arrested over bribes from France's Areva. Kang Rixin, the head of China's nuclear power plant construction program, was been arrested on suspicion of accepting $256m in bribes from French engineering giant Areva.

Shortly after this scandal, an excellent resource assessment of China's renewable potential was completed, and a few weeks later they enacted the renewable preference for grid operators.

How is that plant in Finland coming?

[Statistical]

44. China just broke ground on two new reactors. That is #22 and #23 under construction.

:rofl:

The idea that China is "slowing" construction of reactors is a joke.
The idea that China is abandoning nuclear energy is a joke.

China is building reactors faster than the US at peak of construction.

[kristopher]

50. In the pipeline...

You'd do well to remember all those cancelled plants in the 70s and 80s.

[Statistical]

53. China has a different regulatory and energy structure.

There will be no nuke protesters in China. There will be no court challenges. There will be no legislature tying up construction for decades.

China will eventually have 200 reactors. They aren't purists like you are. They aren't pushing an agenda. They simply want energy diversity and massive amounts of power.

[kristopher]

56. And they caught the Chief of their nuclear program being bribed by nuclear sales force.

In a command and control economy if you bribe the right official you can get a lot done. But that same immunity to diversions that you find hope in can also work to negate corporate influence buying.

So they caught the guy accepting bribes to choose nuclear power, (wonder if he has been shot yet?) and almost immediately changed the law to favor renewables.

You do the math.

[Statistical]

59. The favoring renewables will have no effect for decades.

Currently in the US without any similar bill 100% of renewable energy is purchased. Not a single kwh not purchased. That is how wholesale power market works. Power producers will cut their costs down to marginal cost to sell power. Selling power for anything (above marginal cost) is better than not selling it at all.

It is how our electrical (and everyone elses) works.

Given renewable energy + nuclear have incredibly low fuel costs when supply exceeds demand they undercut plants with fossil fuel costs and win the auction.

[kristopher]

62. Bullshit.

[Statistical]

68. Your ignorance is outstounding.

I worked in wholesale power market for many years.

That is how wholesale power works. There isn't a single nuclear reactor, hydro plants, or wind farm in the world that doesn't sell 100% of their power when demand is available. Maybe they sell it for less than they wanted but they still sell it.

Power can't be stored (or at least not cost effectively). Say you have a windfarm and this hour it is producing 1 MWh. Now the wholesale spot price is only $20 per MWh (low). Do you sell it or not sell it?

If you don't sell it then it is gone. Your revenue for the hour is $0.00. While you may want to sell it for $70 per MWh or even $90 per MWh, $20 is better than $0.00. So you sell it. You ALWAYS sell it. Windfarms & Reactors are identical in that respect. They sell every kWh they generate. Hopefully at the highest possible price but they ALWAYS sell it. There is no conceivable reason not to.

Now for a thermal plant it is different. Their fuel cost may be $25 per MWh. Obviously they won't sell power for $20 per MWh if they need to burn $25 per MWh to produce it. So they idle. When wholesale power drops below the marginal cost for fossil fuel plants they idle.

Power grid has worked that way since deregulation (20+ years now).

How can you argue about something if you don't even understand how it works.

[kristopher]

69. More bullshit

The issue is how the grid become what it is. In our case it was a a consequence of what technology we had and a regulatory structure dedicated to controlling a natural monopoly.

The investments that were made as a result of those conditions ultimately created a given set of operational parameters that you wish to apply to an entirely different organism - a developing grid. Future investment will be profoundly affected by the prioritization of source selection. Your assertion that all sources will sell all power is ridiculous in the face of the law. There will be peak demand and there will be off peak demand. The cheapest fuel isn't going to drive the selection as you have mistakenly concluded. The load will be shaped to demand around the renewables, not around the need to maximize the production value of constant sources of generation.

It is a window into your narrow vision of reality that you say "There is no conceivable reason not to" when it comes to your view of how a grid can be structured.

There is a damned GOOD reason not to follow the prescription you are familiar with - it is not the best system to create. That pricing system is an artifact of a wasteful, inefficient system that resulted when there were no renewables.

The fact is that I'm not at all lacking in knowledge of how power is bought and sold. You've made innumerable false statements on the topic that I've let slide because the sheer volume of falsities you produce means there isn't the time or inclination to correct them all.

However, since you want to make an issue of it I'll dedicate a bit of time in helping you polish your knowledge base.

One place to start is that while there has been a great deal of deregulation and unbundling over the last 12 years or so, it isn't uniform across the country. Judging by your comments on TVA and Georgia you seem not to know that local, state and regional differences abound and further, while much of the electricity *is* in unbundled states, there is still a significant number of rate regulated markets still out there. For the sake of nuclear power, you'd better hope that a hell of of lot more states "regress" back to that status too, because without it all the Federal help in the world is very unlikely to get nuclear plants built in those markets that are unbundled.

Contrary to your bullshit claims that the GA debt financing is open market, as I've told you it is only happening because the 20% if the debt not unsecured by fed money is guaranteed by a system that allows those ordering the plants to recoup cost over-runs and defaults by folding it into their rate schedule. Check it and then tell me that MEAG doesn't have the ability to enact CWIP rate increases or rate increases that can ensure the debtors against default due to cost over runs.

In China, they aren't listening to your bullshit rationalizations. They understand that their path to energy security and a clean livable world is the same as it is here - a renewable sustainable grid. No one is going to invest new money in a system that isn't going to need nuclear. Remember how you like to point out how long nuclear has to earn back its investment? Not the 60 year exaggeration but even the 40 year accepted norm? Remember how you count on the high capacity factor to make that payment even over that extended time? Not the 95% you claim but the much more realistic 80-85% that is the accepted norm?

Well their grid is now being shaped in a direction that will squeeze out large scale thermal generation because there simply isn't going to be the demand to support that formula for payback - and it will do it long before the nuclear plants pay themselves off.
I don't give a fig if you envision it as selling all capacity for a lower price than anticipated or if you look at it like an investment bank and just lump the lost value of the electricity into the load factor; the end result is the electricity isn't going to be worth enough to pay back the investors. You then have to either prop it up with special rates or you go bankrupt and rescheducle the debt. Investors DON'T like that so they don't finance the project unless they know they are protected against it FOR 40 YEARS.

Whether you understand it or not, that is already a consideration that is strongly affecting investment in nuclear worldwide. Says CitiGroup:

Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca. 220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

(Bold in original)


I don't know what you did in "the wholesale power market" but you damned sure didn't study the system you were part of in order to gain a thorough understanding of it and you seem to lack an innate ability to visualize large complex systems. Having seen one little slice of the picture doesn't make you an expert; in this case it makes you one of the blind men groping the elephant.

[kristopher]

70. About that "astounding ignorance"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=242432&mesg_id=243011

[kristopher]

71. Crickets

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=242432&mesg_id=243011

[madokie]

72. Kris why bother

I finally put his ass on ignore, you'd be well advised to do the same as there is no there there.

[FBaggins]

73. I'm afraid that you don't understand.

It's incredibly rare for Kris to post more than a paragraph or two of his own thoughts - he usually relies on posting and re-posting and re-re-posting (etc.) the words of others (even when they have little to no relevance to the point under discussion). When he does type something pseudo-original, he feels a great need to get full value out of that effort and will re-re-post that any number of times... regardless of response.

A wise poster lets him get it out of his system. It isn't as if he would reply to the substance of a response anyway.

:rofl:

[madokie]

74. I wonder what ignored had to say other than the subject line

but I won't bother to see as I could care less.

[FBaggins]

75. Lol! Yet you reply anyway?

What an opportunity the ignore function gives you... you can make yourself look foolish and be the only one who doesn't know it.

[madokie]

76. Yup just to let you know

[FBaggins]

77. Poor guy...

... talking to yourself now?

So it's looking foolish AND mentally unbalanced?

Care to shoot for the trifecta?

[Statistical]

38. Exactly. Higher up on the thread someone was HAPPY they stopped reactors from being built in OK

Today OK gets 92% of it's electricity from fossil fuels. 92%. I mean shit China does better than that.

The reactors they anti-nuke lobby was able to "prevent" would have supplied 20% of the states power. That is today when built it would have been substantially more.

Thank GOD that reactor didn't get built. They would have reduced CO2 from electricity by a quarter.
Sad thing is anti-nukers are proud of "achievements" like that.

[kristopher]

43. So you are crowing that coal was built instead of wind and solar?

Nuclear is a filthy dangerous expensive technology that you are trying to SCARE people into accepting when it isn't needed.

[Statistical]

45. Exactly coal instaed of solar or wind was built.

Coal is the baseline competitor for nuclear not solar or wind.

When they stopped building nuclear plants they COULD have built solar or wind but they didn't.
The built coal, more recently they are building natural gas.

This belief that is nuclear dies on the vine utilities will suddenly have a change of heart and stop using fossil fuels is a joke.

Last time I checked coal is still legal.
Last time I checked natural gas is still legal.
Last time I checked carbon costs $0.00.

In the absence of nuclear energy utilities WILL (we have 30 years of continual proof) build fossil fuel plants.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

48. History is against you, the future is against you.

The history is when we stopped building reactors for 30 years we built coal & natural gas plants.

The future is that support for nuclear energy is at an all time high.

[kristopher]

51. Future plans say you are wrong.

Nuclear provides a measly 2.4% of global energy consumption AND IT IS DECLINING.

Response to Gallup nuclear poll graph

That presentation of data is not the sentiment that the underlying poll reveals. First, here is a clear image of public support for nuclear:

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

What the graph you used actually charts is how worried people are about energy and climate. The underlying poll asks if nuclear should be "one of the ways" to provide electricity for the US.

Influences on that graph:
1) Nuclear already IS one of the ways, so the reader must be in favor of decommissioning nuclear power in a time of uncertainty regarding energy security and climate change to be "opposed".

2) The answers are divided into 4 categories; and what isn't shown is that the shift to "strongly support" has only changed a couple of percentage points.

3) When you compare the Gallup poll with the two posted above (those are typical of polling on the issue) you can see the way energy security is a higher priority than environmental issues for those who state direct support for nuclear power as it is identical to the results for building more coal plants, and tracks the approval of drilling for petroleum closely.

The use of that graph is a standard attempt to create foster "the bandwagon effect"


I wonder what the results of polling would be if respondents were shown this graph first:


Full cost report by Cooper here:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[Statistical]

54. Same outdated poll you always use. Will you still be using in in 2011? 2012? 2020?

Came out before Obama announced support for nuclear energy.
Came out before the State Dept study on climate change indicates nuclear energy will grow.
Came out before loan guarantees were announced for Vogtle plants.
Came out before MEAG issued construction bonds on private market.

[kristopher]

57. 4 months old is outdated? ROFLMAO

Nuclear provides a measly 2.4% of global energy consumption AND IT IS DECLINING.

Response to Gallup nuclear poll graph

That presentation of data is not the sentiment that the underlying poll reveals. First, here is a clear image of public support for nuclear:

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

What the graph you used actually charts is how worried people are about energy and climate. The underlying poll asks if nuclear should be "one of the ways" to provide electricity for the US.

Influences on that graph:
1) Nuclear already IS one of the ways, so the reader must be in favor of decommissioning nuclear power in a time of uncertainty regarding energy security and climate change to be "opposed".

2) The answers are divided into 4 categories; and what isn't shown is that the shift to "strongly support" has only changed a couple of percentage points.

3) When you compare the Gallup poll with the two posted above (those are typical of polling on the issue) you can see the way energy security is a higher priority than environmental issues for those who state direct support for nuclear power as it is identical to the results for building more coal plants, and tracks the approval of drilling for petroleum closely.

The use of that graph is a standard attempt to create foster "the bandwagon effect"


I wonder what the results of polling would be if respondents were shown this graph first:


Full cost report by Cooper here:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[Statistical]

60. More important than a single data point is the trend.

While 62% supporting nuclear is good by itself it would be less powerful.

The same exact question has been asked for a decade.

A decade ago 47% of people supported nuclear energy. Today 62% support it.
The question didn't change. The sample method didn't change.
However a long term positive trend has been generated.

[kristopher]

63. The trend isn't in your favor either.

The polling varies five points up and down from 47% for over a decade. Your Gallup poll is bullshit that doesn't measure support for nuclear. You can keep claiming it says something it doesn't, we are used to seeing Republicans use the same tactics so we are able to recognize it when we see a "progressive" do the same thing.

Nuclear provides a measly 2.4% of global energy consumption AND IT IS DECLINING.

Response to Gallup nuclear poll graph

That presentation of data is not the sentiment that the underlying poll reveals. First, here is a clear image of public support for nuclear:

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

What the graph you used actually charts is how worried people are about energy and climate. The underlying poll asks if nuclear should be "one of the ways" to provide electricity for the US.

Influences on that graph:
1) Nuclear already IS one of the ways, so the reader must be in favor of decommissioning nuclear power in a time of uncertainty regarding energy security and climate change to be "opposed".

2) The answers are divided into 4 categories; and what isn't shown is that the shift to "strongly support" has only changed a couple of percentage points.

3) When you compare the Gallup poll with the two posted above (those are typical of polling on the issue) you can see the way energy security is a higher priority than environmental issues for those who state direct support for nuclear power as it is identical to the results for building more coal plants, and tracks the approval of drilling for petroleum closely.

The use of that graph is a standard attempt to create foster "the bandwagon effect"


I wonder what the results of polling would be if respondents were shown this graph first:


Full cost report by Cooper here:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[joshcryer]

67. Are you going to keep spouting the misleading statement that nuclear will continue to decline?

Once the first new reactors come online it will not be "declining."

[joshcryer]

66. Whe Obama backed nuclear the American public decided to back it too.

Unfortunately nuclear is still a marginally hot button issue in the US.

[joshcryer]

65. Renewables *didn't* do the job.

But since one tonne of CO2 "only" means 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change, it's no big deal, right?

[joshcryer]

64. Uh, no, he's obviously dismayed that fossil was built.

He wouldn't have an argument if renewables took up the slack, would he?