Why would anyone support nuclear power?

[tabatha]

The Cost of Nuclear Power and the Practicality of Alternatives: Surprisingly, nuclear power is not even cost-effective. The only reason that the price of nuclear power is competitive with that of fossil fuels is that 80% of the nuclear industry is subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. Because of the hazards, including the terrorism potential, and the need for top security—from the uraniam ore to the waste it cannot store—PG&E has been placed on a nuclear welfare program.

The nuclear waste must be stored for 10,000 years. After years of searching for stable ground, Yucca Mountain was chosen as the nation’s permanent waste storage site. But two fault lines were recently discovered at Yucca, and waste storage there has been scrapped. This is why nuclear reactors must continue to store waste on site.

The government has already spent $3.5 billion to develop plans at Yucca, and tens of billions of dollars more over the years to find appropriate containment and stable ground for nuclear waste storage. The goal has proven elusive. Nuclear power plants used to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Diablo Canyon’s initial estimated cost was $1.3 billion. The final tab was $5.3 billion. And the cost to build future nuclear power plants was projected, before Fukushima, at $10 billion.

Yet the plant’s life span is only 40 years. The plant must be dismantled and encased, adding another billion dollars to its price tag. And 10 miles of land around the plant must then be declared permanently unhabitable, once it has been encased in concrete.

http://www.independent.com/news/2011/mar/31/hell-pay/

[damntexdem]

1. Because there's big money in it.

Yes, inefficient and costly for the consumer, but profitable for the corporation.

And long-term costs, even 40 years in the future, will be encountered by one's successors.

[TheWraith]

69. The French don't seem to find it costly.

Nor do the Chinese, the English, or others. In fact, it seems like the US is the only country where nuclear costs "magically" skyrocket, where astroturf groups come out of the woodwork, and where frivolous lawsuits hammer every hint of new reactor construction.

Coincidentally, we're also pretty much the only place that the coal industry has a stranglehold on energy policy. Coincidence?

Also, this article completely lies and falsifies information. There is no "uninhabitable 10 mile zone" around a decommissioned reactor. That's a lie that would be laughably ridiculous if people didn't actually fall for it.

[aquart]

2. Scam from the getgo.

[Rageneau]

3. Twain said...

"Tell me where a man gets his cornpone, and I'll tell you what his opinions are."

People who get their cornpone from nuclear reactors like nuclear reactors.

[jpak]

4. It's more he-man than stupid little wimpy hippie-dippie solar and wind ya know

yup

[flamingdem]

5. The slide rule set was made fun of by hippies in high school, this is their revenge nt

[Ozymanithrax]

6. How to dismantle a nuclear plant

Watch the video...It is enlightening.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7740850.stm

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-10-15/news/ct-x-n-zion-power-plant-20101015_1_zion-plant-nuclear-plant-zion-nuclear-power-station

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dismantling-nuclear

You are wrong about the area 10 miles around being declared ermanently uninhabitable from what I found, well except if there is a meltdown, but the price tag is dead on.

[tabatha]

7. Thanks - that was in the article from which I quoted.

[jwirr]

10. One of the things that we should consider if we are not going to dismantle

the nukes is at least moving the spent rods from nukes setting on faults. I have no idea where to move then or even how but it is obvious that they are one of the big problems in the Japanese plants.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. We need a long term storage area...

Nimby politics killed Yucca mountain, and will raise it ugly head where ever they decide to put one.

But, whether we as a society decide to stay with nuclear power or find another way of powering civilization after oil, we need a place to store the waste.

[jwirr]

18. This last year we have been taking nuke materials for countries like

Chili to our country - where are we storing that? And yes, we desperately need a storage place.

[Ozymanithrax]

19. Currently, while they are hot, they are stored in pools at reactors.

If they have cooled down, the rods are cast in Concrete and stored around nuclear reactors.

[Nihil]

45. I bet that stuff is hot ...

> This last year we have been taking nuke materials for countries like Chili ...

:hide:

[librechik]

8. Haven't you heard? Anyone opposed to nuke power is just a scaredy cat weenie

all the best govt authorites say nobody dies injuries are few and they know more than you do so shut up.

[jpak]

9. and Knows No Science

yup

:evilgrin:

[PamW]

33. I'd agree with that...

and Knows No Science
======================

I'd agree with that. Most of the anti-nukes I've discussed with have virtually
no grasp of science.

I originally got involved with this group because a bunch of anti-nukes were
claiming that the Sandia airplane crash tests were faulty.

NO - they are very valid. The anti-nukes just didn't know about something called
"Conservation of Momentum". The reason the concrete block gets so little of the
available energy is because one can't conserve momentum otherwise.

The anti-nukes didn't even know about the principle, which is taught in high school
physics.

PamW

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[PamW]

63. Wrong as usual

Didn't you just make a false claim about the National Academy findings on Renewable energy?
=======================

NOPE - the claim is accurate. You are just too afraid to
go to the library and READ the report.

Not everything is online you know.

You are wrong as usual.

PamW

[kristopher]

67. This is but one instance of you saying the same tripe.

Here is one recent example of you saying that:

You wrote,

"That's one of the reasons the National Academy of Science and Engineering says that renewables should be only about 15% to 20% of our electrical capacity. For the remaining 80% to 85%, we need energy sources that are dependable and not dependent on the whims of Mother Nature."



I replied: There is no 2004 report as the project was launched in 2007. The 2009 report doesn't make any recommendation couched in the "should" language you present, nor do the numbers you've offered reflect the potential they see in the relevant technologies.

Pegging current US consumption at 4,000TWH they tell us that deploying existing energy efficiency technologies is our "nearest-term and lowest-cost option for moderating our nation’s demand for energy", and that accelerated "deployment of these technologies in the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors could reduce energy use by about 15 percent (15–17 quads, that is, quadrillions of British thermal units) in 2020, relative to the EIA’s “business as usual” reference case projection, and by about 30 percent (32–35 quads) in 2030 (U.S. energy consumption in 2007 was about 100 quads)."

They state that more aggressive policies and incentives would produce more results and that most of the "energy efficiency technologies are cost-effective now and are likely to continue to be competitive with any future energy-supply options; moreover, additional energy efficiency technologies continue to emerge."

The authors offer that renewable energy sources "could provide about an additional 500 TWh (500 trillion kilowatt-hours) of electricity per year by 2020 and about an additional 1100 TWh per year by 2035 through new deployments."

They are less optimistic about increased contributions from nuclear plants writing that they might provide an additional 160 TWh of electricity per year by 2020, and up to 850 TWh by 2035, by modifying current plants to increase their power output and by constructing new plants." However they are very specific with warnings that nuclear powers economics for Gen3 plants are significantly worse than predicted by the 2003 MIT nuclear study. They further opine that failure to prove the economic viability of at least 5 merchant plants by 2020 (it used to be 2010) would probably rule out nuclear as a viable option going forward.

Since the report was penned we have seen a complete collapse of the very idea that US merchant reactors are even possible and the likelihood is that few, if any, new plants will actually be built. If any ARE built it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to demonstrate the economic viability that is called for in the Report. This means that if their caveat about proof of concept is accurate, new nuclear is unlikely to play any significant role in carbon reduction in the US.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x275881#276952

The exchange covers posts 68 to 75 of that thread and ends when, after an attempt to tap dance, you were given the link to the study and asked to substantiate your claim:
http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/library /

You are again invited to support your falsehood with text from the study.

Electricity from Renewable Sources Status, Prospects, and Impediments
This report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering explores the potential for and barriers to developing wind, solar, geothermal, and biopower technologies for electric power generation. It concludes that with an accelerated deployment effort, non-hydropower renewable sources could provide 10 percent or more of the nation’s electricity by 2020 and 20 percentor more by 2035. However, for these sources to supply more than 50 percent of America’s electricity, new scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity are needed.

http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/library /

[PamW]

75. Go to a library - remember those?

I replied: There is no 2004 report as the project was launched in 2007.
==========================================

As I told you before, the Academy just didn't start in 2007. The Academy
has had a running series of studies on power generation. Only the most
recent round began in 2007. However, the Academy has been issuing reports
about every 5 years for a long time.

Evidently the 2004 report is not online, I've looked.

Just because something isn't online doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I've given you the cite. Why not get yourself over to a good library
and look up the 2004 report.

Or read the following:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1601&page=R1

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/30/obama-still-wants-nukes/?iid=EAL

Because of your repeated intransigence, I really have no further time
for you.

PamW

[kristopher]

76. Stop spreading misinformation, please.

I've shown you clearly that what you attributed to the NAS is not what they wrote. That means you were making a false statement. You know that clearly so please don't continue to make the assertion.

[PamW]

77. Talk about logical fallacy....

I've shown you clearly that what you attributed to the NAS is not what they wrote.
===================================

Since by your own admission, you have NOT bothered to get a copy of the
National Academy report that I cited; then how could you have possibly
shown that was not what they wrote????

You have proven nothing, except that you will fabricate anything
in your quest to distort.

So you need to find the NAS study before you can "prove" anything.

You want to attempt to run the nation on solar? You do understand that
we use electrical energy around the clock. The residential use at night
includes the largest home user of electricity, the refrigerator. I don't
think we are going to give those up.

However, at night your vaunted source of energy is useless. No amount of
"networking" of solar plants can compensate for the common mode failure that
all solar power plants go down at night.

So you have to rely on another source such as wind. Well, if you have enough
wind power to shoulder the load, and wind works just as well in the daytime
as it does at night; why not just use wind 24 hours a day and ditch the useless
solar plants.

Of course, wind isn't all that reliable either. If the wind turbines in northern
California go down due to lack of wind, we can get energy from the turbines in
southern California. Except those turbines are in use by the residents of southern
California, which means you have to over-build to have excess capacity.

So every region has to over-build so as to serve as backup for other regions.

And with that, there still is no guarantee. You are at the mercy of Mother
Nature.

Until there exists a storage technology that can store vast amounts of energy, one
can't run a society such as ours on the whims of Mother Nature. So how much storage
do we need.

This is where the renewable proponents fall flat, because they have never run the numbers.

One typical large coal or nuclear plant, which the USA has hundreds of, has a power
output of about 1 Gigawatt. So in a single day, these plants put out 1 Gigawatt-day
of energy. How much is that?

A Gigawatt-Day ( the product of a power and a time is by definition a unit of energy )
is approximately 20.6 kilotons, or the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

When you have renewable sources that can reliably harvest and store atomic bomb sized
quantities of energy, then we can talk about powering the USA with "renewables". Until
then renewables remain a pipe dream.

The Department of Energy a few years ago commissioned a study on what a sustainable
energy future would be, and gave that challenge to the scientists at the national
laboratories. You might be interested in their report, signed by the directors of
those laboratories, including our Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu signing for
Lawrence Berkeley Lab:

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdffiles/rpt_sustainableenergyfuture_aug2008.pdf

Those are the views of our national laboratory scientists.
Your "credentials" in science are what? Nonexistent I would say given your
demonstrate lack of many principles of physics and chemistry that I see in your posts.

PamW

[kristopher]

78. Ranting and railing doesn't obscure the fact you regularly peddle false information

while trying to cloak it as the work of real experts.

Refuting the proof I offered about your remarks is easy if you didn't make a false statement. Provide a citation and page number along with the specific quote you claim supports your claim.

Obviously you would have done that long ago if you could, so we know that all that will proceed from your keyboard is more of the GO in GIGO.

[PamW]

103. Not false information - good scientific information

In general, then, one should assume that a wind farm will generate no more than 25 per cent of maximum capacity over time
================================

The 2004 National Academy of Science and Engineering study on energy.
See the Executive Summary.

The ball is in your court.

Go look it up!

PamW

[jpak]

88. Have you invented a molten salt breeder reactor?

:rofl:

[kristopher]

89. You get that impression too, eh?

Haven't seen Dr. Greg around lately either.

[madokie]

95. Been wondering about that one too

seems like shortly after I put them on ignore they go away, this one is still here though. So what gives?

[PamW]

90. NO - because Oak Ridge National Lab invented it back in the '60s

Oak Ridge National Lab and its Director Alvin Weinberg invented the molten salt breeder
back in the 1960s. A prototype called the MSRE - Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was
built and operated:

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/12/kirk-sorensen-reposted-this-old-post.html

http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1966/3445602516436.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

PamW

[jpak]

101. What is your opinion on the New Jersey Molten Salt Breeder Reactor?

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

11. Easy - because nuclear power is the safest form of practical power generation

per unit of energy.

1) Wind and solar are heavily subsidized "by the US taxpayer"
2) Yucca Mountain faults haven't been active for 10 million years
3) A large part of the cost of new nuclear goes to fighting lawsuits

The sources for this article are media outlets and well-meaning activists who have a very tenuous grasp of the facts (anyone who publishes the word "uraniam" should be suspect):

Union of Concerned Scientists (you don't have to be one to join)
Helen Caldecott, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Friends of the Earth
Los Angeles Times
CNN
Democracy Now!
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (their contribution is unspecified)
International Nuclear Energy Agency (no such entity)
Nuclear Free World
National Geographic
ERDA (Energy Research & Development Administration)
The San Francisco Chronicle
Sierra Club
Reuters News Service
“Unsafe at Any Reactor,” a Los Angeles Times editorial by Robert Alvarez

It's important to base policy on expert opinion and not fear or sensationalism.

[madokie]

21. What a load of happy horse manure that is

when you say it is the safest. :rofl: I needed that good belly laugh, thanks :hi:

[wtmusic]

43. Always glad to be of service. Now you can return the favor...

and come up with statistics showing me how fatalities from nuclear power compare to, say, COAL for instance.

I'm waiting. :D

[madokie]

96. You see with fatalities from coal or natural gas or whatever

its hard to whistle on past the graveyard where as with nuclear it takes time, sometimes years.

Nuclear energy has killed more people than fossil fuels ever has it the truth was known its just not easy to put a finger on it so the nuke industry does what it does best, deny, obfuscate and lie.

[wtmusic]

97. Let's assume you're correct.

Then all of these people must be on the take too, including the governments of Belarus and the Ukraine - home to Chernobyl.

"5 September 2005 | Geneva - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, “Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts,” just released by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history. The Forum is made up of 8 UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the World Bank, as well as the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine."

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

[madokie]

98. Some people will believe or say anything

[kristopher]

99. Do you know what the charter of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is?

If you can't see a conflict of interest then it is because you are deliberately closing your eyes.

ARTICLE I: Establishment of the Agency

...establish an International Atomic Energy Agency ... upon the terms and conditions ... set forth.


ARTICLE II: Objectives

The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy ... throughout the world. ...

ARTICLE III: Functions

A. The Agency is authorized:

1. To encourage... development and practical application of, atomic energy ...throughout the world; and...to act as an intermediary for the purposes of securing the performance of services or the supplying of materials, equipment, or facilities by one member of the Agency for another;

and to perform any operation or service useful in research on, or development or practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful purposes;

2. To make provision... for materials, services, equipment, and facilities to meet the needs of ... development and practical application of, atomic energy ...including the production of electric power...

ARTICLE I: Establishment of the Agency

The Parties hereto establish an International Atomic Energy Agency (hereinafter referred to as "the Agency") upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.


ARTICLE II: Objectives

The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose.


ARTICLE III: Functions

A. The Agency is authorized:

1. To encourage and assist research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world; and, if requested to do so, to act as an intermediary for the purposes of securing the performance of services or the supplying of materials, equipment, or facilities by one member of the Agency for another; and to perform any operation or service useful in research on, or development or practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful purposes;

2. To make provision, in accordance with this Statute, for materials, services, equipment, and facilities to meet the needs of research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful purposes, including the production of electric power, with due consideration for the needs of the under-developed areas of the world;

3. To foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on peaceful uses of atomic energy;

4. To encourage the exchange of training of scientists and experts in the field of peaceful uses of atomic energy;

5. To establish and administer safeguards designed to ensure that special fissionable and other materials, services, equipment, facilities, and information made available by the Agency or at its request or under its supervision or control are not used in such a way as to further any military purpose; and to apply safeguards, at the request of the parties, to any bilateral or multilateral arrangement, or at the request of a State, to any of that State's activities in the field of atomic energy;

6. To establish or adopt, in consultation and, where appropriate, in collaboration with the competent organs of the United Nations and with the specialized agencies concerned, standards of safety for protection of health and minimization of danger to life and property (including such standards for labour conditions), and to provide for the application of these standards to its own operations as well as to the operations making use of materials, services, equipment, facilities, and information made available by the Agency or at its request or under its control or supervision; and to provide for the application of these standards, at the request of the parties, to operations under any bilateral or multilateral arrangements, or, at the request of a State, to any of that State's activities in the field of atomic energy;

7. To acquire or establish any facilities, plant and equipment useful in carrying out its authorized functions, whenever the facilities, plant, and equipment otherwise available to it in the area concerned are inadequate or available only on terms it deems unsatisfactory.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

<snip>

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[wtmusic]

100. Yeah, the World Health Organization is one pretty shady outfit

madokie is onto you guys! :D

[CRH]

22. Experts, only the uninformed think scientists are experts, ...

You want to base policy on experts? Nuclear experts?

The nuclear experts have yet to find a economically feasible solution to waste. Nuclear experts designed the present Fukushima plants, correct? Those experts designed the plant to withstand a 7.0 earthquake, correct. And those experts also knew, that in 1923 the Great Kanto quake struck less than 150 miles south of Fukushima, correct? Those experts knew it was a 7.9 earthquake that killed 140,000 people, correct? So those experts knew that 48 years earlier the earthquake that occurred that was 9 times as strong as their design specs, yet they still thought their plan was adequate, correct? Those experts also knew it caused a tsunami of 10 meters that wiped out 570,000 homes, leaving 1.5 million homeless, correct? Why did those experts put the cooling pumps and emergency generators in the path of a tsunami if they knew 48 years earlier a tsunami after a quake had devastated the same coast of the same island?

Are these the same nuclear expert opinions you want to form our policy?

The Mark I containment and reactor was designed by nuclear experts, correct? And how many years was it before it was deemed a flawed design? And those who said this was a flawed design appear to be proven right, correct? Why didn't the experts remove these flawed design reactors from use, before an accident occurred? Was it because these nuclear experts felt they were still safe? Was the profit of the industry that provided their livelihood, more important than safety? Were these nuclear expert opinions tainted by self interest, or were these nuclear expert opinions, just plain wrong?

Are these the same nuclear expert opinions you want to form our policy?

Nuclear experts? Oh you mean like the MIT type? How about that Rasmussen report released in 1974? It declared nuclear energy was so safe a person had better odds of dying from a meteor strike. The whole expert report was a farce based on unrealistic assumptions. This nuclear expert report was so inaccurate, even the NRC backed away from it, withdrawing endorsement in 1979 after the Three Mile Island mishap. It seems many other scientists as well, were not so convinced of these expert opinions.

Are these the same nuclear expert opinions you want to form our policy?

I think you have self interest, and you believe in experts, that have proven themselves, less than expert.

on edit: added a word

[XemaSab]

38. Fuck scientists.

Scientists suck.

[GliderGuider]

49. I knew this absolutely gorgeous string theoretician once...

In my fantasies she fit both categories... :hi:

[CRH]

52. Oh my! is that a double entendre, ...

both categories? Ah, yes that does seem to happen sometimes. (:-)

[wtmusic]

42. Where do you go looking for experts?

Science has had a fairly good track record at finding causes for phenomena over the years. I'd venture to guess you're alive because of science, but I digress.

You have an alternate, fine. Should florists decide nuclear policy? What about bartenders? If you can't come up with a better alternative you're just spouting bullshit.

Now that we've annihilated that pathetic argument...

The fact that you criticize the Mark I as a "flawed design" betrays your lack of background in engineering. Every design has weaknesses, every design has strengths. Every design (whether it's well-designed, with very few weaknesses, or not) has practical considerations of cost.

Mark 1 was the first generation of BWR. They're old, more advanced designs followed. But 23 Mark 1s are still in operation in the US, putting out hundreds of terawatthours of energy every year. They have a stellar track record here - not ONE FATALITY. Just the Mark 1s alone save burning about 30 billion tons of coal every year.

Fuck, I keep falling back on science, my bad. Now I'm anxious to hear your "informed bartender" opinion. :rofl:

[CRH]

51. Where do I go looking for experts? ... Bartenders? ...

Your science has fallen to the depths of disaster. (Your bad). And, I am alive because I live within the confines of nature, and her magnificent balance, thus you have annihilated nothing only exposed your desperation, through attack without fact or basis of argument. Your adjective 'pathetic', best describes your comments.

Suggest you turn your arrogant laughing smiley over, before I ram it forcefully, where the sun don't shine.

If you don't flip your smiley, I might have to ask you the question again, how many years was it after installation, others felt it was a flawed design? You see you have tried to deflect the issue to whether I am an engineer, or have equivalent abilities. It is a non issue, even with my non existent bartender. Other, concerned scientists and laymen, found these flaws, soon after the first prototypes were built. I am surprised you wouldn't be aware, but then again, maybe I'm not.

[wtmusic]

55. My smiley is laughing harder than ever.

You can stack as many terrified activists as you like against the design of the Mark 1 - they're crying over the internet to each other on computers in air conditioned rooms, all probably powered by a Mark 1.

Wonderful, we have laymen deciding policy now - I'm sorry, laymen and "concerned scientists", like the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists- wait, he's not even a scientist, just an activist/poseur:

"Kevin Knobloch brings 32 years of experience in public policy, government, advocacy and media to his job as leader of Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). He is knowledgeable about a range of environmental and national security issues, including global warming, natural resource and clean energy economics, renewable and efficient vehicle technologies, nuclear weapons, forest management and corporate responsibility, as well as legislative strategy and procedure."

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/experts/kevin-knobloch.html

They might consider changing their name to the Union of Confirmed Liars - a thought.

Good thing Obama and Stephen Chu are ignoring all of them.

[kristopher]

57. So you think you know energy policy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=280296&mesg_id=280296

You don't.

[Confusious]

59. Boy, such arrogance

Reminds me of someone I used to work for. Everyone thought he was a joke, and when they got the chance, ignored him.

He was probably more famous then you'll ever be. NY times gave him a article when he died.

[kristopher]

61. You are another continuing source of false information

Would you like the link to your claim that the MIT nuclear study said nuclear power is more effective than renewables even though the study in question specifically declined to address that question?

The claim that nuclear is needed cannot be sustained with valid, vetted evidence. If you have such evidence you need to produce it now.


Dept of Energy Myths about Solar Electricity Jan 2003

Myths about Solar Electricity
The area required for PV systems to supply the United States with its electricity is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land.

Solar electric systems are an important part of the whole-building approach to constructing a better home or commercial building. Although these systems have delivered clean, reliable power for more than a decade, several myths have evolved that confuse the real issues of using solar electricity effectively.

Myth #1
Solar electricity cannot contribute a significant fraction of the nation’s electricity needs.

Solar electric panels can meet electricity demand on any scale, from a single home to a large city. There is plenty of energy in the sunlight shining on all parts of our nation to generate the electricity we need. For example, with today’s commercial systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply the United States with all of its electricity. If these systems were distributed to the
50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles. This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. In fact, 90% of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities.

Myth #2 ** (see footnote added by K)
Solar electricity can do everything—right now!

Solar electricity will eventually contribute a significant part of our electricity supply, but the industry required to produce these systems must grow more than tenfold over the next 10 years. In 2001, about 400 megawatts of solar electric modules were produced worldwide. According to an industry-planning document, in order to supply just 10% of U.S. generation capacity by 2030, the U.S. solar electricity industry must supply more than 3,200 megawatts per year. Most experts agree that with continued research, solar electric systems will become more efficient, even more reliable, and less expensive.

Myth #3
Producing solar electric systems creates pollution and uses more energy than the system can produce over its lifetime.

Producing solar electric systems uses energy and produces some unwanted byproducts. However, most solar electric systems pay back the energy used to produce them in about one year. Because the systems generally last 30 years, during the 30 years of a system's life, it is producing free and clean electricity for 29 of those years.
Production of solar electric systems is regulated by rigorous safety and pollution control standards. In addition, during the lifetime of a solar electric system, pollution that would have been emitted by conventional generation of electricity is avoided. For each kilowatt of solar electric generating capacity, the pollution avoided by not using fossil fuels to produce electricity amounts to 9 kilograms of sulfuric oxide, 16 kilograms of nitrous oxide, and between 600 and 2,300 kilograms of carbon dioxide per year. The annual amount of carbon dioxide offset by a 2.5-kW rooftop residential solar electric system is equal to that emitted by a typical family car during that same year.

Myth #4
Solar electric systems make sense in only a few applications.

Solar electric systems make sense nearly anywhere electricity is needed. Homes and businesses that are already using electricity from the utility, such as homes, businesses, and electric-vehicle charging stations, represent nearly 60% of the market for solar electric systems. The number of these grid-connected applications is growing because they make sense economically, environmentally, and aesthetically. Solar electric systems make economic sense because they use free fuel from the sun and require little upkeep because they have no moving parts. Every bit of electricity produced is used in the home or sold back to the electric utility for use by other customers. Solar electric systems also make sense for the environment and can blend seamlessly into the design of a building.

Myth #5
Solar electric systems are unreliable and produce substandard electricity.
Solar electric systems are some of the most reliable products available today. They are silent, have no moving parts, and have been tested to rigorous standards by public and private organizations. Many solar electric products have been tested and listed by Underwriters Laboratories, just as electrical appliances are. Warranties of 20-25 years are standard for most modules.
Solar electric systems connected to the utility grid generate the same kind of power as that from the power line. Today’s systems must meet the requirements of the National Electrical Code, the local utility, and local building codes. Once these systems are installed according to these requirements, the owner of a solar-electric-powered home has electricity of the same quality as any other utility customer.

Myth #6
It is difficult to make solar electric systems aesthetically pleasing and functional for homes and businesses.
The buildings shown here include solar electric systems serving dual functions: building structure and generation of electricity. These photos represent only a small sample of the beautiful, functional, and energy-efficient buildings being designed with solar electric components. (download for photos- link below)
In the future, people will reflect on our current solar electric technology much as we reflect on the technology of the Model T Ford: with admiration for the pioneering visionaries of the day and perhaps amusement at the technology that seems so primitive compared to what we now enjoy. Researchers believe that in the future, new physics and technologies will be developed that will greatly improve solar energy technology. As for the present day, clean, reliable solar electricity is increasingly popular with home and business owners, which helps to dispel the myths surrounding this technology.


Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE national laboratory
DOE/GO-102003-1671 January 2003

www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/32529.pdf


**At the time this DOE pamphlet was written, the US was the leader in PV - now we are 5th. The global solar manufacturing capacity is now more relevant since the Republicans have successfully obstructed every policy that would have helped the industry grow here. You can see from this discussion, however, that China's manufacturing capacity is expected to hit 35GW/year this year. That compares to the 3GW of manufacturing capacity identified in myth #2.

Before 2007, China wasn't even on the radar. After Fukushima, what do you think they are going to do?

[Confusious]

65. Sure pass me that link

I'm not sure I ever said anything like that, but I'd like to see how long you keep infractions against the church of renewables.

[CRH]

62. Terrified activists??? ... There again you answer not the post, ...

I think it is you who is frightened, defending past practice and qualification, that has been proven false. Common sense, hell horse sense, has predicted your industry's failure, while combatting the deafening noise of disinformation, of nuclear experts. And yet again, you introduce another straw man, this time, the UCS. You really can't stand by your own comments, can you? You need not answer, those who have eyes will see, those who can read, will know.

You haven't answered yet, from post 22. How long was it after the prototype of Mark I reactor containment, was it found by many scientist and laymen, to be flawed? And, were they right? And why didn't the nuclear experts, replace this faulty design before there was an accident? Was it for reasons of profit? Did they think it was safe, even after much criticism? What is the lessen of Fukushima? Has it not illustrated earlier concerns? Come on, no more straw men. Forget it, your responses illustrate your inability to find support of your premise, thus your obfuscation.

[Confusious]

58. I am alive because I live within the confines of nature

What a joke. I could probably see your life and point out more then half a dozen points in your life where science has kept you alive. More then that most likely.

If you weren't born in a cave in the boonies somewhere, and lived there all your life, science has touched your life.

I suppose you're in harmony with nature using that computer, for example.

[CRH]

66. Yet another straw man, I probably live more simply than you can imagine, ...

that does not mean to say I live totally without technology, but no, I do not owe my life to science. I do live a life of striving to use the minimum that is possible for sustenance, and if I had to reduce my monthly 300 KWs of electricity, for three persons, I could and would. I only drive when needed, last year about 1200 miles, I walk or use public transportation when possible, and only travel when I can't buy local. I eat from the garden when possible and supplement as needed with local production. Do I need the sciences of chemical agriculture? No I even pay more when local organic is available, and sometimes I choose to do without rather than support over transported global production.

If the society I lived in was well organized and not globalized, I could easily live on what grows or is produced nearby.

So no my life is no joke, and I still live in a modest 800 sq/ft home (for three) that is no cave. Boonies, well I must admit, I have always preferred rural life to apartments in the city or suburbia, and prefer reading to television, exercise to sedentary, vegetables to vitamin pills, fasting to doctors, natural nutrition to supplements, bald to toupees, needs to wishes, simplistic to plastic. I am basically toy free at sixty, if you don't count the shovels and rakes for the garden.

I do have this computer, to combat the idiocy of the status quo of a society gone mad. But, even this computer is a 2002 model with no bells and whistles, and if life were such that debating idiots was not essential, and entertaining, I could do without blogging, too.

Do I owe my life to science, NO. Sometimes I must endure the restraints of a society over stimulated by frivolous consumption, much of which was made possible by science. Do I view any of that as essential to my happiness, no.

Next straw man -

[Confusious]

71. Sorry, you used strawman in the wrong way

Please review:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

You stated " I am alive because I live within the confines of nature" I said that was a load of BS. You say 'Do I owe my life to science, NO." Another load of BS. I did not misrepresent your position. Maybe you misrepresented it.

As much as you would like to say you don't, it's still saying "I'm cleansed of the system, except when my amp needs electric power"

What about the food inspections, or clean water, or public transportation, or lights, or medical science which freed us from diseases like small pox. You see, some of those things you get when you are born, whether you want them or not. If you don't use them, I assume your neighbors do. That contributes to you in less disease and a better life. So unless you live out in the Amazon jungle with the tribes, you're full of it.

On top of that, you sound like some people who say "We don't need no government." and a Luddite.

[CRH]

72. Sorry, not a Luddite either, ... n/t

[Kablooie]

79. They need to bill the nuke companies for 10,000 years of maintenance on the hot waste.

[closeupready]

12. Money.

$$$

[GliderGuider]

13. Because:

1. They believe that global warming the biggest threat facing life on the planet, even bigger than any risks posed by nuclear power;
2. They believe that building nuclear power will reduce our use of fossil fuels that cause global warming;
3. They believe that nuclear power is cheap enough to keep in our toolkit of low-GHG energy technologies;
4. They believe that human beings are up to the engineering and administrative challenge of keeping nuclear power relatively safe.

Up until 6 weeks or so ago I met all four criteria. No longer.

I still believe that climate change is the biggest threat we face, and I think that nuclear power isn't that expensive for what we get.

However, I no longer believe that building nukes reduces our use of coal, instead I recognize that it simply adds to it.
And I certainly don't believe that humanity has developed the technical or organizational maturity required to cope with such a complex, brittle, high-maintenance and risky technology.

So, shut them down.

[Gregorian]

14. That is exactly right.

I studied mechanical engineering with someone who continues to support nuclear energy using those criteria. And he is smart. I imagine it's going to take more than the Japanese disaster to change his mind. The problem with bright people is they think they know the truth, even when they're wrong sometimes.

Cheers.

[flamingdem]

17. They use the Global Warming excuse for Nukes but they could care less about the

enviroment, as seen with the pro-Nuke industry types who've shown up here attacking other areas of the environmental movement, greenpeace, arnie gundersen, etc.

[Confusious]

24. Logical fallacy

Just because I may not like greenpeace doesn't mean I don't care about the environment. Greenpeace is not the environment.

Just as Israel is not every Jew.

[flamingdem]

27. It's obvious that where there is smoke / fire | Anti-greenpeace = Pro-nuke right wing nt

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Confusious]

34. Logical fallacy still

Very authoritarian of you to say also.

You must follow or you're not one of us.

You're either with us or against us... hmmmm....?

[flamingdem]

35. I've heard the anti-Greenpeace schtick and it is right next to Obama as the Joker usually nt

[Confusious]

37. You're still the one mouthing authoritarian views

March this way or you're not one of us.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Confusious]

40. Your comments show you couldn't buy a clue. nt

[flamingdem]

41. Exhibit A, use of subpar snark nt

[Nihil]

47. I largely agree with you

> 1. They believe that global warming the biggest threat facing life on the planet,
> even bigger than any risks posed by nuclear power;
> 2. They believe that building nuclear power will reduce our use of fossil fuels
> that cause global warming;
> 3. They believe that nuclear power is cheap enough to keep in our toolkit of
> low-GHG energy technologies;
> 4. They believe that human beings are up to the engineering and administrative
> challenge of keeping nuclear power relatively safe.
>
> Up until 6 weeks or so ago I met all four criteria. No longer.

As you say, I used to believe all four of those but some - though not all - of those
beliefs have definitely been eroded over the years (i.e., even before the tsunami).


> I still believe that climate change is the biggest threat we face,

Agreed.


> and I think that nuclear power isn't that expensive for what we get.

Partially agreed: It doesn't need to be as expensive as it is and (when operational)
it delivers very well. The problem is that, in contrast to most technological
products over time, the price tag will always be *increasing* and so the financial
advantage is definitely deteriorating. Most of this increase is down to purely
human factors rather than technological ones and these is why it appears to be
defying the usual trend for technology.

(Note: by "human factors" I am not just meaning the legal obstructions thrown up
by protesters but also the greed, the "do everything as cheap & quickly as possible"
attitude to maximise short-term profits. "Paint it green and ship it" only has to
work once for the bonus to be paid and the executive to jump to their next cushy
post.)


> However, I no longer believe that building nukes reduces our use of coal,
> instead I recognize that it simply adds to it.

I disagree on the wording of this but I think this is a result of past effects of
Jevon's Paradox (specifically the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate as I understand it).
The use of cheap nuclear power - and it *was* cheap then - undermined its own
predicted future (the infamous "too cheap to meter") by the simple fact that it
promoted electricity consumption (increasing demand) rather than replacing the
sources for existing demand. At the same time, the opposition to nuclear power
was constantly increasing the costs needed to offset it - indeed, some opposition
was so successful that it managed to create a funding black hole that absorbed
all of the money without giving a single Watt back for it.

I suspect that the recent events will have almost guaranteed that our use of
coal will increase dramatically this decade for the simple reason that existing
projects will be cancelled/mothballed/abandoned and the resulting gap will be
filled primarily with cookie-cutter coal plants after a short period of supply
shortage. (Note: I am not *hoping* for this result but I am half expecting it.)


> And I certainly don't believe that humanity has developed the technical or
> organizational maturity required to cope with such a complex, brittle,
> high-maintenance and risky technology.

This is the point that has changed nearly 180 degrees for me over recent years
and is the primary reason why my support for nuclear power is on the wane.

Maybe I'm just getting old but my confidence in the supremacy of science &
engineering
over superstition & mob-rule has been melting away over the last few years.
I have a BSc (Hons) & a BA and have been working in IT & related fields
for over 28 years. I keep fairly up to date on things and have every confidence
in the actual scientific/technological advances. The problem comes when they
move into the "implementation space" - the world of financiers, politicians,
"entrepreneurs" and the untrained public. That's where everything goes rotten.

At first, I wrote it off as "an American thing": sad but not that surprising
that the seat of "Creation Science", supersized junk food, MegaChurches and
the "Greed is Good" maxim would end up with science & technology falling victim
to political & public ignorance.

That's why I accepted - several years ago on this forum - that the US was
probably not the place to find competently run nuclear projects. However,
I could still see competence & intelligence thriving elsewhere so I wasn't
that dismayed.

Maybe I should have been as I should have remembered how trends, fashions
and policies tend to be set in the US and spread elsewhere. I should also
have remembered that by the time a rust-spot breaks through the paintwork,
the actual damage is usually much wider under the surface.

Again, I blamed much of the spread in my own country on the blatant sucking-up
of the political leaders (from Thatcher onwards) to the US administrations
(Reagan onwards) and so missed that this was a far wider phenomenon.

Now we find that all of the good work in making the Japanese reactors strong enough
to survive even such an overpowered quake as happened has been largely undone by
the pointless "cost savings" with regard to the emergency generators.
Not a scientific failing, not technological one, just a human one.

It is this reason why I am 100% against the "technological magic wand" of
geoengineering "solutions" that are only intended to fool the great unwashed
into believing they can maintain business as usual - well, until the people
involved can cash their cheques and bug out.

> So, shut them down.

Part of me wants them to be shut down immediately so that people can actually
understand the impact and personally realise the consequences of what they are
demanding. Part of me wants the funds that are currently in the chain for nuclear
power to be transferred straight across to renewables - wind & distributed solar
in particular - with the obvious exception of funds ring-fenced for the shutdown
process.

Most of me however recognises that it's simply not going to happen.

There is too much money at stake.

There are too many political careers that would be vulnerable to both the loss
of income and the loss of votes if this was to take place.

There are simply too many people who are totally unwilling to accept the realities
of the world outside of the cosy make-believe fantasy projected by their TV sets.


I will probably still post "apparently in favour of nuclear power" simply because
the stunningly sad expanse of scientific ignorance shown by many of the "anti-nuke"
posters is just too grating (the ones that simply parrot & re-post drivel from
Fox News et al, not the ones who have actually found valid points to argue) but at
the moment, my heart really isn't in it as I have had a glimpse of the future
and it simply isn't worth the effort ... the phrase "training a pig to sing"
springs to mind - it's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

Have a nice day folks.

[GliderGuider]

48. Thanks for an honest, balanced and well-reasoned post.

Your observation about the continually rising cost of nuclear power is well-taken.

I just have a couple of comments.

I'd be cautious about laying too much credit at the feet of Jevons, Brooks and Khazzoom. Rebound effects are usually well below unity, and it took until 1980 for nuclear power to generate even 10% of the electricity produced from coal, and until 1990 for that proportion to reach 20% on a global level (it’s now around 19%). So given all the other cost-reduction factors in play around coal, NG and hydro, even if nuclear electricity had actually been free, I don't think it would have raised the global demand for electricity too much. Expectations of free energy don’t raise demand as much as electricity that's actually cheaper, and that never happened with nuclear power. Nuclear power may have played some minor role at the very beginning, but I expect that the effect was swamped by other cost reductions, as well as growth in other areas of the economy that stimulated demand organically.

I also have a different take on the potential growth of coal over the next decade due to the loss of support for nuclear power. Frankly, IMO this accident came at a grotesquely fortuitous time. I think we are just heading into a long (multi-decade) period of steadily worsening, cyclic global recessions. The resulting drop in economic activity will destroy a lot of demand for industrial electricity. So even as the nuclear industry founders there will be no rising demand to drive a further build-out of coal. In fact, we will probably even see coal plants being taken off-line in various places as the demand for their electricity dies out. I both expect and hope for this outcome.

[dbackjon]

15. Because it is currently our best alternative

[XemaSab]

20. Because nobody has put forth a better option

I'm still pro-nuke, with proper siting.

Obviously old designs should not be used near faults capable of 9.0 earthquakes.

[hunter]

29. Looks like the plants survived the earthquake well enough...

... it was the tsunami that broke them.

If a nuclear plant requires big diesel generators to shut down safely, well, that's a mistake.

[TNLib]

23. Because they generate allot of power consistently

They rarely go offline except during scheduled outages. They release no emissions and I think they have been for the past decade been viewed as a safe and reliable source of energy. I think the conventional wisdom is Chernobyl was just a fluke and those careless Russians caused the problem.

However now that we are witnessing this disaster as it unfolds, I believe the blinders are off just to how dangerous Nuclear Energy. And what has been an eye opener for me is all these great minds can't seem to get it under control. I worked at a power Utility company for the last decade and have mostly been a supporter of Nuclear Energy but I have no confidence that the rednecks that run the Nukes in my area could handle a Nuclear disaster.

[Confusious]

25. Becuase I would prefer not to put all of my eggs in one basket nt

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chris_Texas]

30. I support nuclear power 100%.

I believe we need new reactors and LOTS more of them.

But then, perhaps this is because I am overly fond of civilization, clean air, and what not.

[FranMonet]

44. todays nukes are temporary

The problem with light water reactors as a long term energy source is that at the rate we
are using uranium now we only have a eighty year supply of energy . If the world doubles its
reactors then we have only forty year supply or uranium .
If we want long term safe nuclear energy we have to develop Thorium reactors that are
impossible to melt down and produce 1/1000th of the waste that uranium reactors create.
This is one of the biggest, best, most-overlooked quick solutions to the global warming crisis. I got the following from http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com .

1. Compared to conventional light-water reactors, thorium fluoride reactors produce 0.1% of the waste. And the waste that is produced has a half-life of only 30 years, compared to 10,000 years or so with waste produced by light-water reactors.

2. Fuel is Thorium, which, though radioactive, is the least radioactive substance known -- about 1000 x less radioactive than Uranium. Easy to transport safely, minimal shielding required, safe to mine. Also four times more abundant that Uranium.

3. Unlike conventional light-water reactors, thorium fluoride reactors can't melt down, because the fuel is already liquid in the reactor core.

4. Unlike conventional light-water reactors, the core liquid in thorium fluoride reactors is unpressurized, meaning much less chance of leakage, and zero chance of pressure explosion. Also easier to engineer and build.

5. You can actually use a thorium fluoride reactor to "cook" existing radioactive wastes from light-water reactors, turning it into usable energy.

6. The reactor can be designed to be self-regulating -- no control rods, no operator input required. When the load is too small, less heat is removed through the heat exchanger, causing more heat to be build up in the core. At that point, the hotter liquid fuel expands out of the reactor core, reducing the reaction. In times of greater load, the reverse process happens.

7. Although it's possible to build a bomb from U233, the fissile isotope in a thorium reactor, it's not easy to do so -- the gamma radiation is much higher than with U235, making material handling much more difficult. So there is less chance of weapons diversion. Further, if you size the reactor properly (make it small enough), the amount of "excess" U233, not needed to sustain the reaction, is small.

We actually built one of these back in the 1960's, so the technology is proven. But there would still be a lot of original engineering involved in bringing this technology back. Given their manifest advantages, this is a HUGE win-win technology that should be pursued vigorously.

[DeSwiss]

31. K&R

Q: Why would anyone support nuclear power?
A: Hubris.

[PamW]

32. California could have had Diablo for the original $1.3B

Nuclear power plants used to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Diablo Canyon’s initial estimated cost was $1.3 billion. The final tab was $5.3 billion.
==================

The bulk of the overage was additional financial carrying charges because
Diablo Canyon was held up by the anti-nukes.

There are plants similar to Diablo that came in well within their projected costs.
The difference is they are located in parts of the country where one doesn't have
the populace of ill-informed anti-nuke obstructionists.

PamW

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[CRH]

56. Hey Pam W, Does installing the seismic supports backwards, ...

for the reactors, constitute confidence during public review? Does building the power plant on the Hosgni fault line, that produced an earthquake that destroyed Santa Barbara in 1927, seem something the public should have an answer to, before commissioning an ill advised project? An Ill advised Project you ask? ...

Well, ... there was an earthquake in 1923 just south of Fukushima, it was a 7.9. A ten meter tsunami followed. The nuclear industry decided to build a plant, with specs to withstand a 7.0 earthquake, in 1971. As well, the experts designed the cooling pumps and backup diesel generation, in the path of the next tsunami. duh.

Do you believe in providence? 1923 Fukushima - 1927 Hosni fault line. Is Diablo Canyon due for another, 'Who could have known' ???

I don't necessarily believe in providence, but I certainly don't believe in the expertise, of the nuclear industry.

Diablo Canyon was over budget for a very good reason. Incredible malfeasance in presenting the facts to the public, and incredible incompetence in construction. It is only open today, because the government and the courts, trumped reason.

[PamW]

64. Actually that is NOT what happened.

Hey Pam W, Does installing the seismic supports backwards, ..
=================================

Actually, that is NOT what happened. During my graduate years at
MIT, we had a member of the NRC come give a seminar. It was
right about the time that these reports came out about Diablo Canyon.

The professors and students were puzzled about the reports, since they
didn't make sense. The NRC commissioner explained the reports - they
are the result of journalists not understanding the science.

There are two reactor units at Diablo Canyon. They are mirror images
of each other. If one has mirror-imaged units, one can legitimately
cut your analysis work in half - rigorously, without approximation.

The laws of physics are symmetric. They don't care which way is left and
which way is right. A mirror-image world would work exactly the same as
our present world.

Therefore, you only need to analyze one reactor. PG&E chose Unit 2, and
analyzed it for quakes coming from all directions. What about Unit 1?

For a quake incident on Unit 1, you take the position of the quake and
mirror image it in the plant's symmetry plane between units 1 and 2.
For this mirror imaged quake, you look up Unit 2's response, and that
will be the answer. The real quake is the mirror image of the quake
you used with Unit 2, and Unit 1 is the mirror image of Unit 2; so the
analysis is totally rigorous.

That is IF the two units are 100% mirror images of each other.
What the young engineer discovered is that they are not 100% mirror-images,
they are 99.99% mirror images. The pressurizer of Unit 1 is not exactly in
the mirror image position of Unit 2's pressurizer. Therefore, PG&E can't take
this shortcut, and had to do a stand alone analysis of Unit 1.

The NRC explained that to the media journalists, and they didn't understand all
this stuff about symmmetry. The story about the plant being built backwards was
just what the media made of an explanation they didn't understand.

The actual work was done properly.

PamW

[CRH]

68. Countless articles point out a fact, ...

As designed in the blueprints that were submitted for public review, the seismic supports were constructed backwards. Other aspects had to be changed as well. In all the design changes and re construction happened three times, allowing for more seismic strength than the original design and correcting numerous defects in construction. From the onset PGE lied in public forums, falsified documents, under researched and under designed the project from the start.

[PamW]

73. Do you know what a seismic support is - Evidently NOT

As designed in the blueprints that were submitted for public review, the seismic supports were constructed backwards.
=============================

Do you know what a "seismic support" is? Do you know how a nuclear power
plant is equipped to withstand an earthquake?

Evidently NOT.

In order to allow the plant to withstand an earthquake, an analysis is done
to see which parts of the plant, piping or whatever, is going to be moved in
the quake. Parts of the plant that are going to move in a quake by more than
a certain fraction of an inch have to be restrained with "seismic supports".

Do you know what a "seismic support", also called a "snubber" is?

Evidently NOT A "seismic support" / "snubber" is a big viscous damper,
something that one might normally refer to as a "shock absorber".

This is why scientists and engineers get such a big kick out of laughing at the
anti-nukes complaining about "seismic supports" being backwards. Shock absorbers
work equally well either way you install them. Take a look at what they look like:

http://www.taylordevices.com/lockup-devices-snubbers.html

Do you really think that if one of those were installed the other way around
it would make any difference at all.

In times like this, the anti-nukes always come through with some "comic relief".

PamW

[CRH]

83. It seems an engineer not an anti nuke made that claim, ...

your rant -

This is why scientists and engineers get such a big kick out of laughing at the
anti-nukes complaining about "seismic supports" being backwards. Shock absorbers
work equally well either way you install them. Take a look at what they look like:

http://www.taylordevices.com/lockup-devices-snubbers.ht...

Do you really think that if one of those were installed the other way around
it would make any difference at all.

In times like this, the anti-nukes always come through with some "comic relief".

http://www.energy-net.org/1NWO/PGE/5PGE.HTM

• A newly hired engineer discovers that PG&E had built the seismic supports for the reactors backwards, just after the Abalone Alliance had completed the largest civil disobedience action in U.S. history.

Don't ask me how PG&E did it, but a newly hired engineer says they did. "Comic relief", indeed!

[PamW]

102. It wasn't an engineer that said "backwards"

newly hired engineer discovers that PG&E had built the seismic supports for the reactors backwards,
===============================

I explained this already, perhaps you didn't understand.

According to the NRC commissioner giving the seminar, the new engineer didn't
say the supports were "backwards". What the new engineer discovered was that
the Unit 1 pressurizer is not in the mirror image location of the Unit 2 pressurizer.

That meant that PG&E couldn't "reuse" the Unit 2 analysis for Unit 1.

The NRC commissioner explained that when the NRC attempted to explain the significance
of the "mirror image" error, the reporters from the news media just didn't understand.
The "backwards" or "reversed" comments are what the reporters made out of an explanation
that they didn't understand.

That's one of the big problems with getting good information concerning nuclear power.
The news media doesn't understand it. Just the other day a TV news reporter said that
Plutonium was so much more dangerous than Uranium because Plutonium has a longer half-life.

That's 100% WRONG. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of ~24,000 years. Uranium-235 has
a half-life of 705 million years, and the most common form of uranium, Uranium-238 has
a half-life of 4.5 Billion years.

You are getting your information via people who don't understand the technology, so they
are giving you a distorted view of the news. How accurate an explanation do you think
you could give to someone else about something you don't understand yourself?

PamW

[PamW]

74. I've always wondered....

From the onset PGE lied in public forums, falsified documents, under researched and under designed the project from the start.
===========================================

Just because the anti-nukes didn't like the answers they got doesn't mean PG&E lied.
More likely, the problem was lack of understanding on behalf of the anti-nukes.

I've always wondered why some seem to have a blind irrational hatred of PG&E.
One would think the chairman of the board was Grand Moff Tarkin, and the executive
vice-president in charge of nuclear generation was Darth Vader.

PG&E has run Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant safely and successfully providing
about 25% of northern California's electric power for the past quarter century.

I'm well aware how the anti-nukes and the Mothers for Peace ( what does Diablo Canyon
have to do with peace. ) fought impotently to keep Diablo Canyon from operating.

Is it because PG&E triumphed in the Courts and the NRC over the self-absorbed anti-nukes?
Has that grudge been simmering and festering for the last 25 years.

The only thing the anti-nukes accomplished was unneccessary delays and a ballooning of
the plants cost, which we PG&E rate-payers have to pay for. Thank you very much,
self-righteous anti-nukes. Thanks for nothing.

PamW

[CRH]

80. Tsk, Tsk, you prattle so, ... here are some inconvenient facts that get in you way, ...s

Information extracted from the following timeline.
~~ http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/DIABLO1.HTM ~~

-1965 - Dept. of Interior starts geological investigation near Diablo site.
- May 1965 - PG&E starts detailed site investigation.
- Aug. 1965 - an off shore seismic fault found at Diablo site, but considered unimportant. Note: PG&E's initial seismic study cost $2,000, less than the price of an automobile.
- Nov 1966 - Unit 1 estimate cost of 162 million.
- Jan 1967 - PG&E submits Construction and Preliminary Safety Analysis Reports (PSAR) for Unit 1 to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and the AEC without much apparent review, gives the plan a stamp of approval the same month.
- Feb - 1967 - PG&E raises price tag on Unit 1 to 188 million, before any significant protests have taken place.
- March 1967 - US Geological Survey geologist says more off shore seismic studies are needed, or the plant location should be changed. *** Note: This is the first independent seismic appraisal.
- April 1967 - PG&E refuses further investigations, citing project delays.
- Dec 1967 - AEC gives final approval of Unit 1 design plans.
- Jan 1968 - Unit 2 construction estimates, 157 Million.
- Feb 1968 - The ASLB testifies before the AEC the Diablo site geologically sound.
- Apr 1968 - The AEC approves PG&E construction permit for Unit 1, and begins construction in July 1968.
- Feb 1969 - Shell Oil geologists discovers Hosgri fault near the coast next to the site.

*** Note: This is after PG&E site investigation, and the US Geological Survey supervisor said more investigation was needed before construction. They had been warned, and ignored the findings, citing project delays. Whatever amount of money they lost after this discovery, for change of design or re construction falls on corporate management and the nuclear industry's government rubber stamping procedures. - The Public has a right to voice concerns in the permitting process, when it is they, who ultimately foot the largest bill, after a disaster. Any home or business within a hundred miles might tomorrow, be toxic beyond habitation. Water supplies and agriculture might be impacted for centuries. It is the Public's Right, to voice concerns.

- March 1969 - 14 months after the 157 million estimate for Unit 2, a new estimate raises cost 16% to 183 million, for whatever reason (?), but not as a result of hippie protesters or the Birkenstock brigade.
- May 1969 - PG&E revisits estimates yet again, raising by 50 million to 212 million, and tacks on another 9 million to unit 2 for good measure, two months after the 16% hike.
- Aug 1969 - California State Assembly endorses PGE 20 year plan for 63 reactors.

This was like waving a red flag in front of anyone in the golden state, who had been following the dust ups at Humboldt Bay (closed for problems), Bodega Bay (right on top of the San Andreas fault) , San Onefre (reactor installed backward to design specs), or Nipomo Dunes. It meant somewhere near their back yard a nuclear reactor was going to try to coexist with their future security of person and property. Viewing the young industry's history of deceit and incompetence in research, design and construction, every nimby near acquired a potential voice. And, when more people got to digging into facts and statements presented by PGE and the national nuclear industry's regulatory pals, well the rest is history. But, I shall continue.

- Jan 1970 - Testimony before the AEC by a independent geologists recommends a the Diablo facility should be built to withstand a 7.3 quake rather than the 6.75 in the design. The recommendation is ignored.
- May 1970 - A report of the Hongri fault is completed by PG&E. *** Note: remember this date.
- Dec 1970 - Unit 2 construction permit is issued.
- Jan 1971 - A full report is issued on the Honsri fault, and it is widely circulated among geologists. Government geologists are made aware and inform the AEC of this information, who conveniently lose the memo and fail to notify the ASLB who is responsible for licensing of the plant.
- July 1971 - Cost continue to spiral up, Unit 1 estimates 330 million, Unit 2 290 million.
- Oct 1972 - PG&E claims they have just learned of the Hosgri fault. How do you spell liars. May of 1970 they had completed their own report, which they failed to circulate to their company geologists, failed to inform the AEC, and failed to inform the licensing body the ASLB.
- June 1973 - Public Licensing hearings, huh; the pesky public, laymen most, were not trusted to comment on security issues, earthquakes, nuclear waste storage and transport, or emergency cooling systems, among other topics.
- Sep 1973 - The general public is finally informed about the Hosgri fault in a LA Times article.
- July 2, 1974 - the first disruptive protester is arrested, an abalone diver trying to disrupt testing of intake systems. This after the Mar 1974 hot testing that killed thousands of abalone after PG&E had previously estimated little impact.
- Dec 1974 - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission a rename of the AEC, finds based on US Geology Service findings, states the plant is under designed. Now much reconstruction and retrofitting is needed. Note: Remember earlier March of 1967 when the USGS supervisor stated more seismic study was needed before construction began. PG&E shined him on citing project delay. So who should bear all this reconstruction cost? Well the utility rate payer had this turkey hung around their neck later, in one of the biggest nuclear welfare awards ever.
- Dec 1974 - later it was found PG&E had lost documentation for more than a million man hours, I'm sure stuffed somewhere within the above turkey. Lost payroll records? Oh boy, when does it end.

Well not for some time, as the final price tag of over five billion dollars indicates. The whole sordid record can be found at many sources other than the link posted. You might choose to ignore this information, or falsely place blame on hippies or the mothers for peace or whoever. However, if the history of nuclear energy is studied, your comments lose all gravity in obfuscation. It is a history of deceit and corporate inefficiency, shoveled onto the load of the general public, who had little say in the process.

Other reading if you would like to become more informed with California nuclear history and the reasons for resistance.

~~ http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/CALIF.HTM

And in case you think the startling inefficiency has ended in the dawn of the nuclear industry, there is a link below to disavow an intelligent person of this notion.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/27/years-later-an-activist-layperson-is-still/

~ snip ~

It was disclosed recently that the emergency backup cooling systems at both of California’s nuclear plants were unknowingly inoperable for long periods of time – four years at San Onofre and 18 months at Diablo Canyon. How could the operators not even know that the emergency backup batteries were not functioning? So much for the industry’s self-regulating quality control. When the conditions were reported March 5, the situation was trivialized by Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric.

San Onofre has a history of major construction mistakes, operator error, serious malfunctions and security breaches. Why, during the construction of Unit 1, contractor Bechtel even installed the reactor vessel backward. These lapses, in my view, add up to a no-confidence equation.

Recent testimony before Congress by the chairman of the NRC was hardly reassuring. He indicated extensive study and analysis of existing nuclear reactors in United States will require substantial time. It’s a distinct disservice to the public to indicate the industry will progress along its learning curve while reactors continue operating dangerously.

~ end excerpt ~

That comment by the NRC should be concerning.

[PamW]

81. How about irrelevant facts....

-1965 - Dept. of Interior starts geological investigation near Diablo site.
- May 1965 - PG&E starts detailed site investigation.
- Aug. 1965 - an off shore seismic fault found at Diablo site, but considered unimportant. Note: PG&E's initial seismic study
====================================

BLAH BLAH BLAH - talk about irrelevant facts...

What does all this nonsense have to do with your ludicrous claim about the seismic supports
being installed backwards...

How can those devices be installed backwards.

Masking your error with a dump of irrelevant claims in an attempt to obscure
an error doesn't past muster in my book.

PamW

[CRH]

82. Seemed to answer your post 74, from the beginning, ...

Your rant ...

Just because the anti-nukes didn't like the answers they got doesn't mean PG&E lied.
More likely, the problem was lack of understanding on behalf of the anti-nukes.

I've always wondered why some seem to have a blind irrational hatred of PG&E.
One would think the chairman of the board was Grand Moff Tarkin, and the executive
vice-president in charge of nuclear generation was Darth Vader.

PG&E has run Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant safely and successfully providing
about 25% of northern California's electric power for the past quarter century.

I'm well aware how the anti-nukes and the Mothers for Peace ( what does Diablo Canyon
have to do with peace. ) fought impotently to keep Diablo Canyon from operating.

Is it because PG&E triumphed in the Courts and the NRC over the self-absorbed anti-nukes?
Has that grudge been simmering and festering for the last 25 years.

The only thing the anti-nukes accomplished was unneccessary delays and a ballooning of
the plants cost, which we PG&E rate-payers have to pay for. Thank you very much,
self-righteous anti-nukes. Thanks for nothing.

Try reading those 'irrelevant facts' again, and try not to move your lips while you try to think beyond your blinders. I gave you the history from the beginning, I'm sorry if this was inconvenient for your self deception. You might fool your self, but few others.

[CRH]

84. See post #83, ... Twas an engineer not an anti nuke,

that stated the seismic supports were built backwards. Sorry Pam, your wrong again.

[PamW]

86. Sorry - but YOU are WRONG!!

that stated the seismic supports were built backwards. Sorry Pam, your wrong again.
==============================

I have yet to be wrong here.

No - it is the misquoting of the engineer by journalists who don't understand.

But we don't have to rely on who said what.

LOOK at the picture of the "seismic support" that I posted and use your own head.

Tell me the physics of how installing that shock absorber "backwards" is going
to be any different than installing it "forwards".

Evidently you are proving to me that you just flat out don't know high school
level physics and how a shock absorber works.

Demonstrate to me that you have "some lead in your pencil".

PamW

[CRH]

87. Pam, How about a PG&E admission ... ?

~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

~~ snip ~~

However, by the time of the plant's completion in 1973, a seismic fault, the Hosgri fault, had been discovered several miles offshore. This fault had a 7.1 magnitude quake 10 miles offshore on November 4, 1927, and thus was capable of generating forces equivalent to approximately 1/16 of those felt in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.<10> The company updated its plans and added structural supports designed to reinforce stability in case of earthquake. In September 1981, PG&E discovered that a single set of blueprints was used for these structural supports; workers were supposed to have reversed the plans when switching to the second reactor, but did not.<11> According to Charles Perrow, the result of the error was that "many parts were needlessly reinforced, while others, which should have been strengthened, were left untouched." <12> Nonetheless, on March 19, 1982 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided not to review its 1978 decision approving the plant's safety, despite these and other design errors.<13>

In response to concern that ground acceleration, or shaking, could cause spillage of submerged fuel rod assemblies which, upon exposure to air, could ignite, PG&E and NRC regulators insist that the foregoing scenario is anticipated and controlled for, and that there is no basis to anticipate spillage.<14> Additional seismic studies are in process, however completion of those studies is not a condition precedent to reissuance of the operating licenses for the two onsite units.<15>

~~ end excerpt ~~

How about this admission by PG&E, who remarkably, notified the NRC that the seismic supports were built in a mirror image of their proper positions.

~~ http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_E/threadview?m=tm&bn=24619&tid=1959123&mid=1959191&tof=13&off=1

~~ snip ~~

Diablo Canyon Power Plant:

"The company responded to the resulting protests by improving the structural integrity of the building, after it was discovered that the structural plans to earthquake proof the plant had been reversed between the two identical reactors, therefore compromising the safety of the plant."

"A newly hired 25 year old engineer discovered after construction that the seismic blue prints for the Diablo Canyon plant had been reversed, and PG&E formally notified the NRC that it has built the seismic supports in a "mirror image" of their proper positions."

~~ end excerpt ~~

You see Pam, what you keep insisting, is that the supports can't be installed backwards, and this, might or might not be accurate. However regardless, they might not perform the desired function, if they are not placed in the proper position. Duh.
Can you imagine a car that has the shock absorbers mounted from the center of the front and rear bumpers, and another set fastened to the frame just behind the front doors. The absorbers might not function as designed.

Now I don't know what they teach in graduate studies at MIT, but they don't seem to cover topics from all the angles, or apparently positions, as well. But after the Rasmussen Report, this doesn't surprise me.

[PamW]

91. Inapt analogy

Can you imagine a car that has the shock absorbers mounted from the center of the front and rear bumpers, and another set fastened to the frame just behind the front doors. The absorbers might not function as designed.

Now I don't know what they teach in graduate studies at MIT, but they don't seem to cover topics from all the angles, or apparently positions, as well. But after the Rasmussen Report, this doesn't surprise me.
===================================================================

Totally inapt analogy. You are talking about connecting shock absorbers between points that don't have shock absorbers attached.

The analogy is to reverse the shock absorbers between the points that are supposed to have them. Except for the fact that shocks usually have
a cap to protect from road dirt ( not applicable here ) the shocks would work fine.

The reports you refer to are the ones that the NRC commissioner told us at MIT were wrong because the reporters misunderstood what the
NRC was telling them.

Evidently you don't understand that all your information comes second-hand from reporters in the media. The NRC commissioner said they
reported inaccurately.

BTW - the Rasmussen Report was very well done. It used the same methodology that is used in the airline industry.
BTW - the Three Mile Island accident happend right when the Rasmussen Report said it would.

PamW

[PamW]

93. Poorly constructed analogy

Can you imagine a car that has the shock absorbers mounted from the center of the front and rear bumpers, and another set fastened to the frame just behind the front doors. The absorbers might not function as designed.
=========================================

I find analogies very useful in explaining complex subjects, but that is because
I know how to make them. An analogy has to contain an "analog", i.e. something that
is similar in the analogy to the real case. Here we have a silly analogy that postulates
shock absorbers hooked between two non-moving parts of the auto. Is that? what what
PG&E was accused of doing? So there's no purpose or analogy here, and I shall not waste
further time on an inapt analogy.

I also won't waste effort on the gratuitous slap at MIT. MIT's reputation isn't going to
be sullied by the likes of denizens of DU.

However, taking a swipe at MIT was inappropriate and due to lack of reading comprehension.
I didn't say anything about what MIT does or does not teach. MIT merely hosted a seminar
by an NRC commissioner.

Progressives used to value critical thinking as scientists still do. When told that
supports were installed "backwards", how does one analyze that critically? As you saw,
the supports work equally well if inverted end-over-end, so that can't be the meaning of
"backwards". Suppose the supports were installed in the wrong place, is that the meaning
of "backwards"? Imagine you gave a floor plan of your house or place of work to someone
who was unfamiliar with the building. How long do you think it would take them to figure
out that the plan was reversed?

Of course, the anti-nuke with a false sense of mental superiority thinks that the employees
of PG&E are all low-grade pinheads, and wouldn't figure out a reversal. Of course, those
"pinheads" have been successfully operating a sophisticated piece of technology for more
than a quarter century.

The students and professors at MIT don't share the same delusions as the anti-nuke, so
the reports in the media were puzzling. One asked the commission what PG&E had admitted
to doing in error.

The NRC commissioner explained that the young engineer found a very subtle difference in
the placement of the pressurizers between Unit 1 and Unit 2. The pressurizers are not
in exact mirror-image locations which is necessary for the simplification of the analysis
of the seismic response that I explained in a previous post.

The news reporters didn't understand the explanation and the only thing they could make
out of it was that something was "backwards". That bit of misinformation has been
propagated by the anti-nukes for their own parochial purposes.

PamW

[CRH]

85. You call this a triumph in the courts, ...

- your rant -

I'm well aware how the anti-nukes and the Mothers for Peace ( what does Diablo Canyon
have to do with peace. ) fought impotently to keep Diablo Canyon from operating.

Is it because PG&E triumphed in the Courts and the NRC over the self-absorbed anti-nukes?
Has that grudge been simmering and festering for the last 25 years.

The only thing the anti-nukes accomplished was unneccessary delays and a ballooning of
the plants cost, which we PG&E rate-payers have to pay for. Thank you very much,
self-righteous anti-nukes. Thanks for nothing.

http://www.energy-net.org/1NWO/PGE/5PGE.HTM

~~ snip

• Literally every environmental law on the book was waived to allow PG&E to obtain its 2 billion gallon dumping permit into the ocean. The state's regional quality control board refused to allow them to dump water, but was overturned by the state.


~~ snip

• In the late 1990's it was disclosed that PG&E had covered up the extent of damages to the coast and Abalone, and was given a $14 million fine. The fine was later reversed.
• The company spent $110 million in legal fees to win the Diablo Canyon rate case. The state, which had promised that it would force the utility to eat at least $2 billion of the construction costs settled a deal that gave away the whole house, setting up a $54 billion 30 contract for PG&E.
• The 1989 rate settlement led to the steepest rate increases in the country, driving electric costs from 8 cents a kwh to over 14 cents by 1994.

~~ end excerpt

It seems only 110 million dollars in legal fees won a legal decision, by monetary attrition of the opponents. You can thank the ineptitude of PG&E for the excessive rates.

[PamW]

92. Of course it is a win for PG&E...

It seems only 110 million dollars in legal fees won a legal decision, by monetary attrition of the opponents. You can thank the ineptitude of PG&E for the excessive rates.
===================================

The opposition wanted the Diablo Canyon scrapped.

That's not what happened. Diablo Canyon was licensed to operate,
and has been operating for about a quarter century now. The plant rakes
in oodles of money for PGECorp.

I was perusing the Diablo Canyon docket at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
recently. PG&E has filed for renewal of the operating license even though the
current license runs to 2026.

It appears that the re-licensing process is going very well and PG&E may very
well have a 20 year renewal of its operating license from the Obama Administration
by early next year. That renewal would begin in 2026 and run to 2046.

So in less than a year, the continued operation of Diablo Canyon will be assured
for the next 35 years.

PamW

[GliderGuider]

46. This is necessary, but not sufficient:

In order to support nuclear power one can not be prey to irrational fears.

Not everyone who opposes nuclear power is afraid of the boogeyman, of course - it's possible to have completely rational objections that have enough weight to tip one's personal balance away from the technology. However, I've noticed that melodramatic fear (especially of radiation) is completely absent on the pro-nuke side. That leaves the pro-nuclear faction vulnerable to characterization as "right wing robots" by those who wish to rationalize and validate their terror.

[wtmusic]

50. Thank you. And to add -

I find it interesting that people's sense of cause-and-effect is challenged enough to criticize an industry because of a once-in-a-millenium earthquake. Instead of demanding better tsunami warnings, earthquake prediction, and safety standards for nuclear plants they are proposing the equivalent of demanding everyone on the Pacific Rim move three miles inland.

If you're correct that "it's possible to have completely rational objections that have enough weight to tip one's personal balance away from the technology" I have yet to hear them. Rational means coming up with reasonable alternatives within the grand scheme of things. We're extremely fortunate to have leaders like Obama and intelligent people like Stephen Chu running our energy show, because without their perspective* we're lost.

Fukushima is the tree; global warming is the forest. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: "Nuclear is the worst form of power generation, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

*Since the Great 2011 Japan Earthquake 3,600 Americans have died because of coal smoke.

[kristopher]

54. Nuclear isn't needed, It is a third rate solution to climate change.

Your claims cannot be substantiated with vetted sources.

The Cure for Nuclear Addiction

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=280296&mesg_id=280296

"Share the Cure"

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[wtmusic]

70. I'm sorry, make that a milennium and a half

Want to try for two? :D

The March 11 Tohoku earthquake was the strongest recorded in Japanese history, including one estimated at 8-8.4 in the year 684. The Kanto quake was 1/10 as strong as Tohoku.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_earthquake

Oops.

One of the "industries" (sic) latest accomplishments is allowing you to turn on your computer. Which is as good an argument against any kind of power I can think of right now.

"You can't trumpet a tune no ear can trust." That's logically equivalent to saying, "At least someone can trust you." For the compliment (and the entertainment of watching you stumble all over yourself trying to act intelligent) I thank you.