N.Y. nuclear talk echoes past

N.Y. nuclear talk echoes past

There are 55 comments on the Bennington Banner story from Feb 6, 2011, titled N.Y. nuclear talk echoes past. In it, Bennington Banner reports that:

An "all of the above" energy policy inclusive of nuclear power has been a signature position for U.S. Rep.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Bennington Banner.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
You are Correct Sir

Harwich, MA

#1 Feb 7, 2011
Oh yeah, this is a good idea. Let's build a plant that creates more waste for which there is no known safe storage that must last 500,000 years. Today, this plant would cost at least $10 billion to build. And don't forget the loan guarantees and the costs of insuring a plant. Guess who pays for all that? Right. Taxpayers. Enought of this nonsense.
Wally

Tampa, FL

#2 Feb 7, 2011
Build them down here in the south. Too many NIMBYs in NY outside of Oswego County (home of Nine Mile & Fitz). Could build more in Oswego but more NIMBYs will block all efforts at power lines to get the electricity to places it is needed. Lose lose situation so why bother. The congressman might want to jobs and tax base that comes with a nuclear plant but way too many others will fight efforts. Again, why bother unless the ultimate goal is simply to have a talking point that says "I tried to bring jobs and improve our tax rolls but..."
riggs

Brewster, MA

#3 Feb 7, 2011
You are Correct Sir wrote:
Oh yeah, this is a good idea. Let's build a plant that creates more waste for which there is no known safe storage that must last 500,000 years. Today, this plant would cost at least $10 billion to build. And don't forget the loan guarantees and the costs of insuring a plant. Guess who pays for all that? Right. Taxpayers. Enought of this nonsense.
And let's not forget the billions in cleanup costs, also paid by taxpayers, when a nuclear plant gets shut down. But wait, there's more. There's also the inevitable leaks of radioactive air, or water, or other substances, that expose nearby residents to carcinogenic materials. Yet supporters of nuclear energy seem to forget all of these costs, and claim that nuclear energy is cheap and safe.
Brian912

Edison, NJ

#4 Feb 7, 2011
IMHO the majority of the problems with nuclear power derive from relatively baseless fears. Environmental activism is one of the reasons costs and construction times are so expensive and takes so long. We have several plants that have been active without and real problems for over 50 years.
France gets the majority of the electrical power from nuclear plants and to my knowledge without and major problems.
From what I can see many are proponents except they have a not in my back yard philosophy. In some states where there are nuclear plants the people typically pay half of those that have coal or oil powered plants.
I personally am in full agreement with Congressman Gibson's "all the above" energy policy. Currently due to governmental constraints we are forced to depend heavily on foreign sources. Its a national security issue to reduce that dependency.
anon

United States

#5 Feb 7, 2011
Decommissioning costs are supposed to be taken out from profit margins over the course of the plant's life cycle. Not many are being decommissioned however. Because none are being built, the existing plants are getting their licenses extended to 60 years from initial commissioning, and there's research into going longer.
anon

United States

#6 Feb 7, 2011
Brian - the U.S. actually has more operating nuclear plants than France does - they just use dramatically less energy, so the percentage of power is much greater. Check it out.

France also reprocesses spent nuclear fuel rods, while the U.S. currently proposes burying it, which I find unacceptable. Currently spent rods are sitting in storage at a lot of U.S. plants. Gibson does propose a reprocessing facility as well.

The problem that proponents of nuclear power run into is the fact that all of the current plants are aging, and it would take trillions of dollars of federal subsidies starting now to maintain the current amount of power from nuclear, let alone increase reliance long-term.

French plants still overrun construction costs and they also have accidents like anyone else.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/09/08/fran...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/ju...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/07/24/fran...
Concerned

Bennington, VT

#7 Feb 7, 2011
You are Correct Sir wrote:
Oh yeah, this is a good idea. Let's build a plant that creates more waste for which there is no known safe storage that must last 500,000 years. Today, this plant would cost at least $10 billion to build. And don't forget the loan guarantees and the costs of insuring a plant. Guess who pays for all that? Right. Taxpayers. Enought of this nonsense.
The fuel used in these plants can and use to be recycled. During the Carter years recycling was stopped-there by creating the problem of disposal.
How much waste is produced?
As already noted, the volume of nuclear waste produced by the nuclear industry is very small compared with other wastes generated. Each year, nuclear power generation facilities worldwide produce about 200,000 m3 of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, and about 10,000 m3 of high-level waste including used fuel designated as waste1.
In the OECD countries, some 300 million tonnes of toxic wastes are produced each year, but conditioned radioactive wastes amount to only 81,000 m3 per year. In the UK for example, around 120,000,000 m3 of waste is generated per year - the equivalent of just over 20 dustbins full for every man, woman and child. The amount of nuclear waste produced per member of the UK populations is 840 cm3 (i.e. a volume of under one litre). Of this waste, 90% of the volume is only slightly radioactive and is categorised as low-level waste (with only 1% of the total radioactivity of all radioactive wastes). Intermediate-level waste makes up 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity. The most radioactive form of waste is categorised as high-level waste and whilst accounting for only 3% of the volume of all the radioactive waste produced (equating to around 25 cm3 per UK citizen per year), it contains 95% of the radioactivity.
A typical 1000 MWe light water reactor will generate (directly and indirectly) 200-350 m3 low- and intermediate-level waste per year. It will also discharge about 20 m3 (27 tonnes) of used fuel per year, which corresponds to a 75 m3 disposal volume following encapsulation if it is treated as waste. Where that used fuel is reprocessed, only 3 m3 of vitrified waste (glass) is produced, which is equivalent to a 28 m3 disposal volume following placement in a disposal canister.
This compares with an average 400,000 tonnes of ash produced from a coal-fired plant of the same power capacity. Today, volume reduction techniques and abatement technologies as well as continuing good practice within the work force all contribute to continuing minimisation of waste produced, a key principle of waste management policy in the nuclear industry. Whilst the volumes of nuclear wastes produced are very small, the most important issue for the nuclear industry is managing their toxic nature in a way that is environmentally sound and presents no hazard to both workers and the general public.
Here is further info for those that are interested. http://nlquery.epa.gov/epasearch/epasearch... (inurl:radiation) &max_results=100&refer er=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.epa.gov%2F rpdweb00%2Fmanage.html&res ult_template=epafiles_default. xsl&areaname=Radiation Protection&areapagehead=ep afiles_pagehead&areapagefo ot=epafiles_pagefoot&areas idebar=search_sidebar&styl esheet=s/epa.css&sort=term _relevancy&faq=no&resu lts_per_page=10&cluster=bo th&sessionid=F61643D35A2E3 4A19379D2A5E08B8814&queryt ext=How much waste generated from a nuclear power plant
Brian912

Edison, NJ

#8 Feb 7, 2011
Anon. I find part of your position confusing. If they are extending the operation to 60 years how is the reconditioning question of value. Secondly while the US may produce more than France as a percentage France is like 75% nuclear. As to the question of reprocessing I agree that's a good way to go. It should also be pointed out that after the US spent several billion on underground storage a political decision closed it down. Another example Shoreham in LI NY 6 billion dollars was ready to start up they shut it down. We are still paying for that which was another political consideration. Also something most would like to ignore a coal fired plant over its life time causes tens of thousands of premature deaths do to pollution. Quite frankly besides reducing usage to pre industrial levels I dont see many other options other than natural gas. I suppose if you covered most of existing open land solar cells and wind technology could keep us from going totally dark of course we still have to travel via horse and buggy, and figure out how to get rid of all the additional methane.
jgadsden

Bellows Falls, VT

#9 Feb 7, 2011
Concerned wrote:
<quoted text>
The fuel used in these plants can and use to be recycled. During the Carter years recycling was stopped-there by creating the problem of disposal.
How much waste is produced?
All I have read about France's recycling is that it is a nightmare...
leading to the creation of an unsecure site in Russia to store...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,...

"A French documentary has revealed that radioactive materials from nuclear power plants
are being being stored in containers in a Siberian parking lot. Meanwhile the largest
power company in Europe, France's EDF, which sent the materials there, says it is not
responsible.

The largest utility company in Europe,√Člectricit√© de France, has been accused of storing
nuclear waste in an open air car park in Siberia. An investigative documentary called
the "Nuclear Nightmare" that screened on Tuesday in Germany and France accuses the
company of sending nuclear waste to a town in Siberia where it is then stored in metal
containers in a parking lot. "

Plenty of info also suggests france recycles less than 4%...
not really a shining example...
Concerned

Bennington, VT

#10 Feb 7, 2011
Interesting. This information would make me wonder why France is planning on bringing another plant on line. "In 2006, the French Government asked Areva and EDF to build a next generation nuclear reactor, the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor), at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant. This was followed in 2008 by a Presidential announcement of another new EPR, spurred by high oil and gas prices.[6] A site for that unit should be selected in 2009, and construction should start in 2011."

Interesting. This information would make me wonder why France is planning on bringing another plant on line. "In 2006, the French Government asked Areva and EDF to build a next generation nuclear reactor, the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor), at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant. This was followed in 2008 by a Presidential announcement of another new EPR, spurred by high oil and gas prices.[6] A site for that unit should be selected in 2009, and construction should start in 2011."
Also makes me wonder why other countries are proposing and building more plants.
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/...
When it comes to Russia-well the government does whatever it wants, with little safety controls and people have next to nothing to say about what it does.
jgadsden

Bellows Falls, VT

#11 Feb 7, 2011
Concerned wrote:
Interesting. This information would make me wonder why France is planning on bringing another plant on line. "In 2006, the French Government asked Areva and EDF to build a next generation nuclear reactor, the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor), at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant. This was followed in 2008 by a Presidential announcement of another new EPR, spurred by high oil and gas prices.[6] A site for that unit should be selected in 2009, and construction should start in 2011."
Interesting. This information would make me wonder why France is planning on bringing another plant on line. "In 2006, the French Government asked Areva and EDF to build a next generation nuclear reactor, the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor), at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant. This was followed in 2008 by a Presidential announcement of another new EPR, spurred by high oil and gas prices.[6] A site for that unit should be selected in 2009, and construction should start in 2011."
Also makes me wonder why other countries are proposing and building more plants.
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/...
When it comes to Russia-well the government does whatever it wants, with little safety controls and people have next to nothing to say about what it does.
its an easy answer...when you can externalize the costs of your waste, nukes is profitable...
France can now export its waste to sit in Siberia...
too bad we dont have a siberia...

either way, would you consider france as a model program?
FYI, I have more info on the terrible impact their recycling process creates...
apparently, the proces produces very small quesntities of very radiocative material...
it sounds to me like it essentially trades waste for condensed waste...

and everything else to me is smoke and morrors...the waste issue is the main issue...
do you think we can in good conscience claim we can monitor something for 10,000 years? a 200 year old country?
Concerned

Bennington, VT

#12 Feb 7, 2011
jgadsden wrote:
<quoted text>
its an easy answer...when you can externalize the costs of your waste, nukes is profitable...
France can now export its waste to sit in Siberia...
too bad we dont have a siberia...
either way, would you consider france as a model program?
FYI, I have more info on the terrible impact their recycling process creates...
apparently, the proces produces very small quesntities of very radiocative material...
it sounds to me like it essentially trades waste for condensed waste...
and everything else to me is smoke and morrors...the waste issue is the main issue...
do you think we can in good conscience claim we can monitor something for 10,000 years? a 200 year old country?
I was not using France is a model-all I am saying is, I wonder, with all the problems associated with Nuclear and its waste why France and so many other countries keep adding to their energy supply via Nuclear. Have you any data on that?
As to waste-well with the newer generation of Breeder reactors, waste disposal could become moot; at least according to the "experts" I have read. Technology keeps advancing.
Again Technology continues to advance so as to the theory of monitoring for 10,000 years-I would be inclined to believe this issue would be solved way before then. The US is not the only country with Experts working on the issue
jgadsden

Bellows Falls, VT

#13 Feb 7, 2011
Concerned wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not using France is a model-all I am saying is, I wonder, with all the problems associated with Nuclear and its waste why France and so many other countries keep adding to their energy supply via Nuclear. Have you any data on that?
As to waste-well with the newer generation of Breeder reactors, waste disposal could become moot; at least according to the "experts" I have read. Technology keeps advancing.
Again Technology continues to advance so as to the theory of monitoring for 10,000 years-I would be inclined to believe this issue would be solved way before then. The US is not the only country with Experts working on the issue
I already answered, the current climate allows nukes to externalize their waste expenses and therefore appear more cost effective than other energy...(also nukes avoid the costs of uranuim mining...to me any energy source would look clean and cheap if they didnt have to account for how they got their fuel or how the disposed of it...

did I also mentioned the tremendous cost of recycling, that it could never be cost effective?

too bad they are still working on a fix for the old technology...
instead of allocating that expense for them come up with new technology...

“279ing my way around Benmont”

Since: Nov 08

not here

#14 Feb 7, 2011
put the waste in a Saturn V and launch it toward the sun.It will be water vapor before it ever gets there. Gotta be a thousand times cheaper than storing it underground until it decays and NASA needs the work.

IMBY
jgadsden

Bellows Falls, VT

#15 Feb 7, 2011
wankee wrote:
put the waste in a Saturn V and launch it toward the sun.It will be water vapor before it ever gets there. Gotta be a thousand times cheaper than storing it underground until it decays and NASA needs the work.
IMBY
remember the challenger?
GDog

Miami, FL

#16 Feb 7, 2011
jgadsden wrote:
<quoted text>
remember the challenger?
Don't do anything because this one thing happened.
jgadsden

Bellows Falls, VT

#17 Feb 7, 2011
GDog wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't do anything because this one thing happened.
I am saying do you wish it was filled with nuke waste?

secondly, space is now the new ocean...just dump away, its huge so nothing will happen...
doh!

“279ing my way around Benmont”

Since: Nov 08

not here

#18 Feb 7, 2011
I seem to remember from school that the sun is just one big nuclear reactor anyway. And any rocket shot towards it would burn up somewhere between mercury and the sun anyway. These are spent fuel rods not Hiroshima bombs.
jgadsden

Bellows Falls, VT

#19 Feb 8, 2011
wankee wrote:
I seem to remember from school that the sun is just one big nuclear reactor anyway. And any rocket shot towards it would burn up somewhere between mercury and the sun anyway. These are spent fuel rods not Hiroshima bombs.
developing a secure container and the skills to not have a blow-up on launch PLUS the costs of sending something TO THE SUN doesnt sound a little over the top to you?
It sounds like a lot of additional stuff to save the industry...

why not work on harnessing the sun's nuke reaction instead?
oh yeah...its CRAZY...

once you need to develop a whole new set of technology, isnt it time to just rethink nukes altogether?

“279ing my way around Benmont”

Since: Nov 08

not here

#20 Feb 8, 2011
jgadsden wrote:
<quoted text>
developing a secure container and the skills to not have a blow-up on launch PLUS the costs of sending something TO THE SUN doesnt sound a little over the top to you?
It sounds like a lot of additional stuff to save the industry...
why not work on harnessing the sun's nuke reaction instead?
oh yeah...its CRAZY...
once you need to develop a whole new set of technology, isnt it time to just rethink nukes altogether?
I am in favor of other nuclear technology as well, I just think it is a waste for Obama to give GE trillions of taxpayer money to build wind turbines and solar panels when both get very little "bang for their buck" but are supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Obviously there is more politics involved than green energy or becoming enrgy efficient.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greenwich Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Volunteers Needed For Oasis Spring Fling Fundra... 5 hr stenbrian44 1
News Ted Cruz Dismisses Donald Trump's New York Victory Apr 23 FancyButtPirate 37
News Four more men accuse priest of sexual abuse (Jan '08) Apr 23 Curious 1,628
News Donald Trump Celebrates New York Primary Victory Apr 20 justice 1
A bakery in Fort Edward (Dec '05) Apr 19 Ann Mostowa 10
Queensbury Music Emporium (Oct '12) Mar '16 Musikologist 15
Review: Countryside Veterinary Hosp - James Kel... (Aug '09) Feb '16 Holly 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Greenwich Mortgages