LIPA explores new uses for Shoreham nuclear plant site

Full story: Newsday

The Shoreham plant, the $6-billion white elephant that has sat idle since its decommissioning in 1994 amid growing controversy over nuclear power, could again generate electricity.

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 110 of110
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
John

Henning, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
Aug 23, 2008
 
It is true that for 15 to 20 years while the financing for construction is being paid for the generation cost per kWh might well exceed 8 cents. We don't do 80 year loans. The 60 years after the reactor is paid off will be low cost with only O & M costs. Those costs which includes fuel cost currently runs about 1.7 cents/kWh. If you average the all the costs over 80 years it is unlikely that another energy source will offer cheaper or safer energy.
Our economy can tolerate 5 cent/kWh. Fossil fuel in the future may break our economy. We must seek a clean and affordable energy alternative. The containment structure is sometimes referred to as a billion dollar dome. When there is an available dome and a need for more power it would seem to be a no brainer. Also there is likely transmission lines which may be upgraded more economically than all new construction. Its time to push the no-nukes aside. Turn about is fair play.
Just another moron

Springfield, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
Sep 2, 2008
 
Wow, looks like my internet sufing has shown me a nice little debate here.

I'm with all you guys who say people in the US need to start conserving energy and investing in renewable energy instead of looking to the same old solutions to fix a problem that has been decades in the making...
Wait WHAT???? Hold on a minute, heres how I see it, we need BOTH.

Wake up and smell the coffee, none of these alternatives are the panacea that people make them out to be, just like nuclear isn't a panacea either. If we just go straight wind/hydro/solar we will have really crappy power. Why? Because they don't have the capacity factor of nuclear. They could be our bread and butter but they need some support from a carbon free source (NOT biofuel, it still creates co2).

What else is there beside nuclear that is a constant source of energy that isn't atmospherically sensitive? Nothing, and not in time either. If ITER works, fusion may be on the horizon, but that is way too far out for us to put all our eggs in that basket. We need nuclear right now, because we didn't plan ahead when we should have.
So yes, nuclear power plants are expensive, and they are scary, but it is only because the public looks at them that way. Chernobyl was built WITHOUT a containment vessel and TMI was a long, long time ago. The instrumentation and controls just weren't as good back then. Your modern nuclear plant has far more sophisticated safety equipment than the old school ones did (and they were a marvel given the technology the engineers had to work with!). Some of this safety is even built into the reactor designs themselves, safety that is automatic, not manual. And the old plants have been updated with new safety systems too!

Why is it that anybody who is pro nuclear is usally okay with alt energy in the mix too, but so many people with alt energy on their minds are so vehemently anti nuclear they refuse to listen. Instead I see a lot of hair pulling and infighting and nothing gets done. We should be building nuclear plants AND wind/solar/hydro RIGHT NOW, not bickering about who's is better. But lets just spout the same tried and true debates from a decade or more ago (debates which don't hold a candle to new technology and the current state of affairs) and ignore a great technology that could help stop global warming. Yes, there is waste, but if done right it won't come into contact with the population, may be recyclable in the long run, and won't hurt the environment.
So, if they want to add a reactor to Shoreham, I say its ABOUT TIME they thought about it, and while they're at it, maybe they should add another one for good measure. If they want to put some solar and wind on the same site, even better!
Algernon Sidney

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
Sep 5, 2008
 
Just another moron wrote:
I'm with all you guys who say people in the US need to start conserving energy and investing in renewable energy instead of looking to the same old solutions to fix a problem that has been decades in the making...
That started more than 30 years ago.
Reddy Kilowatt

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Sep 6, 2008
 
Just another moron wrote:
Why is it that anybody who is pro nuclear is usally okay with alt energy in the mix too, but so many people with alt energy on their minds are so vehemently anti nuclear they refuse to listen.
Ummm...because they're technological illiterates and anti-corporate idealogues?
Koz

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Oct 15, 2008
 
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
Ummm...because they're technological illiterates and anti-corporate idealogues?
bingo
FRITO BANDITO

Bellport, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Oct 15, 2008
 
Dave wrote:
Nuclear power while having no emissions has two major setbacks. One is the high cost of building a plan, partially because of all the safety features that have to be put it. It requires a large government subsidy to make these things economical. Secondly we still don't have a good solution to deal with the nuclear waste, unless you call burying it a random place surrounded by concrete and hoping it doesn't leak, a good solution. I strongly believe that we need an alternative to gas, oil, and coal. If LIPA puts any of these plants in over time prices are simply going to climb as NYS or the fed'l gov't places a cap-and-trade system. Long Island can really help lead the nation to a renewable energy future by placing a large photovoltaic power plant or windmill farm. Start-up costs are high but the continuing cost after that is minimal maintenance costs.
Know a guy who worked on construction there and he told me that concrete is sub-standard. When inspectors walked away conrete was watered down to get it flowing. Might wanna check it before putting nuc there.
Plum Island Park

Millbrook, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Jan 17, 2009
 
FRITO BANDITO wrote:
<quoted text>
Know a guy who worked on construction there and he told me that concrete is sub-standard. When inspectors walked away conrete was watered down to get it flowing. Might wanna check it before putting nuc there.
Shoreham had so many flaws. If anyone checks the history you will learn not only were some of the flaws the reason for the huge cost overruns but also the reason many of the workers on the project said they were moving far away long before the plant would go full power. Welding certification tests were faked and the same test data was used over and over again. All the pipes were removed and replaced. Could you use it for something? Sure, but I doubt installing a new nuke would be easy or cheap. The old design is probably now obsolete anyway.

I have nothing against nuclear power but I think it must be constructed by private entities, located far away from dense urban areas, and a better plan to manage waste over the long term must be developed. If a group of investors feels they can manage and profit with such a facility, go for it. But it has to be regulated for safety, and security... and situations such as the corroded dome on that Ohio plant that was not noticed until it was almost too late cannot be allowed to occur.
Sqump

Irvington, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Mar 20, 2009
 
I didn't read all 107 comments so this may have been covered already, but if it weren't for us "liberals" then you too would be living on an island with no way off IF something were ever to go wrong. Nuke plants have a decent safety record nowadays and you don't hear about the depleted fuel shipments having accidents, but even a small oops would be devestating on an island. I wonder if the gov't and taxpayers invested those billions in the 70's on say solar on every roof on the island, how would things be now?
kenny

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Jun 1, 2009
 
Make it a sod field and than later you can build a PDD
Slow rate of change

Mesquite, NV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Jun 2, 2009
 
Just like water, Long Island has a slow rate of change ? I don't know how the LIE or other HIGHWAYS were ever built there ?
May be by the year three thousnad they
will revert to Necular Energy.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 110 of110
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Moriches Discussions

Search the Moriches Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
horse post farm; manorville ny (Apr '13) 38 min Lily 1,533
Bees in a trap 2 hr High School Sweetheart 1
budget meeting 4 hr Beach Man 60
Question 4 hr hoodo 4
Alan is missing 4 hr hoodo 13
Save Mastic Beach Legalize Marijuana 4 hr hoodo 10
racism and village employment (Jul '13) 5 hr hoodo 70
•••

Freeze Warning for Suffolk County was issued at April 24 at 7:13PM EDT

•••
•••

Moriches News Video

•••
Moriches Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Moriches Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Moriches People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••