Nuclear Power Debate - Bryson City, NC

Discuss the national Nuclear Power debate in Bryson City, NC.

Do you support building more nuclear power plants?

Bryson City supports
Support
 
4
Oppose
 
1

Vote now in Bryson City:

“Resist”

Since: Apr 09

Bryson City

#1 Mar 29, 2011
Support.
Knee jerk reactions from uninformed voters does not produce electricity.

There's not enough land in the US to provide wind turbine or solar power replacement. No wind, no power. No sun, no power. No way to store such energy. Wind turbines produce only about 80% of nameplate rating, require about 6 acres each. A 1300 MwE nuclear requires about 200 acres. Do the math. You need a concentrated energy source. Can't have hydro because of the little fishies.

Factories run 24/7/365, at least the few remaining ones.
You can accept nuclear power or live in a mud hut and eat grass soup. If that idiot Cuomo shuts down 30% of New York's power supply (Indian Point), I hope their power is either rationed by 30% or rates increase by 30%. Maybe they will learn to make bacon grease candles.

And to think, teachers want more money. What happened to teaching science and technology? They still do that or is it just revisionist history?
common sense

Bryson City, NC

#2 Mar 31, 2011
A big poison in a small space (nuclear) is preferable to a little poison spread everywhere (fossil fuels)
458965g7t8r9

United States

#3 Apr 7, 2011
Tar and Feathers wrote:
Support.
Knee jerk reactions from uninformed voters does not produce electricity.
There's not enough land in the US to provide wind turbine or solar power replacement. No wind, no power. No sun, no power. No way to store such energy. Wind turbines produce only about 80% of nameplate rating, require about 6 acres each. A 1300 MwE nuclear requires about 200 acres. Do the math. You need a concentrated energy source. Can't have hydro because of the little fishies.
Factories run 24/7/365, at least the few remaining ones.
You can accept nuclear power or live in a mud hut and eat grass soup. If that idiot Cuomo shuts down 30% of New York's power supply (Indian Point), I hope their power is either rationed by 30% or rates increase by 30%. Maybe they will learn to make bacon grease candles.
And to think, teachers want more money. What happened to teaching science and technology? They still do that or is it just revisionist history?
Only if they're light water reactors for civilian use on solid ground, The DOD can work with their own, now at fukashima there is a heavey water, Plutonium reactor, that is used in nuclear weapons. So what was Japans govt up to ?

“Resist”

Since: Apr 09

Bryson City

#4 Apr 11, 2011
458965g7t8r9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if they're light water reactors for civilian use on solid ground, The DOD can work with their own, now at fukashima there is a heavey water, Plutonium reactor, that is used in nuclear weapons. So what was Japans govt up to ?
Not exactly.
Unit 3 used MOX, mixed oxide fuel consisting of uranium and plutonium, about 6%. The rest used Low Enrichment Uranium bundles, or LEU. All four units are plain old teakettle boiling water reactors.

Unit 1 is a BWR-3, Units 2,3,4 are BWR-4, all about 40 years old of GE design with different suppliers. They use a Mark I "lightbulb" containment system as opposed to the Mark III in use for current BWRs. You can search up Mark I containment torus for more construction details.
By the way, anyone familiar with nuclear power knows these four were trashed when the hydrogen explosions occurred, indicative of severe fuel damage with core temps above 1800 F. Old design, no H2 igniters or recombiners, probably broken torus and/or recirc pump loops. All bad things reinforced by reported dose rates in their drywells. They are now junk to be isolated and mothballed until dose rates decay so it can cleaned up.

Every reactor will have some percentage of plutonium occurring in the core by end of life, called end of core life as fuel is shuffled during outages. Roughly 3% plutonium depending on different factors distributed throughout the entire core by End of Life for that fuel cycle. Maybe more, maybe less.

That fuel distribution could still be reprocessed and used to further reduce volume of waste and extract more energy, except we don't reprocess (Jimmy Carter). That's my only problem with nuclear power, the waste. Well, not my only problem, as I also oppose subsidies be it ethanol, coal, petroleum, nuclear, wind, solar, natural gas... whatever. If it's a commercially viable source, it doesn't need subsidies (or bailouts, another subject).

The modern ABWR has not been built in the US and now they may not be, construction permits or not. As far as "solid ground" goes, they are in fact analyzed for seismic activity for that particular site, different in every case. And just about every other accident you can imagine, and some you can't. All this is described in the FSAR, Final Safety Analysis Report. It's a huge work that puts an encyclopedia set to shame for size and volume. There is nothing haphazard about it.

There's a great deal of unreasoning fear associated with nuclear power, with visions of mushroom clouds and Hiroshima like destruction perpetrated by a media that doesn't know a reactor from a birdhouse. They pick out the worst parts of any story to report. Fear is stock in trade.
Jeff

United States

#5 Apr 11, 2011
Tar and Feathers wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly.
Unit 3 used MOX, mixed oxide fuel consisting of uranium and plutonium, about 6%. The rest used Low Enrichment Uranium bundles, or LEU. All four units are plain old teakettle boiling water reactors.
Unit 1 is a BWR-3, Units 2,3,4 are BWR-4, all about 40 years old of GE design with different suppliers. They use a Mark I "lightbulb" containment system as opposed to the Mark III in use for current BWRs. You can search up Mark I containment torus for more construction details.
By the way, anyone familiar with nuclear power knows these four were trashed when the hydrogen explosions occurred, indicative of severe fuel damage with core temps above 1800 F. Old design, no H2 igniters or recombiners, probably broken torus and/or recirc pump loops. All bad things reinforced by reported dose rates in their drywells. They are now junk to be isolated and mothballed until dose rates decay so it can cleaned up.
Every reactor will have some percentage of plutonium occurring in the core by end of life, called end of core life as fuel is shuffled during outages. Roughly 3% plutonium depending on different factors distributed throughout the entire core by End of Life for that fuel cycle. Maybe more, maybe less.
That fuel distribution could still be reprocessed and used to further reduce volume of waste and extract more energy, except we don't reprocess (Jimmy Carter). That's my only problem with nuclear power, the waste. Well, not my only problem, as I also oppose subsidies be it ethanol, coal, petroleum, nuclear, wind, solar, natural gas... whatever. If it's a commercially viable source, it doesn't need subsidies (or bailouts, another subject).
The modern ABWR has not been built in the US and now they may not be, construction permits or not. As far as "solid ground" goes, they are in fact analyzed for seismic activity for that particular site, different in every case. And just about every other accident you can imagine, and some you can't. All this is described in the FSAR, Final Safety Analysis Report. It's a huge work that puts an encyclopedia set to shame for size and volume. There is nothing haphazard about it.
There's a great deal of unreasoning fear associated with nuclear power, with visions of mushroom clouds and Hiroshima like destruction perpetrated by a media that doesn't know a reactor from a birdhouse. They pick out the worst parts of any story to report. Fear is stock in trade.
When you've got a disaster that poses an immediate threat to a densely populated city (greater Tokyo area has 39 million people) and is already impacting areas on the other side of the planet with elevated levels of mutagens and teratogens, the wise thing to do would be to STOP using that technology and develop others. The fact is that the entire concept of an electrical distribution grid is antiquated, but the idea that each person can be generating their own energy needs FOR FREE without a remote generator or supplier is anathema to the energy cartels. The nuke industry is a dinosaur and needs to follow their example pronto.

“Resist”

Since: Apr 09

Bryson City

#6 Apr 11, 2011
Jeff,
How exactly do you do that for free, without subsidy?

Aren't teratogens and mutagens basically the same thing for the purposes you speak of?
Are you referring to fission products?
Iodine, Strontium, Cesium, or what?

“Resist”

Since: Apr 09

Bryson City

#7 May 17, 2011
A minor update to this mess.

The Japanese gov has instituted an information clampdown to prevent release of erroneous info. Read this as "It's far worse than we thought and don't want to talk about it."

It appears from area monitoring that core damage to Units 2 and 3 were worse than thought. I think the cores of all 3 are destroyed. Read that as rubble in the bottom head of the reactors. There will be no recovery or restart of these 3. Remember that Unit 4 was defueled, but it still has fuel pool problems. They are managing to add water as needed.

The Unit 1 reactor is so much radioactive junk. Their plan is to fill the containment with water for a recirculation supply. That points to serious primary loop integrity, meaning that they must flood containment to insure water level is above the fuel level.

They still are talking of ways to maintain the reactors in a stable condition, a kind of doublespeak for "still in deep trouble."

Two more towns were evacuated in Fukushima prefecture, beyond the 30 km exclusion zone.
That sure sounds worse to me, despite their newspeak of stability.
When any government talks, pay close attention to what they don't say.

Also, there's still calls to shutdown Indian Point in NY, moving to their legislature. It's a movement without any evidence proving lack of safety. Maybe they can make some candles, or buy their power from Canada across the river.
Other than that the knee jerks seem to be dying down.

What a mess!
jaybird

Watseka, IL

#11 Feb 13, 2013
Because it creates energy and jobs and if monitored properly can be very safe.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Bryson City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Judge resigns so he won't have to marry gay cou... 37 min Obvious 636
Two homes in Canton raided, drugs found 11 hr RLR 1
Why are so many leaving Macon county? Sat Denton 25
what is up with zito media? Nov 20 customer 1
Searching for David Jordan Nov 14 Harold F 2
How safe is Bryson City? (Apr '13) Nov 13 Timmy_ 41
Paper Factory Smell (Jun '10) Nov 9 ravepuppy 26
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]