Discuss Detroit » Archives - January 2008 » Fermi 3 « Previous Next »
Archive through February 19, 2008Me3head30 02-19-08  2:09 pm
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 10109
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 2:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I like the idea of nuclear power but with Fermi II's track record it puts me a bit on edge.
Top of pageBottom of page

Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette

Post Number: 3929
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 2:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It would take out a chunk of Ontario if things went tits up.
Top of pageBottom of page

Buddyinrichmond
Member
Username: Buddyinrichmond

Post Number: 276
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 2:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How many of the above protesters are enrolled in the DTE Green Currents program?
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 10110
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lowell, for one, ethanol has increased the cost of food.

Two, some studies show it takes more energy to produce ethanol that what you receive.

Three, NIMBYism takes on a whole new effect when talkig wind and solar power. We have companies lining up in Essex County to do both but NIMBY retards don't want them.

Fourth, gas powered (and by this I am sure you mean natural gas)also increases the cost of natural gas to heat a person's house. How long before it becomes impossible to afford heating ahouse in winter (hint: we are almost there).

What is one to do?
Top of pageBottom of page

Rugbyman
Member
Username: Rugbyman

Post Number: 244
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 2:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't think I brought up anything about nuclear liabilities, Lowell. I was talking hard economics. Gas plants are VERY expensive, not only to construct but to fire. I don't deny that we could reduce consumption with concerted (and likely costly) conservation efforts, but the same question keeps coming up- how's it going to be paid for?

All due respect, the "nuke plants are inviting terrorist attacks" argument is ridiculous. That's like saying "municipal water invites terrorist attacks so everyone should sink a well." Municipal water sites are way less secure than nuclear sites and much more likely to be disrupted in a low-cost manner. Bear in mind that new generation plants are built to withstand plane crashes- what exactly will the hypothetical terrorists do when they've used their wire cutters to gain access to the plant?

If you're really not a big nuke fan, fine, I can get behind that. But let's not pretend achieving the goal of providing clean energy to a 4 million person metro area is as simple as "don't build nuke plants." The costs are very large and will invariably be directly borne by the consumer. It's a huge disservice to the subject matter and the discussion to put such a simplistic sheen on it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Pam
Member
Username: Pam

Post Number: 3537
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 2:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

How many of the above protesters are enrolled in the DTE Green Currents program?



I am.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rugbyman
Member
Username: Rugbyman

Post Number: 245
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 2:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And I'm not protesting nuclear power, but I am a Green Currents participant. Turns out a person can be in favor of green power AND support an expansion of nuclear power generation in the interim. They make those now. I think they call it "pragmatism."

(Message edited by rugbyman on February 19, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 1525
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 3:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

RE: Ethanol and the price of food. Let's not forget, we immediately went to corn for ethanol because that's what we know how to do. Predictably, the unintended consequences of production reducing farm lands for food and raising the price of food immediately happened. What we need to do is explore other sources like switchgrass that can be grown at less cost.

There is also the completely viable and so far studiously ignored idea of sludge to power. We got lots of sludge!

I am also in Green Currents.

(Message edited by gazhekwe on February 19, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 4548
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 3:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry, but you are mixing more apples and oranges and being absurdly ridiculous [your word choice] to suggest an attack on a water plant in any way compares with a nuclear melt down / terrorist demolition.

Even if such horrendous events were to occur and the same number of people died, the aftermaths would be worlds apart. In the case of water, life would go on. In the case of nuclear disaster, the land would be uninhabitable. The total costs would be immeasurably different.

Take a look for yourself. Nuclear disasters can't be undone.

Speaking of hard economics, I would like to see where the costs of, say, a gas-powered plant would cost any more, particularly if the coddled nuclear industry was forced to pay for getting rid of its waste [forever] instead of piling it up in Monroe and was forced to buy liability insurance for its potential damage. Also the immense security costs of protecting those bombs are something that conventional plants do not face.

Nuclear power is only viable economically because you and I subsidize them through laws that take these corporations off the hook.
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 10118
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 3:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What happens to the price of gas to heat houses if we have more natural gas plants?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mind_field
Member
Username: Mind_field

Post Number: 858
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 4:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow. Why are you so obsessed about a nuclear terrorist threat? Nuclear power plants are the MOST secure places in this entire nation. That is not to say that an attack or incident could never happen, but I know someone who has to go inside Fermi II and there are multiple check points and a rigorous screening process including stripping down naked with an armed security guard. They don't mess around with nuclear.

The best option would be a bunch of new wind turbines or solar. But NIMBYs are just so damn selfish and un-progressive. I'd still prefer nuclear over another coal plant.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rugbyman
Member
Username: Rugbyman

Post Number: 246
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 4:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gee, Lowell, my aunt could grow balls and become my uncle. Why the hell are we talking about such remote possibilities?

The point stands: does it really make sense to go the (significantly) more expensive route simply because there's a minute possibility of a disaster? In fact, it's such a remote possibility that it really only bears mentioning when irrational people start spouting off about the glowing green fifth horseman of the apocalypse. You know what I think every time I drive down 75 and see the Fermi coolant towers? "Man, I'm glad I'm not irrational and realize the Wyandotte Coal Plant giving me cancer is an infinitely more immediate threat to my well being than Fermi ever will be." Verbatim. Every time. From now on I'll amend that to "it'd sure suck to be beholden to an even more volatile natural gas market in the depths of winter just to replace that puppy with gas plants."

The nuke industry is coddled by federal tax breaks and liability guarantees- we get it. So are a lot of industries. Life as you know it is made possible by protectionism and subsidy. Sorry 'bout it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Drankin21
Member
Username: Drankin21

Post Number: 178
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 4:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR etc.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 4549
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am sure that good folks in Chernobyl were big fans of nuclear power too, touting its alleged lower cost, safety blah blah. Meanwhile their aunts are now growing balls. Your blind faith in technology and choosing to ignore the clear warning of Chernobyl is classic human 'it can't happen here' hubris.

I am not so much concerned about a terrorist event as I am about the above mentioned arrogance combined with ever present sheer incompetence.

Of course, none the pro-nuke advocates here have have offered any realistic solution for the deadly waste created. Perhaps if they agreed to store it in their back yard we could start a conversation.

The canard that a gas-powered plant will somehow make the price of home gas prices prohibitive, displays little understanding the relative small scale involved vs the overall impact on the global market price for gas.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rugbyman
Member
Username: Rugbyman

Post Number: 247
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rest of country: "Wow, Detroit, led by Lowell Boileau, has thrown off the shackles of their nuclear oppressors!"

Lowell: "All is well, my children."

Rest of country: "Hey, why don't we build gas plants too!"

Lowell: "Why not? Your gas consumption, especially in the summer when you crank up the air, only constitutes small scale market impact!"

Rational economists: "Uh, that's not really the way capitalism works."

It's harm balancing. I'd much rather have nuclear waste sitting in 5 foot thick concrete caskets surrounded by an acre of barbed wire no-man's land than breathe in coal plant particulate matter region wide or pay more per therm than Vladivostok in the winter.

By the way, Chernobyl didn't fail because nuclear power is dangerous. It failed because the system utilizing it was fraught with safety lapses. Even still, had the engineers followed their own protocol the incident would have largely been averted.

Speaking of apples to oranges, 1980's Soviet Ukraine vs. 2000's United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission...
Top of pageBottom of page

Wolverine
Member
Username: Wolverine

Post Number: 426
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Are we seriously bringing up Chernobyl? That's hilarious.
Top of pageBottom of page

Clark1mt
Member
Username: Clark1mt

Post Number: 133
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's always something. Everyone wants a rosy solution to everything, and there isn't one. Nuclear power is clean (except for the waste). Wind power is clean (but inefficient). Solar power is clean (but too expensive). So how, then, do we meet the ever-increasing world demand for electricity? Conservation? But we can't do that. Not if we want the poor people of the world to have a better life. That takes electricity. Not only that, the "green" solution given by environmentalists to cars is electrics or hybrids. Where is all that juice going to come from?

You just have to pick your poison. Coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, solar, wind, whatever you choose, there's going to be a downside.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise

Post Number: 1628
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How about Microwave? There will be radiation, but only in a small radius. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Sitlet
Member
Username: Sitlet

Post Number: 14
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

there is nothing wrong with storing used fuel in containers. i have a friend who used to work for the nuke plant on route 2 in ohio, and he said he came within 5 feet of used fuel everyday. its stable in the containers they use.

here is an article from last year about the "casks" that fermi is buying to store the used fuel in:

http://www.monroenews.com/apps /pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007021 8/BUSINESS/102180016

they have been tested to withstand major impacts. im not sure what exactly it was, but i believe they can withstand an f-14 impact and still be intact. sounds safe enough for me...
Top of pageBottom of page

Rel
Member
Username: Rel

Post Number: 175
Registered: 02-2008
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow, I feel like I just watched a nuclear explosion.

Public service announcement: let this be a reminder to us all to CONSUME less energy, because it doesn't appear from thin air.
Top of pageBottom of page

Shark
Member
Username: Shark

Post Number: 322
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 7:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wonder what this could mean for the employment numbers and economy? It might be a nice boost to Monroe County if they spend the billions necessary to build a new reactor.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936

Post Number: 2755
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 7:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I told my wife to stop using the washer and dryer, and to take the clothes down to the river and beat them with a stick. She reminded me we're in Las Vegas and there are no rivers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Titancub
Member
Username: Titancub

Post Number: 106
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 8:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lowell -
Nuclear companies pay money to the federal gov't as the DOE as GUARANTEED to handle spent nuclear fuel. In the meantime the federal gov't hasn't come up with a solution (see Harry Reid stopping Yucca Mountain). Since the gov't isn't living up to its promises and the money it has taken, the nuclear plant generators have sued the gov't for this failure.

Second, their innumerable studies showing that the pollution generated from a coal plant kills many more people in a year then any radioactive release ever has -- in all the years combined all the nuclear plants around the world have been operating.

Nuclear power is a clean solution and essentially CO2 free. This helps slow global warming particular if it avoids having to start a coal or gas plant.

If you'd rather have gas, then know that it means higher electricity costs for everyone in the state. Same is true with any of the renewables mentioned (wind, solar, geo, etc). Renewables aren't competitive financially, thus all MIchigan citizens would have to get used to MUCH higher bills to have those come online instead of Fermi 3.

If you've ever visited a nuclear plant (I have 2 months ago), you'd know that the security there is unbelievably tight. Secondly, the sheer physics and science of somehow setting off a dirty bomb by somehow getting into a nuclear plant and near the reactor core. Reactor cores are very secure because of the very purpose they are created (to control a nuclear reaction). It's said at most plants a direct shot of a fully loaded 747 would still not cause any incident. It would take a perfect shot, and I doubt a 400MPH+ plane could hit a target the size of a bedroom (actual reactor core size, all other buildings there for cooling and supporting the generator process).

I think healthy skepticism and debate is a good thing, esp when concerning something as potentially dangerous as nuclear power. However not knowing many of the facts and just spouting off hardened views doesn't advance any conversation. Its uninformed at best, unresponsible scare tactics at worst.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 1528
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 9:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does anybody remember the near meltdown at Fermi?

"We almost lost Detroit," they said. There was a partial meltdown of Fermi I on October 5, 1966 due to a coolant blockage. This is described in John Fuller's book, We Almost Lost Detroit.

Then, of course, there was Three Mile Island on March 28th, 1979. A stuck valve caused a small scale loss of coolant accident. A series of human errors resulted in a partial meltdown and the reactor was destroyed.

Here is an article describing the Fermi accident and its aftermath:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blog entry/355/October-5-1966-Parti al-Meltdown-at-Fermi-1

It COULD happen, and HAS happened.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rugbyman
Member
Username: Rugbyman

Post Number: 248
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 9:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yup, a meltdown blew up Detroit and made it an inhabitable wasteland.

Wait, no- the safety features available forty two years ago worked as designed and nothing happened other than someone publishing a book about it.

TMI blew up thirty years ago and irradiated the eastern seaboard... or the safety features worked in spite of human error and there was no effect on the surrounding area.

Does anyone have anything remotely dangerous happening in nuke plants worldwide since Chernobyl in 1986? I sure don't. Twenty years.

Could happen. Hasn't happened. Likely won't happen.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 1529
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 9:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The scary part, Rug? No one outside the business knew about the Fermi accident until years later. And TMI? No one knows if there are any ill effects because there were no detailed measurements at the time to determine the amount of radioactive release, so there is no way to really prove any cause of any trends. The systems that provide the blinders are even worse today, so if something does happen, we probably won't find out until it's too late to avoid any potential ill effects. That's the part that worries me. I lived within 30 miles of Fermi in 1966. The reason nothing was said, there were no plans for evacuation, and there still aren't.

(Message edited by gazhekwe on February 19, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jeduncan
Member
Username: Jeduncan

Post Number: 178
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 11:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't want it. Reading "We Almost Lost Detroit" made me a little leary of the one we already have.
Top of pageBottom of page

Titancub
Member
Username: Titancub

Post Number: 107
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 11:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The new generation of nuclear plants have passive safety systems which means there is minimal reliance on pump failures or other mechanical issues which came together at the same time at TMI.

Also, read up on TMI as there was extremely minimal radioactive release that day. The nearest person received radiation exposure that was some a fraction of what they would've received if they took a flight from Detroit to LA that day instead.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 435
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 1:05 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The crazy thing about advanced technology is that when it fails, it can fail in a big way. But that will never happen at Fermi. Pump failures? That never happens does it?

NEWPORT, Mich. - DTE Energy's Fermi 2 nuclear reactor was shut down manually yesterday after operators noticed both pumps that circulate coolant water over it unexpectedly stopped operating.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20080201/N EWS17/802010394/-1/NEWS
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 7139
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 8:07 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mr. Lowell is right about his comments. Once we lose control of nuclear power. There's no stoping it. The whole environment will be atomic, the equilibrium of the Hardy-Weisenberg Theorem would change the mathematical equation of the four fundemental forces of nature either killing or mutating every species, life will evolutionize any flora and fauna. It would be over 10,000 years before radiation could decay into a natural element.

The Cuban Missle Crisis, Three Mile Island,and the 1983 and 1994 Looking Glass War was a close call. The next one would DEAD SERIOUS! Man is not met to play with fire, only control it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine

Post Number: 1967
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 8:58 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

france seems to be ok with it, they get 80% of their electricity from nuclear fission.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 1531
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 9:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What really bothers me is the careless attitude toward nuclear power. We see it here. 'Accident? Don't make me laugh!'

Did you know that after TMI the President's study commission recommended all people within 20 miles of a nuclear reactor have access to Potassium Iodide tablets and know how to get them in case of disaster? Do you have yours? Do you know where to get them? Do you know why you should have them? When you should take them?

A number of countries stockpile KI tablets for their citizens, France among them.

(Message edited by gazhekwe on February 20, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Rugbyman
Member
Username: Rugbyman

Post Number: 249
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 10:05 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is a government stockpile. They enhanced it after 9/11.

Stop worrying about it so much and worry more about things that are actually likely to happen.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 1533
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 10:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And if there is an accident and we are recommended to take this, where is it? You have to leave your house to get it and will not have its protection while you are out getting it.

Rug, someone has to worry about it, as the cavalier attitude displayed by you and others relies too much on faulty technology and intervention. FEMA in charge? Ho ho ho. If allowed to hold sway without responsible people challenging them, can you imagine how chaotic and ineffective they could be?
Top of pageBottom of page

Rugbyman
Member
Username: Rugbyman

Post Number: 250
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 10:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I suppose I just don't understand how someone can be so much more worked up about such an unlikely event like catastrophic meltdown than a relatively likely and damaging respiratory issue.

You're welcome to keep worrying about something way less likely to occur than being struck by lightening twice. I'll worry about the higher incidence of asthma and respiratory issues, as well as increased greenhouse gases already being caused by the viable alternative.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 1534
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 10:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This article highlights the reason for my concern:

Human error, stonewalling, and lack of concrete corrective action. Dated December 18, 2007, it describes serious damage cause to cooling lines during routine maintenance, not immediately reported and discovered later, in October 2007. Rather than safety, they are concerned about security issues. NRC's inspection report is being kept from the public because it contains sensitive information about security procedures. That is classic stonewall.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20071218/N EWS17/712180353

In your scenario, it's like curing the cold with potential death rays. It might not kill you, but if it does, it will kill all your neighbors too. Maybe they would rather have a cold while safer and cleaner methods are devised.

(Message edited by gazhekwe on February 20, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Drankin21
Member
Username: Drankin21

Post Number: 179
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 2:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I feel like I'm reading a promo for Channel 4 news at 5.

"Be sure to tune in to find out why you will die WHEN Fermi melts down and why you should have the magic pill to stop it, more with Ruth and Devin at 5"

If Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl never happened, this baseless fear of the word NUCLEAR would never exist. I am not saying that all three of those things were very terrible events with very devastating human consequences but a bunch of very bad things had to happen before each of them became a reality.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 1538
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 2:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Minimalize all you want, the knowledge of what we are letting ourselves in for and how we can protect ourselves is still something that should be available to all.

This is not duct tape to seal up your house in the event of a bio-attack, this is something most nuclear powered countries have considered and dealt with.
Top of pageBottom of page

D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc

Post Number: 260
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 3:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here you go Everyone:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.ht m

Long story short...Americans don't want nukes because we have been commissioned to believe they are bad, when in reality, are one of the safest, cleanest and reliable of the current technologies available.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 437
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 3:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Speak for yourself. I'm not a big fan of nukes because you can't wish the waste away. As for reliable, I wouldn't say that Fermi is the model of reliability.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 3966
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 3:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So, D_mcc, you favor storing the waste on-site, in perpetuity?
Top of pageBottom of page

D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc

Post Number: 261
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 3:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

France doesn't store their waste on site...so no...I would not be in favor of on site storage. A nice highlight of frances Nuclear power industry is they recycle spent fuel rods...
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 3969
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 4:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So, you favor shipping the waste to a central disposal facility? Personally, I feel that's highly irresponsible, but where do you suggest?
Top of pageBottom of page

D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc

Post Number: 262
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 4:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

According to reporter Jon Palfreman, the construction of the Civaux Nuclear Power Plant was welcomed by the local community in 1997:

"In France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular. Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region was chosen. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear"

Oh...lookie! Jobs...thats a plus again
Top of pageBottom of page

Newportnic
Member
Username: Newportnic

Post Number: 8
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 8:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Some of this discussion is moot... we have Fermi II with all it's successes/problems (pick one). Reality is this Plant produces very cheap (discounting waste disposal) power.

Fermi III will be cheaper to build, more efficient to operate, and will not add another Nuke site to the landscape.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 4554
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 12:12 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"...produces very cheap (discounting waste disposal) power."

Therein lies the fallacy of your accounting. Everyone discounts its waste disposal, not to mention its liability insurance. Simply dump the problem on our kids in the future, let them deal with it / pay for it -- more borrowing from the future.

Pack it in five feet of concrete, pile it up onsite and guard it for 10,000 years until its half life cycles render it safe? Let's see... that's 15 times the length of the Roman Republic/Empire and 40 times the existence of the US.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray
Member
Username: Ray

Post Number: 1081
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 1:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eewwh...are the women of Chernobyl really growing BALLS? Is this true? I am totally against nuclear power now. Nothing could be worth this. Bring back the windmills.
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 2329
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 3:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sure is hard to dispel some of the many myths regarding nuclear power. Honestly it is relatively safe--even a small leak of radiation is not inherently bad. For example, we all receive radiation from the sun each day--it's a part of living in the universe. Most people don't even know that receiving an MRI at the hospital carries about 1,000 times the amount of radiation when compared with a tradition x-ray, and yet for the longest time you have heard stories about people being afraid of dying from being exposed to x-rays and no one gives an MRI a second thought. I walked right past the containers of nuclear waste while on a tour of Fermi (didn't seem to kill me) Point is, there are many misconceptions out there, so educate yourselves!

I read through the entire text of "The Day we Almost Lost Detroit" several years ago. The point of the text was not that nuclear power is not safe! Rather the text took a specific look at the original design of Fermi 1 and pointed out the potential for its problems in hindsight. Fermi 2 turned out to be what the power company went with--a much safer and more conventional plant with the drawback of not being able to produce as much power. That was the point of that text.

Nothing in the world is inherently safe: http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm

It’s always the case in any decision anyone makes—where do you draw the line?
“…risk of being killed by a nuclear power plant accident on the same order of magnitude as being killed by a meteorite.”
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Nuc lear-Power-2462/nuclear-power- plants-4.htm
Top of pageBottom of page

_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_

Post Number: 2126
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 4:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't forget the radiation we all absorb while driving our cars.

Of course we are just ignoring numerous nuclear power plants just across the border that could also meltdown and be the subject of a terrorist attack.

Everyone also forgets that Chernobyl was still operational throughout the 90s producing power. People actually still live in the area.

While it was a devastating disaster it is not the catastrophe that many mistake it for.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 448
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 4:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What a perfect comparison, a nuclear accident in a city of 55,000 people compared to one that would impact two major metropolitan areas.
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 2332
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 5:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's ok Novine, you still have way better odds of being murdered than dying from a nuc. meltdown.
Top of pageBottom of page

_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_

Post Number: 2127
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 5:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Huh?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 4556
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 12:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Another big blow to 'it can't happen here' technological arrogance - In Non-Detroit Issues

And I am still waiting to hear from the pro-nuke accountants on this thread as to who is going to pay for securing and guarding for 10,000 years the nuclear waste that is piling up in Monroe.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dhugger
Member
Username: Dhugger

Post Number: 404
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 4:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Came to the thread late. I had a family member who worked as a central system supervisor for then Detroit Edison. This person had the worst things to say about the safety of Fermi 2. We developed a code word. If the family member called with the word it meant 'LEAVE NOW'.

The event above occurred 2 decades before the threat of foreign terrorism. D. Edison did have emergency plans in place for melt down / or attack.

"We almost lost Detroit"
Top of pageBottom of page

Titancub
Member
Username: Titancub

Post Number: 109
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 6:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Det Edison was required to have reactor core meltdown plans per having license from NRC. Every plant does. Doesn't mean its because they figured a meltdown was emminent.

Fermi 3 probably doesn't get built before 2019 or so, if at all. Given reserve margins in Michigan it just doesn't warrant it esp with the lack of future demand in growth -- fueled by the decline of industry in MI.

However, where there is a need for new plants nuclear has many advantages over coal. Namely - the extreme amounts of pollution and CO2 belched from coal plants, noted to kill more people each year then any nuclear radioactive release ever has.

Current spent nuclear fuel is held in very secure and catastrophe resistant casks until the federal gov't upholds its guarantee to handle the spent fuel. Recycling the fuel is a solution, however the gov't is resistent as it then creates weapons grade plutonium that would then have to be broken down.
Top of pageBottom of page

Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia

Post Number: 1207
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 10:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would like to create a miniature Nuke plant with all possible errors simulated.

Then, I would like to ask Al Gore to run for President again... promising to let his team do all of the vote counting... if he runs his entire campaign driving around in a car powered by this small Nuke plant.

Then I would like to send out a series of little people with protest signs at every campaign stop...Each sign would read "AL, Are you trying to create a white dwarf?"

Then I would like to go sailing on Lake Erie, with a nice view of Fermi 2...sniff the clean air and open a properly chilled bottle of Chardonnay in celebration of our green efforts.

After the initial self congratulation, I would pause and reflect on whether Rugby Man's Aunt is really Hillary Rodham and was it all too late anyways?

Then I would visit all of the people in Mexico who are starving to death because some scholarly lobbyist thought it prudent to use our food resources and associated subsidies to replace the infinite supply of oil that we have available, raising the world's food costs increasing pollution from a newer more abusive contaminant.

To avoid depression, I would have non-corn based taco and a shot of tequila...including the worm.

This is what I would like to do.

This is what I would like to do.

Do you think it would get a glowing review?

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.