I an understand the impetus toward nuclear energy--my only concern is that this in itself would raise a whole other can of worms, in terms of what we're putting into the environment. I'm not an expert, nor am I directly opposing the president's initiative, but I was just wondering what people think about that.
I'm guessing you are concerned about the waste material. I'm not an authority on this by any stretch of the word, but I believe it can be sealed and stored safely. The little reading I've done, reflects that the earliest anyone could start building is 2012 and it'll take about 4 years to complete, and that's if nothing goes wrong. So, hopefully the D.O.E. and the company that'll be running the reactor will come up with a plan for the waste. The environment should always be a concern in whatever we build or do. You can't go crazy, but if anything can be built or operated so as to lessen its effect on our world, as a general statement, we should. We've already had a lengthy discussion about climate change, I don't want to restart that. God gave us only one Earth (as far as I know) and we need to care for it. I think electricity can be produced and used through nuclear power safely, if they try.
The problem with nuclear power plants- aside from the deadly-toxic fuel and by-products- is the construction cost. Currently there are NO NRC-approved plans. To begin construction, there must be approved plans. Why aren't there any approved plans? Because a nuclear power plant- design-wise, is a work in progress. These projects ALWAYS generate cost overruns. Note this plant being built in UK with French and U. S. contractors:
Experts raised significant concerns about the proposed architecture, and noted improvements were required for 'hazard barriers'. Issues relating to the reactor's structural integrity were also addressed. Ultimately, it was 'too early to say whether (the problems) could be resolved solely with additional safety case changes or whether they may result in design modifications being necessary'. Internal hazards described as 'significant shortfalls' were found. With assessment work due to be completed within a year and a half, one industry expert suggested a delay of up to three years was possible.
This has been the case with U. S. projects over the years. The project gulps down millions of dollars while design changes prolong the work indefinitely. As the utilities pass the expenses on to their customers who are not getting a milliamp of power from the unfinished plant. The Midland Nuclear plant eventually became a
gas-fired cogeneration facility. Allen's Creek plant began construction in 1973 and was cacelled in 1982. The Forked River Nuclear Power Plant was a proposed nuclear power plant in Lacey Township in Ocean County, New Jersey.[1] It was proposed as a single 1,070 MW reactor in 1969, but the plant proposal was canceled in 1980, when General Public Utilities halted construction "because of financial difficulties stemming from the accident at its Three Mile Island facility".[2][3] The Hartsville Nuclear Plant was a canceled nuclear power plant located near Hartsville, Tennessee. To be built and operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, it was to have four boiling water reactors.
Land along the Cumberland River was acquired by TVA in the late 1960s for construction of the plant which was to accommodate the electricity demand for the 1980s. Construction began in 1975. Because the demand for electricity was a lot lower than what was expected, construction halted. The Plant B reactors were canceled on March 22, 1983 and the Plant A reactors were canceled on August 29, 1984.[1] Marble Hill Nuclear Power Station is located at 38°36'3.09"N 85°26'45.19"W near New Washington, Indiana, USA. It was first proposed in 1973 by Public Service Indiana (PSI) and was finally closed due to overwhelming expenditures. Construction began in 1977 and was halted in 1984 with Unit #1 approximately 80% complete and Unit#2 40% complete. A proposal in June 1984 to complete the project was made by three of the major construction contractors: the Bechtel Power Corporation, Sargent & Lundy and the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. This plan was rejected because it required Public Service Indiana to continue to find financing for the $7.1 billion project.
Two "sister" plants were constructed, Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station and Byron Nuclear Generating Station, both in Illinois. Braidwood serves the Chicago area. As a point of comparison, the Braidwood facility took 12 years to build at a final cost of $5.2 billion.
The Montague Nuclear Power Plant was to consist of two 1,150 megawatt nuclear reactors to be located in Montague, Massachusetts. The project was proposed in 1973 and canceled in 1980,[1] after $29 million was spent on the project.[2] Sears Isle Nuclear Power Plant was a nuclear power plant proposed by Central Maine Power in 1974 as a single 1,150 MW nuclear reactor built by Westinghouse. It was to be built on Sears Island in Maine, but the project was canceled in 1977.[1] A Somerset Nuclear Power Plant was proposed by New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG, a subsidiary of Energy East) in 1974 as two GE 1,200 MW units, but the project was canceled in 1975.[3][4]
In 1975, NYSEG announced it was changing its construction plans because a geologic fault had been found 40 miles away.[5] A 650 MW coal plant was built at a nearby site and went into service in 1984.[6][7] South River Nuclear Power Plant was proposed by Carolina Power & Light in 1973 as three Babcock and Wilcox 1,150 MW units, but the project was canceled in 1978.[1]
The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a rapid growth in the development of nuclear power in the USA. By 1976, however, many nuclear plant proposals were no longer viable due to the downturn of electricity demand increases, significant cost and time overruns, and more complex regulatory requirements. Also, there was considerable public opposition to nuclear power in the USA by this time, which contributed to delays in licensing planned nuclear power stations.[2] Stanislaus Nuclear Power Plant was proposed by Pacific Gas & Electric in 1971 as two GE 1,200 MW units, but the project was canceled in 1979.[1]
A total of 63 nuclear units were canceled in the USA between 1975 and 1980.[2] The Sundesert Nuclear Power Plant was proposed in the 1970s but never built. In 1978, a year before the Three Mile Island accident, the State of California refused to allow the San Diego Gas and Electric Company to build Sundesert units one and two in the "absence of federally demonstrated and approved technology for permanent disposal of radioactive wastes".[1][2]
WNP-1 and WNP-4 were, along with the Columbia Generating Station (formerly called WNP-2) and WNP-3 and WNP-5, two of the five nuclear power plants on which construction was started by Energy Northwest in the 1970s. In the end, WNP-1 was mothballed when 63% constructed, WNP-3, -4 and -5 abandoned, and only the Columbia Generating Station was completed and operated. WNP-1 and -4 are located on the Hanford Reservation in the U.S. state of Washington.
WNP-1 and -4 are located on 972 acres approximately 1.5 miles east of the Columbia Generating Station.
The five reactors were all pressurized water reactors except for the Columbia Generating Station. WNP-1 and -4 were being manufactured by Babcock and Wilcox (as were the Three Mile Island reactors and the two now planned to be completed at the Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station).
A study concluded that restarting construction on WNP-1 was technically feasible but not cost-effective. However, it was noted that several business entities had expressed interest in either managing or purchasing the plant. The Yellow Creek Nuclear Power Plant was a proposed nuclear power plant near Iuka, Mississippi. It was planned to have two boiling water reactors built by Combustion Engineering and be operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Construction on the reactors began in 1978, but in August 1984, the TVA canceled construction (with about 30% of the plant complete) of the reactors because the cost to finish construction had risen dramatically and lower electricity demand. [1]
Following TVA's cancellation, the partially-completed site with infrastructure already in place was being reconstructed as a site for NASA to build solid rocket motors. Construction was about 80% complete when Congress pulled funding on the site in 1993. The cancellation of this project led to a poor economy and high unemployment in the area. [2]
Today, some buildings remain on the site including what was to be a reactor, the turbine building, and a circular base for the plant's cooling tower.[3] The William H. Zimmer Power Station, located near Moscow, Ohio, is a coal-fired power plant. It was originally intended to be a boiling water reactor type of nuclear power plant. Although once estimated to be 97% complete, poor construction and quality assurance (QA) led to the plant being converted to coal-fired generation. Today, the plant generates 1400 gross MWe and 1300 net MWe. Zimmer Power Station is the largest single-unit power facility in the United States and is majority-owned by Duke Energy. During the construction of the plant, the Little Indian Creek was routed through the plant to protect fish populations. The plant now has several unique Environmental Protection features to keep the creek at its natural state.
Consumers, contractors and energy/utilities, alike, are pressuring for domestic production of energy/fuel. Consumers want less expensive/dependable sources. Contractors want jobs. Energy/utilities want profits. Obama is a Democrat with little leeway on this subject. If he advocates mining, off-shore drilling or any other environmentally destructive solution, he will enrage his dwindling political base. He needs to resurrect voter confidence. All of the special interest groups are ready to pounce...
So to appear decisive and ruffle as few feathers as possible, he supports nuclear generated electric power. For thirty years, anti-nuclear spirit in this country has effectively shutdown new construction of nuclear power plants. Those plants that have broken ground have been plagued by cost overruns and design flaws that indefinitely postponed completion, led to cancelation of the project or switching to other fuel. The utility companies don't care if the plant ever produces a watt of power; they got their investment and shift expenses (millions of dollars) to their customers' utility bills. The contractors don't care, likewise, they get paid the same.
Obama's endorsement of nuclear plants is a cynical act by a president on the ropes, desperate to look presidential- knowingly enlisting a hollow gesture.
Litmus test: name a community that will volunteer as the site for a nuclear power plant?
I an understand the impetus
I an understand the impetus toward nuclear energy--my only concern is that this in itself would raise a whole other can of worms, in terms of what we're putting into the environment. I'm not an expert, nor am I directly opposing the president's initiative, but I was just wondering what people think about that.
I'm guessing you are
I'm guessing you are concerned about the waste material. I'm not an authority on this by any stretch of the word, but I believe it can be sealed and stored safely. The little reading I've done, reflects that the earliest anyone could start building is 2012 and it'll take about 4 years to complete, and that's if nothing goes wrong. So, hopefully the D.O.E. and the company that'll be running the reactor will come up with a plan for the waste. The environment should always be a concern in whatever we build or do. You can't go crazy, but if anything can be built or operated so as to lessen its effect on our world, as a general statement, we should. We've already had a lengthy discussion about climate change, I don't want to restart that. God gave us only one Earth (as far as I know) and we need to care for it. I think electricity can be produced and used through nuclear power safely, if they try.
The problem with nuclear
The problem with nuclear power plants- aside from the deadly-toxic fuel and by-products- is the construction cost. Currently there are NO NRC-approved plans. To begin construction, there must be approved plans. Why aren't there any approved plans? Because a nuclear power plant- design-wise, is a work in progress. These projects ALWAYS generate cost overruns. Note this plant being built in UK with French and U. S. contractors:
Experts raised significant concerns about the proposed architecture, and noted improvements were required for 'hazard barriers'. Issues relating to the reactor's structural integrity were also addressed. Ultimately, it was 'too early to say whether (the problems) could be resolved solely with additional safety case changes or whether they may result in design modifications being necessary'. Internal hazards described as 'significant shortfalls' were found. With assessment work due to be completed within a year and a half, one industry expert suggested a delay of up to three years was possible.
This has been the case with U. S. projects over the years. The project gulps down millions of dollars while design changes prolong the work indefinitely. As the utilities pass the expenses on to their customers who are not getting a milliamp of power from the unfinished plant. The Midland Nuclear plant eventually became a
gas-fired cogeneration facility. Allen's Creek plant began construction in 1973 and was cacelled in 1982. The Forked River Nuclear Power Plant was a proposed nuclear power plant in Lacey Township in Ocean County, New Jersey.[1] It was proposed as a single 1,070 MW reactor in 1969, but the plant proposal was canceled in 1980, when General Public Utilities halted construction "because of financial difficulties stemming from the accident at its Three Mile Island facility".[2][3] The Hartsville Nuclear Plant was a canceled nuclear power plant located near Hartsville, Tennessee. To be built and operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, it was to have four boiling water reactors.
Land along the Cumberland River was acquired by TVA in the late 1960s for construction of the plant which was to accommodate the electricity demand for the 1980s. Construction began in 1975. Because the demand for electricity was a lot lower than what was expected, construction halted. The Plant B reactors were canceled on March 22, 1983 and the Plant A reactors were canceled on August 29, 1984.[1] Marble Hill Nuclear Power Station is located at 38°36'3.09"N 85°26'45.19"W near New Washington, Indiana, USA. It was first proposed in 1973 by Public Service Indiana (PSI) and was finally closed due to overwhelming expenditures. Construction began in 1977 and was halted in 1984 with Unit #1 approximately 80% complete and Unit#2 40% complete. A proposal in June 1984 to complete the project was made by three of the major construction contractors: the Bechtel Power Corporation, Sargent & Lundy and the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. This plan was rejected because it required Public Service Indiana to continue to find financing for the $7.1 billion project.
Two "sister" plants were constructed, Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station and Byron Nuclear Generating Station, both in Illinois. Braidwood serves the Chicago area. As a point of comparison, the Braidwood facility took 12 years to build at a final cost of $5.2 billion.
The Montague Nuclear Power Plant was to consist of two 1,150 megawatt nuclear reactors to be located in Montague, Massachusetts. The project was proposed in 1973 and canceled in 1980,[1] after $29 million was spent on the project.[2] Sears Isle Nuclear Power Plant was a nuclear power plant proposed by Central Maine Power in 1974 as a single 1,150 MW nuclear reactor built by Westinghouse. It was to be built on Sears Island in Maine, but the project was canceled in 1977.[1] A Somerset Nuclear Power Plant was proposed by New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG, a subsidiary of Energy East) in 1974 as two GE 1,200 MW units, but the project was canceled in 1975.[3][4]
In 1975, NYSEG announced it was changing its construction plans because a geologic fault had been found 40 miles away.[5] A 650 MW coal plant was built at a nearby site and went into service in 1984.[6][7] South River Nuclear Power Plant was proposed by Carolina Power & Light in 1973 as three Babcock and Wilcox 1,150 MW units, but the project was canceled in 1978.[1]
The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a rapid growth in the development of nuclear power in the USA. By 1976, however, many nuclear plant proposals were no longer viable due to the downturn of electricity demand increases, significant cost and time overruns, and more complex regulatory requirements. Also, there was considerable public opposition to nuclear power in the USA by this time, which contributed to delays in licensing planned nuclear power stations.[2] Stanislaus Nuclear Power Plant was proposed by Pacific Gas & Electric in 1971 as two GE 1,200 MW units, but the project was canceled in 1979.[1]
A total of 63 nuclear units were canceled in the USA between 1975 and 1980.[2] The Sundesert Nuclear Power Plant was proposed in the 1970s but never built. In 1978, a year before the Three Mile Island accident, the State of California refused to allow the San Diego Gas and Electric Company to build Sundesert units one and two in the "absence of federally demonstrated and approved technology for permanent disposal of radioactive wastes".[1][2]
WNP-1 and WNP-4 were, along with the Columbia Generating Station (formerly called WNP-2) and WNP-3 and WNP-5, two of the five nuclear power plants on which construction was started by Energy Northwest in the 1970s. In the end, WNP-1 was mothballed when 63% constructed, WNP-3, -4 and -5 abandoned, and only the Columbia Generating Station was completed and operated. WNP-1 and -4 are located on the Hanford Reservation in the U.S. state of Washington.
WNP-1 and -4 are located on 972 acres approximately 1.5 miles east of the Columbia Generating Station.
The five reactors were all pressurized water reactors except for the Columbia Generating Station. WNP-1 and -4 were being manufactured by Babcock and Wilcox (as were the Three Mile Island reactors and the two now planned to be completed at the Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station).
A study concluded that restarting construction on WNP-1 was technically feasible but not cost-effective. However, it was noted that several business entities had expressed interest in either managing or purchasing the plant. The Yellow Creek Nuclear Power Plant was a proposed nuclear power plant near Iuka, Mississippi. It was planned to have two boiling water reactors built by Combustion Engineering and be operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Construction on the reactors began in 1978, but in August 1984, the TVA canceled construction (with about 30% of the plant complete) of the reactors because the cost to finish construction had risen dramatically and lower electricity demand. [1]
Following TVA's cancellation, the partially-completed site with infrastructure already in place was being reconstructed as a site for NASA to build solid rocket motors. Construction was about 80% complete when Congress pulled funding on the site in 1993. The cancellation of this project led to a poor economy and high unemployment in the area. [2]
Today, some buildings remain on the site including what was to be a reactor, the turbine building, and a circular base for the plant's cooling tower.[3] The William H. Zimmer Power Station, located near Moscow, Ohio, is a coal-fired power plant. It was originally intended to be a boiling water reactor type of nuclear power plant. Although once estimated to be 97% complete, poor construction and quality assurance (QA) led to the plant being converted to coal-fired generation. Today, the plant generates 1400 gross MWe and 1300 net MWe. Zimmer Power Station is the largest single-unit power facility in the United States and is majority-owned by Duke Energy. During the construction of the plant, the Little Indian Creek was routed through the plant to protect fish populations. The plant now has several unique Environmental Protection features to keep the creek at its natural state.
C.M., so why, in your
C.M., so why, in your opinion, would Obama want to fund nuclear power plants?
Consumers, contractors and
Consumers, contractors and energy/utilities, alike, are pressuring for domestic production of energy/fuel. Consumers want less expensive/dependable sources. Contractors want jobs. Energy/utilities want profits. Obama is a Democrat with little leeway on this subject. If he advocates mining, off-shore drilling or any other environmentally destructive solution, he will enrage his dwindling political base. He needs to resurrect voter confidence. All of the special interest groups are ready to pounce...
So to appear decisive and ruffle as few feathers as possible, he supports nuclear generated electric power. For thirty years, anti-nuclear spirit in this country has effectively shutdown new construction of nuclear power plants. Those plants that have broken ground have been plagued by cost overruns and design flaws that indefinitely postponed completion, led to cancelation of the project or switching to other fuel. The utility companies don't care if the plant ever produces a watt of power; they got their investment and shift expenses (millions of dollars) to their customers' utility bills. The contractors don't care, likewise, they get paid the same.
Obama's endorsement of nuclear plants is a cynical act by a president on the ropes, desperate to look presidential- knowingly enlisting a hollow gesture.
Litmus test: name a community that will volunteer as the site for a nuclear power plant?
Burke, GA. Maybe they were
Burke, GA. Maybe they were trying to build them too big:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB200014240527487034448045750714021244821…