Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NY bets big on aging nuke plants, balancing jobs, safety

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NY bets big on aging nuke plants, balancing jobs, safety

    OSWEGO, N.Y. (AP) — When the Nine Mile Point reactor first went online, Richard Nixon was president, the Beatles were still a band and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima weren't yet bywords for the hazards of nuclear power.

    Almost 50 years later, New York state is betting big on the future of Nine Mile Point, one of the nation's two oldest nuclear plants.

    The state is putting up $7.6 billion in subsidies to ensure that the plant and two other upstate nuclear plants stay open, part of New York's strategy to lean on nuclear energy as it ramps up renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric.

    But even as Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration embraces nuclear power upstate, it's moving to shutter the Indian Point nuclear plant some 30 miles north of New York City.

    To critics, Cuomo is making a political calculation that favors jobs and energy upstate, and safety and the environment downstate.

    "These things have an expiration date, and they're really pushing it," said Sue Matthews, who worked for contractors building Nine Mile Point's second reactor in the 1980s. She said her opposition to the plant makes her the "most hated" woman in town. "Everyone here depends on that place — the jobs, the property taxes. They can't afford to close it."
    AP - Full Article

  • #2
    Just how long until these magic renewable sources are able to handle the load?

    Because they're not all that impressive right now.

    Between the aging aqueducts and these over-age reactors, it would not take a world-glass terror strike to really put the hurt on NYC.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      Just how long until these magic renewable sources are able to handle the load?

      Because they're not all that impressive right now.

      Between the aging aqueducts and these over-age reactors, it would not take a world-glass terror strike to really put the hurt on NYC.
      On the one hand, I gotta give NY credit for actually continuing to use a sensible power source while working on their alternative energy - far better than some of the radical greens who would have wanted all the nuke plants shut down even before they had the alternative in place.

      Though on the other hand, the sad state of America's nuclear energy is just a reminder of how scared the population still is of nuclear power. Years ago the US was studying the effecient French model for designing and approving new reactor designs in the hopes of restarting America's own nuclear power plant program, but that hasn't gone anywhere.

      Considering the standard NIMBYism that plagues so much of America, it's liable we'll be stuck having to squeeze life out of aging and outdated nuclear plants for some time yet.

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't think they have a choice. Coal-fired plants would take years to build and get on-line.

        I agree, I wish we made better use of nuclear power. If the USN can run them accident-free, obviously anyone can.

        But I really don't see solar or wind power becoming efficient enough to tote NYC's load in the lifetime the plants have left. There is a lot of tech hurdles that will have to be overcome. And I don't think they have any more undammed rivers nearby.

        It will be interesting. Any sort of incident that shuts down more than one reactor will leave NYC in trouble.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think a few Natural Gas Power plants would be a reasonable alternative. If nothing else, Fracking shows we will not run out of Natural Gas for a long time. I would advocate a mix of Nuclear, Coal and Natural Gas.

          Pruitt
          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

          Comment


          • #6
            One of our biggest energy mistakes has been not utilizing nuclear. Whats a few nuclear power plants compared to a few thousand bombs?

            Comment


            • #7
              Long term, they should be replaced with newer and better nuclear power plants. Natural gas would be the alternative.

              As for the three accidents listed in the OP, only TMI is indicative of US nuclear power. The other two are not, in any way, shape, or form. They are red herrings and strawmen.

              Chernobyl was a fast fission, graphite moderated, reactor design that nobody in the Western world uses today for commercial power generation as these reactors are relatively unsafe to operate for that purpose. Aside from that, they aren't used because the byproducts of generation include weapons grade plutonium making them undesirable and possibly illegal by international law.
              Even then, most of the problem with that plant's disaster was the sub-standard construction that was done on much of it because of Soviet government corruption. The post explosion problems are also mainly at the hands of an inept, secretive, and mendacious government. If anything, Chernobyl shows us why a heavy handed government with limited accountability is a danger... Sort of like letting the EPA run mine clean ups...

              Fukushima was hit by a 1000 year natural disaster and the plant's design in terms of survivability was much inferior to US plants in having no secondary containment (the big concrete dome over the plant the US requires). Even then, the whole Fukushima disaster is less of a problem than say the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill was.

              As for TMI. No one died. No one got cancer. The mess was cleaned up in time. That's a better record for a major accident than many oil or coal plants have for major accidents. It's also a far better environmental record.

              Only ignorance and fear keep safe nuclear power from becoming a reality.
              Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 29 Jan 17, 23:25.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                Just how long until these magic renewable sources are able to handle the load?
                Try the correct answer: Never.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Fukushima was hit by a 1000 year natural disaster and the plant's design in terms of survivability was much inferior to US plants in having no secondary containment (the big concrete dome over the plant the US requires). Even then, the whole Fukushima disaster is less of a problem than say the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill was.
                  How many towns and villages are still ghosttowns due to BP?

                  The scary thing about Fukushima is, that the big bad Tsunami caused it not by the sheer power of the enormous wave, but simply by destroying some generators via flooding, something almost all nuclear power plants everywhere are potentially susceptible to.

                  The plant itself survived the Tsunami just fine with its containment building, but the generators were damaged by the incoming water and the rest is history.
                  Reaction to the 2016 Munich shootings:
                  Europe: "We are shocked and support you in these harsh times, we stand by you."
                  USA: "We will check people from Germany extra-hard and it is your own damn fault for being so stupid."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    NYC has been there and done that.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yo...ackout_of_1977
                    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post
                      One of our biggest energy mistakes has been not utilizing nuclear. Whats a few nuclear power plants compared to a few thousand bombs?
                      Yep.

                      And as an added bonus, natural gas to nuclear (N2N) is the only viable pathway to decarbonized clean energy... Yet most greenies oppose both natural gas and nuclear power...

                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Acheron View Post
                        How many towns and villages are still ghosttowns due to BP?

                        The scary thing about Fukushima is, that the big bad Tsunami caused it not by the sheer power of the enormous wave, but simply by destroying some generators via flooding, something almost all nuclear power plants everywhere are potentially susceptible to.

                        The plant itself survived the Tsunami just fine with its containment building, but the generators were damaged by the incoming water and the rest is history.
                        Note Post #7. TAG stated what my brother said{was an engineer at a nuclear plant in the Midwest for 30 years} There are additional containment safe guards in place here that were not present in Japan.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Acheron View Post
                          How many towns and villages are still ghosttowns due to BP?
                          Zero-point-zero.

                          Originally posted by Acheron
                          The scary thing about Fukushima is, that the big bad Tsunami caused it not by the sheer power of the enormous wave, but simply by destroying some generators via flooding, something almost all nuclear power plants everywhere are potentially susceptible to.
                          The plant itself survived the Tsunami just fine with its containment building, but the generators were damaged by the incoming water and the rest is history.[/QUOTE]

                          Why is that scary? The nuclear-related aspects survived one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded and a massive tsunami. The back-up generators weren't sufficiently protected from an almost unimaginable disaster.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            Long term, they should be replaced with newer and better nuclear power plants. Natural gas would be the alternative.

                            As for the three accidents listed in the OP, only TMI is indicative of US nuclear power. The other two are not, in any way, shape, or form. They are red herrings and strawmen.

                            Chernobyl was a fast fission, graphite moderated, reactor design that nobody in the Western world uses today for commercial power generation as these reactors are relatively unsafe to operate for that purpose. Aside from that, they aren't used because the byproducts of generation include weapons grade plutonium making them undesirable and possibly illegal by international law.
                            Even then, most of the problem with that plant's disaster was the sub-standard construction that was done on much of it because of Soviet government corruption. The post explosion problems are also mainly at the hands of an inept, secretive, and mendacious government. If anything, Chernobyl shows us why a heavy handed government with limited accountability is a danger... Sort of like letting the EPA run mine clean ups...

                            Fukushima was hit by a 1000 year natural disaster and the plant's design in terms of survivability was much inferior to US plants in having no secondary containment (the big concrete dome over the plant the US requires). Even then, the whole Fukushima disaster is less of a problem than say the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill was.

                            As for TMI. No one died. No one got cancer. The mess was cleaned up in time. That's a better record for a major accident than many oil or coal plants have for major accidents. It's also a far better environmental record.

                            Only ignorance and fear keep safe nuclear power from becoming a reality.
                            And NIMBY'ism...
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post
                              One of our biggest energy mistakes has been not utilizing nuclear.
                              Exactly.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X