Nuke power plant safety shuffle.

[IndependntLogic]

Well I tend to believe that nothing is ever as good or as bad as people say. So when people say "Oh Nuclear power with be the death of us all, tomorrow!" I think about the fact that I lived down the coast from San Onofre and never heard of any problems. On the other side, when people say "There are no valid reasons for concern, when it comes to the safety or security of nuclear plants! None whatsoever!" I am just as skeptical.

So let's put that bullsh*t-o-meter of yours to the test. What would you say are the two or three main areas of concern, when it comes to nuclear plants?

I appreciate your "cautious" approach when it come to your "decision-making" process, Indy.

Your question is a valid one, and my answers involve NOTHING from a safety standpoint.
Here are my answers:

1. U.S. nuclear power plants are showing their age. Ground has not been broken for a new U.S. nuclear power plant since the 1970s. This country needs to build MORE nuke power plants before the old ones start going off-line.

2. Storage of spent fuel bundles has been an ongoing problem for many years, because the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada, which should have been "open for business" many years ago, has become a perpetual political football. Currently, U.S. nuke power plant facilities store their spent fuel on-site.

3, The anti-nuke pukes need to get a life, admit that wind turbines and solar power are NOT the answer to the continuing and growing power needs of the United States, and embrace the FACT that building many more nuclear power plants is the best answer.

As for "taichiliberal", I am not going to acknowledge his anti-nuke rhetoric. "Martybegan" did a fine job of responding to him.

No offense but "NOTHING" just doesn't sound very objective. And a thread later, someone brings up a valid point: Imagine if every car on the road had the same technology, safty features and were all built in the 1970's.
Now granted, a nuke plant is not a car - which is even more reason for concern. I am just not going to be convinced that we couldn't come up with completely new designs after 40 years.
As far as trusting power companies? Any company that has to make a profit, will always meet the minimum safety requirements, spend the minumum necessary to build and maintain etc...
I think we can have safe, effective nuke power. But I do think there are valid concerns and things that can be upgraded.
As far as security goes, I think it's another valid reason for concern.
But I have to take my daughter to the tennis court - we've got a month left to work on her game and I'm hoping to get her state ranked this year (she's going into 10th grade).

 

[TruthSeeker56]

The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant. There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis. It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life. I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.

You're absolutely correct, of course. "Outsiders" have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to U.S. nuke power plant safety. They just like blowing smoke by posting bogus links from anti-nuke websites. They honestly believe that their own ignorance of the facts doesn't matter.

 

[Intense]

U.S. Nuclear Regulators Weaken Safety Rules, Fail To Enforce Them: AP Investigation
LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety – and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._lnk2|216523

We are in agreement here. I never have had much love or trust in the NRC.

Kind of harsh for an agency that has been doing its job probably better than any other government agency.

Yes, there are always accidents, releases, misreporting etc. You can't eliminate that as hard as you try, but considering 1 bad accident that WAS CONTAINED in 40+ years of nuclear power, they seem to be doing thier job.

I hope you understand that any reduction in a safety margin is probably researched and backup up 10 ways from sunday before it is allowed. Consdiering they make them public, I assume they know any change will be scruitinzed.

They Promote Nuclear Power Very well. They Run Cover too well, also, that is the down side. That Mouth piece/Enforcer role sometimes gives the impression of not knowing whether to piss or shit.... Just saying. Some pretty unaccountable events this year... Just keep ignoring the man behind the curtain... when the shit hits the fan... just click your heels together 3 times.

It is nice to see Homeland Security picking up some of the slack, which never seemed important enough for the NRC. Thank You Homeland Security.

 

[Intense]

While big hydroelectric power projects attract more protestors than investors these days, days, new developments in river-run, hydro power could prove there’s more than one way to get clean energy from water.

A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
Source: Bourne Energy
A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
River-run, hydro systems, also called hydrokinetic power, sit in running waterways like rivers, irrigation canals and even wastewater ditches, and generate power without needing to build a massive dam that interrupts water flow completely.

That allows other users of the waterway—from ships to fish—unobstructed access while power is generated.

“[Our] systems can be applied to each river's environment, culture and commercial activities as seamlessly and invisibly as possible,” says Chris Catlin, president of Bourne Energy, a California-based firm building hydrokinetic power equipment.

He adds the always-flowing nature of these waterways makes hydrokinetic power more reliable than other renewable energy sources.

“The river runs when the wind dies down and when the sun goes down,” he says.

Hydrokinetic technologies, including Catlin’s, typically use some form of turbine placed in the water stream, and look like a boat motor or an underwater windmill.

News Headlines

Personally I favor Hydro. Always have, big or little. There are just too many pluses. In some ways the battle is between Energy Independence and Centralized control. You might want to think about that.

 

[martybegan]

We are in agreement here. I never have had much love or trust in the NRC.

Kind of harsh for an agency that has been doing its job probably better than any other government agency.

Yes, there are always accidents, releases, misreporting etc. You can't eliminate that as hard as you try, but considering 1 bad accident that WAS CONTAINED in 40+ years of nuclear power, they seem to be doing thier job.

I hope you understand that any reduction in a safety margin is probably researched and backup up 10 ways from sunday before it is allowed. Consdiering they make them public, I assume they know any change will be scruitinzed.

They Promote Nuclear Power Very well. They Run Cover too well, also, that is the down side. That Mouth piece/Enforcer role sometimes gives the impression of not knowing whether to piss or shit.... Just saying. Some pretty unaccountable events this year... Just keep ignoring the man behind the curtain... when the shit hits the fan... just click your heels together 3 times.

It is nice to see Homeland Security picking up some of the slack, which never seemed important enough for the NRC. Thank You Homeland Security.

It's an unavoidable fact you have to get regulators from the industry being regulated, unless you want an accountant figuring out the containment wall thickness of the inner core shielding.

These people belive in Nuclear power. Would you rather have regulators who hate it, and whos regulatory goal is to phase it out via onerous regulation?

No one is ignoring anything, what I am avoiding is overreaction to percieved excessive risks. The river flooding incidents this year were handled by the book, and resulted in no release, no damage, no ZOMG BOOM! event. Things worked the way they were supposed to.

 

[martybegan]

While big hydroelectric power projects attract more protestors than investors these days, days, new developments in river-run, hydro power could prove there’s more than one way to get clean energy from water.

A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
Source: Bourne Energy
A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
River-run, hydro systems, also called hydrokinetic power, sit in running waterways like rivers, irrigation canals and even wastewater ditches, and generate power without needing to build a massive dam that interrupts water flow completely.

That allows other users of the waterway—from ships to fish—unobstructed access while power is generated.

“[Our] systems can be applied to each river's environment, culture and commercial activities as seamlessly and invisibly as possible,” says Chris Catlin, president of Bourne Energy, a California-based firm building hydrokinetic power equipment.

He adds the always-flowing nature of these waterways makes hydrokinetic power more reliable than other renewable energy sources.

“The river runs when the wind dies down and when the sun goes down,” he says.

Hydrokinetic technologies, including Catlin’s, typically use some form of turbine placed in the water stream, and look like a boat motor or an underwater windmill.

News Headlines

Personally I favor Hydro. Always have, big or little. There are just too many pluses. In some ways the battle is between Energy Independence and Centralized control. You might want to think about that.

Hydro is the most reliable of the renewables, I agree. The issue I have with level flow generation is the overall lack of flow momentum. hydro works best at places where the potential energy drops (delta Z), you gain the power given from the fall into the generator, producing "gobs" (yes, a non scientifc term, I know) of energy.

In river flow only has kinetic energy, (delta V) and by using it you create a head loss in the river. Plus any meaningful levels of energy would require so many tubrines that if the river is navigable, you might acutally impede traffic.

Thats why you either build them by waterfalls, or you make a dam to do it, most of the energy taken out is from the change in potential energy via a drop.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

No offense but "NOTHING" just doesn't sound very objective. And a thread later, someone brings up a valid point: Imagine if every car on the road had the same technology, safty features and were all built in the 1970's.
Now granted, a nuke plant is not a car - which is even more reason for concern. I am just not going to be convinced that we couldn't come up with completely new designs after 40 years.
As far as trusting power companies? Any company that has to make a profit, will always meet the minimum safety requirements, spend the minumum necessary to build and maintain etc...
I think we can have safe, effective nuke power. But I do think there are valid concerns and things that can be upgraded.
As far as security goes, I think it's another valid reason for concern.
But I have to take my daughter to the tennis court - we've got a month left to work on her game and I'm hoping to get her state ranked this year (she's going into 10th grade).

ALL U.S. nuclear power plants have had every upgrade imaginable since they were originally built in the 1960s and 1970s. As the technology has evolved, newer and better equipment has been installed.

This is the basic problem with people who know very little about nuclear power plants. Because of their lack of knowledge they assume the worst, and they express their opinions based on false assumptions and unfounded fears.

The NRC does a great job. In fact, they engage in extreme overkill, which at times is to the detriment of the various nuclear power plant operators. There are other private companies, sanctioned by the NRC, that do various "quality control" inspections of U.S. nuclear power plants.

Every utility company that I ever worked for spared NO EXPENSE when it came to the operation of their nuclear power plants. It's a serious business.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant. There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis. It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life. I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.

You're absolutely correct, of course. "Outsiders" have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to U.S. nuke power plant safety. They just like blowing smoke by posting bogus links from anti-nuke websites. They honestly believe that their own ignorance of the facts doesn't matter.

Wait, are you referring to me as one of these "outsiders" or the taichi person?

 

[IndependntLogic]

No offense but "NOTHING" just doesn't sound very objective. And a thread later, someone brings up a valid point: Imagine if every car on the road had the same technology, safty features and were all built in the 1970's.
Now granted, a nuke plant is not a car - which is even more reason for concern. I am just not going to be convinced that we couldn't come up with completely new designs after 40 years.
As far as trusting power companies? Any company that has to make a profit, will always meet the minimum safety requirements, spend the minumum necessary to build and maintain etc...
I think we can have safe, effective nuke power. But I do think there are valid concerns and things that can be upgraded.
As far as security goes, I think it's another valid reason for concern.
But I have to take my daughter to the tennis court - we've got a month left to work on her game and I'm hoping to get her state ranked this year (she's going into 10th grade).

ALL U.S. nuclear power plants have had every upgrade imaginable since they were originally built in the 1960s and 1970s. As the technology has evolved, newer and better equipment has been installed.

This is the basic problem with people who know very little about nuclear power plants. Because of their lack of knowledge they assume the worst, and they express their opinions based on false assumptions and unfounded fears.

The NRC does a great job. In fact, they engage in extreme overkill, which at times is to the detriment of the various nuclear power plant operators. There are other private companies, sanctioned by the NRC, that do various "quality control" inspections of U.S. nuclear power plants.

Every utility company that I ever worked for spared NO EXPENSE when it came to the operation of their nuclear power plants. It's a serious business.

Well that's comforting to hear. Like I said, I lived down the coast from San Onofre for years and never thought twice about it. I've always been pro-nuke but I do think it's worth keeping an eye on. Like I said in the earlier post, a little bit of "better safe than sorry" never hurt.

 

[Intense]

No offense but "NOTHING" just doesn't sound very objective. And a thread later, someone brings up a valid point: Imagine if every car on the road had the same technology, safty features and were all built in the 1970's.
Now granted, a nuke plant is not a car - which is even more reason for concern. I am just not going to be convinced that we couldn't come up with completely new designs after 40 years.
As far as trusting power companies? Any company that has to make a profit, will always meet the minimum safety requirements, spend the minumum necessary to build and maintain etc...
I think we can have safe, effective nuke power. But I do think there are valid concerns and things that can be upgraded.
As far as security goes, I think it's another valid reason for concern.
But I have to take my daughter to the tennis court - we've got a month left to work on her game and I'm hoping to get her state ranked this year (she's going into 10th grade).

ALL U.S. nuclear power plants have had every upgrade imaginable since they were originally built in the 1960s and 1970s. As the technology has evolved, newer and better equipment has been installed.

This is the basic problem with people who know very little about nuclear power plants. Because of their lack of knowledge they assume the worst, and they express their opinions based on false assumptions and unfounded fears.

The NRC does a great job. In fact, they engage in extreme overkill, which at times is to the detriment of the various nuclear power plant operators. There are other private companies, sanctioned by the NRC, that do various "quality control" inspections of U.S. nuclear power plants.

Every utility company that I ever worked for spared NO EXPENSE when it came to the operation of their nuclear power plants. It's a serious business.

Pretty wide brush there Sparky. What the Plant Owners are concerned with is Licensing, not retrofitting. Operation =$$$ Down Time or added expense =!!! Nothing changes human nature. NRC has both it's up and down side. It does not walk on water, any more than you and I.

 

[Intense]

While big hydroelectric power projects attract more protestors than investors these days, days, new developments in river-run, hydro power could prove there’s more than one way to get clean energy from water.

A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
Source: Bourne Energy
A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
River-run, hydro systems, also called hydrokinetic power, sit in running waterways like rivers, irrigation canals and even wastewater ditches, and generate power without needing to build a massive dam that interrupts water flow completely.

That allows other users of the waterway—from ships to fish—unobstructed access while power is generated.

“[Our] systems can be applied to each river's environment, culture and commercial activities as seamlessly and invisibly as possible,” says Chris Catlin, president of Bourne Energy, a California-based firm building hydrokinetic power equipment.

He adds the always-flowing nature of these waterways makes hydrokinetic power more reliable than other renewable energy sources.

“The river runs when the wind dies down and when the sun goes down,” he says.

Hydrokinetic technologies, including Catlin’s, typically use some form of turbine placed in the water stream, and look like a boat motor or an underwater windmill.

News Headlines

Personally I favor Hydro. Always have, big or little. There are just too many pluses. In some ways the battle is between Energy Independence and Centralized control. You might want to think about that.

Hydro is the most reliable of the renewables, I agree. The issue I have with level flow generation is the overall lack of flow momentum. hydro works best at places where the potential energy drops (delta Z), you gain the power given from the fall into the generator, producing "gobs" (yes, a non scientifc term, I know) of energy.

In river flow only has kinetic energy, (delta V) and by using it you create a head loss in the river. Plus any meaningful levels of energy would require so many tubrines that if the river is navigable, you might acutally impede traffic.

Thats why you either build them by waterfalls, or you make a dam to do it, most of the energy taken out is from the change in potential energy via a drop.

Hey, the possibilities are immeasurable, add in tidal flow, erosion control, and they multiply.

 

[martybegan]

While big hydroelectric power projects attract more protestors than investors these days, days, new developments in river-run, hydro power could prove there’s more than one way to get clean energy from water.

A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
Source: Bourne Energy
A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
River-run, hydro systems, also called hydrokinetic power, sit in running waterways like rivers, irrigation canals and even wastewater ditches, and generate power without needing to build a massive dam that interrupts water flow completely.

That allows other users of the waterway—from ships to fish—unobstructed access while power is generated.

“[Our] systems can be applied to each river's environment, culture and commercial activities as seamlessly and invisibly as possible,” says Chris Catlin, president of Bourne Energy, a California-based firm building hydrokinetic power equipment.

He adds the always-flowing nature of these waterways makes hydrokinetic power more reliable than other renewable energy sources.

“The river runs when the wind dies down and when the sun goes down,” he says.

Hydrokinetic technologies, including Catlin’s, typically use some form of turbine placed in the water stream, and look like a boat motor or an underwater windmill.

News Headlines

Personally I favor Hydro. Always have, big or little. There are just too many pluses. In some ways the battle is between Energy Independence and Centralized control. You might want to think about that.

Hydro is the most reliable of the renewables, I agree. The issue I have with level flow generation is the overall lack of flow momentum. hydro works best at places where the potential energy drops (delta Z), you gain the power given from the fall into the generator, producing "gobs" (yes, a non scientifc term, I know) of energy.

In river flow only has kinetic energy, (delta V) and by using it you create a head loss in the river. Plus any meaningful levels of energy would require so many tubrines that if the river is navigable, you might acutally impede traffic.

Thats why you either build them by waterfalls, or you make a dam to do it, most of the energy taken out is from the change in potential energy via a drop.

Hey, the possibilities are immeasurable, add in tidal flow, erosion control, and they multiply.

The possibilites may be immersurable, but the chance of getting enough power out of the turbines to justify thier cost is the prime issue.

The same issue is there for tidal power, the delta Z is just too low to get enough power out of it to justify the expense of the turbines and the mounting of them. They are looking into places with large tidal bores, such as the Bay of Fundy to determine the peak you can get out of it.

The other issue with tidal power is that it is not continuous, and thus is not capable of providing base load.

Tidal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run of the river hydro has been done sucessfully, the main limiting issue is that you still have to find a suitable location, you can't just plop a turbine down in the river and get reliable power.

 

[Intense]

Hydro is the most reliable of the renewables, I agree. The issue I have with level flow generation is the overall lack of flow momentum. hydro works best at places where the potential energy drops (delta Z), you gain the power given from the fall into the generator, producing "gobs" (yes, a non scientifc term, I know) of energy.

In river flow only has kinetic energy, (delta V) and by using it you create a head loss in the river. Plus any meaningful levels of energy would require so many tubrines that if the river is navigable, you might acutally impede traffic.

Thats why you either build them by waterfalls, or you make a dam to do it, most of the energy taken out is from the change in potential energy via a drop.

Hey, the possibilities are immeasurable, add in tidal flow, erosion control, and they multiply.

The possibilites may be immersurable, but the chance of getting enough power out of the turbines to justify thier cost is the prime issue.

The same issue is there for tidal power, the delta Z is just too low to get enough power out of it to justify the expense of the turbines and the mounting of them. They are looking into places with large tidal bores, such as the Bay of Fundy to determine the peak you can get out of it.

The other issue with tidal power is that it is not continuous, and thus is not capable of providing base load.

Tidal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run of the river hydro has been done sucessfully, the main limiting issue is that you still have to find a suitable location, you can't just plop a turbine down in the river and get reliable power.

Just a thought.

Every Bourne power system offers a modern, competitive energy solution
that incorporates the continual development of Bourne’s advanced technologies
including hydrodynamics, advanced materials, power and generator technologies.
These include:

Tri-Phase Blade - advanced turbine blade design
Power Cartridge - micro generator system
Virtual Stabilizer – highly adaptable float design
SCM Mooring – advanced mooring system
Active-Controls - smart control system
Smart Grid - power transmission system

Energy for the Future

 

[TruthSeeker56]

The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant. There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis. It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life. I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.

You're absolutely correct, of course. "Outsiders" have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to U.S. nuke power plant safety. They just like blowing smoke by posting bogus links from anti-nuke websites. They honestly believe that their own ignorance of the facts doesn't matter.

Wait, are you referring to me as one of these "outsiders" or the taichi person?

No, not you. You bring up many good points, and you are a fair and "non-partisan" participant in this debate who raises valid questions (many of which I have hopefully satisfactorily answered). You are living up to your name.

I was referring to those who are obviously anti-nuclear power and who go off on ridiculous tangents and supply anti-nuke power links to "bolster" their ignorant ramblings.

 

[martybegan]

Hey, the possibilities are immeasurable, add in tidal flow, erosion control, and they multiply.

The possibilites may be immersurable, but the chance of getting enough power out of the turbines to justify thier cost is the prime issue.

The same issue is there for tidal power, the delta Z is just too low to get enough power out of it to justify the expense of the turbines and the mounting of them. They are looking into places with large tidal bores, such as the Bay of Fundy to determine the peak you can get out of it.

The other issue with tidal power is that it is not continuous, and thus is not capable of providing base load.

Tidal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run of the river hydro has been done sucessfully, the main limiting issue is that you still have to find a suitable location, you can't just plop a turbine down in the river and get reliable power.

Just a thought.

Every Bourne power system offers a modern, competitive energy solution
that incorporates the continual development of Bourne’s advanced technologies
including hydrodynamics, advanced materials, power and generator technologies.
These include:

Tri-Phase Blade - advanced turbine blade design
Power Cartridge - micro generator system
Virtual Stabilizer – highly adaptable float design
SCM Mooring – advanced mooring system
Active-Controls - smart control system
Smart Grid - power transmission system

Energy for the Future

Interesting system, in particular I like how modular it is, as well as the methods for making the mechanical top units aethetically pleasing.

The one issue I see is acutally from the environmental side, as some people may call them "fish choppers." I know the rotational velocity is very low, but someone out there will scream "THINK OF THE MINNOWS" and delay the project for years.

One of the problems the green movement has is that it contains a small group of people who think you can get "something from nothing" That there is some magical power source out there that has zero downsides.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

No offense but "NOTHING" just doesn't sound very objective. And a thread later, someone brings up a valid point: Imagine if every car on the road had the same technology, safty features and were all built in the 1970's.
Now granted, a nuke plant is not a car - which is even more reason for concern. I am just not going to be convinced that we couldn't come up with completely new designs after 40 years.
As far as trusting power companies? Any company that has to make a profit, will always meet the minimum safety requirements, spend the minumum necessary to build and maintain etc...
I think we can have safe, effective nuke power. But I do think there are valid concerns and things that can be upgraded.
As far as security goes, I think it's another valid reason for concern.
But I have to take my daughter to the tennis court - we've got a month left to work on her game and I'm hoping to get her state ranked this year (she's going into 10th grade).

ALL U.S. nuclear power plants have had every upgrade imaginable since they were originally built in the 1960s and 1970s. As the technology has evolved, newer and better equipment has been installed.

This is the basic problem with people who know very little about nuclear power plants. Because of their lack of knowledge they assume the worst, and they express their opinions based on false assumptions and unfounded fears.

The NRC does a great job. In fact, they engage in extreme overkill, which at times is to the detriment of the various nuclear power plant operators. There are other private companies, sanctioned by the NRC, that do various "quality control" inspections of U.S. nuclear power plants.

Every utility company that I ever worked for spared NO EXPENSE when it came to the operation of their nuclear power plants. It's a serious business.

Pretty wide brush there Sparky. What the Plant Owners are concerned with is Licensing, not retrofitting. Operation =$$$ Down Time or added expense =!!! Nothing changes human nature. NRC has both it's up and down side. It does not walk on water, any more than you and I.

The plant owners are concerned with NRC compliance, first and foremost. They don't do what the NRC says they need to do, their nuke plants don't operate. PERIOD.

The NRC is not the only "watchdog" organization that oversees U.S. nuclear power plants. A private company, INPO (Institute for Nuclear Power Operations) does intensive inspections of every nuclear power plant in the United States every 18 months. These people don't mess around. They check everything from paperwork to plant equipment to the training programs to the competency of every employee that works at the plant.

I may be using a "wide brush" in your estimation, but the facts are the facts. As far as I know, only myself and one other person in this forum has set foot in a U.S. nuclear power plant. I'll put my 18 years of experience on the line, and I'll tell you the TRUTH. I don't have a horse in this "pro-nuke/anti-nuke" race.

Pay attention, and you and "taichiliberal" may actually LEARN something. You are an intelligent person, but you need to put away your 1970s and 80s anti-nuke bumper sticker slogans, and pay attention to what I am telling you.

I am an independent voice who knows the facts about U.S. nuclear power plants. I worked at nuke plants from coast-to-coast..........big ones, small ones, old ones, new ones, PWRs and BWRs, and I wore several different "hats" during those years (1980s -2000s). I am out of the business now because it was my time to retire. Anybody who works in a nuclear power plant has a finite "shelf life". Mine was 18 years. The pressure and stress and responsibility are immense. The work hours are detrimental to your health. It takes a dedicated, intelligent, and mentally and physically tough person to work at a nuclear power plant. It's certainly not the right career for most people.

I get it that your "agenda" is hydro power and wind power and sun power. Those are all nice "alternatives" to other forms of energy, but they will ALWAYS be nothing more than SUPPLEMENTAL energy sources that will be used in conjunction with coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, natural gas, etc.

 

[IndependntLogic]

You're absolutely correct, of course. "Outsiders" have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to U.S. nuke power plant safety. They just like blowing smoke by posting bogus links from anti-nuke websites. They honestly believe that their own ignorance of the facts doesn't matter.

Wait, are you referring to me as one of these "outsiders" or the taichi person?

No, not you. You bring up many good points, and you are a fair and "non-partisan" participant in this debate who raises valid questions (many of which I have hopefully satisfactorily answered). You are living up to your name.

I was referring to those who are obviously anti-nuclear power and who go off on ridiculous tangents and supply anti-nuke power links to "bolster" their ignorant ramblings.

Okay, so here's a couple concerns:
1. The energy corps are in business to make a profit. That's just a fact. I have an inherent distrust for big comanies, that could be compared to the distrust many have for Big Government. I could go into examples etc... but let's just assume this distrust is at a reasonable level and not the "tinfoil hat in the basement" type.
So I can't help but ask pesky questions like:
1. Would these guys at the top, order that materials which barely meet the requirements / regulations be used, or would they say "Hey! Let's reduce our profits by spending more than we need to!"? I just don't see them doing the latter.
2. In 2002 & 3 a couple congressmen made a BIG fuss about Nuke Plant safety. One of the things they brought up was what would happen if a terrorist hit a plant with a plane. Pac Gas & Electric and ConEd spent 6,000% more in campaign contributions than they ever had in those two districts. Those two congressmen were voted out of office. Congress changed it's mind in 2004 and decided it would be "unreasonable" to require that plants be secure against such risks. Call me picky but I wouldn't mind having UAV's working 24/7 and F-18's or whatever, ready-deployed just in case. Hell, if we can hand over $20B a year to Pakistan for their safety, we can spend 1/50th of that on ours. JMO
3. To date, Force on Force terrorists simulations are still fully run and controlled by the companies that are paid to provide security to the plants. They limit the number of attackers to ten or less (vs. the 40+ personnel on duty). Additionally, they still use "laser tag" equipment, which limits the terrorists to attacking with semi-automatic, short range, non-explosive weapons. IMO That's just plain bullshit. That's like having two rabbis argue over whether Judaism or Islam is better. Guess what the outcome will be. I think they should use wargames rules and tech. The marines have an "electronic grenade" which will set off the vest of everyone within 30". I also think they should use either A) U.S. Military personnel or B) A competing security company who would love to steal the contract.
Seriously, the way I came across all of this is that I am just finishing a novel in which the terrorist attack these places. With the help of a former Force Recon buddy from Camp Pendleton, I've come up with three ways to take them down quickly. The most difficult part is not taking over but rather, obtaining the intel necessary to cause a meltdown once the Control Room has been secured. Could they get it? For say $10M? I bet they could. So yes, I would increase security.

Like I said, I like nuke but I do think that like anything, there is room for improvement.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

In my 18 years, I never saw anybody "cut corners", I never saw sub-standard equipment being used, and I never saw an electric utility try to "get one over" on the NRC or INPO. Period.

One fact you have not considered is that when an electric utility company commits BILLIONS of dollars to a nuclear power plant facility, they KNOW they can't cut corners or piss off the NRC or INPO in any way, or their nuke power plant facility becomes a big white elephant, and they lose BILLIONS of dollars, via monetary fines and lost revenue, not to mention a whole bunch of pissed off stockholders.

As for security, I already addressed this concern that you have. One of the design requirements for a U.S. nuclear power plant containment building is the ability to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 747.
I also mentioned all of the physical barriers, and the extreme difficulty a terrorist group would have in not only LOCATING critical plant systems and the main control room, but the extreme difficulty in having the ability to know what to do to cause some sort of catastrophic failure that would cause a core meltdown.

There are several UNDERGROUND levels in a nuclear power plant, and they are underground for a reason.

 

[taichiliberal]

In my 18 years, I never saw anybody "cut corners", I never saw sub-standard equipment being used, and I never saw an electric utility try to "get one over" on the NRC or INPO. Period.

One fact you have not considered is that when an electric utility company commits BILLIONS of dollars to a nuclear power plant facility, they KNOW they can't cut corners or piss off the NRC or INPO in any way, or their nuke power plant facility becomes a big white elephant, and they lose BILLIONS of dollars, via monetary fines and lost revenue, not to mention a whole bunch of pissed off stockholders.

As for security, I already addressed this concern that you have. One of the design requirements for a U.S. nuclear power plant containment building is the ability to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 747.
I also mentioned all of the physical barriers, and the extreme difficulty a terrorist group would have in not only LOCATING critical plant systems and the main control room, but the extreme difficulty in having the ability to know what to do to cause some sort of catastrophic failure that would cause a core meltdown.

There are several UNDERGROUND levels in a nuclear power plant, and they are
underground for a reason.

Your alleged personal experience means NOTHING, as it DOES NOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD.

Once again, you provide supposition and conjecture to try and discredit the conclusions based on the valid FACTS I provided. The chronology of the post shows we've already done this dance, Truthseeker, and the truth is you just can't prove me wrong on these particular set of realities regarding the nuke power industry.

 

[taichiliberal]

One, you link is gone, Two, Huffpo is as good of a source for issues of nuclear regulation as Cosmo is.

Three, ive read most of the crap on TMI being worse than people say it was, Conspiracy theory at its finest.

Also, even if some regluations have been relaxed, we were shown how well the oversight of these plants works by the stuff that happened up in Missouri. Worst flooding in 200 years and the plant staff reacted perfectly. No problems, No releases, no real damage.

1) the links work fine from my end....so either it's your computer, a temporary glitch or you didn't bother reading the material linked.

2) Repeating your bluff and BS to cover the FACT that YOU DIDN'T READ THE MATERIAL PRESENTED in ANY of my links does NOT jusitfy or prove any of your opinion, supposition or conjecture.

3) That Missouri dodged a bullet by the grace of God (waters receding at the opportune time regarding the nuke plant) DOES NOT ERASE all the information that YOU REFUSE TO READ. Again, your willful ignorance is no excuse or proof that your opinion is justified.

NRC Regulators Scrutinize Nebraska Nuclear Plant - WSJ.com

Link doesnt work. try relinking it.

I did, it must be your computer...but to be fair, I'll give it one more shot.
and i stand by my huffo = useless knee jerk reporting.

Translation: Marty REFUSES TO READ AND DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF A LINK.....thereby displayin a willful ignorance and stubborn bias on Marty's part.

Missouri didnt dodge a bullet, the safety protocols put in place worked.

The safety protocols worked because the water STOPPED RISING, genius. Had Mother Nature decided to go just a few feet more, Missouri would have been royally screwed. Remember Marty, that was UNPRECEDENTED overflow....the EXTRA ADDED sandbags were NOT part of the "protocol", as the river wasn't expected to rise THAT much. Stop being stubborn and deal with reality, Marty.