Entergy Admits 2005 Tritium Leak

mdsolar writes "The leaking Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was hit last week by a whistleblower allegation that a previous tritium leak had occurred. Now the parent company, Entergy, has admitted the occurrence of at least one prior leak to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is particularly significant for three reasons: because the leak occurred in pipes that company officials later testified under oath did not exist, because the Vermont Senate will likely soon vote to deny Entergy a needed approval to extend the power plant's license for another 20 years, and because President Obama just put taxpayers on the hook for new nuclear power plants in Georgia."

Comments

WHAT!

[0100010001010011]

I'm absolutely glowing that this wasn't brought forward earlier. This is something I would never want to happen on my watch

Re:WHAT!

[TheRaven64]

The sentence immediately before the one you quoted was:

As tritium is not a strong beta emitter, it is not dangerous externally, but it is a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food, water, or absorbed through the skin.

(Emphasis mine.) Heavy water containing tritium will be absorbed by your body, just like normal water. Some of it will enter your cells, where it will decay, emitting a beta particle. If you are lucky, this will be relatively harmless. If you are unlucky, it will cause cancer.

It's widely used because of its decay characteristics. It only emits beta particles, which can be blocked by the skin. Outside of the body it is completely harmless, and the relatively short half life (around 9 years) means that disposal is not a major concern.

Re:Troll summary.

[TheKidWho]

It's obviously a troll summary, the OPs username is mdsolar.

Re:It's been, what, 30 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much energy does it take to mine, refine, enrich, build a plant, move the material, build a storage center for the waste, move the spent rods to storage location, dismantle plant after its productive life is over, move plant materials, build another storage center since the first one is now booked solid before it is even finished, maintain storage location for the rest of human history, clean up eventual leak of materials, create the money it takes to pay all the legal fees and damages that eventual lawsuits from the leakage of the materials?
It seems like that is a significant amount of energy and you would have to run a nuclear for a much longer time to get a surplus energy supply. When you have to run the plant longer you run into problems like Vermont Yankee. All these power plants will get old just like VY and then what will we do? Who pays to take them down? Who really benefits from all of these costs and energy inputs it doesn't seem like its the american tax payer.
     

Re:Absurd

[lwsimon]

Amen.

I'm rabidly anti-Obama, because I disagree with almost every one of his policies on a fundamental level. The simple fact is, however, building more nuclear power plants is a good thing. I'd rather them happen through private industry, and without subsidy, but this is still a step in the right direction.

Entergy offers bribe on eve of Senate vote

[mdsolar]

Entergy has announced it will sell 3% of its power VT Yankee at close to its old rate of 4 cents/kwh though it has not agreed to a price for the other 97%. http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci_14455061

Problems with plants that got 20 year extentions

[mdsolar]

Maryland's Calvert Cliffs reactors seem to be becoming unreliable: http://wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/NRC.inspectors.sent.2.1514222.html And, South Carolina's Oconee just sprung a leak as well http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/feb/09/oconee-nuclear-station-reports-tritium-exceeds-ind/ It is probably a mistake to run these plants past their 40 year design lifetime.