AG Scores Victory In Bid To Shut Down Indian Point (lohud.com)

mdsolar quotes a report from The Journal News: Federal safety regulators used the wrong data to analyze the potential economic impacts of a severe accident at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, a panel of commissioners for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled Wednesday. The ruling, which reversed an earlier finding, will force the NRC to conduct a fresh analysis of the costs of a devastating accident and cleanup at the nuclear power plant in Buchanan, 24 miles north of New York City. The decision was hailed by New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, whose office is spearheading the state's challenge to Indian Point's efforts to renew federal licenses for its two reactors. Schneiderman estimates that some 1.5 million workers would be needed in to take part in decontamination efforts in the event of a nuclear mishap, with cleanup costs surging as high as $1 trillion.

Comments

mdsolar

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Re:mdsolar

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah fuck that guy. and fuck the editors for repeatedly spamming his articles.

Re:mdsolar

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:mdsolar

[ShanghaiBill]

People tell him it's because of lawsuits and anti-nuclear activists.

The lawsuits and activists are not going to magically go away, so they need to be factored into any realistic cost assessment of a nuclear plant.

Re:mdsolar

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't change the Truth that much of the expense of nuclear is in litigation.

And, they could magically go away with proper Federal legislation.

Re:mdsolar

[ShanghaiBill]

And, they could magically go away with proper Federal legislation.

This is true, and it has been done before in other countries. Chernobyl was built without any influence from activists, and the people pointing out potential flaws at Fukushima were sidelined and ignored. So there are precedents for streamlining construction.

Re:mdsolar

[painandgreed]

yeah fuck that guy. and fuck the editors for repeatedly spamming his articles.

You probably mean "fuck those posters" who keep commenting on his articles and making it so editors want to post them because they see the people commenting on them. As an AC, I bet you are mdsolar coming here to troll people to complain to drive up the post count.

Re:mdsolar

[sycodon]

Restrictions on frivolous lawsuits and lawsuits designed to harass does not equal no regulations and unsafe operations.

Cheap nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

But NIMBY.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[peragrin]

I have had nuclear in my back yard but lets make something clear.

if Indian point had a fukishima style issue Wall street is unlivable, un workable.

That is far higher than a 1 trillion dollars. Try $50 Trillion. With hundreds of trillions of lost money.

Nukes are better than coal until they have issues. newer designs can mitigate those issues, but they aren't cheap to setup and you really can't convert one design into another.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Mr D from 63]

And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt.? If there is some other way it could be deluged, I would agree it should be shut down, but a 'mishap' will result in an event like Three Mile Island, where essentially nothing is released, and the surrounding area remains perfectly safe.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[mdsolar]

Indian Point 3 probably isn't built to withstand the seismic risk now known for the site. https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

Re:Cheap nuclear

[ultranova]

if Indian point had a fukishima style issue Wall street is unlivable, un workable.

But I'm sure there would be a bad side, too.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the point. It matters if New York becomes unlivable. If some people in Bumfuck, Nowhere, lose their livelihoods and homes, who gives a shit, as long as New York has cheap electricity? That's the definition of NIMBY. The people in Bumfuck don't need Gigawatts of electricity. If New York wants nuclear power, it can live with the risk. If the nuclear apologists are to be believed, the risk is wildly exaggerated anyway, isn't it?

Re: Cheap nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

The Problem is possibly not tsunami. Besides nuclear is not cheap even if you do not count waste disposal.

Re: Cheap nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice lefty talking points . Fukushima was a complete lack of following best practices . Is plants have learned lessons and will not melt down with the redundant backup systems . On one hand we needs to pay through the nose for higher taxes on gas to reduce global warming and on the other you want to shut down zero greenhouses gas nuclear plants

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

When Bumfuck is as culturally and economically as important as New York, they will matter. The way things are now, the good people of Bumfuck can throw themselves into a firepit and let better people get on with their way more relevant lives.

Re: Cheap nuclear

[ShanghaiBill]

Fukushima was a complete lack of following best practices.

That is obvious in hindsight. But before the tsunami, pro-nukes were saying Chernobyl was a fluke event with unique circumstances, and that it couldn't happen again.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

more likely nothing of any value would be lost, they would have an alternate backup site up and running in a day, soe rich fat cats would just have to get their $10,000 brogues dirty.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

Because gangs, crooked bankers, Ratchets, crooked politicians, etc. are "culturally important"

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

You aware that money can be printed in any amount necessary?

Re: Cheap nuclear

[Ol Olsoc]

Fukushima was a complete lack of following best practices.

That is obvious in hindsight. But before the tsunami, pro-nukes were saying Chernobyl was a fluke event with unique circumstances, and that it couldn't happen again.

Every event is a "fluke" for the rabid pro-nukers. And let's make no mistake, Fukushima was not a failure of the reactors - at least not at first. It was a failure of a seawall that was built too low for expected and easily researched historical Tsunami levels. Then it was a failure of a emergency generator system that was emplaced in an area where the easily predictable seawall breached Tsunami waters would end up, then even though by this time sort of iffy as to whether it would have helped - a power connector mismatch.

Even the basic siting of Fukushima is suspect. Given that the eastern side of Japan is a hotspot for big Tsunamis, putting a reactor that near the beach was suicidal. With basic internet research, I "found" a safer site along a river inland and above the reach of any historical level Tsunami. And it would have fresh water for emergency cooling, rather than salt water that will poison a reactor if used in an emergency situation. Which is why I laugh when the rabid pro nucers go on about "safe, modern reactor" designs. While these designs have improved, humans haven't.

As long as bean counters, and deadline driven management can over-ride decisions regarding safety, there are so many places that non-reactor events can destroy the reactor that we have to come up with a different way of siting and building these things. And if these folks are driven by agendas that have them emplace the reactors in places where they simply will fail, then there are many more problems than reactor design.

Re: Cheap nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

Where would all the syphilis go if there were no people in NYC? You think we want those people out in the good parts of the country??

Re:Cheap nuclear

[RobotRunAmok]

Indian Point is in my backyard. I live about ten minutes north of Buchanan. I have no problem with Indian Point.

What I and my neighbors DO have a problem with are the Ponytails and other chuckleheads who are bused up here regularly from NYC to protest and make noise and pretend to the media that they are "outraged locals." I've taken the time to speak to a few of them, and invariably they have no understanding regarding the plant's operation or nuclear energy v. fossil fuel issues in general outside of a few easily refuted talking points their handlers supply to them. It is all theater.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Mr D from 63]

IP3, just like any other US Plant, has a lot of margin in its seismic design basis, and will handle a quake much bigger than the licensing spec. We saw this proven with the plants in Japan, they all handled a much bigger earthquake than licensing spec, and all shut down safely. Of course, Fukushima plants were deluged by the tsunami, which the plant was not designed to handle, causing the accident.

Re: Cheap nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

"Which is why I laugh when the rabid pro nucers go on about "safe, modern reactor" designs"

Ironically you have an attitude that shows exactly why we haven't built newer safe design.

nice circular logic, like most green idiots

Re:Cheap nuclear

[stooo]

>> And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt.
There are some lakes upriver. A tsunami is definitely possible, if unlikely :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is also the possibility of a normal flood, which nearly destroyed a few nukes already.

Re: Cheap nuclear

[Ol Olsoc]

"Which is why I laugh when the rabid pro nucers go on about "safe, modern reactor" designs"

Ironically you have an attitude that shows exactly why we haven't built newer safe design.

nice circular logic, like most green idiots

Brilliant, simply brilliant. Despite your being magically able to determine everything about me from one post, I - dear coward - am pro nuclear, and you - dear coward - are exactly the sort of asshole that makes adopting nuclear less likely, as you trumpet the 100 percent failed drivel that has made people suspicious of any pro nuc people.

So let's pick apart your fscking stupid reply in context. I specifically wrote that in Fukushima the problems were not caused by the reactor, they were cause by stupid decisions to build a reactor in a place and in a form that made it impossible not to fail eventually. The seawalls were going to be breached - historical accounts and measurements of debris left at the high water marks of previous Tsunamis are sufficient proof of that. Second, once the seawalls were breached, the emergency power supplies were going to fail, as they were located in an area hwere the breaching sea water was going to settle.

So a prudent person is - by way of looking at the past - making a pretty good assumption that if the bean counters and planners and site selection groups are so cavalier and imprudent as to set up a situation that simply will fail, well, a prudent person kinda figures that someone has to be prudent. Any you simply end up as evidence of the type of people who shouldn't be in the decision processes, either via lack of reading ability, lack of understanding of systems, or a "some men just want to watch the world burn" mentality.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[MrKaos]

If there is some other way it could be deluged, I would agree it should be shut down.

Indian Point is a reactor that is pretty fragile and vulnerable to LOCA attacks in quite obvious ways. An tsunami is not the only way to trigger that scenario.

Essentially you are suggesting that it is unreasonable to get an assessment of it's true state and the likely cost of upgrades.

, but a 'mishap' will result in an event like Three Mile Island, where essentially nothing is released, and the surrounding area remains perfectly safe.

Well thats a fiction because strontium-90 was released at TMI. Also dosimeters that measured the reactors effluents were overloaded very early into the accident and could not be replaced, so the reality was we don't know how much was released. It wasn't as massive as Chernobyl however it certainly wasn't zero either.

People that actually worked at TMI during that accident used to frequent this forum long before you were shilling here and they reported a comedy of errors preventing the reactor accident being much worse than it was.

It must be the NIMBY's fault because hippys and hicks can stop billions of dollars worth of reactor investments being deployed. You nutty nutty nukkers and yer crazy talk, it doesn't even make sense.

If you want to really help the nuclear industry you should lobby to repeal the Price Anderson act, that's what is really holding the nuclear industry back. How fortunate it is there to stop the Nuclear Inddustry growing any further.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Mr D from 63]

>> And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt. There are some lakes upriver. A tsunami is definitely possible, if unlikely : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... There is also the possibility of a normal flood, which nearly destroyed a few nukes already.

Did you read your link? Maybe only if there were a volcano in the vicinity.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Mr D from 63]

"LOCA Attack"? I like how creative folks can be when making stuff up. And also conspiracy theories regarding TMI. Its public information what happened, yes there where human errors and design issues, and yet the entire event never hurt anyone. The amount of release was so small, you could be right at the effluent point and receive less than a medical x-ray dose. But of course, you read somewhere on someone' blog that it was much more and a big cover up and you certainly like that better.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Coren22]

Shh, we can't inject reason and actual engineering into these decisions, they must all be based upon gut instinct or we can't have a reasonable discussion of the risks of nuclear (which is as near to none as any other power plant in on the planet).

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Coren22]

https://www.google.com/search?...

WTH is a LOCA attack?

The facts speak louder than any of these envirowackos, even including the deaths from the nuclear bombs, nuclear is still safer than ANY other power source we have.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/...

But let us all hide under the table in fear of the big bogeyman that is nuclear, we can't have cheap power because someone might cry in fear over the nuclear plants.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[HiThere]

A lot of the problem with Fukishima was spend reactor rods being stored on site in storage intended for temporary use. Are you willing to bet that equivalent problems don't exist for US plants? To me it appears that the odds are that safety concerns are frequently avoided in the interest of economic operation. Also because there's nowhere better to put them.

Re: Cheap nuclear

[HiThere]

The problem is that every incident actually *IS* a fluke. And flukes are a lot more common that most people are willing to accept.

So saying "this incident was a fluke" isn't a comment saying it wasn't to be expected, but only "most reasonable people wouldn't expect it". Which is true, but not very useful.

When you NEED something to be secure against failure for a prolonged period of time, you need to guard against very low probability events. Probably in this case not improbable on the scale of giant meteor impact, but maybe half-way to that on a logarithmic scale. And that means you can't depend on what people see at a trivial risk, because people are extremely poor at making that kind of assessment.

IOW, it's not just "short-sighted economics driven management", though of course that makes things worse, but even careful engineers will underestimate long-term risks. The only way we have to handle this kind of thing is mathematical analysis, and that requires that we have a valid model that includes all risks. Whoops!

People are unable to accurately evaluate long term risks. This has been proven repeatedly. They also undervalue long-term gains. And this has also been proven repeatedly. And this makes accurately balancing them impossible....except in the cases where you have an accurate model that includes all costs and profits, with an accurate estimate of probabilistic frequency. Which we have only managed for simplified situations. (Even there we find strict limits. Chaotic systems aren't readily predictable. And that includes planetary orbits. Simpler systems, though, are more readily predicted "accurately within stated limits". Unfortunately, I don't believe that nuclear plants count as simple systems.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Mr D from 63]

A lot of the problem with Fukishima was spend reactor rods being stored on site in storage intended for temporary use. Are you willing to bet that equivalent problems don't exist for US plants? To me it appears that the odds are that safety concerns are frequently avoided in the interest of economic operation. Also because there's nowhere better to put them.

The pools were damaged from the effects of the tsunami and the damage it caused to the plant, so no, unless a tsunami hits one I don't have concerns. Even with the tsunami, and the damage from it and the hydrogen explosions, the fuel rods actually remained intact and safe. Every other plant and fuel pool in Japan was just fine even with the much greater than anticipated earthquake. Most of the Fukushima pools were OK, only the one pool suffered significant damage.

Re: Cheap nuclear

[david_thornley]

Chernobyl was a fluke that can't happen again. Fukushima was far less harmful than Chernobyl. It would be nice to say that Fukushima was a fluke hat couldn't happen again, but I'm not at all sure of that. Another Fukushima-scale incident is unlikely, of course, and we can make it less likely, but it's going to be quite some time before we can be sure of not getting another Fukushima. Eventually, we should be able to rule out another Fukushima-scale incident by building newer and much safer reactors, but they'll probably have a failure mode we didn't anticipate, and we'll get some sort of incident not up to Fukushima scale.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[stooo]

Nope. There are other landslides causes than eruptions.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Mr D from 63]

So, you are saying there could be landslides into the Great Lakes causing a tsunami? Even the guy that made the Sharknado movie would say that's preposterous.

Re: Cheap nuclear

[Ol Olsoc]

The problem is that every incident actually *IS* a fluke. And flukes are a lot more common that most people are willing to accept.

a fluke is an unlikely chance. The problem is, unless plate tectonics suddenly stops, there was no chance that Fukushima would not at some point endure a Tsunami that would breach it's seawalls. That's the criminal part of the whole disaster. A fluke would be for the reactor to go through it's life cycle, be decommissioned, and taken apart with out a Tsunami.

Re: Cheap nuclear

[Ol Olsoc]

Eventually, we should be able to rule out another Fukushima-scale incident by building newer and much safer reactors, but they'll probably have a failure mode we didn't anticipate, and we'll get some sort of incident not up to Fukushima scale.

My concept, which has been roundly opposed by many, is a lot of smaller reactors, instead of the HFR (huge freaking reactor) paradigm in place now. Think of SL-1's without the dangerous part. Of course that goes against economies of scale. But with the available energy I don't see that as a problem.

Now if we separate the radiation part of nuclear, and consider only the thermal aspects - what we have is a hellava lot of energy working in a small place. Concentrating more and more of that energy in small places makes for outcomes that are not pretty when things go south. It's difficult to come up with a good analogy for this, but if any other system we had concentrated and stored that much energy, it would still make for a really bad day.

My concept would have less of that huge energy source in each location, so the results of an oopsie would be less of a problem. As well locations closer to the users would make for less line losses. Finally, and less often addressed, the many location paradigm is inhernetly more secure from a strategic standpoint.

If that one needs explained, allow me to say if I had a country I was at war with, I would be very happy if they had as few generating plants as possible. Taking out 2 or 3 big plants is much easier - not to mention cost effective than trying to take out hundreds of smaller generation plants.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[MrKaos]

WTH is a LOCA attack?

The question was designed to expose a MrD's nuclear shill ignorance. It's something you can't search for on the internet because the NRC is not required to release terorism related portions of environmental impact studies. If you want to find out you're going to have to keep an eye on this thread.

Re: Cheap nuclear

[HiThere]

Each time there was a Tsunami it was unlikely to be as large as the one that damaged Fukushima. So people correctly guessed that they were protecting against a larger Tsunami than was likely to hit. And they were right. But it was the unlikely event that hit them.

Now afterwards it's easy to look and say there are historical records of even larger ones. But it's almost always easy to find ignored earlier signs of danger...afterwards. Next time it won't be a Tsunami, it will be something else, a cliff collapsing on the plant, too many alarms going off at once, *something* else that was low probability. And people are lousy at evaluating long term risks. They're even lousy at making tradeoffs of where they should add additional protection, and where they're already over supplied. I have my doubts that the solid concrete domes around US plants are the proper trade-off, when that same money invested in other protection measures might be much more useful. But I don't know. Clearly you need protection, but how important is it that you be able to survive a direct strike by a large airliner?

Re: Cheap nuclear

[Ol Olsoc]

Each time there was a Tsunami it was unlikely to be as large as the one that damaged Fukushima. So people correctly guessed that they were protecting against a larger Tsunami than was likely to hit. And they were right. But it was the unlikely event that hit them.

At any given moment, the odds agains a large seawall topping Tsunami are pretty nil. Over a long period of time, they are inevitable.

Tell me, would you build a reactor on top of the San Andreas fault? Of course you would. There hasn't been a big one in years, so using your logic yep, it's pretty safe. So there might be a hundred years of stability, and only a few minutes of one side dropping several feet. 99.999 some percent stable.

Or here's an automobile analogy. People seldom get in accidents. So what's the point of wearning seat belts? 99.9999 percent of the time, they aren't needed, and can even be a nuisance at times. You don't design cars to be impervious to impact, but you do take prudent safety precautions.

Now afterwards it's easy to look and say there are historical records of even larger ones. But it's almost always easy to find ignored earlier signs of danger...afterwards.

It was painfully easy to do the research earlier. I'm not certain where you come from, but here in America, where large structures are built, you have to do a site and geological survey. If only to determine the type of footers the buildings rest on.But earthquake, tornado and hurricane mitigation structures are required in some places. It strains credulity that people in Japan would not know that the eastern coast is fairly often hit with huge Tsunamis. I knew bout Fukushima before it became front page news, and first I thought - this might be a bad idea, then after another hour of easily available internet research, it was confirmed - a really bad idea.

Clearly you need protection, but how important is it that you be able to survive a direct strike by a large airliner?

I'm amazed that you try to use a 9-11 refernce as justifying the unfortunte placement of the Fukushima destruction. A group of peopple could easily destroy most places when flying an airliner into them but now that I have debunked your tasteless equivalence, here is a teaching moment.

One does not design a structure to be indestructible One does not design a structure to be invincible to bomb or airliner attack unless that is it's function. And unless the function of Fukushima was to provide us with fireworks when a predictable Tsunami hit it - if not know to the date, but over a period of time an inevitable occurrence, then it was a woefully underdesigned facility, and despite your protests of allowing under design because it doesn't happen often, it did, and will.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[stoatwblr]

"if Indian point had a fukishima style issue Wall street is unlivable, un workable."

More like TMI - partial meltdown and radioactive steam.

Fukushima was a clusterfuck on so many levels it isn't funny.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[MrKaos]

"LOCA Attack"?

An attack designed to provoke a Loss Of Coolant Accident. An attack on Indian Point was one scenario put forward when assessing a plants vulnerability to a terworist attack. The NRC is not required to release terorism related portions of environmental impact studies.

I like how creative folks can be when making stuff up.

That's how some security works, devise a scenario and then defend against it. Your suggestion a nuclear plant doesn't require assessment from such an attack is naive.

And also conspiracy theories

The cry of totalitarians everywhere.

regarding TMI.

To quote the NRC documentation of the incident A significant release of radiation from the plants auxiliary building, performed to relieve pressure on the primary system and avoid curtailing the flow of coolant to the core. That's coolant is officially recognised contamination.

Its public information what happened, yes there where human errors and design issues,

Because of the weather conditions it was known that emissions from TMI travelled a long way and were measured in Albany, NY. Joeseph Hendrie (former chairman of the NRC) was quoted (at the time) "We are operating almost totally in the in the blind, [Governor Thornburgh's] information is ambiguous, mine is non-existent and - I don't know - it's like a couple of blind me staggering around making decisions." - So if they didn't know, how is it you do?

Expert measurements of radioactive iodine in farm animals nearby revealed Nuclear Industry estimates of contamination released to be 'grossly underestimated'. Radioactive iodine, plutonium, strontium, americurium, 172,000 cubic feet of high level radioactive water, large quantities of krypton 85 and later that year 8 million litres of radioactive water containing tritium that were evaporated deliberately were all part of the toxic cocktail that was released.

and yet the entire event never hurt anyone.

Of the states that were higher in the list of cancer averages the ones with similar population density surrounded Pennsylvania, where TMI occurred. New York, with roughly 3 times the population, topped the list, was also in the fall out zone.

The amount of release was so small, you could be right at the effluent point and receive less than a medical x-ray dose.

In reality large amounts of contamination were released beyond Nuclear Industry assurances. The gamma radiation monitors on the top of the auxiliary building were not designed to measure such high concentrations and they went off the scale when the accident *began*, the release of contamination went on for several *days*. Estimates were based on thermoluscent dosimeters on the fence and Alpha and Beta emissions weren't even measured.

But of course, you read somewhere on someone' blog that it was much more and a big cover up and you certainly like that better.

Dr Carl Johnson, an expert in radiation related diseases asked the NRC and DOE to do a survey to look for some of these elements in the respirable dust around TMI after the accident and they refused.

Even the nuclear industry doesn't know how much radioactive elements they are releasing normally, it's based on mathematical models. The last *actual* study was done in 1978 when the reactors were in peak operating condition almost forty years ago.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Mr D from 63]

Holy crap. You are all over the map, but still didn't show one reference to a 'LOCA Attack". You did define each term separately. Congratulations for that.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[MrKaos]

Holy crap. You are all over the map,

You've said a lot of disconnected things.

The OP said:if Indian point had a fukishima style issue Wall street is unlivable, un workable. and it's a pretty good point. Fukushima suffered a LOCA, Loss Of Cooling Accident when the pumps failed. That is the type of issue the OP was referring to, not a tsunami.

You said: And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt.? If there is some other way it could be deluged, I would agree it should be shut down. So the question is if there is anything else that produces that same result do you agree it should be shut down because a tsunami isn't the only thing that can produce a LOCA. New basis design issues discovered in systems that should protect against electrical failures for pump systems and variability in river levels are both threats to this type of reactor that produces the same result that the OP is referring to. They produce the same results as a Fukushima type accident, aren't they valid reasons as well?

You also said but a 'mishap' will result in an event like Three Mile Island, where essentially nothing is released, and the surrounding area remains perfectly safe. and so I was showing you that your assumptions are flawed.

but still didn't show one reference to a 'LOCA Attack".

Look no further than the official 9/11 report, page 245: During the Spain meeting,Atta also mentioned that he had considered targeting a nuclear facility he had seen during familiarization flights near New York a target they referred to as "electrical engineering". [reference 148: Intelligence report, interrogation of Binalshibh, Sept. 11, 2003. KSM has admitted that he considered targeting a nuclear power plant as part of his initial proposal for the planes operation. ]

So it is possible they were actually referring to Indian Point as a target. That's the public record.

You did define each term separately. Congratulations for that.

I'm curious to know why you think NP has no issues at all? Don't you think there are areas that it can improve? Why do you think Nuclear power is a solution anyway?

Re:Cheap nuclear

[Mr D from 63]

I never said there were no issues. But I will say they are all manageable.

I believe nuclear power is part of the global energy solution for a number of reasons. First of all, its proven to work, and proven to be economical. I also support it because I understand it, my opinions are based on knowing what it is, and realistic perception of the risks, rather than fear and hyperbole from the anti-nuke ignorant. In practically every anti-nuke rant I've ever seen there were significant errors, misconceptions, or flat out lies. I don't have the same hugely overblown fears of radioactivity that you carry, so its easier for me to accept the risks. Where there have been issues with nuclear power in the past, we have fully understood them and applied lessons going forward. The track record for PWR reactors is stellar. New nuclear designs are even better and safer.. Is nuclear right everywhere, no. But its been great for the United States.

That a tsunami would render Fukushima incapable of operating safely is no surprise. Any nuclear safety engineer could tell you exactly what would happen if that plant were suddenly deluged. It should never have been placed where it could be suddenly deluged. Don' t place where it can be deluged and that problem is completely resolved. Chernobyl didn't have a containment and had purposely defeated safety measures. Those problems are easily solved, and those designs will no longer be constructed.

I am also able to characterize nuclear energy risks in terms of other risk we face in the world. Its clear you have decided that the only risk you will accept from nuclear is absolute zero. This position is one you've arbitrarily place on nuclear because of your perceptions. You likely don't apply that absolution principal to much or anything else where there is a risk/reward balance, you do apply it to nuclear power because it is clear that you carry fears driven by years of FUD being thrown at you. So anything that described the management of nuclear risk in practical terms will not even be considered by you, so there is little point in answering your leading questions.

For instance, that Indian Point may have been discussed as a terrorist target is enough for you to absolutely assume it is likely to happen and likely to result in some major catastrophe. However, you cannot explain just how that could happen in any kind of informed manner. You use terms like 'LOCA Attack" which anyone with any knowledge of nuclear power and security measures simply would laugh and shake their head. Its a big red flag that says "I don't know what I'm talking about!", but you think because you can link to some wiki quotes that you have insight.

You have zero clue as to what a successful terrorist attack on a domestic nuclear plant would entail nor the likelihood of its success, nor the outcome even if they did damage the plant significantly.

Meanwhile, you are probably not telling people to stay away from bananas to avoid ingesting toxic radioactive substances. None of my response matters, as you will be happy to read the nuclear world through a FUD obscured lens through which you have been viewing the world for however many years. You are likely at this point not capable of letting your mind process the information objectively. So, I am wasting my time writing all this.

Re:Cheap nuclear

[MrKaos]

First up, thanks for explaining your position.

You are likely at this point not capable of letting your mind process the information objectively. So, I am wasting my time writing all this.

I think you make too many assumptions about my position. Just because I call people out on the fact doesn't mean I'm against nuclear power. I support the responsible use of nuclear power and development of infrastructure to achieve that goal.

Once upon a time I thought nuclear power would be the way to secure the worlds energy supply. The more I learned the more I saw this was not achievable with only nuclear power. The more questions I asked and the more fact I uncovered the more times I got called "anti-nuke" by people like you who could never provide the facts to support their suppositions.

I support the development of reactor technology however it is a difficult proposition considering the mess the industry has left and people who argue the way you do are more of a liability to achieving safe nuclear power. This is the reality that nukkers like you don't accept because you argue it is always NIMBYs or anyone else's responsibility for the problems the nuclear industry creates. It is this type of dogmatic scepticism that prevents the nuclear industry from advancing, accepting responsibility for it's mistakes and improving itself. It's always someone else's problem.

If you were sincere you would argue for improvement to the nuclear industry to ensure it's longevity, however you simply don't demonstrate that there is any need for it and anyone pointing out the *facts* must be anti-nuclear.

I never said there were no issues. But I will say they are all manageable.

So why haven't they been solved? The very fact that you say they are *all* manageable shows that you display the very lack of objectivity that you accuse me of. We can't even begin to have a discussion about how the issues might be solved without identifying what they are. There was plenty of opportunity for managable issues like seawall upgrades and back up generator relocation at Fukushima and they didn't occur.

It's also this attitude according to the report into the Fukushima accident that led to the management conditions that caused the accident in the first place. Fukushima proved that the Nuclear industry wasn't capable of learning the lessons from Chernobyl. From the Official report into the Fukushima accident:

[NISA] firmly committed themselves to the idea that nuclear power plants were safe, they were reluctant to actively create new regulations and The regulators also had a negative attitude toward the importation of new advances in knowledge and technology from overseas. If NISA had passed on to TEPCO measures that were included in the B.5.b subsection of the U.S. security order that followed the 9/11 terrorist action, and if TEPCO had put the measures in place, the accident may have been preventable.

I also support it because I understand it, my opinions are based on knowing what it is, and realistic perception of the risks, rather than fear and hyperbole from the anti-nuke ignorant.

Well your certainly not demonstrating an understanding of how the Fukushima accident occurred. Instead demonstrated an argument based on social proof instead of actual proof. It's understandable because you are transmuting an idealistic view of reality onto reality. Look at my sig, I'm talking about *your* ism.

In practically every anti-nuke rant I've ever seen there were significant errors, misconceptions, or flat out lies.

Well I can't speak to other discussions you have had. My assertions have been backed with citations and references that you refuse to accept calling them FUD. The only time you actually presented any fact to back up an argument with me it turned out to support what I was saying. This is a classic dogmatic sceptical

So it seems

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

This gov't has its sights set on closing down (and not building) as many nuclear plants as possible.

Ok, fine, then I ask you this gov't:
How are you planning on replacing the power loss? You're wiping out the coal industry as well.

What's left?

Re:So it seems

[Smidge204]

How are you planning on replacing the power loss?

The same way they replaced the power loss when the either or both of the plant's reactors are unexpectedly taken offline due to equipment failure, fires, accidents etc. There have been dozens of incidents that have knocked the plant offline without little or no warning and I doubt anyone not paying close attention has ever noticed. The plant is plagued with incidents from control rod failures to transformer explosions to errant bird shit. Somehow NYC has been spared from crippling brownouts.

As it turns out, the grid is remarkably resilient! So even if you were to replace the now 40-year-old reactors with something "less reliable" like wind and/or hydro (if only there was a large body of flowing water nearby...) there would demonstrably be no deficiency in power.

All that is on top of the numerous close-calls and safety violations the plant has been written up for over the past two decades. The place is almost literally held together with duct tape and bailing wire, because maintaining it is expensive and that's bad for the shareholders. The latest tritiated water leak (which is by no means the first, or worst) is just possibly the straw that breaks the regulator's back.
=Smidge=

Re:So it seems

[EmagGeek]

That's the whole point. Nothing is left, except of course The Left, which wants us all living in caves (except for their elite, of course) and living on tofu and kale.

Re:So it seems

[bigpat]

This gov't has its sights set on closing down (and not building) as many nuclear plants as possible.

Ok, fine, then I ask you this gov't:
How are you planning on replacing the power loss? You're wiping out the coal industry as well.

What's left?

Well just let the Chinese make batteries for us charged with electricity which they say is from pony rainbow star power and then ship them to us in those giant ships they have. Plug them in, drain the power and then ship them back. So efficient and safe. Never mind those smoke stacks over the horizon... oh and the ships full of coal going back to China.

Re:So it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

The coal industry is being wiped out primarily by cheap natural gas, courtesy of fracking.

Re:So it seems

[Kierthos]

HE KNOWS.

That's it, no tofu for you.

Re:So it seems

[Sooner Boomer]

As it turns out, the grid is remarkably resilient!

Aaaahhhh.....actually, not so much. This is an example of what can happen. And it happened in the New York/NYC area as well.

Re:So it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be grateful. We Republicans do not want you to live at all. We will force you to rape your own children and then feed on their raw flesh, cursing the very day you were born. We are truly the party of death and we want you to die. To die.

Re:So it seems

[Smidge204]

Yeah, and during that blackout, Indian Point was out for a full week.

The point is, "How are you planning on replacing the power loss?" is not a valid concern when they already replace the power lost when the plant goes offline on an alarmingly frequent basis.
=Smidge=

Re:So it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

Renewables you fuckwit.

They're here now and they're getting better every year at an alarming pace. Wind, solar, whatever. Take your pick. All that's needed is grid investments and local energy storage.

Easily solvable problems.

You know what's not a solve-able problem? Nuclear waste.

Sure it's technically possible but the obvious problem (if you're not an autist fucktard) is that it's politically impossible. Yucca mountian is proof that not even the full will of the US Govt makes it possible to have a serious long term storage solution for the stuff. Nobody wants it. Everyone wants to close their eyes and hope it goes away. It's so bad that we're going to suffer a serious pollution crisis before congress will have the public consent to act. (And if we're smart someone at the DOE will manufacture 'crisis' that looks more serious than it is so a solution can be pushed before something truly shitty happens)

Nuclear has always been a bit of a scam. It's main job was really to sell the public on the wierd and expensive shit we needed to do for nuclear proliferation. Plants are in reality heavily subsidized from fuel cost to decommissioning. Not at all profitable.

And no. Thorium is not an option. All thorium reactors are really conventional reactors that breed fuel from thorium in situe. Only more messy. And worse. And produce the same waste, only you have to fuck with the half-waste-half-fuel mix a lot and shove it back in to the reactor to get more life out of it. There's no fucking way in hell that's going to be clean and safe.

Re:So it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are referring to are reserves and peaking units. You can't use peaking units to replace a baseload unit closing, they are smaller units and typically have the most expensive variable cost (but far less fixed costs than nuclear), they only get dispatched via a wholesale market when when the marginal price is high enough trigger them to run. If you use the reserves to replace a baseload unit then you need to add something else to provide the reserves.

This is typically planned for years in advance, though when you have a lot of units unexpectedly closing down you end up reducing the amount of capacity more quickly than it is being replaced. That leads to higher capacity prices in market-based areas That extra money goes to building new generation infrastructure. So it is no surprise that MDSolar and crew are pushing for more closures of baseload units. Higher capacity prices and more disruption favors renewables and combined cycle natural gas units, especially with the Clean Power Plan in the wings.

1.5 million workers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear really is a job-creating industry!

Re: 1.5 million workers!

[Anonymous Coward]

For robots.

1.5M more jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

some 1.5 million workers would be needed

I hereby suggest we allow the plant to continue operation. After all, we need to create more jobs for Americans, or so I've heard.

CAPTCHA: proper

Re:1.5M more jobs?

[Mr D from 63]

some 1.5 million workers would be needed

I hereby suggest we allow the plant to continue operation. After all, we need to create more jobs for Americans, or so I've heard.

CAPTCHA: proper

A completely fabricated number. Nowhere near that will be required. Of course, accuracy doesn't matter in the FUD laden world of anti-nuke activism.

Rolling blackouts

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem. Indian Point supplies x% of power to NYC so drop the power need by x%
Rolling blackouts are better than brownouts -- elevator motors HATE low voltage

What's left? Renewable Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, switching back from Nuclear Power (low short-term ecological impact during normal operations, potential for massive impact in case of an accident, unresolved questions on how to deal with waste), to Oil/Coal/Gas Power (moderate to high ecological impact, potential for high impact in case of an accident, unresolved questions on sustainability as oil/coal/gas resources are limited) would be rather... meh.

So what's left?
Simple. Renewable power - e.g. Wind/Water/Solar Power - and Energy conservation (each kW you don't use is one you don't need to produce)

Re: What's left? Renewable Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's throw In electric cars . This will increase electric demand 10 fold . We need current and future nuke plants . FYI wind solar have huge environmental costs and power output fluctuates too much

Re: What's left? Renewable Power

[HiThere]

The difference is that the environmental costs of solar are born before you start using it. Many of the environmental costs of nuclear are only apparent when you try to retire the plant, or deal with spent fuel.

FWIW, these aren't problems that can't be addressed, they are rather problems that it's always unprofitable to address, and which aren't being addressed. Costs of decommissioning plants are inevitably so low-balled as to be totally fictitious. And the people who made them are either dead or retired by the time the fictitious nature becomes evident, so there's no down-side to *them*. And accurate estimates would make management unhappy.

The point about electric cars is very valid. There is going to be a tremendous demand for additional electric power. I'm not sure that solar isn't the answer, but roof-top solar is certainly insufficient. That molten salt plant being built in Dubai sounds promising. California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona have deserts that could handle several plants of that sort, and they *DO* produce power at night. But transmission lines would need to be improved.

OTOH, if Lockheed's fusion power isn't just PR, AND it's actually low in radioactive waste production, then that might be a better answer. Perhaps. Too many unknowns to estimate. (On both sides.)

But for fission plants to be a better answer, there are lots of long-term problems that need to be successfully addressed rather than ignored.

It's the economy

[jbmartin6]

some 1.5 million workers would be needed in to take part in decontamination efforts in the event of a nuclear mishap, with cleanup costs surging as high as $1 trillion.

So what is the problem? This is called "economic stimulus".

Re:It's the economy

[AmiMoJo]

So the solution to our economic problems is to go around smashing windows to drum up business for glass manufacturing and glaziers. Maybe we could total a few random vehicles too, just to give the motor industry a boost.

What actually happens when there is a large scale disaster is that the government is on the hook for all the insurance liabilities that the plant operator now has. There will inevitably be lawsuits, because it's not just a case of decontaminating and rebuilding everything. By the time that's happened many of the communities are no longer viable as key people have moved away permanently, and the property there is almost worthless. So there are legal challenges, more money to try to turn those areas back into liveable places again, but it never goes back to how it was.

So the government has crippling costs, the power company gets massive bailouts so that the lights can stay on and they can keep working on the remains of the plant, and the area never fully recovers and many lives are ruined. It's basically unfixable in any meaningful sense.

Re:It's the economy

[EmagGeek]

"So what is the problem? This is called "economic stimulus"

And this is called a Broken Window Fallacy

Re:It's the economy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite, when you end up with 1 million workers with radioactive contamination.

Re:It's the economy

[blindseer]

So the solution to our economic problems is to go around smashing windows to drum up business for glass manufacturing and glaziers. Maybe we could total a few random vehicles too, just to give the motor industry a boost.

You mean like "cash for clunkers"? The broken window fallacy turned into government policy. With government leaders that think it good policy turning perfectly functional vehicles into scrap metal it would not surprise me if we see the government frame a national disaster as an economic stimulus.

Re:It's the economy

[jbmartin6]

That's a stimulus for medical businesses

Re:It's the economy

[jbmartin6]

Yes, it wasn't clear that I was being tongue-in-cheek

1.5 milllion worker!

[Anonymous Coward]

1.5 million workers would be needed in to take part in decontamination effort...

There's your solution to Bill Gross's robots-replacing-workers problem!

Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

This transmission project obsoletes Indian Point. http://www.chpexpress.com/abou...

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[110010001000]

What a disaster that proposed project would be. Hydropower is not clean energy. Hydropower plant operation produces large amounts of Co2 per kilowatt hour. The dams destroy the ecosystem around the plant. Terrible.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

No new dam, they are adding wind power.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[110010001000]

So? Indian Point isn't a new nuclear plant either. The existing hydropower is NOT clean and is an ecological disaster.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

It is clean. Your complaint concerns tropical reservoirs.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[110010001000]

No it isn't clean. Hydro power requires dams which irrevocably destroy the ecosystem for miles around. And hydropower produces HUGE amounts of Co2 and also methane. Even in non-tropical areas. Get informed!

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

Show a link. Oh wait, only nuclear shill sites promote that crap.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[Anonymous Coward]

are you shitting me? A fucking satellite image will show you hundreds of square miles of destroyed ecosystem. Your trolling is so stupid that only a troll would think you're competent enough to eat breakfast without directions.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[cdrudge]

Hydropower plant operation produces large amounts of Co2 per kilowatt hour.

Care to explain that one?

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[Mashiki]

Generally it's in the form of rotting biomass from when the area is flooded, and it goes on for decades.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

Post a link.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[fnj]

Hydropower is not clean energy. Hydropower plant operation produces large amounts of Co2 per kilowatt hour.

You need a citation for that, because on its face that is an astoundingly stupid claim. And don't even think of dredging up this weak-ass story, which is void of any evidence, and actually seems to be conjuring up a fairy tale of methane release, not CO2.

Also, the loaded terms "clean" and "dirty" referring to CO2 are manipulative and ignorant. CO2 is not "dirt". It is a colorless, odorless gas, food for plant life.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[fnj]

Care to explain that one?

Clearly he doesn't. He was probably brainwashed by this drivel. He got it wrong, anyway. The claim is that the INITIAL CONSTRUCTION of a dammed hydropower site converts a large bunch of trees into methane, not CO2. Not that the continuing operation of them has the any greenhouse effect whatsoever.

The hatchet job does not appear to take into account the effect that plant life in the dammed water has in terms of CO2, compared to the trees and vegetation that once stood there. What do they think happens to the carbon in trees and vegetation on dry land as they constantly die and rot?

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[thegarbz]

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAH mdsolar called someone a shill. OMG. This is the quote of the week. I'm printing this out and nailing it to my cubical wall so I have something to look at whenever I get worn down by dealing with stupid people.

Thankyou!

Also show me a nuclear accident which did as much damage in terms of death and unusable land as the Banqiao Dam hydroelectric plant. Actually combine all the deaths and damage from all nuclear accidents and throw in a Hiroshima and Nagasaki too while you're at it and you're still not at the damage and chaos caused by this single hydro dam failure.

Re: Champlain Hudson Power Express

[Anonymous Coward]

No nukes, motherfucker.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[Ol Olsoc]

The hatchet job does not appear to take into account the effect that plant life in the dammed water has in terms of CO2, compared to the trees and vegetation that once stood there. What do they think happens to the carbon in trees and vegetation on dry land as they constantly die and rot?

This. Oh bolshy yarblockos, this.

It isn't like living plants will never die, so it is a null situation. The impact of hydropower dams is significant, but the concept that they somehow increase CO2 and or methane is in the same camp as Ronald Reagan telling us that trees emit CO2 ( not to mention oxygen, which he didn't) so AGW proponents should demand all trees be cut down.

Any short term release of gases will be followed by a period of less release. Then a new normal state is reached.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mrchaotica]

Here's one.

The lesson here is that different power sources are appropriate in different areas: hydro is good in areas where it doesn't destroy the fish habitat, but bad in areas where it does. Nuclear is good in the middle of nowhere, but bad in close proximity to NYC. Solar is good in the desert, but bad on north-facing slopes in cloudy areas. Wind is great on bare ridges and offshore, but not so great for forested valleys. Every form of electricity generation, except fossil fuels, has its place.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

Hydro increases fish habitat but can be a problem for fish that migrate if they are not provided passage. Indian Point, on the other hand, just kills fish.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[plague911]

page 2

http://www.clf.org/wp-content/...

"Overall, life cycle GHG emissions per unit of electric energy production are lower for hydropower than for fossil fuel sources (though in some cases net hydro emission ranges may be nearly 2/3 those for a natural gas power plant), and may be in the same range as other renewable sources and nuclear (though reservoir hydro emission ranges are likely higher than those for at least some other renewable options, depending on the specific site and the level of indirect emissions, which are not included in Table 1 above)".

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

"Specific site" means tropical resevoirs.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[plague911]

There were 3 different types listed. All of them listed CO2 emissions

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[plague911]

There were 3 different Hydro types listed. All of them produced CO2 emissions.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

Read it again.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

Again, tropical resevoirs are the issue. Regardless, new nuclear is dirty since it most rely on low quality ore. http://www.stormsmith.nl/i07.h...

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[plague911]

I made no judgment call about which is better. But the earlier implication that there is no harm from hydro was nonsense.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

The claim of high emissions is not supported by the link.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[plague911]

Even The middle category at ~1/2 the emissions of Ng could legitimately be claimed as huge.on the right scale.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

Well, they obviously don't last long whereas the nuclear figure is for the lifetime generation so much much higher. If you notice though, Hydro Quebec is adding wind capacity.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[stoatwblr]

Even temperate reservoirs emit shitloads of methane.

Re:Champlain Hudson Power Express

[stoatwblr]

The problem with nuclear is specific to the technology in use - water-moderated/cooled systems are a safety hazard (but still safer than virtually everything else in use)

Molten Salt tech can't come to commercial reality soon enough.

New York Real Estate

[SeattleLawGuy]

The problem is it's New York Real Estate, money, and political capital. You are *sixteen miles* from the Tappan Zee and thirty miles from the West Side Highway. It makes zero sense to have any risk of a meltdown someplace where real estate is that expensive, the population is that large, and a major chunk of the world economy goes through that population's daily business.

Re:New York Real Estate

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that one major nuclear accident would solve the expensive real estate problem. You might even get people paying you to take it off their hands.

Running Indian Point to Failure

[mdsolar]

Much like Vermont Yankee, Entergy is running Indian Point into the ground. The AG also forced new safety inspections an those showed Entergy had let a known problem slide past any other reactor known to date. http://www.lohud.com/story/new...

Re:Running Indian Point to Failure

[110010001000]

Yet both plants have been providing massive amounts of clean energy for decades with no notable accidents and no loss of life.

Re:Running Indian Point to Failure

[mdsolar]

Actually, Vermont Yankee is closed. Did leak a lot of radiation though.

Re:Running Indian Point to Failure

[110010001000]

No. Actually Yankee produced dependable power for 40 years with minimal issues.

Re:Running Indian Point to Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

massive amounts of clean energy

Hanford begs to differ with you on this point

Re:Running Indian Point to Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Hanford was a nuclear weapons development site first, back when nuclear power was still being dreamed about. A bit of a red herring there from you... Idiot.

Re:Running Indian Point to Failure

[vadim_t]

That's excellent logic there. I suppose there is no problem with unmaintained rusty bridges either. It's been standing like that for many years, therefore it's not going to fall all of a sudden, right?

Look, I'm not completely unsympathetic to nuclear power, but fighting to keep a plant online that's had a long history of problems is not in your interest if you want to keep it around. Nature cannot be fooled. Either you do things right, or something will go wrong sooner or later, and another Fukushima isn't going to be good PR for nuclear power.

Anybody interested in nuclear power surviving should be very aggressively taking care of any issues that pop up, because most of the problem isn't with tech, but with people.

Re:Running Indian Point to Failure

[BCGlorfindel]

Much like Vermont Yankee, Entergy is running Indian Point into the ground. The AG also forced new safety inspections an those showed Entergy had let a known problem slide past any other reactor known to date. http://www.lohud.com/story/new...

Who upvotes this FUD?

The very article linked above references the actual report from the NRC. Far from letting a known problem slide past any known to date, NRC article notes that the Indian Point reactor in question was shutdown for routine maintenance. A new check of bolts that had been known to wear from experience revealed that a great many of them needed replacement, so they were replaced before the reactor was brought back online.

The other way to spin the NRC report is that routine and standard maintenance procedures at Indian Point have allowed it to continue it's operating record of zero work place fatalities, zero emissions and zero radiation escaping the plant. How many coal plants can claim ANY of those points let alone all of them?

Seriously, the anti-nuclear crowd is leaping on standard maintenance as proof of 'problems' looks an awful lot like those declaring even more missing links in evolution every time a new link is posted.

Price Anderson Liability Act

[mdsolar]

Indeed, taxayer funded stimulus since the nuclear industry does not carry adequate insurance to cover the cost of an accident. They get a huge subsidy from the government instead, leaving taxpayers liable.

Hypocritical AGs

[Anonymous Coward]

And if Schneiderman is succesful in removing the many megawatts of non-CO2-generating electricity from his state's supply, what will he replace it with. If even an ounce of CO2 is added to NY emissions, he should place himself in the docket with Exxon Mobil. The AGs are part of the problem, not the solution

Score one for global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a hard time believing that environmentalists really believe AGW is an existential threat to humanity while they applaud nuclear plan shutdown. They even applaud hydroelectric plant shutdowns.

Re:Score one for global warming

[david_thornley]

Said environmentalists do not seem to be to be thinking quite straight. I don't consider AGW to be an existential threat to humanity, although it's probably going to do a great deal of damage, but I favor nuclear plants. Hydro requires dams and those have some unpleasant effects, but I wouldn't want to see a hydro dam shut down. I like wind and solar and other renewables, also. Basically, if it produces power without burning fossil carbon, I'm interested.

I'd say said environmentalists are being more confident in renewable energy sources than I am, to take a charitable view of it.

Re:Score one for global warming

[HiThere]

AGW isn't an existential threat to humanity, but it may well be an existential threat to technological civilization. (Probably not, but that this is true isn't obvious.)

OTOH, nuclear power, if you except weapons, also isn't an existential threat to humanity, but it could sure do a lot of damage.

But I happen to like technological civilization and would like to keep it around. This means that we need to be careful about things like nuclear power and genetic modification. It emphatically doesn't mean to avoid them, but it means to take reasonably sufficient precautions. And nobody seems willing to do that.

Champlain Hudson Power Express

[mdsolar]

The transmission project bring Quebec Hydro power under the Hudson River past Indian Point and right into Queens. Not a worry.

Opportunity Cost

[mdsolar]

Nuclear power, because it is the most expensive form of generation, slows climate change mitigation by using up resources that could deliver more mitigation at the same cost. And, it is not just new nuclear that is the problem. The cost of refitting Diablo Canyon, for example, could completely replace it's generation with wind and solar and then some.

Re:Opportunity Cost

[Elledan]

"most expensive" is of course only true in post-1970s Western countries. Meanwhile countries like South-Korea, India and China are pushing ahead with cheap, safe nuclear power, with the latter implementing a fully closed fuel loop, meaning no nuclear waste at all.

The whole problem with nuclear power in the West is simply that it's stuck in the 1960s with crushing regulatory burdens worsening the problems of maintaining 60+ year old reactors and preventing any improvement there.

Re:Opportunity Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

only problem is you would still need to build a new nuke, as backup for the wind and solar shit.

Only fucking idiots think this is a good idea!

Re:Opportunity Cost

[pastafazou]

Wind and solar are expensive and unreliable. Stop spreading your propaganda. Cost of electricity in Ontario has quadrupled in the past decade due to expensive wind power deployments. We often have to import power at higher costs because the wind generation is unreliable. We also have to pay other jurisdictions to take our excess when the wind is blowing too hard and the demand isn't there. It's real world living proof that wind power as a form of reliable electricity is a complete farce. There's a reason windmills were abandoned centuries ago once more reliable power sources were available.

Re:Opportunity Cost

[mdsolar]

It's still more expensive, it is just that command economies can ignore market realities for a while until they topple.

Re:Opportunity Cost

[pastafazou]

You can't use nuclear as a backup to wind and solar. Backup generation needs to be able to come online fast, which is why they use oil or gas for that purpose. Nuclear should be used for baseline generation. Turn it on and leave it on.

Re:Opportunity Cost

[pastafazou]

No it's not more expensive. You're spreading misinformation.

Re:Opportunity Cost

[mdsolar]

Nuclear would have cost you more. http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/04...

Re:Opportunity Cost

[mdsolar]

Even in China, nuclear is lagging and facing the habitual delays and cost overruns. http://cleantechnica.com/2016/...

Re: Opportunity Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

No nukes! No nukes!

Nice T-shirt, dude!

Re: Opportunity Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think anyone is following your links to disinformation ?

Re:Indian Point is out of service

[110010001000]

All the time? Indian Point has 99.85% uptime since it was first commissioned. Extremely reliable, even when it is cloudy outside!

Entergy reckless

[mdsolar]

No, that plant was crashing all the time too. Entergy is demonstrably reckless. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-...

Re:Entergy reckless

[Anonymous Coward]

Entergy bought Vermont Yankee in 2002. Prior to 2007 it had been an extremely reliable plant.

Re:Entergy reckless

[thegarbz]

Reckless? Like those 3 near misses which were:
1. Local flooding increased the risk of potential blackout.
2. A power grid problem caused the reactor to safely shutdown.
3. Equipment malfunction + operator error caused the reactor to safely shutdown.

OMG We're all going to die ... from e.coli because our fridges ran out of power.

I actually like the very article from the UCS that talks about those near misses actually highlights in a big pop-out box that the definition used by UCS for a near miss is controversial.

I told you to stop smoking weed last time you posted a shit article and you didn't listen. Seriously man, keep this up and it'll have long term health ... wait a second.... doesn't weed cause psychosis? I think I just explained everything!

Re:Entergy reckless

[mdsolar]

Notice everyone else is doing better except Entergy. They're safety culture is broken.

Re: Entergy reckless

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're" spelling is broken.

Re:Indian Point is out of service

[mdsolar]

It is breaking down all the time now. It's an albatross.

mdsolar bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, mdsolar, please tell me what the "devastating accident and cleanup" was at this nuclear power plant, and add the details + cites to wikipedia, because apparently nobody else knows about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center#Incidents

Either that or tell me which one of those you're trumping up as "devastating" so we know how just how alarmist you are (ie: Devastating == 0 lives lost and 0 injuries and 0 provable sicknesses). This way we can call the wahhhmbulance for you next time you're about to faint over the sight of some spilled red paint.

You're an embarrassment to slashdot and you need to leave.

Too close to NYC

[plague911]

I like nuclear. But that plant is a little too close to NYC. This may be a little MIBYesq but wtf don't they just put it a hundred miles out and use some better transmission technology . It could be just the posts of tinfoil hatters but the claims negligence by other posters does make glad that the plant is getting scrutiny.

Re:Too close to NYC

[Mashiki]

Define "close" after all here in Ontario we have Bruce Nuclear which is the 2nd largest generating plant in the world and is downwind from Toronto by ~150 miles. And Pickering Nuclear which is under 50mi away. Seems to me that the US has more of a anti-nuke fear mongering group of environmentalists then Canada does. I live downwind from Bruce nuclear as well, around 45mi give or take a little bit. I sure don't worry about it, I have a bigger worry that there will be a train derailment and massive problems then that. Especially since the main Ontario CN track runs around 300m away from my house and trains come running by every hour of the day. Luckily there has never been an accident in either case, and CN has become extremely vigilant in checking the lines over the last 5 years usually quarterly inspections.

Re:Too close to NYC

[plague911]

IMHO not an expert on nuclear safety, but 20 mils seems close 150 miles not so much. I agree we do have a lot of fear mongering. But there are logistical reasons for doing certain things because of legitimate safety concerns. I am not sure if my concern is legitimate or not, I just think it may be. The "if this goes south we erase probably the most influential city in the world" seems like it may be* a valid concern.

Re:Too close to NYC

[Mashiki]

If Bruce nuclear goes south and right bad, everything from Buffalo through to Boston and as far south as Philly is probably toast, or has moderate radiation problems. That's via wind patterns and all that, not even counting on water contamination into the great lakes. Really though, the best solution at the end of the day is retrofitting or fully replacing existing reactor designs with safer designs. But anti-nuke people like to throw a hissyfit over even that, and in turn we're left with Gen 1 and Gen 2 reactors still working away.

Re:Too close to NYC

[Anonymous Coward]

That is absurd. Fukushima affected an area of only 8000 square kilometers. Assuming a roughly circular shape, using Area = Pi*(r^2), that yields a radius of only about 50 km. From Ontario to Philadelphia is 610 km

If you have no idea what you are talking about please refrain from spreading FUD. More likely though you are a shill.

on behalf of native americans,

[Anonymous Coward]

shouldn't this plant be renamed "native american point nuclear power plant"?

baseload myth busted

[mdsolar]

Nuclear claims a niche for baseload, not backup, but even that is a myth. http://reneweconomy.com.au/201...

Re:baseload myth busted

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is true then while did Germany need to start burning more coal (mostly the dirtiest kind, lignite) in the wake of their push to phase out nuclear? The article you linked points out that combustion turbines and hydro can be used when renewables can't provide the needed energy. In places with limited hydro (most of the US) it's going to be combustion turbines, not optimal if you are trying to avoid CO2.
FERC and NERC believe baseload is needed, until they are swayed otherwise there is zero chance of the US system moving away from baseload units. What is really needed are economical battery storage, once that technology is ready for primetime then the need for baseload can be mitigated for more easily.

Re:baseload myth busted

[mdsolar]

Fukushima affected Germany's schedule to end nuclear power, but there is more to the coal story. http://www.renewablesinternati...

It turns out that suprising little storage in the form of batteries is needed. Changing time of use makes RE work. Mostly AC and water heating demand response does the job.

Re:Indian Point is out of service

[Anonymous Coward]

Since that number is a complete lie I must ask my fellow slashdotters to scoff at you until you provide a source, and then scoff at you again when whatever source you find shows something different from your claim.

Re:Indian Point is out of service

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually about 93% uptime, pretty darn good overall...

Re:Indian Point is out of service

[angel'o'sphere]

Indian Point has 99.85% uptime since it was first commissioned
That is nonsense.

Refuling alone costs far more than 10% downtime.

Dupe

[mdsolar]

Not shill.

Re: Indian Point is out of service

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the albatross. The plant operators just need more bird shot.

What about coal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that nuclear accidents can be costly to clean up.

But what about coal? Coal power plants in perfect operating condition are predicted to kill over ten thousand people each year. A coal power plant's expected operating span is 30 years. Putting the value of a human life at $9.1 million (like the EPA does) and the total cost of a coal power plants over 30 years, operating as expected, is $2.7 trillion. There's 557 coal power plant sites in the US, meaning each costs us about $5 billion over 30 years. (I'm ignoring survivors with health issues, environmental costs, etc, all which should up the price significantly.) Bear in mind, that's not an accident - that's what is to be expected.

So on the balance, we have Indian Point, which is old technology I'm not really fond of. But even with that caveat, it only *may* have an accident, and that accident *may* run as high as a trillion dollars. With the current history of nuclear power in the US, it appears that the risk is extremely low. Three Mile Island was expected to cause 1 death and ran around $1 billion in cleanup (costs still ongoing).

Unless the chance of a $1 trillion dollar accident at Indian point is high, the greater benefit appears to be shutting down a coal plant.

RTFA

[mdsolar]

You are confused. Reading could help you.

NY done with coal by 2020

[mdsolar]

New York is phasing out coal power and will be done with it by 2020. https://www.fractracker.org/20...

Re:nuclear is THE green solution

[Anonymous Coward]

In terms of global warming nuclear plants are the ONLY way.?

Be wary of anyone who says you only have ONE choice.

That's a sure way to get you to ignore your options and deter you from a reasonable course.

This works both ways to be true, as such representations can be found on any number of positions, but I'm only replying to you here, so you'll pardon me for not directly addressing the arguments of others in this single post.

Not to say that there aren't times where cautions and warnings are appropriate, in fact, you'll note I'm giving you one now. But it is also possible to use them to the disadvantage and detriment of others, to use them to exploit.

I'm happy with burning coal for the time being because l like cheap electricity and I don't mind the 1c per century temp increase, but a lot of people here absolutely hate CO2.

What about the air pollution? How satisfied with you about that? How much are you willing to pay to avoid acid rain? What about the damage to locales where Coal is harvested? Are you happy with that?

Not routine for Entergy

[mdsolar]

Nope, the AG forced them into it, and the reactor is still closed.

Re:Not routine for Entergy

[BCGlorfindel]

Nope, the AG forced them into it, and the reactor is still closed.

Maybe you should read my link to the NRC report, or any number of other newspaper articles leading up to then. It was a scheduled shutdown for refuelling and maintenance. I guess it was the AG that determined the refuelling schedule or something?

It was shutdown in March 2016 to dump in something like $60 million worth of inspections and maintenance. I don't quite think the plan was to have that all completed and spun back up already. I'd have thought the anti-nuke guys would be more angry if the company DID have the reactor up in less than month or two for something like that.

Re:Not routine for Entergy

[mdsolar]

Nope. It was a special inspection forced by the AG. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry...

Re:Not routine for Entergy

[BCGlorfindel]

Nope. It was a special inspection forced by the AG. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry...

Read your own posts. The shut down for refuelling and regular maintenance was performed at the scheduled time. The Environmental unit AG of NY had been hounding on MANY different additional inspections they wanted. None of those cases had yet come into effect. As per your own article, both the shut down and the inspection of the bolts were voluntarily undertaken by Entergy. You might choose to believe, as the AG and the article claim that it was the legal hounding that encouraged this inspection. I would posit instead that the fact that similar wear and damage to bolts had been a known and observed issue in similar nuclear plants already might have motivated Entergy more strongly...

Re:Not routine for Entergy

[mdsolar]

And you'd be wrong. It is Entergy we are talking about here.

Re:Not routine for Entergy

[BCGlorfindel]

And you'd be wrong. It is Entergy we are talking about here.

Right, because potentially losing a reactor to a known issue is only a legal concern for them, not the cost of repairs to the reactor. Even a purely selfish, greedy and evil minded corporation cares about keeping a multi-million dollar reactor from failing and costing them more money than the repairs they know it requires to stay functioning. Your argument only holds if Entergy would gladly LOSE money just to put their reactor and possibly people working on site at risk.

Re:Not routine for Entergy

[mdsolar]

Vermont Yankee....

Re:Not routine for Entergy

[BCGlorfindel]

Vermont Yankee....

Do you have turrets? Are we at the point of spouting random gibberish at each other now?

A nuclear plant that was cleanly operated for more than 3 decades before being shut down because fear monger regulation had made profitability impossible hardly shows a wilful malice on the part of the operating company. Go be crazy and incoherent some place else.

Re:Not routine for Entergy

[mdsolar]

Huge leaks of radiation.

Re:Not routine for Entergy

[BCGlorfindel]

Huge leaks of radiation.

False.

Re:Not routine for Entergy

[mdsolar]

It is still going on. Kind of a joke repose if it were not so sad. http://vtdigger.org/2016/02/18...

France is powering Europe with nukes

[BCGlorfindel]

It's still more expensive, it is just that command economies can ignore market realities for a while until they topple.

Électricité de France runs a profit line of a couple billion dollars providing over 120GW of power to Europe, and 85% of that is through nuclear power.

Take your FUD and lies elsewhere. Nukes are very profitable anywhere the NIMBY hippies don't try and destroy it out of ignorance and fear.

Re:France is powering Europe with nukes

[mdsolar]

France is reducing reliance on nuclear power.

Re:France is powering Europe with nukes

[brewthatistrue]

BCGlorfindel: "Électricité de France runs a profit [...] Nukes are very profitable anywhere the NIMBY hippies don't try and destroy it out of ignorance and fear."

mdsolar: "France is reducing reliance on nuclear power."

Re:France is powering Europe with nukes

[BCGlorfindel]

France is reducing reliance on nuclear power.

Hold on there buddy.
You claimed nuclear power was the most expensive form of generation.
You where informed the only reason for that was ridiculous regulatory expenses, and in other places it was very profitable.
You basically said only dictators can pull that off and only for a limited time.
I pointed out that Électricité de France is providing most of Europe with power primarily from nuclear plants and making a pretty penny while doing so.

France has been producing power with nukes since the 70s and sits with one of the lowest electricity rates in Europe. The fact that fear mongers like yourself have some traction in trying to get nukes shutdown does nothing to prove they aren't safe and profitable.

Re:France is powering Europe with nukes

[mdsolar]

France is closing reactors and cutting back because of cost and safety concerns. http://www.irishtimes.com/news...

Re:France is powering Europe with nukes

[BCGlorfindel]

France is closing reactors and cutting back because of cost and safety concerns. http://www.irishtimes.com/news...

'safety concerns' is one word for completely unfounded and irrational fear mongering. If politicians play to those baseless fears that can translate into a real cost though. It'd be a shame to see France dragged down by the same luddites that have held the American power infrastructure back in the seventies.

Re:France is powering Europe with nukes

[HiThere]

I'm sorry, but until they get waste reprocessing plants working and reprocessing the waste, safety concerns are quite reasonable. Actually, even afterwards, but then they can be dealt with.

I will admit that there is lots of fear-mongering WRT nuclear power, but that doesn't mean that the proper response is to close your eyes and go la-la-la.

And NOBODY properly calculated decommissioning costs.

Nucular fanbois

[mdsolar]

The strange thing is, this the perfect opportunity to yammer about pebble beds or some other phantasy and concede that Indian Point should be closed. Yet all we get is defense of the indefensible. A plant that is operating without a license in a manifestly dangerous condition at a site where no thermal power plant should be, must be defended.

Re:Nucular fanbois

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.
Nuclear powers is the safest and cleanest source of power. Look up the World Health Organization Numbers. Zero people have died in the United States and less than 60 world wide from nuclear power.

We can not solve climate change without nuclear power. 4th generation plants have solved all problems with nuclear power, but misguided and evil people such as yourself have stopped us from building them.

Look at what happened in Vermont when the shut their nuclear power, they started burning gas and wood to produce power. Wood. It is a step in the wrong direction.

You are sad puppet of the fossil fuel industry.

Re:Nucular fanbois

[mdsolar]

Wood is not a fossil fuel.

Re:Nucular fanbois

[atomicalgebra]

Wood is not a fossil fuel.

I did not say wood was a fossil fuel. It is definitely not a clean energy source, nor is it sustainable. So do you think burning wood and fossil fuels is a positive for the environment? Vermont was once the cleanest state in the nation. 80% of the electricity produced there was clean electricity. Now they are burning wood and fossil fuels.

Re:Nucular fanbois

[mdsolar]

The problem is solved in any case with power more than made up. http://www.greentechmedia.com/...

Re:Nucular fanbois

[atomicalgebra]

I am not against any new infrastructure project leading to 100% clean energy. The reality is that we cannot get to 100% without nuclear. We would have to double our nations grid to get to 50%, and from there it just gets harder. I noticed you did not answer my question about burning wood to produce electricity being a positive for the environment.

Re:Nucular fanbois

[mdsolar]

Wood does not scale much but it has been working in Maine. 100% Wind, Water Solar has been demonstrated affordable and feasible for all 50 states.

Re:Nucular fanbois

[atomicalgebra]

Burning wood is not a clean solution. I like wind and solar, but they are intermittent meaning they work only part of the time. No sun--no electricity, no wind--no electricity. Hydro only works at certain locations and most of those are already utilized. Shutting down nuclear power plants will result in an increase of carbon. It is time for you to start reading the facts about atomic energy. http://www.savediablocanyon.org/the-facts/

Re:Nucular fanbois

[mdsolar]

Turns out Diablo Canyon is too expensive to save. You get much more clean wind and solar for the same cost.

Re:Nucular fanbois

[atomicalgebra]

Turns out Diablo Canyon is too expensive to save. You get much more clean wind and solar for the same cost.

That is not factually true. Diablo produces 41 times Ivanpah. Ivanpah costed 2.2 billion. In order to replace Diablo with solar power with storage it would be 41*$2.2 =90.2. That is $90.2 billion dollars. Solar power plants have a low capacity factor. Meaning there are times of the year where they are producing no electricity. So it still would not work. We should build solar plants, but only to replace coal and gas plants.

Re:Nucular fanbois

[mdsolar]

Just required cooling towers could cost $16 Billion, that gets you more than 30 GW of solar these days. Many more expenses dealing with seismic threat. Foolish, really foolish, to support that plant.

Re:Nucular fanbois

[atomicalgebra]

That is a bullshit number. Every place nuclear power has been shutdown it has been replaced by fossil fuels or wood. That is what would happen if you shut down Diablo valley. It is not foolish, it is practical. Given the realities of climate change we need more new nuclear power plants not less. You are against even R&D into 4th generation reactors.

Re:Nucular fanbois

[mdsolar]

Breeders are illegal.

Re:Nucular fanbois

[HiThere]

Actually, wood is sustainable. But you can't use it too fast or it stops being sustainable. Traditional farms had a wood lot, and the farmers sized the wood lot to how much wood they expected to use on the average. Done right this was sustainable indefinitely. Some farms kept this up for centuries, and they didn't stop because the system wasn't sustainable, but because their kids didn't want to be farmers, or taxes got too high, or cash crops were too attractive.

This isn't saying that wood is a clean fuel. It can be if burned properly, but that's a major project in and of itself. And if done right it's environmentally neutral, neither positive nor negative.

Now you can find lots of poor implementations of this idea, but that doesn't prove that it's inherently bad, it proves that most people who do it either don't know how to do it, don't care how to do it, or can't afford to do it right.

Climate Change is Real

[Anonymous Coward]

And Mdsolar want to magnify the problem.

Mdsolar stop working for the fossil fuel industry.

Oh goody another ignorant MDsolar article

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we still accepting articles from this nutcase?

Re:Indian Point is out of service

[Anonymous Coward]

The albatross was good luck until "some idiot killed it"

Re:Indian Point is out of service

[Anonymous Coward]

Indian point has multiple reactors. If one reactor is off the others will still be on providing clean energy.

mdsolar is a shill for renewables

[pastafazou]

He has lots of money invested in wind and solar, and spends most of his time trolling the internet posting links to dubious websites with unsubstantiated claims about the marvels of renewables.

Re:mdsolar is a shill for renewables

[atomicalgebra]

He rarely posts anything positive about solar and wind. He almost exclusively posts anti-nuclear propaganda. That is why I think he works fossil fuel industry. The entire anti-nuclear movement was created by the fossil fuel industry.

Re:Indian Point is out of service

[mdsolar]

Thanks Entergy.

NIMBY

[Anonymous Coward]

> It makes zero sense to have any risk of a meltdown someplace where real estate is that expensive

Modern nuclear plants are completely, physically incapable of meltdown. If everything goes wrong, they end up shutting off.

Only older plant designs, before we understood that principle, are even capable of meltdown.

Re: Indian Point is out of service

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Exxon

A Libtard's wet dream

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray!

We get to shut down power generation so the slaves have less choice.
They we hit the remaining ones up for donations, it's easier.

And we give people government jobs so they're under our control.

Oh, and mortgage away our future.

Bravo! Well done!

So OK, fine, my comments way down at the bottom,..

[doccus]

And probably nobody will see it. But there's so many ignorant supporters of fast breeders that don't see why they shouldn't be put back in service that I worry about the sanity of the human race. Sure , there's safe nuclear technology, but that requires a complete retooling and rebuiilding of the nuclear infrastructure. Currently we have fast breeders, because of political arm twisting, and not due to any technical superiority. And they are deadly. There's enough plutoonium inthe rubbish to kill everyone several times over.. although I have no current citation for it I am sure it's not difficult to find.. Dropping sealed containers of the spent fuel rods in the Marianis trench is probably the *only* safe place for them, becaude of the high water pressure and extreme cold. Of course space is even better but the risk of an accident on the way to outer orbit is pretty severe.
  Currently there's political pressure worldwide to put dozens of reactors back on line. Fast breeders. With plutonium as one of it's by products.. We're already suffering the effects of living in a nuclear soup due to the triple meltdown at Fukushiima Daiichi. I dread to think what could occur if the OK were given for all the others to go operational...