Slashdot Mirror
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.
n/t
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?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
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)
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".
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
This transmission project obsoletes Indian Point. http://www.chpexpress.com/abou...
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.
Real lawyers write in C++
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.
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.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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.
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...
Indian Point 3 probably isn't built to withstand the seismic risk now known for the site. https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
But I'm sure there would be a bad side, too.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
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.
The transmission project bring Quebec Hydro power under the Hudson River past Indian Point and right into Queens. Not a worry.
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.
All the time? Indian Point has 99.85% uptime since it was first commissioned. Extremely reliable, even when it is cloudy outside!
It is breaking down all the time now. It's an albatross.
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.
Nuclear claims a niche for baseload, not backup, but even that is a myth. http://reneweconomy.com.au/201...
Indian Point has 99.85% uptime since it was first commissioned
That is nonsense.
Refuling alone costs far more than 10% downtime.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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!
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Notice everyone else is doing better except Entergy. They're safety culture is broken.
You are confused. Reading could help you.
New York is phasing out coal power and will be done with it by 2020. https://www.fractracker.org/20...
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.
Nope, the AG forced them into it, and the reactor is still closed.
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.
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.
>> 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.
aaaaaaa
"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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
>> 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.
"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.
Wood is not a fossil fuel.
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.
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.
Thanks Entergy.
The problem is solved in any case with power more than made up. http://www.greentechmedia.com/...
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.
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).
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
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/
Turns out Diablo Canyon is too expensive to save. You get much more clean wind and solar for the same cost.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
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.
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.
Nope. There are other landslides causes than eruptions.
aaaaaaa
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.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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...
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?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"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.
"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.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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.
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?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
My ism, it's full of beliefs.