Which is precisely why places such as that should be required by law to produce ALL their own electricity and not be allowed to by it.
Considering the losses in transmission, the dirties coal power plant would most likely at least break even environmentally speaking, if not actually be better.
My point exactly was that Three Mile Island was a Civilian Nuclear Power Plant and the errors there were *human*, not mechanical.
If the operators had simply sit down and had done nothing, the plant would have shut itself down and Three Mile Island would be an unknown sandbar on the Susquehanna River.
People who are against Nuclear Power always point to the likelihood of machines breaking down and my point is simply that we can build machines good enough to safely handle Nuclear Power.
You say that "we should expect the unexpected". You are right, it would be foolhardy not too. But expecting the unexpected isn't the same as demanding absolute perfection. In engineering, there is such a thing as "good enough".
In the Nuclear Industry, "Good Enough" is when the likelihood of an accident affecting the outside world is so small as to not be considered. That is where we are right now.
Despite what fear mongers (and I'm not accusing you of being a fear monger, you actually seem pretty level headed) would have you believe, nothing short of a Nuclear Strike is gonna cause ANY release of radioactivity from those plants. And anyone possessing a Nuclear Weapon with the intention of using it won't waste it on a Nuclear Plant, they would just use it directly against the civilian population.
I say that Nuclear Engineers already expect every conceivable "unexpected" and that IT WORKS. My proof is simply that in 50 years of commercial Nuclear generation in this country, no one civilian has ever been harmed by a Commercial Nuclear Power Plant.
The military has had several accidents and has had several deaths, because you right, the Military does sometimes do things slipshod. However, the Military cannot be sued in Federal Court; Con Edison CAN be sued by anyone with a grievance.
With the probable results of any accident likely to cost hundreds of Millions of dollars, I GUARANTEE YOU that the builders and owners of these plants are going to MAKE SURE that you never suffer and problem outside the fences but possible increased mugginess from the steam releases (which you get from pretty much any steam based power generator)
We have 102 Nuclear Power Plants in the United States and they are cleanly and safely generating 20% of our electricity at this very moment.
We have the capacity to generate 100% of our electricity using Nuclear producing far less pollution than our Coal fired plants produce now an, more to the point, the pollution Nuclear Plants do produce NEVER enters the environment.
The Nuclear Power Plant owners have been paying taxes to the Federal Government since the 50s for the eventual decommissioning cost of each plant, and so far, very little of that money has actually been needed.
I bring this up because some environmentalist use the cost of decommissioning as an excuse of how "fiscally irresponsible" Nuclear is.
They leave out that Nuclear is REQUIRED BY LAW to PREPAY those costs and that what they pay now is probably going to be worth more than the eventual cost 40 years from now.
Again, someone chooses to completely ignore my points and stick to the "I don't understand it, So it must be bad" argument.
See, I have no other choice but to conclude you know NOTHING of Nuclear Physics or Nuclear Engineering if you insist on comparing the "Keystone Cops" aproach to Nuclear Power Plant construction that was Chernobyl to a UNITED STATES CIVILIAN Nuclear Power Plant.
People keep talking about these Hypothical Generation III Reactors that have yet to be built, but I see NO PROBLEMS at all with the Generation II reactors we have in the United States right now.
They seem to have held their age VERY WELL.
I'm going to ask the same question I've asked elsewhere:
Point to a SINGLE INCIDENT where it has been proven that someone has PROVEN INJURY from a UNITED STATES CIVILIAN Nuclear Power Plant.
There are NONE.
This compared to my earlier statements showing the DEATHS from Coal Mining.
There is simply no viable reason to not go with Nuclear.
People keep moaning about the 'danger' of nuclear. The real danger is coal, oil and other real dirty power sources that is so far above nuclear in terms of waste and pollution and health dangers. Being afraid of nuclear is like being afraid to fly but happily getting in your car and driving to destination B.
Why don't you give me an URL for ANY Nuclear Accident in a CIVILIAN Nuclear Power Plant in the United States that resulted in a Death.
As we wait for you to get back to us, I'll give you this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident#American_accidents) showing that 72 people LOST THEIR LIVES in coal mining accidents in 2006 alone.
That doesn't count the THOUSANDS MORE who were injured in some fashion the same year.
Nuclear is the safest bet and I would GLADLY have one built in my backyard and feel good about myself for TRULY helping the environment, instead of just talking about it as has become popular with celebrities as late.
I also haven't obtained the suitable training to operate a Nuclear Facility.
You see, IT IS DANGEROUS to allow UNTRAINED individuals to operate a Nuclear Power Plant, precisely the reason all Nuclear Power Plant employees ARE TRAINED!
However, I would be VERY pleased to have a Nuclear Power Plant built on my land, assuming I can come to an accomendation with the utility building it of course.
It would be better than discovering Oil because it would NEVER run out!
I thought that was pretty slick the way I connected all those together.
Anyway...
Accept for the fact that there hasn't been a SINGLE confirmed death in the United States from a CIVILIAN Nuclear Power Reactor, no I guess I'm don't.
I would like to compare that to the 72 people that DIED in Coal Mining Accidents in 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident#American_accidents) and the THOUSANDS that were injured in the same year.
Oh, looks like I came up with some facts after all...
So because ONE PLANT was sloppily run, you are saying it is "depressing" to use a power source who's fuel will not run out until sometime in our great-great-great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
This is the EXACT problem with our society. Everything has gotten to the point where EVERYONE thinks they should have a say in what EVERYONE else is doing.
If we had been as pessimistic as this 60 years ago, half the country would be speaking German and the other half Japanese.
This plan is particularly dangerous when you consider we're not entirely sure how the sun works! Some reports indicate it may be powered by nuclear reactions and it MAY release high amounts of radiation!
We're considering using this in our backyards?!? WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
I would just like to point out that my radiation is safely contained in my septic tank.
You're joking, however I have always wondered about the Coal operators.
Several years ago when electric cars were starting to take off in California (for their demographic, anyway) people wanted to expand public charging systems to allow for quicker charges on the road.
Several dozen groups came out against it, all spewing the same shit about the "effects" of burning more coal to produce more electricity and the HORRORS THAT WOULD CAUSE!!!
99.99% of them were later tracked back to Big Oil Lobyying firms who cared less about Coal's effects on the environment and a lot about the prospect of Oil loosing it's monopoly status as a automobile energy source.
I always wondered by Big Coal didn't swing back.
If I have been a Coal lobbyist, I would have hired Karl Rove to put those 'Oiall boys' in their place for daring to tangle with 'Big Coal'
Before it was over, I would have had the public convinced that every gallon of gas was literally made of baby puppies/kittens.
That might very well have turned the tide in favor of electric vehicles.
OH! I see, you would let them go around KILLING all our deserts by blocking their precious sunlight, but I'M the biggest ass in the WORLD for wanting to build Nuclear Power Plants there?
The supplies of coal, oil, gas and fissionable materials is severely limited...
I'm with you on oil and gas but, if we re-process and use sensible nuclear plants, there's enough fissionable material to power the earth for a long, long time. Of course, those are two big ifs.
And Coal isn't limited at all. There is hundreds of years worth of coal in the ground.
That doesn't erase its environmental impact, but exhausting the supply isn't an issue.
And please don't tout the minority of rape cases as the strawman defense.
And you please don't tout the minority of women who use abortion as a means of birth control. That is also a strawman defense touted by 'so called' pro-lifers.
I wouldn't enjoy watching anyone doing anything to Liv Tyler that might lead to her reproducing.
Kicking her ass out of Hollywood and sending her to work in a Kinko's might be acceptable.
HEY! HEY! HEY!
What's up with the Liv Tyler bashing.
I take offense at that and since nowadays ANYTHING someone else MIGHT take offense at seems to have become immoral, I demand you CEASE AND DESIST immediately.
Your next question will be "or else what"
Because if you don't,...I'll do...something...
Sheeessss ppeeerrrrttttty...
--- The proceeding was sarcasm. This warning placed for those who have no understanding of the term.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the 'guy' with a bunch of nukes I'm worried about. It's that 'guy' with one that scares the shit outta me.
I was mostly being facetious, simply trying to comment on the hypocrisy of some people.
You are right, however, in the benefits of economies of scale.
Which is precisely why places such as that should be required by law to produce ALL their own electricity and not be allowed to by it.
Considering the losses in transmission, the dirties coal power plant would most likely at least break even environmentally speaking, if not actually be better.
My point exactly was that Three Mile Island was a Civilian Nuclear Power Plant and the errors there were *human*, not mechanical.
If the operators had simply sit down and had done nothing, the plant would have shut itself down and Three Mile Island would be an unknown sandbar on the Susquehanna River.
People who are against Nuclear Power always point to the likelihood of machines breaking down and my point is simply that we can build machines good enough to safely handle Nuclear Power.
You say that "we should expect the unexpected". You are right, it would be foolhardy not too. But expecting the unexpected isn't the same as demanding absolute perfection. In engineering, there is such a thing as "good enough".
In the Nuclear Industry, "Good Enough" is when the likelihood of an accident affecting the outside world is so small as to not be considered. That is where we are right now.
Despite what fear mongers (and I'm not accusing you of being a fear monger, you actually seem pretty level headed) would have you believe, nothing short of a Nuclear Strike is gonna cause ANY release of radioactivity from those plants. And anyone possessing a Nuclear Weapon with the intention of using it won't waste it on a Nuclear Plant, they would just use it directly against the civilian population.
I say that Nuclear Engineers already expect every conceivable "unexpected" and that IT WORKS. My proof is simply that in 50 years of commercial Nuclear generation in this country, no one civilian has ever been harmed by a Commercial Nuclear Power Plant.
The military has had several accidents and has had several deaths, because you right, the Military does sometimes do things slipshod. However, the Military cannot be sued in Federal Court; Con Edison CAN be sued by anyone with a grievance.
With the probable results of any accident likely to cost hundreds of Millions of dollars, I GUARANTEE YOU that the builders and owners of these plants are going to MAKE SURE that you never suffer and problem outside the fences but possible increased mugginess from the steam releases (which you get from pretty much any steam based power generator)
We have 102 Nuclear Power Plants in the United States and they are cleanly and safely generating 20% of our electricity at this very moment.
We have the capacity to generate 100% of our electricity using Nuclear producing far less pollution than our Coal fired plants produce now an, more to the point, the pollution Nuclear Plants do produce NEVER enters the environment.
The Nuclear Power Plant owners have been paying taxes to the Federal Government since the 50s for the eventual decommissioning cost of each plant, and so far, very little of that money has actually been needed.
I bring this up because some environmentalist use the cost of decommissioning as an excuse of how "fiscally irresponsible" Nuclear is.
They leave out that Nuclear is REQUIRED BY LAW to PREPAY those costs and that what they pay now is probably going to be worth more than the eventual cost 40 years from now.
Again, someone chooses to completely ignore my points and stick to the "I don't understand it, So it must be bad" argument.
See, I have no other choice but to conclude you know NOTHING of Nuclear Physics or Nuclear Engineering if you insist on comparing the "Keystone Cops" aproach to Nuclear Power Plant construction that was Chernobyl to a UNITED STATES CIVILIAN Nuclear Power Plant.
People keep talking about these Hypothical Generation III Reactors that have yet to be built, but I see NO PROBLEMS at all with the Generation II reactors we have in the United States right now.
They seem to have held their age VERY WELL.
I'm going to ask the same question I've asked elsewhere:
Point to a SINGLE INCIDENT where it has been proven that someone has PROVEN INJURY from a UNITED STATES CIVILIAN Nuclear Power Plant.
There are NONE.
This compared to my earlier statements showing the DEATHS from Coal Mining.
There is simply no viable reason to not go with Nuclear.
Not really.
I guess SOMEONE hasn't watched Law and Order:CI
Nah, that's easy.
TRUST ME, they scatter pretty easy when wheel into your driveway at 40 mph.
The few that remain can easily be cleaned up with a fire/water hose.
People keep moaning about the 'danger' of nuclear. The real danger is coal, oil and other real dirty power sources that is so far above nuclear in terms of waste and pollution and health dangers. Being afraid of nuclear is like being afraid to fly but happily getting in your car and driving to destination B.
Exactly.
OK, fair enough.
SO!
Why don't you give me an URL for ANY Nuclear Accident in a CIVILIAN Nuclear Power Plant in the United States that resulted in a Death.
As we wait for you to get back to us, I'll give you this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident#American_accidents) showing that 72 people LOST THEIR LIVES in coal mining accidents in 2006 alone.
That doesn't count the THOUSANDS MORE who were injured in some fashion the same year.
Doesn't change one word I said.
Nuclear is the safest bet and I would GLADLY have one built in my backyard and feel good about myself for TRULY helping the environment, instead of just talking about it as has become popular with celebrities as late.
Well, I have no family at the moment.
I also haven't obtained the suitable training to operate a Nuclear Facility.
You see, IT IS DANGEROUS to allow UNTRAINED individuals to operate a Nuclear Power Plant, precisely the reason all Nuclear Power Plant employees ARE TRAINED!
However, I would be VERY pleased to have a Nuclear Power Plant built on my land, assuming I can come to an accomendation with the utility building it of course.
It would be better than discovering Oil because it would NEVER run out!
I thought that was pretty slick the way I connected all those together.
Anyway...
Accept for the fact that there hasn't been a SINGLE confirmed death in the United States from a CIVILIAN Nuclear Power Reactor, no I guess I'm don't.
I would like to compare that to the 72 people that DIED in Coal Mining Accidents in 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident#American_accidents) and the THOUSANDS that were injured in the same year.
Oh, looks like I came up with some facts after all...
I'll admit, as pro-nuclear as I am, I don't know where this 'blast it into space' BS came from.
So because ONE PLANT was sloppily run, you are saying it is "depressing" to use a power source who's fuel will not run out until sometime in our great-great-great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
This is the EXACT problem with our society. Everything has gotten to the point where EVERYONE thinks they should have a say in what EVERYONE else is doing.
If we had been as pessimistic as this 60 years ago, half the country would be speaking German and the other half Japanese.
Why is it so PC to pick on poor nuclear?
Our friend the atom serves us every day and we spit in its eye.
Sad...
Happens more often than you think around here...
NOW YOUR GETTING IT!
See, if an Anonymous Coward can understand our simple goals, why can't all of ya'll? :)
I mean, it's not like we're hurting anyone,...right?
This plan is particularly dangerous when you consider we're not entirely sure how the sun works! Some reports indicate it may be powered by nuclear reactions and it MAY release high amounts of radiation!
We're considering using this in our backyards?!? WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
I would just like to point out that my radiation is safely contained in my septic tank.
You're joking, however I have always wondered about the Coal operators.
Several years ago when electric cars were starting to take off in California (for their demographic, anyway) people wanted to expand public charging systems to allow for quicker charges on the road.
Several dozen groups came out against it, all spewing the same shit about the "effects" of burning more coal to produce more electricity and the HORRORS THAT WOULD CAUSE!!!
99.99% of them were later tracked back to Big Oil Lobyying firms who cared less about Coal's effects on the environment and a lot about the prospect of Oil loosing it's monopoly status as a automobile energy source.
I always wondered by Big Coal didn't swing back.
If I have been a Coal lobbyist, I would have hired Karl Rove to put those 'Oiall boys' in their place for daring to tangle with 'Big Coal'
Before it was over, I would have had the public convinced that every gallon of gas was literally made of baby puppies/kittens.
That might very well have turned the tide in favor of electric vehicles.
OH! I see, you would let them go around KILLING all our deserts by blocking their precious sunlight, but I'M the biggest ass in the WORLD for wanting to build Nuclear Power Plants there?
Some people...
AND I JUST SAW BIGFOOT!!!
There truly IS hope for us all!
HOG WASH!
They haven't been ice free since records have been kept (mid 70s') so I REFUSE to believe they will EVER be approved!
The supplies of coal, oil, gas and fissionable materials is severely limited...
I'm with you on oil and gas but, if we re-process and use sensible nuclear plants, there's enough fissionable material to power the earth for a long, long time. Of course, those are two big ifs.
And Coal isn't limited at all. There is hundreds of years worth of coal in the ground.
That doesn't erase its environmental impact, but exhausting the supply isn't an issue.
And please don't tout the minority of rape cases as the strawman defense.
And you please don't tout the minority of women who use abortion as a means of birth control. That is also a strawman defense touted by 'so called' pro-lifers.
I wouldn't enjoy watching anyone doing anything to Liv Tyler that might lead to her reproducing.
Kicking her ass out of Hollywood and sending her to work in a Kinko's might be acceptable.
HEY! HEY! HEY!
What's up with the Liv Tyler bashing.
I take offense at that and since nowadays ANYTHING someone else MIGHT take offense at seems to have become immoral, I demand you CEASE AND DESIST immediately.
Your next question will be "or else what"
Because if you don't,...I'll do...something...
Sheeessss ppeeerrrrttttty...
---
The proceeding was sarcasm. This warning placed for those who have no understanding of the term.