- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Boards opinion on new nuclear power plants?
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:10 am to Picayuner
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:10 am to Picayuner
quote:
I’m as conservative as they come but nuclear waste is deadly with a half life 35,000 years. How the hell do we store that and where and who’s in charge - the damn government. You trust these arse wipes ?? Have you seen who the government hires ?
You continue storing it the way its being stored now until a better option is presented. I have zero issues with how we are storing it now. In fact, it wouldn't bother me in the least to have a dry cask in my back yard- actually I'd be giddy about it since they'd likely pay me to store it on my property. (govt would never allow it, but that isn't the point here).
Do you know how its done? Do you know how relatively little of it there is to store?
0
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:10 am to captainpodnuh
My husband worked the VC Sumner project in South Carolina for a few years. He did communications and cyber security. The majority of their issues were the higher ups from the very beginning were bilking the shite out of the $$$$$. Regulators changed some requirements during construction which led to setbacks in time and money. The lies on construction slippage, percent completed, etc started to mount and never stopped.
This post was edited on 10/7/21 at 11:28 am
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:13 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Concrete and lead reinforced, concrete filled caves in the middle of the Nevada desert.
Spent fuel, once of a certain age, is already removed from the water and placed in concrete casks and stored on the property of the nuclear plant that produced it. 40 years worth of fuel takes up very little space, and is very safe. I trust this storage method 100%.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:14 am to deuceiswild
Biggest issue facing nuclear development is find a suitable location. I’ve been pulled into several deals and they always blow up either finding a place or once they find one and the locals figure it out.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:15 am to USMEagles
quote:
Won't ever work economically unless we dismantle the NRC and discredit the theories of engineering that they rely on.
I agree that the NRC could be overhauled. Some regulations could be relaxed. The NRC contributes to a lot of the cost to run a nuclear plant (rightfully so, in most cases- but not all).
The nuclear industry also contributes to its own demise in many ways.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:19 am to deuceiswild
quote:
The nuclear industry also contributes to its own demise in many ways.
Very true.
Westinghouse is also a huge part of the problem. Their commercial nuclear division is incredibly poorly run, but they own the license on basically the only type of reactors you can commercially build. So they don’t really care how bad they are because you can’t get rid of them. And they buy up any competition so you’re forced back to deal with them.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:21 am to tigerinexile
quote:
Can’t compete with natural gas
In the current climate, and with the current nuclear technology being used, you're correct.
But things don't have to be this way, other than politics. Nat Gas could never compete with new nuclear technology.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:23 am to deuceiswild
I'm not anti-nuclear...but how do we prevent a Fukushima or Chernobyl-like disaster? Thats my only concern.
I watched a doc on Fukushima the other day and that place is still completely uninhabitable and has an 18 mile exclusion zone.
I watched a doc on Fukushima the other day and that place is still completely uninhabitable and has an 18 mile exclusion zone.
This post was edited on 10/7/21 at 10:28 am
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:25 am to HighlyFavoredTiger
quote:
Nuclear plants take 10 to 15 years and billions of dollars to build in the US
This is true. But it doesn't have to be this way. Vaccines take years and years and millions of dollars to develop as well. But govt got out the way last year and we had one produced in a few months. (this is not to argue that the vaccine is or isn't a vaccine... it's merely to make the point that govt is a HUGE part of those costs.)
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:27 am to deuceiswild
We definitely need them. And I don’t care if one is in my backyard. The new designs are supposed to be a helluva lot safer than the old designs so we should be building new plants and phasing out older ones.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:28 am to captainpodnuh
When the topic of nuclear power comes up, the average person immediately thinks of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl. Ask anyone if they would purposefully live near a nuclear power plant. I'd wager that a large majority of people would say no, basically due to their ignorance. Let's face it, the American public is extremely dumb.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:28 am to Tree_Fall
quote:
Biggest problem remains safe perpetual storage
This is only a big problem politically, IMO. In reality it isn't a problem at all.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:29 am to lockthevaught
quote:Ummm....don't build them on the coast where they are endanger of tsunamis?
I watched a doc on Fukushima the other day and that place is still completely uninhabitable and has an 18 mile exclusion zone.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:30 am to C-Bear
quote:
The majority of their issues were the higher ups from the very beginning were bilking the shite out of the $$$$$
I believe people went to jail for this.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:35 am to lockthevaught
quote:
I'm not anti-nuclear...but how do we prevent a Fukushima or Chernobyl-like disaster?
Both of those incidents were very much man made disasters. Chernobyl especially. The operators had to physically disable safety systems to put the reactor into the configuration it was in when things started to go south and didn’t fully understand the conditions and reading they were getting when they tried to recover it. It’s basically impossible for that to happen again.
Fukushima was a well beyond design basis event that they still could have mitigated but would’ve lost the unit in the process. Company didn’t want to lose the asset so they waited too long to essentially flood it with seawater and keep the core from meeting down. Again, man made, and nuke plants world wide implemented upgrades to prevent a massive flood potentially swamping the emergency diesels and losing the ability to keep the core cool.
It’s interesting reading if you want to take the time to do so.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:37 am to greygoose
quote:
Ask anyone if they would purposefully live near a nuclear power plant. I'd wager that a large majority of people would say no, basically due to their ignorance. Let's face it, the American public is extremely dumb.
And oblivious. I bet most of the people in SELA don’t even realize they live by two.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:38 am to elprez00
quote:
Westinghouse is also a huge part of the problem
This is likely true. I cant speak on that though.
What I meant was... well, lets make a comparison. You know how when an NCAA team finds itself in trouble and they limit scholarships, ban themselves from bowl games, etc. in order to get ahead of things and keep the NCAA off their arse?
Well, nuclear reacts in this same way except the actions they take are WAY more detrimental to their own operations and costs. The nuclear industry also reacts the same when a DIFFERENT plant or company has some sort of issue. This is the right thing to do in most cases, but I do believe often times its an overreaction. It'd be like LSU kicking itself in the arse and limiting scholarships because aTm screwed something up.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:41 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Micro reactors are the future.
They were the future 30 years ago. Thank Ralph Nadar.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:41 am to lockthevaught
quote:
I watched a doc on Fukushima the other day and that place is still completely uninhabitable and has an 18 mile exclusion zone.
Fukushima was a success in many regards. If I had the time and inclination to type so much, you might be convinced of this as well. I agree It was a very unfortunate event though.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 10:44 am to greygoose
quote:
When the topic of nuclear power comes up, the average person immediately thinks of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl. Ask anyone if they would purposefully live near a nuclear power plant. I'd wager that a large majority of people would say no, basically due to their ignorance. Let's face it, the American public is extremely dumb.
True. More people than you think in south Louisiana doesn't even know they live within a hundred miles of two nukes. Hell, a coworker of mines kid was told by his teacher that we don't have nukes around here.
But that's the unwritten rule. You allow us to operate our nuclear plant and we wont make you worry about it.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News