In Praise of Aunt Carrie!

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by okieinla


Dozens of people are hurt and/or killed in power plants around the world every day and you want to quote a power plant that shutdown with no injuries and no fatalities?

There was still an accident & a very expensive clean up. I wouldn't want to live there or close by for that matter.
There is a documentary that was made in 1993 called "Three Mile Island Revisited". Here's a brief excerpt -
"...Through the testimony of area residents and scientific experts, the documentary presents compelling evidence that cancer deaths and birth defects increased in the area surrounding the Pennsylvania plant. The video reveals that the utility which owns the nuclear plant has been quietly awarding damages to hundreds of local residents who have brought suits, despite its insistence that no one was harmed..."
[/quote]

I'm sure 4 out of 5 dentists agree. Doesn't match the scientific fact that the radiation level was around that of an x-ray and at that level, very limited in range. It is nowhere near chernobyl which was grossly mismanaged and rendered hundreds of square miles worthless. It's like the adage that plane travel is safer than car travel.  Nuclear plants have had two failures in their lifetime and the fact Chernobyl wasn't worse is a miracle given the management of the plant.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Steve


Conventional electricity generation and petroleum refining does pose some risks to the employees and the enviornment, but not close to the risks involved with nuclear power generation.

Risks, yes. Reality, not so much. Thousands more people have been injured, killed, or had their health otherwise compromised by conventional plants than nuclear.

quote:Originally posted by Steve

I couldn't care less if gasoline refined in Tulsa is burned in a car in New York.  

Then why do you car if electricity made in Tulsa is used elsewhere?

quote:Originally posted by Steve

 PSO does not exist to make $$$ but to provide safe, reliable electric power to the citizens of Oklahoma, with a reasonable profit guaranteed a utility monopoly.

You make me giggle.

quote:Originally posted by Steve

We have done just fine since 1973 without Black Fox, and I believe we will do just fine for the long term future in Oklahoma without a nuclear plant.

Based on your vast experience in the electric utility market?

I'm not saying wind, hydro, or any of those are bad. But unfortunately you are talking just a handful of megawatts per unit as opposed to the 1,000+ from a fission reactor plant.

Do you want to tell people like this you'd rather rely on old coal plants than run off clean nuclear ones?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Ohio

Keep in mind that the effects in Cheshire were caused by properly INSTALLING pollution controls.

[Conan71]

Okay, since I work in the steam business, I have to chime in.  For the most part, the coal and gas-fired plants we have in the United States have very clean emissions.  We have come a long way since the photos of smoke stacks bellowing out acrid black smoke in the early 1970's.  Cheshire is an example of pollution control technologies being installed or operated improperly.

I'm intrigued with the concept of nuclear power, simply for the fact that the fuel lasts a very long time, and you can generate a lot more steam with a given volume of nuclear fuel than fossil fuel.  But as far as being cheaper- it's debatable.  There are a lot of expensive regulations and safety protocol that go with nuclear power.

The "what-if's" bothered me with Black Fox.  When you hear the word "oops" at a coal fired plant, it might injure or kill people on-site at the plant.  When you hear it at a nuke site, the implications are much broader.

This web site is a pretty chilling account of Chernobyl (it takes awhile to get through this web site, it's huge and maintained by an "amateur").  My mental picture of the aftermath was nothing close to the hard reality of what really happened to that area:

Chernobyl Motorcycling

The Soviet's grasp of technology was always reputed to be on par with America's during the cold war.  Comparatively, they were still in the stone ages and likely should not have been dabbling in nuclear power.  

With technology and knowledge that we have today, nuclear plants don't scare me as much as they used to.  But as long as human judgement must be involved in the operation of them, there will always be the possibility for a disaster.  I'm not a "radical anti-nuke", I just believe there are other sources of energy which are more cost-effective and safe.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Okay, since I work in the steam business, I have to chime in.  For the most part, the coal and gas-fired plants we have in the United States have very clean emissions.  We have come a long way since the photos of smoke stacks bellowing out acrid black smoke in the early 1970's.  Cheshire is an example of pollution control technologies being installed or operated improperly.

I'm intrigued with the concept of nuclear power, simply for the fact that the fuel lasts a very long time, and you can generate a lot more steam with a given volume of nuclear fuel than fossil fuel.  But as far as being cheaper- it's debatable.  There are a lot of expensive regulations and safety protocol that go with nuclear power.

The "what-if's" bothered me with Black Fox.  When you hear the word "oops" at a coal fired plant, it might injure or kill people on-site at the plant.  When you hear it at a nuke site, the implications are much broader.

This web site is a pretty chilling account of Chernobyl (it takes awhile to get through this web site, it's huge and maintained by an "amateur").  My mental picture of the aftermath was nothing close to the hard reality of what really happened to that area:

Chernobyl Motorcycling

The Soviet's grasp of technology was always reputed to be on par with America's during the cold war.  Comparatively, they were still in the stone ages and likely should not have been dabbling in nuclear power.  

With technology and knowledge that we have today, nuclear plants don't scare me as much as they used to.  But as long as human judgement must be involved in the operation of them, there will always be the possibility for a disaster.  I'm not a "radical anti-nuke", I just believe there are other sources of energy which are more cost-effective and safe.

I saw the chernobyl site before. Very impressive stuff.

Most coal is better now mainly because we truck in West Virginia's low-sulphur coal, but the Cheshire story I posted was only a few years old.

[moosedaddy]

There are more people die per kilowatt hour from a coal powered plant than from nuclear.  I guess to get an accurate feeling of how it feels living near a nuclear power plant all we need to do is travel about 200 miles to Russelville, AR.

One of the main reason Blackfox was not built was not money, or where the power was going to be sold, or even protest from people who are afraid of nuclear energy.  The main reason is the geologic fault line which would have been directly beneath one of the reactors.

When I hear anti nuclear power discussions I am reminded of a quote ( I do not remember who said it).  The United States was introduced to nuclear power thru the atomic bomb, If we would have been introduced to electricity thru the electric chair we would probably all be sitting in the dark.

Also for all of the people worrying about nuclear accidents in your back yard, do you fly?  If so are you terrified about the plane crashing.  

More people die every year from radioactive gas (natural Radon) than from the radioactivity of all of the shipments of radioactive material.

[aoxamaxoa]

Well, I think I gooofed starting this thread. I had forgotten how little the posties on this forum care about the air they suck here in Tulsa......

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by moosedaddy

There are more people die per kilowatt hour from a coal powered plant than from nuclear.  I guess to get an accurate feeling of how it feels living near a nuclear power plant all we need to do is travel about 200 miles to Russelville, AR.

Could you quote where that assertion comes from? Seems like playing with stats.

One of the main reason Blackfox was not built was not money, or where the power was going to be sold, or even protest from people who are afraid of nuclear energy.  The main reason is the geologic fault line which would have been directly beneath one of the reactors.

Once again, says who? I'm sure it was a factor and maybe the strongest but the protests and the poor economics were part of its demise.


When I hear anti nuclear power discussions I am reminded of a quote ( I do not remember who said it).  The United States was introduced to nuclear power thru the atomic bomb, If we would have been introduced to electricity thru the electric chair we would probably all be sitting in the dark.

Clever remark but not truthful. Edison argued hard that a/c electricity was dangerous to the public. He and many others lobbied for d/c battery power. The public was not scared and trusted its contemporary "experts".

Also for all of the people worrying about nuclear accidents in your back yard, do you fly?  If so are you terrified about the plane crashing.  

I don't fly. Really have no dog in this race either, but the correlation isn't too good here. A plane crash has taken as many as 3000 or so lives when combined with a high rise. How many would a similar catastrophe pulled off by the same morons have killed?

More people die every year from radioactive gas (natural Radon) than from the radioactivity of all of the shipments of radioactive material.

Wow, really? Where are those facts? And are you comparing all the buildings during the current century vs all of the shipments to/from a few plants since the fifties? Yeah, I could see that. Even though we have no idea where and how long radon has been killing people. Going to have to be better arguments than I have seen here before I sign on for the nuclear solution. But I'm open to change.

[Double A]

Nuclear energy? Simple, the risks outweigh the benefits.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Nuclear energy? Simple, the risks outweigh the benefits.

Not really. Whats the risks of not reducing our carbon emissions? Can we even begin to measure the potential impacts of increased global warming?

[moosedaddy]

Originally posted by moosedaddy

   There are more people die per kilowatt hour from a coal powered plant than from nuclear. I guess to get an accurate feeling of how it feels living near a nuclear power plant all we need to do is travel about 200 miles to Russelville, AR.

   Could you quote where that assertion comes from? Seems like playing with stats.

   One of the main reason Blackfox was not built was not money, or where the power was going to be sold, or even protest from people who are afraid of nuclear energy. The main reason is the geologic fault line which would have been directly beneath one of the reactors.

   Once again, says who? I'm sure it was a factor and maybe the strongest but the protests and the poor economics were part of its demise.


   When I hear anti nuclear power discussions I am reminded of a quote ( I do not remember who said it). The United States was introduced to nuclear power thru the atomic bomb, If we would have been introduced to electricity thru the electric chair we would probably all be sitting in the dark.

   Clever remark but not truthful. Edison argued hard that a/c electricity was dangerous to the public. He and many others lobbied for d/c battery power. The public was not scared and trusted its contemporary "experts".

   Also for all of the people worrying about nuclear accidents in your back yard, do you fly? If so are you terrified about the plane crashing.

   I don't fly. Really have no dog in this race either, but the correlation isn't too good here. A plane crash has taken as many as 3000 or so lives when combined with a high rise. How many would a similar catastrophe pulled off by the same morons have killed?

   More people die every year from radioactive gas (natural Radon) than from the radioactivity of all of the shipments of radioactive material.

   Wow, really? Where are those facts? And are you comparing all the buildings during the current century vs all of the shipments to/from a few plants since the fifties? Yeah, I could see that. Even though we have no idea where and how long radon has been killing people. Going to have to be better arguments than I have seen here before I sign on for the nuclear solution. But I'm open to change.

1. About deaths per kilowatt hour, have you ever heard of "black lung".

2.  I heard about the fault line from the man who did the survey of the area.  I went to school with his kids.

3. Yes Edison did argue that "his" DC power was much safer than AC power.  and people did protest the safety of electricity when there was a death of a lineman from accidental electrocution.

4.  I do not recall where I heard the stats about Radon, but it was when I was working at a Uranium processing facility.

I do know radioactivity is dangerous, but a coal powered plant releases more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant. With todays NRC regulation a nuclear power plant will never be cost effective, with todays technology I think our current best bet is natural gas.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

The cost argument of nuclear energy is a little unfair. It tends to reflect how energy is traded now a days. It rewards sources of power that can hold back their energy and only sell when the price reaches a high. Examples of this can be hydroelectricity which can provide instant power by releasing water. Unfortunately nuclear power can't sell electricity like this, it generates vast quantities of power fairly cheaply and continuously. This means that it is in a poor place to take position of short time highs in the market.

[Conan71]

There is a very high cost to building nuclear plants to today's standards, and personnel costs would be somewhat higher due to the level of degreed expertise needed to operate a nuclear plant vs. a hydro-electric or steam plant.  I just don't know that the profitability is there per KWH produced, based on the construction and safety standards which are in place today.

Forgive my relative ignorance of how you can operate a nuclear plant, but can you not stage the units, like you can with coal or NG plants to match demand?  IOW, start and shut down units at a plant as demand is indicated like they do with boilers at coal or NG facilities?

This is a little of my understanding of how the grids work:

We do a lot of repair work for Stillwater Power which is a small NG powered peak demand plant that sits idle most of the year.  It was explained to me by one of the operators that they are on the GRDA grid.  When GRDA tells them to come on line, they do- usually operating during the months of May to Sept as needed.  It is also used as a hedge for Stillwater residents to keep their electrical costs in check.

Prime Energy in Tulsa specializes in alternative fuel systems for co-gen plants.  We've worked with them on some projects in the past.  They have worked on technology which has involved biomass reactors, burning rice chaff, sugar cane waste, hog fuel, etc.  Basically any sort of natural resource a third world country may have plenty of as an agricultural by-product.  Technology like that is bringing relatively inexpensive electricity to remote areas by doing nothing more than burning their waste.