Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Dunno, my area is a mix of hydropower and nuclear facilities. oh nuclear at least that doesnt pollute ![]() for millions of years......... we are about to see a resurgence of nuke plants, i wonder what troubles that will cause? About the same amount of trouble they have EVER caused in this country: ZILCH ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event. while the reactor cores and compartively well protected in the containment building, the large concrete domeed building ........ the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted. you have a major disaster. I support more nuke plants once the nuclear waste issue is addressed. currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada |
#42
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 27, 8:26�am, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon" wrote: Three Mile ISland... On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut down of a nuke plant for safety issues. all public buildings nationwide should be required to have a minimal back up power capability. to run emergency lights, get elevators to ground level, and stuff like that. people stuck in elevators is really dumb in this day and age |
#43
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#44
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#47
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 27, 10:16�am, dpb wrote:
wrote: ... people who lived around chernobyl werent concerned either....... And Chernobyl was a _completely_ different reactor design than any in the US (or elsewhere, for that matter) without any containment. That Chernobyl was a disaster is true but it has no relevance to light-water reactors. -- the US nearly had its chernobyl, 3 mile island. some roids melted, it was a close thing.... plus a meltdown like situation can occur at any time, with the spent fuel rods in unhardened buildings, a easy terrorist target. and reactors with waste storage tend to be near population centers and rivers for cooling water. http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is worth it? |
#48
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "dpb" wrote in message ... wrote: ... ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event. Not physically possible w/ a LWR reactor design. ... the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted. No, they're pools... you have a major disaster. Nothing whatsoever like what you're imagining... currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada Again, no, they're not "thinking of burying it" -- it is named monitored retrievable storage for a reason. I can see that thread drift is alive and well in this group! One of the funnest things in Usenet. ![]() About the freezer: the job is going on hold until I can do without the services of the freezer for a while. I had a chance to score a USDA Choice whole been sirlion for $1.99 a pound, nine pounds of beef, couldn't pass it up. Thanks for all advice. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#49
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#50
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:50:49 -0600, dpb wrote: wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0600, dpb wrote: wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon" wrote: Three Mile ISland... On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut down of a nuke plant for safety issues. NO!!! YES!!!!!!!!! What would that have been and how do you know? The root cause of the event is still undetermined. Incorrect. A switch failed causing a huge "ripple" in the grid, which in turn caused the nuke plants to react defensively by shutting down to avoid being overstressed by the sudden imbalance. IOW, they shut down for "safety reasons". That is operational design trip, not a safety system-induced trip. There's a difference between the two. -- -- |
#51
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Folks:
Oh fer gosh sakes, this thing is an artifact. I'm not going to tell people to scrap their classic pink '58 Cadillac, or to avoid restoring a steam locomotive because it's got 3% thermal efficiency. If someone wants to pay a few extra dollars to keep this going as a working museum piece, that's okay with me, and I think it ought to be okay with anybody. Ice cream every meal is not a good practice, but ice cream never? Why? Efficient, inefficient, this machine is an antique. Probably more than 99% of its brothers have gone for scrap. If those few that remain in good order are kept running, they're not going to materially effect power consumption, no more than those '58 Caddies are raising oil prices. Do people have any concept of just how *many* fridges are in use? A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one. A P |
#52
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 27, 4:15�pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote: I wonder how practical that is, versus the incredible expense? -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus �www.lds.org . wrote in message ... On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut down of a nuke plant for safety issues. all public buildings nationwide should be required to have a minimal back up power capability. to run emergency lights, get elevators to ground level, and stuff like that. people stuck in elevators is really dumb in this day and age you wouldnt need a power plant to run the entire building, just enough to get one or two elevator cars to a floor and open doors. way safer and easier than depending on over worked firemen in shafts |
#53
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:52:54 -0600, dpb wrote: wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:50:49 -0600, dpb wrote: wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0600, dpb wrote: wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon" wrote: Three Mile ISland... On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut down of a nuke plant for safety issues. NO!!! YES!!!!!!!!! What would that have been and how do you know? The root cause of the event is still undetermined. Incorrect. A switch failed causing a huge "ripple" in the grid, which in turn caused the nuke plants to react defensively by shutting down to avoid being overstressed by the sudden imbalance. IOW, they shut down for "safety reasons". That is operational design trip, not a safety system-induced trip. There's a difference between the two. -- Please feel free to continue with your fantasy. I won't bother attempting to wake you from your dream. No fantasy at all -- having spent 30 years in reactor design and utility operations, I know the difference between safety and non-safety system--I designed them. -- |
#54
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
the US nearly had its chernobyl, 3 mile island. some roids melted, it was a close thing.... plus a meltdown like situation can occur at any time, with the spent fuel rods in unhardened buildings, a easy terrorist target. and reactors with waste storage tend to be near population centers and rivers for cooling water. http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is worth it? Certainly the risk is worth it. That's already been established. If it can be shown that nuclear power causes less deaths per KWs generated than any other form of electrical generation, then nuclear should be a hands-down winner. Well, it can. Consider the mining and transportation (from, say Montana to Chicago) of tens of thousands of railcars full of coal. Consider that hydroelectric dams don't fail very often, but when they do... And so on. The thing that nuclear has that the others don't is the "terror factor." |
#55
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ... Three Mile ISland... I still consider that a near miss: Although 25,000 people lived within five miles (8 km) of the site at the time of the accident,[5] no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred, and a government report concluded that "There will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible health effects." -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . "Dr. Hardcrab" wrote in message news:j4Jwj.6143$Dz4.1985@trnddc01... Dunno, my area is a mix of hydropower and nuclear facilities. oh nuclear at least that doesnt pollute ![]() for millions of years......... we are about to see a resurgence of nuke plants, i wonder what troubles that will cause? About the same amount of trouble they have EVER caused in this country: ZILCH |
#56
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dr. Hardcrab wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ... Three Mile ISland... I still consider that a near miss: .... Actually, in the end it was a very good test and demonstration of the adequacy of the system design to handle a LOCA (albeit an operator-error induced one, but a LOCA nonetheless). -- |
#57
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one. Perfectly lovely comment. Thank you. |
#58
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote: we are about to see a resurgence of nuke plants, i wonder what troubles that will cause? About the same amount of trouble they have EVER caused in this country: ZILCH Three Mile ISland... TMI-2 was virtually a non-accident: A small volume of irradiated steam was released to the atmosphere. There was no injury to any thing or any one. It's all about timing, folks... March 16, 1979 - The China Syndrome starring Hanoi Jane and Jack Lemmon opens in theaters. March 28, 1979 - Three Mile Island Unit 2 incident April 26, 1986 - Chernobyl #4 disaster "Slightly" different containment philosophy, too. U.S. reactors are housed in containment structures consisting of 3-4-foot-thick, steel reinforced concrete able to withstand the direct impact of a Boeing 727. The Soviet Union's idea of containment at Chernobyl (and others to this day) is the equivalent of a metal-sided pole shed. TMI-2 "belched" some bad steam. Chernobyl-4 exploded, melted-down and killed virtually everyone that worked on the subsequent job of encasing the core in concrete. The direct fallout "nuked" a nearby, evacuated city. It is still abandoned but barely "hot". *Normal* wildlife and flora flourish there and have for years. Kudos to George W. Bush to be the first President since the 1970s to have the guts to actually call for more nukes. We can (and should) build more nuke plants. -- ![]() JR |
#59
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"cybercat" wrote
A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one. Perfectly lovely comment. Thank you. Not to mention that the soup kitchen here was delighted to get one for free from us, roughly same vintage. Big enough to store a 1/2 side of beef easily with a bit spare around the edges grin. |
#60
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/GhostTown...icknavmenu.htm
heres a page of links, to pictures of the russian dead zone. some areas are so hot even after all these years you can die. so take a look around and ask yourselves, is the risk worth it? what if this happened in our country? |
#61
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#62
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is worth it? You can get killed walking across the street, yet they keep building more streets. Sad as the photos are, that is a different setup than anything in the US. We can't burn oil and coal forever either. |
#63
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 27, 10:48�am, dpb wrote:
wrote: ... ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event. Not physically possible w/ a LWR reactor design. ... the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted. No, they're pools... you have a major disaster. Nothing whatsoever like what you're imagining... currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada Again, no, they're not "thinking of burying it" -- it is named monitored retrievable storage for a reason. -- well after some time it wouldnt be retrievable. and nevada is fighting the plan, based at least partially on the risk of a earthquake opening the mountain at some point in a thousand years. just how does one prevent a person in the future from accidently breeching the storage area? our country is just over 200 years old. now a thousands or more. how does one guarantee a future resident doesnt drill a well, not knowing the hazard |
#64
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ok on the spent fuel rods in a pool right next to the
reactor........... non hardened buildings, no heavy concrete steel reinforced containment. if a terrorist somehow blew up the building by either smuggling a bomb onto the grounds or the more likely flying a bomb into the building. the newest fuel rods will be hot enough to melt down and all the rods, in a explosion will be a bad day. very bad.............. the ower companies should be required to have a plan with funding in place to handle spent fuel safely. those who worked or work for the nuke power industry have a vested interest in reassuring the public its safe...... |
#65
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 27, 10:18�pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is worth it? You can get killed walking across the street, yet they keep building more streets. Sad as the photos are, that is a different setup than anything in the US. We can't burn oil and coal forever either. we have on us soil a couple thousand year supply of coal......... isnt that enough for you? arent you the one who claimed chernobyl only killed one city, yet this proves the dead area is very large.... plus the river sends contaminated water down river indefinetely. no one says how long term storage will be paid for a yucca mountain is no guarantee |
#66
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "cshenk" wrote in message ... "cybercat" wrote A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one. Perfectly lovely comment. Thank you. Not to mention that the soup kitchen here was delighted to get one for free from us, roughly same vintage. Big enough to store a 1/2 side of beef easily with a bit spare around the edges grin. Neat! |
#67
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message we have on us soil a couple thousand year supply of coal......... But we still need better wqays to mine and burn it arent you the one who claimed chernobyl only killed one city, yet this proves the dead area is very large.... No, that was not me |
#68
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#69
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 28, 8:18�am, Jim Yanik wrote:
" wrote in news:7d0fd62f-f80a-4664-82fa- : ok on the spent fuel rods in a pool right next to the reactor........... non hardened buildings, no heavy concrete steel reinforced containment. if a terrorist somehow blew up the building by either smuggling a bomb onto the grounds or the more likely flying a bomb into the building. the newest fuel rods will be hot enough to melt down and all the rods, in a explosion will be a bad day. unless the bomb is right IN the pool,an explosion is not going to harm the rods in the belowground pool. very bad.............. the ower companies should be required to have a plan with funding in place to handle spent fuel safely. Once the rods cool enough[in �short a time frame for terrorist planning],the rods get shipped to Yucca Mtn secure storage site. those who worked or work for the nuke power industry have a vested interest in reassuring the public its safe...... All the greater reason to build pebble-bed reactors,no fuel rod problems. The fuel "pebbles" are extremely durable. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net so how long has work been done on yucca mountain? how much old fuel has been moved there? whats the ultimate price tag for yucca and moving, storing, and monitoring this hopefully forever tomb? who is paying for all this? what about shipping danger? |
#70
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 28, 9:06Â*am, " wrote:
On Feb 28, 8:18�am, Jim Yanik wrote: " wrote in news:7d0fd62f-f80a-4664-82fa- : ok on the spent fuel rods in a pool right next to the reactor........... non hardened buildings, no heavy concrete steel reinforced containment. if a terrorist somehow blew up the building by either smuggling a bomb onto the grounds or the more likely flying a bomb into the building. the newest fuel rods will be hot enough to melt down and all the rods, in a explosion will be a bad day. unless the bomb is right IN the pool,an explosion is not going to harm the rods in the belowground pool. very bad.............. the ower companies should be required to have a plan with funding in place to handle spent fuel safely. Once the rods cool enough[in �short a time frame for terrorist planning],the rods get shipped to Yucca Mtn secure storage site. those who worked or work for the nuke power industry have a vested interest in reassuring the public its safe...... All the greater reason to build pebble-bed reactors,no fuel rod problems.. The fuel "pebbles" are extremely durable. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net so how long has work been done on yucca mountain? Yucca would have been done a long time ago and all the fuel being temporarily stored at power plants around the country if fear mongering environmentalists hadn't done everything they could to block it. Obsructionist tactics that continue to this day. And then the same bunch are the ones bitching about how unsafe it is for the waste to be stored temporarily at the power plants. Actually, the envionmental extremists are quite happy with the arrangement, because they use the spent fool storage at power plants to fear monger and try to get them shut down. Tha't what they want and the only thing they will accept. how much old fuel has been moved there? whats the ultimate price tag for yucca and moving, storing, and monitoring this hopefully forever tomb? who is paying for all this? There is a fund that all nuclear power plants have been paying into for years to pay for yucca. But, in the end, like most things, it's consumers, that is most of us, that are going to pay for it, one way or another. what about shipping danger?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - More fear mongering nonsense. The canisters have been designed and tested to withstand external explosions and intense fires that rage for hours. Nothing is perfect. Imagine someone just came up with the idea of an airplane today and proposed putting people into them and flying them around. And they proposed putting 3 airports, within a few miles of NYC. How much fear can you conjur up with that? Yet, we do it everyday and it's the safest form of transportation we have. |
#71
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#72
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:22:51 -0600, dpb wrote: wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:52:54 -0600, dpb wrote: wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:50:49 -0600, dpb wrote: wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0600, dpb wrote: wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon" wrote: Three Mile ISland... On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut down of a nuke plant for safety issues. NO!!! YES!!!!!!!!! What would that have been and how do you know? The root cause of the event is still undetermined. Incorrect. A switch failed causing a huge "ripple" in the grid, which in turn caused the nuke plants to react defensively by shutting down to avoid being overstressed by the sudden imbalance. IOW, they shut down for "safety reasons". That is operational design trip, not a safety system-induced trip. There's a difference between the two. -- Please feel free to continue with your fantasy. I won't bother attempting to wake you from your dream. No fantasy at all -- having spent 30 years in reactor design and utility operations, I know the difference between safety and non-safety system--I designed them. So, then, there is no chance of you having some sort of perverted and heavily biased view in favor of what provided your livelyhood for 30 years. Not on a definition, no. A safety system reactor trip has a precise meaning, and this wasn't it. -- |
#73
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#74
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 28, 10:26�am, dpb wrote:
wrote: ... if a terrorist somehow blew up the building by either smuggling a bomb onto the grounds or the more likely flying a bomb into the building. the newest fuel rods will be hot enough to melt down and all the rods, in a explosion will be a bad day. No, a bomb would tend scatter stuff around, not put it in closer proximity to the small number of "hot" assemblies which would be required to heat up all the rest. the ower companies should be required to have a plan with funding in place to handle spent fuel safely. They have been funding it since the beginning of commercial nuclear power in the 60s... those who worked or work for the nuke power industry have a vested interest in reassuring the public its safe...... And we've been extremely successful despite the irrational fears of folks like you who rant about stuff they have no idea of how it actually works... Just like the Chernobyl/LWR comparison -- can you explain the difference between the two reactor designs or even the mechanism by which the Chernobyl accident caused the dispersion? �If you understood anything about the reactor design and the accident scenario itself, you would have an understanding of why that type of accident can't physically occur at a LWR. -- you know if it werent for 3 mile island, nuke power would be much more common today. but building something that can in any degree create another chernobyl here in our country is folly. your statement that things are safe there except for one city shows how little you know of the after effects....... |
#75
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article
, " wrote: you know if it werent for 3 mile island, nuke power would be much more common today. It wasn't for the all BS that surrounded it. TMI should have been a poster child for the safety of nuclear power since something went wrong, yet the safety systems all worked the way they were supposed to. but building something that can in any degree create another chernobyl here in our country is folly. In any degree? You want 100% assurances that nothing will ever go wrong? Then we should pretty much sit back and contemplate our navels in the dark. But even that is fraught with dangers. |
#76
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#77
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 28, 12:20*pm, dpb wrote:
wrote: ... you know if it werent for 3 mile island, nuke power would be much more common today. True, but the reaction was hysteria from folks like you, not from any reasoned evaluation of the consequences. There was no measurable offsite harm, no onsite injuries. *Nothing but some damaged equipment. *How many other industries can have that as their worst scenario after almost 40 years? but building something that can in any degree create another chernobyl here in our country is folly. Again I repeat--the LWR designs and Chernobyl have _nothing_ in common other than sharing the word "nuclear". If you had any idea of the differences, you would understand that. And again, what was the accident mechanism in Chernobyl? *Do you even know what actually happened? your statement that things are safe there except for one city shows how little you know of the after effects....... I made no such statement. *If you want to have a discussion, at least don't make stuff up and attempt to make me say things I didn't say. This is the second time you've done this--to another respondent previously I saw. -- As I previously pointed out, you could extend this fear mongering to many things. Imagine the airplane having just been invented. You could conjure up all kinds of images of impending doom. Planes falling from the sky and killing hundreds at a time. Yet, we have 3 major airports withing a few miles of NYC. People fly every day and it's recognized as the safest and most efficient means of transportation. We keep hearing Chernobyl. How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Look on a map and they are completely rebuilt thriving cities today. And the final hypocrisy with the fear mongers is this. The same extremists that rail against nuclear power rail against just about everything else. Global warming for example. We're suppose to believe that life on the whole planet is in jeopardy, yet we're not suppose to use nuclear power, which has close to zero green house emissions. They have no solutions, only extreme positions. |
#78
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
dpb wrote:
wrote: ... you know if it werent for 3 mile island, nuke power would be much more common today. True, but the reaction was hysteria from folks like you, not from any reasoned evaluation of the consequences. .... I should also point out that the trend had already begun well before TMI and the conclusion was already foregone -- TMI simply was the final chapter in the story at the time. The incessant harping on negatives by the anti-nuke activists and the antagonism in the Carter Administration combined with the ability of the environmentalists to wreak havoc in the licensing process by the misuse of EPA and other subterfuges were sufficient impediments to the economics to make the utilities look for either postponing expansion or more expedient-at-the-time alternatives. Add into the mix, of course, the cost of money owing to the out-of-control inflation at the time. That short-sighted handling of circumstances led to where we are now -- massive reliance on what has now become very expensive natural-gas fired units, old coal-fired units still on line 20-30 years after they would have otherwise been retired in favor of cheaper and cleaner units (both fossil- and nuclear-powered) and no comprehensive energy policy to this day other than avoidance of the inevitable for the short-term. All in all, not at all a good legacy for those on that side to look back on. Irrational discussion of stuff as you posit here doesn't advance the cause, either, so in many respects we're no better off after 30 years. -- |
#79
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#80
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi,
I had the good fortune to work for a company that supplied parts for AECL many years ago. We got a tour of Bruce B, during its construction, and the then working Bruce A plant. We walked through what would be a reactor chamber, and really enjoyed the professionalism, and had the safety systems explained to us, including systems that were already in place, that had never been used. It was truly, and quietly, impressive. The ignorant should have just a little information before they start the childish name-calling. I'm not saying it's the best that can be done, but it's the best we have. "dpb" wrote in message ... dpb wrote: wrote: ... you know if it werent for 3 mile island, nuke power would be much more common today. True, but the reaction was hysteria from folks like you, not from any reasoned evaluation of the consequences. ... I should also point out that the trend had already begun well before TMI and the conclusion was already foregone -- TMI simply was the final chapter in the story at the time. The incessant harping on negatives by the anti-nuke activists and the antagonism in the Carter Administration combined with the ability of the environmentalists to wreak havoc in the licensing process by the misuse of EPA and other subterfuges were sufficient impediments to the economics to make the utilities look for either postponing expansion or more expedient-at-the-time alternatives. Add into the mix, of course, the cost of money owing to the out-of-control inflation at the time. That short-sighted handling of circumstances led to where we are now -- massive reliance on what has now become very expensive natural-gas fired units, old coal-fired units still on line 20-30 years after they would have otherwise been retired in favor of cheaper and cleaner units (both fossil- and nuclear-powered) and no comprehensive energy policy to this day other than avoidance of the inevitable for the short-term. All in all, not at all a good legacy for those on that side to look back on. Irrational discussion of stuff as you posit here doesn't advance the cause, either, so in many respects we're no better off after 30 years. -- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Unused Chest Freezer | Home Ownership | |||
Unused Chest Freezer | Home Ownership | |||
Chest freezer 110 or 220? | Home Repair | |||
Using a chest freezer as a fridge | UK diy | |||
Chest Freezer Effciency | Home Repair |