Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant

[rdean]

According to Rdean, Democrat scientists were responsible for the leak

No, Republican businessman using sub-standard material for building while trying to "cut costs". It's obvious.

 

[gslack]

When dealing with Nuclear Power or anything that can result in a massive scale disaster, contingency is part of the equation. It is the responsibility to be prepared. The excuses get old. Think Fail-Safe, multi-backup. Stop with the false claims.

Agreed but there is never 100% guarantees. In the case of 2-mile Island the backups worked and averted disaster. The first line of defense may have faulted but the backups got it done and with no harm outside that to the reactor itself.

The very concept of redundancy and backups is in case the first lines fail. In a perfect world there wouldn't be a necessity for either. But its not a perfect world so they are required. And in 3 mile the first line failed but the back ups worked...

I don't think making more of it than it actually was like has been the case in the media, helps anyone at all...

Much has changed and improved since then. the one constant should be improvement. Why aren't the Vermont Yankee pipes better protected, double hulled, with a triggered alarm? Just a thought. It seems to be a wide spread issue. Again, is the design short a minimum of one safety level? Bringing the lines above ground seems an improvement, yet why not further protect against a known vulnerability, especially in future construction.

I agree 100% with improvement, I just don't agree with the liberal way of legislating until the legislation makes enforcement impossible....

 

[rdean]

Nuclear energy is one of the few areas where the French run circle around us.

More doesn't mean better. They have no more idea what to do with their nuclear waste than we do. Sure, they recycle some of it, by only "some of it".

ENVIRONMENT: France's Nuclear Waste Heads to Russia - IPS ipsnews.net

PARIS, Dec 17, 2005 (Tierramérica) - France sends thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste to Russia each year, but the details are shielded by a decree of "national security" in order to block debate on the issue

-------------------------

But don't think I'm against nuclear power. I believe the issues can be solved. I'm all for nuclear energy. 100%.

 

[rdean]

Agreed but there is never 100% guarantees. In the case of 2-mile Island the backups worked and averted disaster. The first line of defense may have faulted but the backups got it done and with no harm outside that to the reactor itself.

The very concept of redundancy and backups is in case the first lines fail. In a perfect world there wouldn't be a necessity for either. But its not a perfect world so they are required. And in 3 mile the first line failed but the back ups worked...

I don't think making more of it than it actually was like has been the case in the media, helps anyone at all...

Much has changed and improved since then. the one constant should be improvement. Why aren't the Vermont Yankee pipes better protected, double hulled, with a triggered alarm? Just a thought. It seems to be a wide spread issue. Again, is the design short a minimum of one safety level? Bringing the lines above ground seems an improvement, yet why not further protect against a known vulnerability, especially in future construction.

I agree 100% with improvement, I just don't agree with the liberal way of legislating until the legislation makes enforcement impossible....

Only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% consider themselves as "conservative".

It's conservatives who push such nonsense as "voluntary compliance" from OSHA and the EPA. Can you imagine if speed limits were all "voluntary compliance"? Would you put your family in a car build with "voluntary compliance" safety regulations? That's what Republicans want. Hint - it's "good" for business.

 

[Intense]

Much has changed and improved since then. the one constant should be improvement. Why aren't the Vermont Yankee pipes better protected, double hulled, with a triggered alarm? Just a thought. It seems to be a wide spread issue. Again, is the design short a minimum of one safety level? Bringing the lines above ground seems an improvement, yet why not further protect against a known vulnerability, especially in future construction.

I agree 100% with improvement, I just don't agree with the liberal way of legislating until the legislation makes enforcement impossible....

Only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% consider themselves as "conservative".

It's conservatives who push such nonsense as "voluntary compliance" from OSHA and the EPA. Can you imagine if speed limits were all "voluntary compliance"? Would you put your family in a car build with "voluntary compliance" safety regulations? That's what Republicans want. Hint - it's "good" for business.

That can be looked at as an admission of guilt. that's part of the problem, too much pie in the sky theory, not enough practical experience. Big of you to admit that.

 

[gslack]

Much has changed and improved since then. the one constant should be improvement. Why aren't the Vermont Yankee pipes better protected, double hulled, with a triggered alarm? Just a thought. It seems to be a wide spread issue. Again, is the design short a minimum of one safety level? Bringing the lines above ground seems an improvement, yet why not further protect against a known vulnerability, especially in future construction.

I agree 100% with improvement, I just don't agree with the liberal way of legislating until the legislation makes enforcement impossible....

Only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% consider themselves as "conservative".

It's conservatives who push such nonsense as "voluntary compliance" from OSHA and the EPA. Can you imagine if speed limits were all "voluntary compliance"? Would you put your family in a car build with "voluntary compliance" safety regulations? That's what Republicans want. Hint - it's "good" for business.

Rdean that is not at all what I was saying... And frankly thats what really pisses me off when there is a discussion like this.. There is always one polarized thinker who has to take a careful and realistic view of regulation and try to turn it into some kind of claim about no regulation or very little...

if you cannot respond to what I say and not what you want it to mean or what your party goggles twist it to look like, than you aren't really being honest and certainly not wanting logical and reasonable discourse...

 

[editec]

Meanwhile, plant officials acknowledged they had misled state regulators and lawmakers regarding whether the plant had underground pipes that carried radioactive substances. The radioactive tritium was found in an underground pipe.

Where's the rope?

 

[rdean]

I agree 100% with improvement, I just don't agree with the liberal way of legislating until the legislation makes enforcement impossible....[/QUOTE]

Only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% consider themselves as "conservative".

It's conservatives who push such nonsense as "voluntary compliance" from OSHA and the EPA. Can you imagine if speed limits were all "voluntary compliance"? Would you put your family in a car build with "voluntary compliance" safety regulations? That's what Republicans want. Hint - it's "good" for business.

Rdean that is not at all what I was saying... And frankly thats what really pisses me off when there is a discussion like this.. There is always one polarized thinker who has to take a careful and realistic view of regulation and try to turn it into some kind of claim about no regulation or very little...

if you cannot respond to what I say and not what you want it to mean or what your party goggles twist it to look like, than you aren't really being honest and certainly not wanting logical and reasonable discourse...

You were saying?

 

[gslack]

Rdean that is not at all what I was saying... And frankly thats what really pisses me off when there is a discussion like this.. There is always one polarized thinker who has to take a careful and realistic view of regulation and try to turn it into some kind of claim about no regulation or very little...

if you cannot respond to what I say and not what you want it to mean or what your party goggles twist it to look like, than you aren't really being honest and certainly not wanting logical and reasonable discourse...

You were saying?

Read it then ....

You cited it so read it... It says "I just don't agree with the liberal way of legislating until the legislation makes enforcement impossible...."

pretty clear to me what i said and what you claimed are not the same at all... you made the claim I am for no regulation or self regulation, and that was not what I said at all...

Now you can make a couple words red all you want but it will not change what I said or its meaning....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull, it is not me you have to convince. It is the American Public. The Nuclear Industry created this situation, not I. Here in the Pacific Northwest, WHOOPS is still a bitter taste in the mouth.

You want nuclear? Address the failings of the Nuclear Industry. Too many instance like the one Intense has pointed out. Then you add BP into the mix, and you can see how much the Public as reason to trust the large corperations involved in these kinds of projects.

Windmills, solar, and geothermal do not have the potential for catastrophic failure that poisons hundreds to thousands of square miles of our nation.

No windmills are only viable with ever increasing subsidies. And how much of France has been "poisoned" by their nuke powered grid?

And if you want to talk about fuck ups and unbelievable inefficiency, look at the government with the same critical eye as you do private cops.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nuclear energy is one of the few areas where the French run circle around us.

Yeah, I wonder what they do with their waste though... Never hear about it at least i don't...

The French recycle their nuclear waste. Very little is left to store.

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull, it is not me you have to convince. It is the American Public. The Nuclear Industry created this situation, not I. Here in the Pacific Northwest, WHOOPS is still a bitter taste in the mouth.

You want nuclear? Address the failings of the Nuclear Industry. Too many instance like the one Intense has pointed out. Then you add BP into the mix, and you can see how much the Public as reason to trust the large corperations involved in these kinds of projects.

Windmills, solar, and geothermal do not have the potential for catastrophic failure that poisons hundreds to thousands of square miles of our nation.

Wind and solar also cannot be turned on and off when the whim strikes you. Geothermal can but is limited to specifc sites.

The difficulty is explaining nuclear power is that most people are really not familiar with the concept of risk and risk mitigation. I agree that the nuclear industry could handle this stuff better, but when your oppositon has no qualms with blowing any incident out of proportion you tend to get a wee bit defensive.

The article you posted just says "radioactive." It gives no mention of dose, isotopes (well it did say tritium), or even when it happened. I remember giving a tour of the sub critical reactor my school had onsite during a visit day for high schoolers. People walked into the room and once you said "nuclear reactor" you saw people get squirrely. Trying to explain that they were sub critical and that they could barely power a lightbulb had an effect on only some. Just saying "nuclear" sent people to the exit.

The new small reactors being designed now are self limiting and a meltdown is impossible. In fact some of them will only need to be refueled every 20 or thirty years. People have not been told that nuclear energy can be just as safe as hydro electric power.

Our nuclear technology is decades old because we have turned an ignorant eye to the possibilities in favor of huge government subsidies for wind farms that will clog our landscape and that will on average produce one third of their rated output.

Tell me would you spend millions of your own money to build a power plant that can't run at full capacity?

Would you pay that kind of money for anything knowing that 70% of the cost is virtually wasted? It would be like hiring 1000 people and only having 300 of them do any work.

But then again that's efficient by government standards.

nuclear energy is our best hope for emission free power. Period.

 

[editec]

Nuclear power?

Nothing can go worng!

Trust us....with your lives.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nuclear power?

Nothing can go worng!

Trust us....with your lives.

Why don't you just move into a cave and burn cow shit for heat then?

 

[Old Rocks]

Skull, nuclear has proven itself, through the shortcuts taken by those in the industry, to be very expensive, and dangerous. Until the people within the industry take the steps to prevent problems such as we see at the Vermont facility, it will remain a pariah.

Alternative energy, wind, solar, thermal solar, and geo-thermal are all on a very rapid decrease in costs per kw. All have minimal impact on the environment, and no danger of catastrophic failure. Even better, all spread the profits out. Solar even to the individual home owner.

What we lack to take advantage of the new technology is distributed grid.

 

[Intense]

Nuclear energy is one of the few areas where the French run circle around us.

Yeah, I wonder what they do with their waste though... Never hear about it at least i don't...

The French recycle their nuclear waste. Very little is left to store.

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com

This does make total sense and solves many more problems than it creates. The issue here is integrity. You have misaddressed containment issues.

 

[Intense]

Skull, it is not me you have to convince. It is the American Public. The Nuclear Industry created this situation, not I. Here in the Pacific Northwest, WHOOPS is still a bitter taste in the mouth.

You want nuclear? Address the failings of the Nuclear Industry. Too many instance like the one Intense has pointed out. Then you add BP into the mix, and you can see how much the Public as reason to trust the large corperations involved in these kinds of projects.

Windmills, solar, and geothermal do not have the potential for catastrophic failure that poisons hundreds to thousands of square miles of our nation.

Wind and solar also cannot be turned on and off when the whim strikes you. Geothermal can but is limited to specifc sites.

The difficulty is explaining nuclear power is that most people are really not familiar with the concept of risk and risk mitigation. I agree that the nuclear industry could handle this stuff better, but when your oppositon has no qualms with blowing any incident out of proportion you tend to get a wee bit defensive.

The article you posted just says "radioactive." It gives no mention of dose, isotopes (well it did say tritium), or even when it happened. I remember giving a tour of the sub critical reactor my school had onsite during a visit day for high schoolers. People walked into the room and once you said "nuclear reactor" you saw people get squirrely. Trying to explain that they were sub critical and that they could barely power a lightbulb had an effect on only some. Just saying "nuclear" sent people to the exit.

The new small reactors being designed now are self limiting and a meltdown is impossible. In fact some of them will only need to be refueled every 20 or thirty years. People have not been told that nuclear energy can be just as safe as hydro electric power.

Our nuclear technology is decades old because we have turned an ignorant eye to the possibilities in favor of huge government subsidies for wind farms that will clog our landscape and that will on average produce one third of their rated output.

Tell me would you spend millions of your own money to build a power plant that can't run at full capacity?

Would you pay that kind of money for anything knowing that 70% of the cost is virtually wasted? It would be like hiring 1000 people and only having 300 of them do any work.

But then again that's efficient by government standards.

nuclear energy is our best hope for emission free power. Period.

There was a time I would have disagreed with you, I was pretty active against Nuclear Power. That has changed. I'm a strong advocate for Hydro, always have been. We do need Nuclear Power. At it's best, there is no equal. Best foot forward, no room for second standard anything. That includes reprocessing. They also need to be positioned more where evacuation is actually doable.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull, nuclear has proven itself, through the shortcuts taken by those in the industry, to be very expensive, and dangerous. Until the people within the industry take the steps to prevent problems such as we see at the Vermont facility, it will remain a pariah.

Alternative energy, wind, solar, thermal solar, and geo-thermal are all on a very rapid decrease in costs per kw. All have minimal impact on the environment, and no danger of catastrophic failure. Even better, all spread the profits out. Solar even to the individual home owner.

What we lack to take advantage of the new technology is distributed grid.

You call windmills and solar farms cluttering up untold acres of our land as minimal impact?

 

[Intense]

Skull, nuclear has proven itself, through the shortcuts taken by those in the industry, to be very expensive, and dangerous. Until the people within the industry take the steps to prevent problems such as we see at the Vermont facility, it will remain a pariah.

Alternative energy, wind, solar, thermal solar, and geo-thermal are all on a very rapid decrease in costs per kw. All have minimal impact on the environment, and no danger of catastrophic failure. Even better, all spread the profits out. Solar even to the individual home owner.

What we lack to take advantage of the new technology is distributed grid.

You call windmills and solar farms cluttering up untold acres of our land as minimal impact?

There is a point when it is functional, as a back up or reserve.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull, nuclear has proven itself, through the shortcuts taken by those in the industry, to be very expensive, and dangerous. Until the people within the industry take the steps to prevent problems such as we see at the Vermont facility, it will remain a pariah.

Alternative energy, wind, solar, thermal solar, and geo-thermal are all on a very rapid decrease in costs per kw. All have minimal impact on the environment, and no danger of catastrophic failure. Even better, all spread the profits out. Solar even to the individual home owner.

What we lack to take advantage of the new technology is distributed grid.

You call windmills and solar farms cluttering up untold acres of our land as minimal impact?

There is a point when it is functional, as a back up or reserve.

Old Rock isn't talking about using wind as a back up or a reserve. he is advocating a grid that relies on wind and solar period.

Wind power is not even viable without huge government subsidies.

I do believe that solar can be a component of a new grid but i disagree with the so called solar farm concept. There is no need to uglify our natural places with acres of solar panels. And as for wind farms don't forget that to promise their nominal output that 3 times as many windmills will need to be built just to run at capacity therefore three times as much land is uglified.

The solar solution is easy. The government can give tax credits to utility companies that put solar panels on the roofs of every building in their service area. The utility in turn can give a discount to every property owner who allows solar panels to be installed.

There is no need for some multi trillion dollar government project with its multiple layers of bureaucracy red tape and corruption. Get the fucking government out of the way and we'll get more done at a lower cost to everyone.

The government, as usual, is doing this ass backwards. By raising our taxes via Cap and Trade and causing utility prices to "skyrocket" the idiots in Washington will do nothing but strap the people and stifle businesses even more than they are now. All except for the so called green businesses that will need our tax dollars to survive that is.