Nuke power plant safety shuffle.

[taichiliberal]

The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.

Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.

Actions have consequences.

No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences. But it's not impossible: YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:


Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?

Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN


This report presents the work of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center.

Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs

This is a discussion board, people will have opinions. if you can't handle that go to a jeopardy website, they deal in facts only.

Spare me your BS, Marty. YOU tried to pass off your opinion, supposition and conjecture as FACT. And when FACTUALLY proven wrong, you don't have the maturity or the cojones just to cop to that. Grow up.

 

[taichiliberal]

The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.

Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.

Actions have consequences.

No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences. But it's not impossible: YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:


Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?

Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN


This report presents the work of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center.

Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs

My concern with the replacement report is that it concentrates too much on using demand reduction to meet the missing 2,000 MW. It is wishful thinking to assume you can change the power consumption of people by that much. Also the report is from 2006, so the energy use estimates are probably off.

As one example, I found that in thier PV home installations they basically ignore the maintenance needed to keep the cells working at peak efficency. In addition the problem with home based PV's vs. a centralized plant is that people in homes typically use thier highest power items (air conditoners) at night, when they would have to be pulling off the grid, therefore that power use must be included in the peak loading for the region.

Your ignoring the FACT that since 2006 you have a more viable alternative energy industry that can be put use, as well as improved energy saving devices, more ergonomically friendly home improvements, etc. Power consumption can change....people just have to have the will to do it.

 

[taichiliberal]

The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant. There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis. It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life. I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.

That's your story....which unfortunately doesn't change a god damned thing about the information I presented.

 

[IndependntLogic]

In my 18 years, I never saw anybody "cut corners", I never saw sub-standard equipment being used, and I never saw an electric utility try to "get one over" on the NRC or INPO. Period.

One fact you have not considered is that when an electric utility company commits BILLIONS of dollars to a nuclear power plant facility, they KNOW they can't cut corners or piss off the NRC or INPO in any way, or their nuke power plant facility becomes a big white elephant, and they lose BILLIONS of dollars, via monetary fines and lost revenue, not to mention a whole bunch of pissed off stockholders.

As for security, I already addressed this concern that you have. One of the design requirements for a U.S. nuclear power plant containment building is the ability to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 747.
I also mentioned all of the physical barriers, and the extreme difficulty a terrorist group would have in not only LOCATING critical plant systems and the main control room, but the extreme difficulty in having the ability to know what to do to cause some sort of catastrophic failure that would cause a core meltdown.

There are several UNDERGROUND levels in a nuclear power plant, and they are underground for a reason.

Actually, many of them can't withstand a direct hit from a commercial airliner the size of an F-111 or bigger - including San Onofre (research). Congress changed that requirement and declared it "unreasonable". Keep in mind, when these plants were designed and built, NO ONE in the USA was thinking about terrorism.
So okay. I certainly don't fault the engineers for something that, back in the 70's was as likely as say, a direct hit by a meteor. But times are different now and you don't strike me as one of these Liberals who thinks that terrorists are just going to "go away".
My job in the Navy was in intelligence. There are things I look at today, that give me pause for concern. You say security is good at every single nuke plant all the time, because you worked at one. I say I'm skeptical. I say that based on the results of the simulations over the last three years, there is reason for me to be skeptical. So while my understanding is that nuke is the safest form of power in our history, I still think there are things that could make it safer. So call me unreasonable! Oh well, I'll live. Hell, my wife and daughter have both called me unreasonable!

 

[martybegan]

No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences. But it's not impossible: YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:


Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?

Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN


This report presents the work of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center.

Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs

This is a discussion board, people will have opinions. if you can't handle that go to a jeopardy website, they deal in facts only.

Spare me your BS, Marty. YOU tried to pass off your opinion, supposition and conjecture as FACT. And when FACTUALLY proven wrong, you don't have the maturity or the cojones just to cop to that. Grow up.

I tried to do nothing of the sort, however you are so insecure about your own opinion that I guess you think no one else can have another opinion.

If I was considering my opinions as fact, i would have referenced said facts.

I suggest going to DU if you want to hear nothing but opinions that agree with yours. Here your opinions will be questioned.

 

[martybegan]

No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences. But it's not impossible: YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:


Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?

Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN


This report presents the work of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center.

Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs

My concern with the replacement report is that it concentrates too much on using demand reduction to meet the missing 2,000 MW. It is wishful thinking to assume you can change the power consumption of people by that much. Also the report is from 2006, so the energy use estimates are probably off.

As one example, I found that in thier PV home installations they basically ignore the maintenance needed to keep the cells working at peak efficency. In addition the problem with home based PV's vs. a centralized plant is that people in homes typically use thier highest power items (air conditoners) at night, when they would have to be pulling off the grid, therefore that power use must be included in the peak loading for the region.

Your ignoring the FACT that since 2006 you have a more viable alternative energy industry that can be put use, as well as improved energy saving devices, more ergonomically friendly home improvements, etc. Power consumption can change....people just have to have the will to do it.

Not ignoring it at all. And yes you may have more viable technologies since 2006, but are they cost effective enough to replace Indian point without a massive spike in electrical costs.

Your last statement "people just have to have the will to do it" is the most telling. When it comes to that concept, people of a left persuasion go to the old grab bag of laws to make people do stuff, or taxes to make people do stuff.

 

[martybegan]

1) the links work fine from my end....so either it's your computer, a temporary glitch or you didn't bother reading the material linked.

2) Repeating your bluff and BS to cover the FACT that YOU DIDN'T READ THE MATERIAL PRESENTED in ANY of my links does NOT jusitfy or prove any of your opinion, supposition or conjecture.

3) That Missouri dodged a bullet by the grace of God (waters receding at the opportune time regarding the nuke plant) DOES NOT ERASE all the information that YOU REFUSE TO READ. Again, your willful ignorance is no excuse or proof that your opinion is justified.

NRC Regulators Scrutinize Nebraska Nuclear Plant - WSJ.com

Link doesnt work. try relinking it.

I did, it must be your computer...but to be fair, I'll give it one more shot.
and i stand by my huffo = useless knee jerk reporting.

Translation: Marty REFUSES TO READ AND DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF A LINK.....thereby displayin a willful ignorance and stubborn bias on Marty's part.

Missouri didnt dodge a bullet, the safety protocols put in place worked.

The safety protocols worked because the water STOPPED RISING, genius. Had Mother Nature decided to go just a few feet more, Missouri would have been royally screwed. Remember Marty, that was UNPRECEDENTED overflow....the EXTRA ADDED sandbags were NOT part of the "protocol", as the river wasn't expected to rise THAT much. Stop being stubborn and deal with reality, Marty.

This was a 200 year flood. They did thier design to the 150 year flood. The fact that they were able to recognize that they needed extra protection shows both the regulators and the owners were.

1) Aware of the added risk
2) Took steps to mitigate the added risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/21flood.html

Also, as per the attached link, The plants are in NEBRASKA, near the Missouri RIVER. For someone so anal on the concept of facts vs. opinions, you should try to keep your FACTS straight.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Your alleged personal experience means NOTHING, as it DOES NOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD.

Once again, you provide supposition and conjecture to try and discredit the conclusions based on the valid FACTS I provided. The chronology of the post shows we've already done this dance, Truthseeker, and the truth is you just can't prove me wrong on these particular set of realities regarding the nuke power industry.

My "alleged" personal experience? You're a punk. Stay in your own lane and quit making a FOOL out of yourself. Go find a Sponge Bob Square Pants talk forum, where you will feel right at home.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

"Chili boy" doesn't realize that the Fort Calhoun Nuclear power plant is in NEBRASKA and it is the Missouri RIVER that overflowed it's banks. I worked at Fort Calhoun for awhile. There was never any danger to the public from the floodwaters. The plant was in cold shutdown, and the reactor vessel was sealed.

IndependntLogic, as I stated before I worked at SEVERAL nuclear power plants, not just "one", as you seem to believe. Worrying about nuclear power plants should be WAY DOWN on your list of things to be concerned about. The U.S. economy is going to hell and you and your family are going to suffer the consequences, along with everybody else.

Please don't characterize me as a "liberal" again. That is the highest of insults.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Your alleged personal experience means NOTHING, as it DOES NOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD.

Once again, you provide supposition and conjecture to try and discredit the conclusions based on the valid FACTS I provided. The chronology of the post shows we've already done this dance, Truthseeker, and the truth is you just can't prove me wrong on these particular set of realities regarding the nuke power industry.

My "alleged" personal experience? You're a punk. Stay in your own lane and quit making a FOOL out of yourself. Go find a Sponge Bob Square Pants talk forum, where you will feel right at home.

Hey hey HEY hey hey! Do NOT be dissin' SpongeBob!

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Your alleged personal experience means NOTHING, as it DOES NOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD.

Once again, you provide supposition and conjecture to try and discredit the conclusions based on the valid FACTS I provided. The chronology of the post shows we've already done this dance, Truthseeker, and the truth is you just can't prove me wrong on these particular set of realities regarding the nuke power industry.

My "alleged" personal experience? You're a punk. Stay in your own lane and quit making a FOOL out of yourself. Go find a Sponge Bob Square Pants talk forum, where you will feel right at home.

Hey hey HEY hey hey! Do NOT be dissin' SpongeBob!

You're absolutely correct, Indy. I apologize to all of the Sponge Bob Square Pants fans out there, especially my grandkids.

 

[taichiliberal]

Your alleged personal experience means NOTHING, as it DOES NOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD.

Once again, you provide supposition and conjecture to try and discredit the conclusions based on the valid FACTS I provided. The chronology of the post shows we've already done this dance, Truthseeker, and the truth is you just can't prove me wrong on these particular set of realities regarding the nuke power industry.

My "alleged" personal experience? You're a punk. Stay in your own lane and quit making a FOOL out of yourself. Go find a Sponge Bob Square Pants talk forum, where you will feel right at home.

You're not impressing or scaring anyone, you blowhard "truthseeker". To date YOU CANNOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD. And that's what is burning your company boy ass! Prattle on, my faux Truthseeker clown!

 

[taichiliberal]

"Chili boy" doesn't realize that the Fort Calhoun Nuclear power plant is in NEBRASKA and it is the Missouri RIVER that overflowed it's banks. I worked at Fort Calhoun for awhile. There was never any danger to the public from the floodwaters. The plant was in cold shutdown, and the reactor vessel was sealed.

IndependntLogic, as I stated before I worked at SEVERAL nuclear power plants, not just "one", as you seem to believe. Worrying about nuclear power plants should be WAY DOWN on your list of things to be concerned about. The U.S. economy is going to hell and you and your family are going to suffer the consequences, along with everybody else.

Please don't characterize me as a "liberal" again. That is the highest of insults.

And our BS truthseeker scores a petty point, as I mixed up the name of the river with the State in which the reactor resides.

However,

Our little nuke company toadie likes to leave out information, like the 8-foot-tall, water-filled temporary berm protecting the plant collapsed around dry buffer area. My point was that had Mother Nature decided to just throw a few more feet of water down the river, the containment pool and the reactor areas would have been at risk. It was a happy coincidence that the plant was in cold mode at the time of the uprecedented flooding.

They dodged a bullet.

And to be clear, I don't give a damn about Truthseeker's claimed experience.....that the "truthseeker" won't discuss or tries to dismiss the DOCUMENTED, FACT BASED EVIDENCE IN THE LINKS I PROVIDED speaks volumes of the mindset of those who would deem your life an acceptable risk to maintain their religious mantras that all aroundnuke power is as safe as flipping a light switch.

Dance the nuke power shuffle, my bogus truthseeker. Dance.

 

[taichiliberal]

Link doesnt work. try relinking it.

I did, it must be your computer...but to be fair, I'll give it one more shot.
and i stand by my huffo = useless knee jerk reporting.

Translation: Marty REFUSES TO READ AND DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF A LINK.....thereby displayin a willful ignorance and stubborn bias on Marty's part.

Missouri didnt dodge a bullet, the safety protocols put in place worked.

The safety protocols worked because the water STOPPED RISING, genius. Had Mother Nature decided to go just a few feet more, Missouri would have been royally screwed. Remember Marty, that was UNPRECEDENTED overflow....the EXTRA ADDED sandbags were NOT part of the "protocol", as the river wasn't expected to rise THAT much. Stop being stubborn and deal with reality, Marty.

This was a 200 year flood. They did thier design to the 150 year flood. The fact that they were able to recognize that they needed extra protection shows both the regulators and the owners were.

1) Aware of the added risk
2) Took steps to mitigate the added risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/21flood.html

Also, as per the attached link, The plants are in NEBRASKA, near the Missouri RIVER. For someone so anal on the concept of facts vs. opinions, you should try to keep your FACTS straight.

The POINT, Marty Boy, is that MOTHER NATURE DIDN'T GIVE A FLYING **** ABOUT THE INGENIOUS PLANNING! It was SHEER LUCK and an Act of GOD that the River didn't go a couple of more feet, as the initial "berm" broke down flooding the designated "dry area"....and that the storage pool wasn't affected, and that the plant was in cold shutdown mode.

And yes, I mixed up the river name with the state.....an error I readily admit.....an error that DOES NOT change the FACTS I refer to. An error that DOES NOT EXCUSE you're insipid stubborness regarding the previous DOCUMENTED FACTS that I previously linked.

Shuffle, Marty boy, shuffle.

 

[taichiliberal]

My concern with the replacement report is that it concentrates too much on using demand reduction to meet the missing 2,000 MW. It is wishful thinking to assume you can change the power consumption of people by that much. Also the report is from 2006, so the energy use estimates are probably off.

As one example, I found that in thier PV home installations they basically ignore the maintenance needed to keep the cells working at peak efficency. In addition the problem with home based PV's vs. a centralized plant is that people in homes typically use thier highest power items (air conditoners) at night, when they would have to be pulling off the grid, therefore that power use must be included in the peak loading for the region.

Your ignoring the FACT that since 2006 you have a more viable alternative energy industry that can be put use, as well as improved energy saving devices, more ergonomically friendly home improvements, etc. Power consumption can change....people just have to have the will to do it.

Not ignoring it at all. And yes you may have more viable technologies since 2006, but are they cost effective enough to replace Indian point without a massive spike in electrical costs.

As the link I provided shows, there would not be a "massive spike" as you nuke wonks just love to lie about. As it stands, the rates being paid by New Yorkers for nuke energy hasn't improved much since it went online when you factor in the costs of maintenance, refueling, etc., that are passed onto the public.
Your last statement "people just have to have the will to do it" is the most telling. When it comes to that concept, people of a left persuasion go to the old grab bag of laws to make people do stuff, or taxes to make people do stuff.

So using the power of the vote to get things changed via an representative gov't, using fact based investigation to reveal dishonesty within a system that could have detrimental effect on the population and using the LAW appropo to the forementioned is deemed as a negative on our part because you can't have your way and your nuke power beliefs don't come up to snuff?

Give me a ******* break, Marty boy. Go whine that BS to your like minded nuke power apologist cohorts.

 

[Intense]

The possibilites may be immersurable, but the chance of getting enough power out of the turbines to justify thier cost is the prime issue.

The same issue is there for tidal power, the delta Z is just too low to get enough power out of it to justify the expense of the turbines and the mounting of them. They are looking into places with large tidal bores, such as the Bay of Fundy to determine the peak you can get out of it.

The other issue with tidal power is that it is not continuous, and thus is not capable of providing base load.

Tidal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run of the river hydro has been done sucessfully, the main limiting issue is that you still have to find a suitable location, you can't just plop a turbine down in the river and get reliable power.

Just a thought.

Every Bourne power system offers a modern, competitive energy solution
that incorporates the continual development of Bourne’s advanced technologies
including hydrodynamics, advanced materials, power and generator technologies.
These include:

Tri-Phase Blade - advanced turbine blade design
Power Cartridge - micro generator system
Virtual Stabilizer – highly adaptable float design
SCM Mooring – advanced mooring system
Active-Controls - smart control system
Smart Grid - power transmission system

Energy for the Future

Interesting system, in particular I like how modular it is, as well as the methods for making the mechanical top units aethetically pleasing.

The one issue I see is acutally from the environmental side, as some people may call them "fish choppers." I know the rotational velocity is very low, but someone out there will scream "THINK OF THE MINNOWS" and delay the project for years.

One of the problems the green movement has is that it contains a small group of people who think you can get "something from nothing" That there is some magical power source out there that has zero downsides.

 

[Intense]

ALL U.S. nuclear power plants have had every upgrade imaginable since they were originally built in the 1960s and 1970s. As the technology has evolved, newer and better equipment has been installed.

This is the basic problem with people who know very little about nuclear power plants. Because of their lack of knowledge they assume the worst, and they express their opinions based on false assumptions and unfounded fears.

The NRC does a great job. In fact, they engage in extreme overkill, which at times is to the detriment of the various nuclear power plant operators. There are other private companies, sanctioned by the NRC, that do various "quality control" inspections of U.S. nuclear power plants.

Every utility company that I ever worked for spared NO EXPENSE when it came to the operation of their nuclear power plants. It's a serious business.

Pretty wide brush there Sparky. What the Plant Owners are concerned with is Licensing, not retrofitting. Operation =$$$ Down Time or added expense =!!! Nothing changes human nature. NRC has both it's up and down side. It does not walk on water, any more than you and I.

The plant owners are concerned with NRC compliance, first and foremost. They don't do what the NRC says they need to do, their nuke plants don't operate. PERIOD.

The NRC is not the only "watchdog" organization that oversees U.S. nuclear power plants. A private company, INPO (Institute for Nuclear Power Operations) does intensive inspections of every nuclear power plant in the United States every 18 months. These people don't mess around. They check everything from paperwork to plant equipment to the training programs to the competency of every employee that works at the plant.

I may be using a "wide brush" in your estimation, but the facts are the facts. As far as I know, only myself and one other person in this forum has set foot in a U.S. nuclear power plant. I'll put my 18 years of experience on the line, and I'll tell you the TRUTH. I don't have a horse in this "pro-nuke/anti-nuke" race.

Pay attention, and you and "taichiliberal" may actually LEARN something. You are an intelligent person, but you need to put away your 1970s and 80s anti-nuke bumper sticker slogans, and pay attention to what I am telling you.

I am an independent voice who knows the facts about U.S. nuclear power plants. I worked at nuke plants from coast-to-coast..........big ones, small ones, old ones, new ones, PWRs and BWRs, and I wore several different "hats" during those years (1980s -2000s). I am out of the business now because it was my time to retire. Anybody who works in a nuclear power plant has a finite "shelf life". Mine was 18 years. The pressure and stress and responsibility are immense. The work hours are detrimental to your health. It takes a dedicated, intelligent, and mentally and physically tough person to work at a nuclear power plant. It's certainly not the right career for most people.

I get it that your "agenda" is hydro power and wind power and sun power. Those are all nice "alternatives" to other forms of energy, but they will ALWAYS be nothing more than SUPPLEMENTAL energy sources that will be used in conjunction with coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, natural gas, etc.

The NRC is not the only "watchdog" organization that oversees U.S. nuclear power plants. A private company, INPO (Institute for Nuclear Power Operations) does intensive inspections of every nuclear power plant in the United States every 18 months. These people don't mess around. They check everything from paperwork to plant equipment to the training programs to the competency of every employee that works at the plant.

The NRC may not mess around, yet it is not perfect, nor can it foresee Everything that can happen, nor are they prepared to deal with what is beyond their comprehension. This year alone speaks volumes in preparedness and short comings. The Plants in Japan were GE Plants, weren't they? I'm glad for you that you survived 18 years with your health. That is a good thing. Still, anything out of lock step on your part, would have resulted in a ruined career and reputation. Don't kid yourself that it would have been otherwise. That goes for the NRC as well.

I may be using a "wide brush" in your estimation, but the facts are the facts. As far as I know, only myself and one other person in this forum has set foot in a U.S. nuclear power plant. I'll put my 18 years of experience on the line, and I'll tell you the TRUTH. I don't have a horse in this "pro-nuke/anti-nuke" race.

I had 4 arrests at Diablo Canyon in 1981, 1 at the front gate, 3 back country, well within the property boundaries. I had 2 arrests there in the Spring of 1984, 1 front gate, 1, I broke maximum security by climbing the Double fences. They were not all that impenetrable. My horse is in responsible Construction, safety and innovation, true accountability, and as the technology advances, the retrofitting that goes with it. It is strange to me that it takes Homeland Security to start monitoring and chronicling background radiation levels around the Country and not the NRC. Where were they on that all these years?

I do believe Nuclear Power has a place. My picture of the future is just different than yours. Glitches like the massive shut downs that have indeed caused major power outages in recent years, prove the importance of alternatives to Nuclear. What are our best options today? Gas Plants? Hydro? Future Mega Nuclear Plants need to be in removed, remote locations. That is my opinion.

 

[Intense]

"Chili boy" doesn't realize that the Fort Calhoun Nuclear power plant is in NEBRASKA and it is the Missouri RIVER that overflowed it's banks. I worked at Fort Calhoun for awhile. There was never any danger to the public from the floodwaters. The plant was in cold shutdown, and the reactor vessel was sealed.

IndependntLogic, as I stated before I worked at SEVERAL nuclear power plants, not just "one", as you seem to believe. Worrying about nuclear power plants should be WAY DOWN on your list of things to be concerned about. The U.S. economy is going to hell and you and your family are going to suffer the consequences, along with everybody else.

Please don't characterize me as a "liberal" again. That is the highest of insults.

Your plant needs a Levy and Drainage. There is no excuse if that scenario plays out again. Neither is it the only vulnerable Plant to flooding.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Your plant needs a Levy and Drainage. There is no excuse if that scenario plays out again. Neither is it the only vulnerable Plant to flooding.

Your quest for "perfection" is ridiculously unattainable, not only in nuclear power plants but in everything else that exists on this planet.

I hate to burst the "bubble" that you live in, but human error is a part of life, whether you like it or not.

 

[Intense]

Your plant needs a Levy and Drainage. There is no excuse if that scenario plays out again. Neither is it the only vulnerable Plant to flooding.

Your quest for "perfection" is ridiculously unattainable, not only in nuclear power plants but in everything else that exists on this planet.

I hate to burst the "bubble" that you live in, but human error is a part of life, whether you like it or not.

Which is why your ability is so limited. Your statement only proves your inability to adequatetly deal with what is dumped in your lap, rather than learn from mistake and adapt. Your interest seems more in finding excuses rather than solutions. Really big confidence builder there Sparky. Tell us again why we should entrust our well being and very lives to the likes of you??? Coulda-woulda-shoulda, do nothing defense, again and again. What do yor excuses improve again. Let's try to keep up with the line of cause and effect, learning from our mistakes and doing something about what we learn, rather than defending bullshit?