iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Is Safe, NRC And Ohio Operators Insist

First Posted: 01/05/12 03:04 PM ET Updated: 01/05/12 04:27 PM ET

PORT CLINTON, Ohio (AP) — Federal regulators along with the operators of nuclear plant in Ohio want to assure critics that it's safe to run a reactor despite the discovery of cracks in its concrete shell.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans to reveal more details about its investigation at the plant near Toledo and explain why it allowed it to reopen last month.

The Davis-Besse nuclear plant began producing electricity in early December, less than two months after the first cracks were found.

The plant along Lake Erie was shut down for maintenance in October when crews discovered a 30-foot hairline crack in the outer concrete wall that's designed to protect the reactor from anything that might hit it from outside, such as storm debris or an airplane.

More cracks were found soon after near the bottom of the 224-foot tall shield structure, leading to closer inspections that found cracks close to the top of the wall.

The commission signed off on restarting the plant after its owner, FirstEnergy Corp., assured it that the cracks don't pose a threat. Regulators said they've done their own checks and reviewed testing already completed by the plant operator.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat who has been a longtime opponent of the plant and its owner, criticized the NRC's decision, saying that it's still unknown what caused the cracks or whether it's a bigger problem.

The commission has given Akron-based FirstEnergy until the end of February to find out what caused the cracks.

At full power, the plant makes enough electricity for around 750,000 customers, primarily in Ohio. The company's electric system has 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Davis-Besse was shut down this fall to replace an 82-ton reactor head, a steel lid that sits atop the reactor vessel.

FirstEnergy said the new reactor head is made of better material than the former reactor lid that had cracks in its nozzles. The plant was shut down for four months in 2010 for repairs to those cracks that the NRC said were discovered before they could do damage.

The plant also was shut down from 2002 to 2004 because of an acid leak in a different reactor head.

Regulators fined FirstEnergy $5.45 million and the company agreed to $28 million in civil penalties following what the NRC said was the most extensive corrosion found at a U.S. nuclear reactor. The NRC said FirstEnergy misled the agency by providing incomplete and inaccurate information about the acid leak.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

PORT CLINTON, Ohio (AP) — Federal inspectors are convinced that a nuclear reactor along Lake Erie is safe to operate even though they said Thursday it is not clear why small cracks appeared in a con...
PORT CLINTON, Ohio (AP) — Federal inspectors are convinced that a nuclear reactor along Lake Erie is safe to operate even though they said Thursday it is not clear why small cracks appeared in a con...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 831
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
10:11 PM on 01/08/2012
And the pro-nuke trolls go-a-stroking each other as the world moves on. But not my thing so move on to a thread where there are straights.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Harley 2
12:01 AM on 01/09/2012
LOL, FF
photo
vmf211
Fighting against Liberalism every day
10:30 PM on 01/09/2012
To bad you don't know anything about nuclear power or radiation.
10:42 PM on 01/09/2012
you know what they say about opinions, stay away from my opinion. And no don't want to join your circle there, I have a girlfriend
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
04:51 PM on 01/08/2012
Why is it "always" either nuclear or solar? I believe it will be both. They should be the BEST, most efficient designs (before automation begins). Solar for install jobs (and EV battery refinement) and the closed cycle for the other larger fraction or power supplies...
Oh, I forgot, politics don't want a growing and prosperous world!
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
06:39 PM on 01/08/2012
The reason for the false dichotomy is that the fossil fuel companies wish to shift the debate to insure that their product is safe.

In reality, any serious look at the energy dilemma returns the answer: nuclear AND solar AND wind AND geothermal AND hydro AND wave etc.

These other technologies are not mature however, so if we take seriously the idea that we want to tackle CO2 emissions, we must build nuclear AND solar AND wind ...

You are right to focus on this fallacious argument put forward by the fossil fuels industry to protect their profits.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
06:42 PM on 01/08/2012
Sorry, correction, some of these technologies are mature, but are scale-limited in various ways.

Each tech has its costs, benefits, and associated risks. The answer is a comprehensive and balanced energy portfolio.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:04 PM on 01/09/2012
Because nukes come with trillion dollars world cancer causing disasters, million year cancer causing waste, and civilization ending proliferation.

Solar does not, and is cheaper to boot.

Add efficiency, offshore wind, waste bio char bio fuels and plus in commuter hybrids and you have a complete 24/7 solution forever.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
07:39 PM on 01/09/2012
Faved, already fanned!
You are right and the nuclear lovers hate it!
photo
vmf211
Fighting against Liberalism every day
10:33 PM on 01/09/2012
You better do some reserch my friend Solar is the most expensive to produce per Megawatt/hr produced than any other form of energy out there.
You are WRONG !
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
03:54 PM on 01/08/2012
Just decommission the old inefficient meltdowns waiting to happen...
In favor of LFTR and IFR (both are proven). Please, if you disagree, research before you criticize, (or be a nuclear engineer not bent on politics that can actually explain why I could be wrong).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
04:27 PM on 01/08/2012
Personally I like the LFTR and think it could provide plenty of safe, clean power for humanity to prosper. That being said I still believe LWR's are much safer, cleaner, and more environmentally friendly than any fossil plant, so after ALL the fossil plants are all shut down, and replaced with LFTRs then we can start on the oldest LWR's and replace them too... I work at the longest running PWR in the USA and I believe it's safer than the newest fossil plants.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
04:35 PM on 01/08/2012
Apologies... (Now I'm thinking of all those coal miners). We really do have to deal with XSCO2...
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
06:39 PM on 01/08/2012
Yes. That.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
04:33 PM on 01/08/2012
Here is a great video on LFTR technology
http://thoriumremix.com/2011/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
07:55 PM on 01/09/2012
Totally unproven in the real world
Unlike Solar!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
03:38 PM on 01/08/2012
All of the LWR's the world relies upon WILL eventually meltdown... unless there are no severe "grid interruptions". The only way is for timely decommissions!
But what about all that extra power?
Well the LWR can't do that anyways because they rely on just 0.7 percent of natural uranium AND they can only fission a small percent of that, infact an MIT study reveals that there is not enough for the LWR to even compete (on par with the little bit of oil left)!
Now this doesn't mean we can't power entire planetary civilizations, better yet, we can power HUNDREDS of 'em, just by using the meltdown proof closed cycle like LFTR and IFR.
photo
AndyB62
Immune to Romnesia & Romonomics
03:24 PM on 01/08/2012
It's not a question of IF a US nuclear reactor accident will occur, but WHEN it will occur. This plant has cracks appearing in containment structures repeatedly, yet the NRC isn't concerned. Nuclear energy is not safe in the US. Not because of faulty technology, but because of the politicization of the NRC and the massive amounts of money funneled through the nuclear energy lobyists.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
03:55 PM on 01/08/2012
Can an F5 tornado occur in California? Sure

What is the likelihood?

Here is the history going back a hundred years

http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/catorn.htm

The possible and the credible are two separate things
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
04:03 PM on 01/08/2012
Only LFTR and IFR atoms (in this case), please!
The old and inefficient LWR's are inherently unsafe, any scientist (not bent on politics) will tell you.
photo
AndyB62
Immune to Romnesia & Romonomics
04:08 PM on 01/08/2012
I was talking about Diablo Canyon in CA. Nice try to minimize actual threat assessment.
05:28 PM on 01/08/2012
You guys log on to some Big Oil propaganda site then come up with these ridiculous statements. The worst accident in history in a nuke power plant caused by criminal activities in an ancient 50's designed unit had no adverse effects outside the plant itself, Nobody ever killed in a nuke power accident. The safest form of energy there is. Did'ya knock yer head on a doorframe or something.

There is no US nuke industry of any size and none with enough money to buy much in the way of lobbyists. Your pals at Big Oil on the other hand which hates and fears nuclear practically owns all elected officials.
photo
AndyB62
Immune to Romnesia & Romonomics
08:35 PM on 01/08/2012
Chernobal ring any bells for you?
11:00 AM on 01/08/2012
The thing is that it used to be common knowledge that nuke plants themselves become radioactive over time. Every desk, doorknob, urinal, light fixture, etc. becomes radioactive waste over time and has to be disposed of as such in the decommissioning. The professional pro-nukers have so dominated the debate over nukes for so long that people have lost sight of this and the NRC is relicensing these plants to run for 60, 80 and there's even talk of 100 years. They are insane.

I'm also disappointed that the Huffington Post didn't get any comments from anti-nuke people. There were plenty of them there, Kevin Kamps from Beyond Nuclear, Michael Keegan from Don't Waste Michigan, Green Party members, Sierrans were all there, but Huffington only quotes NRC and First Energy. Sad.
03:25 PM on 01/08/2012
None of your anti nuker's have peer reviewed science creds and are published in reputable journal. They are the sources of your Big Oil sponsored junk science nonsense on radioactive doorknobs.

All prominent pro nukes have such creds and are reputably published
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
04:01 PM on 01/08/2012
LWR's are inherently unsafe. They are not efficient and require more expense for engineered safety. As they age, they don't just passively shut down like LFTR and IFR. Instead, they incure even more additional expense, unless decommissioned in time!
The LFTR's and IFR's might need more frequent parts replacements but that shall in no way add up to the risks involved with LWR's...
10:58 PM on 01/08/2012
Joseph Mangano has published peer reviewed studies demonstrating that thyroid cancer rates double in the immediate vicinity of nuke plants. Not only did they double when the nukes were turned on, but when the nukes were shut down for extended periods (like when Davis-Besse nearly exploded) the thyroid cancer rates dropped. Then they go up again when the nukes start up again.

There was also a peer reviewed study that was just published showing that approximately 15,000 Americans, mostly infants, died while the Fukushima fall out cloud drifted over the United States. Our death rate spiked by about 4%. Your infatuation with radiation is killing people now and will continue killing our descendants for tens of thousands of years to come. You should be ashamed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
03:57 PM on 01/08/2012
Having been at a nuclear plant, even an older one, your statement is patently false.

"Professional pro nukers" you mean like professional air line pilots? Professional surgeons?

Dare I say that education, training, experience counts for something vice a person shouting against the rain?
05:30 PM on 01/08/2012
These days folks think they are experts at everything having watched a Teevee show on the subject.
06:34 PM on 01/08/2012
You are so right. After all, we all know that air line pilots and surgeons respond to every objection they see to air travel and sugical procedures on huffpo
10:58 AM on 01/08/2012
I was at the public meeting NRC and First Energy had on the cracks. Up until the meeting, First Energy claimed that cracks were only in "decorative" parts of the containment building. At the meeting they admitted cracks went all through the structural parts of the building, too. Dennis Kucinich criticized their secrecy. Unfortunately, Marcy Kaptur was singing the praises of nukes--she's done a complete flip flop from ten years ago when she said Davis-Besse should be shut down. Another good congress person corrupted by corporate donations, sigh...

Anyway, First Energy and the NRC had no explanation for the cause of the cracking, so I suggested one. Stray neutrons from the core get past all the shielding, and hit the metal rebar inside the concrete constantly. Over time, the rebar itself becomes radioactive from the neutron bombardment. The radiation from the metal rebar breaks the chemical bonds in the concrete surrounding it. This is why the cracks follow the rebar all the way around the reactor.

Support for this theory comes from what happens to people exposed to lethal doses of radiation. One of the first symptoms is sores in the mouth caused by the victim's metal fillings becoming radioactive. The radiation from the fillings destroys the surrounding tissues exactly the same way concrete around the rebar at Davis-Besse and probably EVERY OTHER nuke plant in the country is being destroyed.

When the moderator asked the FE and NRC people to comment, they were dumbfounded.
03:26 PM on 01/08/2012
I'll bet they were dumbfounded never having heard anything so wacky.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
07:51 PM on 01/09/2012
SURE, like you even know what you are talking about!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
09:32 PM on 01/08/2012
There is no basis for that theory, we cut holes in our containment dome in 1996 the rebar which was removed was tested. it was not radioactive at all, after over 25 years of operation. I have a piece used as a paperweight. The containment dome is not in a strong neutron flux. I have been in containment at power the neutron dose isn't very high at the containment walls. The rebar is in 3 ft of concrete on the other side of the steel liner.
11:14 PM on 01/08/2012
I asked the First Energy representative if the rebar had been tested for radioactivity. He refused to answer. What plant did you work at? I find it suspicious that your rebar was not radioactive "at all." Is it magic? Everything has some radioactivity. Do you mean that the amount of radiation it was giving off wasn't high enough above background levels for you to worry about? Quite a handy coincidence that you have some rebar that you use as a paperweight. Really proves your point nicely. Do you use spent fuel rods as decorative fence posts around your home?

Don't forget that Davis-Besse's reactor head had holes eaten through it by about a decade of boric acid leaks. By the end, there was only 3/16ths of an inch of stainless steel between the inner core and the containment dome. The outer steel liner and the inner concrete were completely dissolved. Bet there was a lot of neutron flux there, huh?
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:35 PM on 01/11/2012
Maybe not the containment dome, but the reactor head gets high enough radiation dose to weaken. http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/2906947.pdf
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
08:04 PM on 01/07/2012
They all have cracks. They all leak. It is impossible that they don't.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
08:17 PM on 01/07/2012
Surely you are talking about the professors cerebellum
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
10:05 AM on 01/08/2012
No, I am sure he is talking about the 75 percent of U.S. reactors that are leaking tritium and all of the reactors in the U.S. that have planned and unplanned radiation releases.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
08:18 PM on 01/07/2012
Certain rituals attract cranks, kooks, paranoid, other trlls -
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
10:06 AM on 01/08/2012
Certain rituals of deception by trained engineers, such as yourself, represent the lowest common denominator in the debate.
photo
vmf211
Fighting against Liberalism every day
11:11 PM on 01/09/2012
I see you are talking about these anti nukers.
jbad
Eeny,meeny,miney Moe, It's always Moe
06:25 PM on 01/07/2012
Didn't they have a rare earthquake around Youngstown, Oh about 1-2 weeks ago yjay yjey believe was caused by fraking ? And they are going to start this thing up in 1-2 months ? Make the operators, engineers and CEO big shots move their families into homes that they buy close to the reactors just to prove its safe. Put up or shut up !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
07:09 PM on 01/07/2012
They usually live close to the plant. I did when I worked at one.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBFpm9UHX-0
10:25 AM on 01/08/2012
I havea perfectly valid response to this, but the huffington post believes in censorship
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
03:59 PM on 01/08/2012
I live in a home I bought within 10 miles of the plant where I work. My site VP lives within 1 mile of the plant.
photo
asiclilpup
Tax the rich Feed the Poor.
03:59 PM on 01/07/2012
I'm pretty sure that The Grand Canyon started out as a little crack.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeMustDoBetter09
04:13 PM on 01/07/2012
Yep. I think your right.
FF
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
04:52 PM on 01/07/2012
It started out as a mountain range, actually.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
05:55 PM on 01/07/2012
Ha Ha
Got a link for that?

It started out as molten magma, if you want to be specific;
... It is all in how you cool out!
outnow
Ban the bomb
07:10 PM on 01/07/2012
Google: "geology of the Grand Canyon."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeMustDoBetter09
02:20 PM on 01/07/2012
Nirek long time hufffff poster:

Ask them The Big Three Dirty Questions!­:
... How much it will cost to decommissi­on the plant?
... Who will pay for it"
... Where will they ship the Nuclear waste?

And the only thing that I regret
Is the damage that we've done
We've built a world of pain and misery
In the shadow of a Nuclear Sun
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bild-756369-199302.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
02:32 PM on 01/07/2012
Decommissioning is already paid for, unlike coal plants, wind farms,or solar fields, nuclear power plants pay for decommissioning upfront. The US federal government has collected billions of dollars from utilities and are required by law to take care of the once used nuclear fuel.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
02:51 PM on 01/07/2012
Decomm. is still a cost that needs to added to the cost of Nuclear...

And all the rate payers had to foot that bill!
05:12 PM on 01/07/2012
"The US federal government has collected billions of dollars from utilities and are required by law to take care of the once used nuclear fuel."

WOW, that's so very reassuring. A big concern alleviated.

....Oh, um one thing - Can you please enlighten us all as to for how long the utilities and are required by law to take care of the once used nuclear fuel by the federal government?

Is it:

A. 5 years
B. 50 years
C. 500 years
D. 5000 years
E. 50,000 years

...because a percentage of the waste will still be here, radioactive, poisonous and mutagenic after ALL of these time frames. So you can see that this is a pretty important question
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
04:53 PM on 01/07/2012
You know, you guys really need some better poets.

ShamsT might be able to help you with that unless I miss my guess.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
02:19 PM on 01/07/2012
The title says it all "Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Is Safe, NRC And Ohio Operators Insist" The people we pay to ensure nuclear power plants are safe says emphatically that the plant is safe. I have interfaced with NRC inspectors, in my experience they have all been intelligent, serious professionals with integrity, if they say it's safe I believe them. I have seen no reason not to believe them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeMustDoBetter09
02:21 PM on 01/07/2012
Operators "insisting" tells me something is probably entirely diff.
NOT FAVED
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
04:53 PM on 01/07/2012
'NOT FAVED'

I laughed. Petulant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
08:55 PM on 01/07/2012
insist - to be emphatic, firm, or resolute on some matter

Sounds like all are in agreement here. FAA cleared SW Air to fly and both government and airline insist planes are safe.

No difference
05:18 PM on 01/07/2012
And I'm certain the people of Japan felt the same way about their nuclear professionals...

...Just before the deer in the headlights act in March of 2011 and continuing on to the present
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
05:37 PM on 01/07/2012
A little context for you:

1) Tohoku earthquake of 2011 "was the most powerful known earthquake ever to have hit Japan, and one of the five most powerful earthquakes in the world since modern record-keeping began in 1900."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami

2) After this event, the IAEA reported, and I quote:

"To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation
exposure from the nuclear accident."

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/missionsummary010611.pdf

To weather one of the worst calamities ever recorded while still killing no one is an excellent proof of concept.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
07:12 PM on 01/07/2012
Didnt matter. The 50 ft tsunami that killed 20,000+ wasnt stopping.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
12:59 PM on 01/07/2012
"The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power"

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/nuclear_power_report.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
01:05 PM on 01/07/2012
Faved, already fanned!
snip
Yet nuclear power’s own myriad limitations will constrain its growth, especially in the near term. These include:

Prohibitively high, and escalating, capital costs ƒ
Production bottlenecks in key components needed to build plants ƒ
Very long construction times ƒ
Concerns about uranium supplies and importation issues ƒ
Unresolved problems with the availability and security of waste storage ƒ
Large-scale water use amid shortages ƒ
High electricity prices from new plants ƒ
Nuclear power is therefore unlikely to play a dominant—greater than 10 percent—role in the national or global effort to prevent the global temperatures from rising by more than 2°C above preindustrial levels.
photo
asiclilpup
Tax the rich Feed the Poor.
04:02 PM on 01/07/2012
Hello CaptD, keep those nuke people honest. Keep fighting the good fight and take care.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
07:13 PM on 01/07/2012
Self limiting is a unique feature of Gen IV reactor concepts. IFR was one. Self limiting power rise due to negative feedback.

Your report is flawed. Go hunt for grub worms.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
12:56 PM on 01/07/2012
Bad News Is Good News: New Nuclear costs headed toward 25-30 cents per Kwh.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/nuclear_power.html

Good News Is Good News: Energy Efficiency Costs Hold Steady At 2.5 cents per Kwh.

http://www.aceee.org/press/2009/09/energy-efficiency-holds-steady-25-cents-kilowatt-hour-ev

Consequently, for the nuclear pundits here, energy efficiency pays you immediately and keeps on paying you, while nuclear costs you forever. Have you calculated your ROI on energy efficiency versus nuclear power, which only has an ROI for the utility. Yet, never a day passes here when the nuclear pundits rise up with their disinformation campaigns who never openly discuss the benefits of energy efficiency, how much energy is being wasted in the U.S and how cheap an investment in energy efficiency can be for the average business or residential utility customer.

Why would they avoid this topic like the plague? Because it is a demand reducing solution that impedes the need for expensive new nuclear. If they do have the temerity to mention it, they always do it by dismissing it and only in response to the topic being raised. Nuclear talking point s require not mention any alternative solution that you cannot win the argument. They can't win it and they know it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
01:01 PM on 01/07/2012
N☢ to the high cost and Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster RISK of Nuclear
and
♥ to honestly safe and clean Solar
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
07:30 PM on 01/07/2012
whatever that means. There is nothing like that going on right now on the planet.
03:44 PM on 01/08/2012
Actually here is the real cost of real nukes not BS from some circularly quoted greenie site.

AECL has completed 8 new Candu reactor installati?ons over the last twenty years all on time in 4 years and on budget at $2B/Gw or less than 3 cents a kwh when the 1.5 cent a kwh fuel and O&M cost is included.The last one was completed in 2007 in Europe.

Google "cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default."

So the tiny amount of energy gains from low hanging fruit on efficiency is about the same cost as nukes. Hmm.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
04:24 PM on 01/08/2012
Tiny amount of low low hanging fruit on energy efficiency.

I presume you are an engineer and not a very good one at that when you consider that a 38 percent thermally efficient nuclear power plant sends electricty down transmission lines that lose another 9 percent of the energy due to resistance to light an incandescent light bulb that uses 5 percent of the energy to produce light and 95 percent to produce heat is a tiny amount when there are 7,600,000,000 inefficient lights in the U.S.. The same energy efficiency dead end occurs with every non-energy star appliance, every inefficient HVAC system and every vampire energy robbing device, which can all be replaced more cheaply than building a new power genrating facility.

We are not building Candu reactors in the U.S., but more importantly, you conveniently left out all of nuclear fuel cycle costs subsidized by the Candian government plus decommissioning costs and waste disposal. Like I said, you are not a very good engineer who likely forgot to take thermo dynamics.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Harley 2
12:33 AM on 01/09/2012
Solar is now 2.9cent per kWH, no joke. And there is no evacuation zone, and after 35 years you can recycle the panels.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
12:34 PM on 01/07/2012
Why does what the Operators of BD "think" mean anything at all, considering that Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!

The japanese thought that they also had everything under control before 3/11 and look where they are now!

It is time to re-examine the LOGIC behind these reactors and determine if their continued use is justified as compared to shutting them down (like Germany did) and replace them with non-nuclear Solar ASAP.

What is it worth N☢T to have a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster in the USA and have to deal with trying to clean it up for 40 to 100 years like the Japanese are now stuck doing? This should be a topic of one of the upcoming Presidential Debates before Nature makes the decision for US!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nick Hatch
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
12:54 PM on 01/07/2012
Geez, according you there's an earthquake/tsunami/hurricane expected every day.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
12:57 PM on 01/07/2012
The truth is what it is...

Gee, According to Nature, everyday is just like another day to Nature...

It is like playing russian roulette every single day!

That is why land based nuclear reactors are so vulnerable!
03:47 PM on 01/08/2012
Actually the only reactors damaged by the worst ever disaster in a nuke power plant were the result of criminal malfeasance (charges pending) on an ancient 50's designed reactor. There was no damage outside of the reactor itself. Sounds like a good bet.