Despite the spin from the nuclear industry, the truth is that every nuclear reactor has the potential for a Chernobyl-scale release of radiation. Can we imagine what a catastrophe would look like at one of the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States? 1 in 3 Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant, and many plants threaten major cities. More than 17 million people live within 50 miles of New York's Indian Point, an old nuclear plant in an active seismic zone north of New York City. What would happen in New York City if an earthquake, terrorist attack, or accident led to a catastrophic release of radiation?
We don't have to live with this threat. Instead of allowing these old reactors to run decades beyond their licensed life spans, we should be shutting them down. Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars to subsidize the construction of new nuclear reactors, we should be investing in safe solutions like renewable energy and energy efficiency. These technologies are ready now - in the last four years, 30,000 megawatts of wind and solar power have been built in the United States, and 0 megawatts of new nuclear power. Our global energy scenario shows that we truly can meet our energy needs and phase out nuclear and coal power. Let's take the lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima to heart, and phase out nuclear power before the next catastrophe.
Follow Philip Radford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Phil_Radford
Don't know if you noticed but by 2030 there will be more nuclear power plants in fast developing nations than in industrial nations!
But the industrial nations have not set standards for disposal of nuclear waste because of the Greens objection to any disposable methods!
The Greens are willing to force us all over the edge to prove a point!
Being right is more important to you guys than the environment!
You are hating Americans. And it is posters like you, specifically, why I have become intensely anti-nuclear.
Perhaps one reason why there is no rush to close plants....?
And the pressure vessel does expire. The steel used in the construction of the pressure vessel and the plumbing attached to it suffers impact damage from the neutron radiation produced in the fuel rods. This radiation damage causes "embrittlement", the steel loses flexibility and temper. It gets brittle and cracking related to this is a problem, even before reactors reach their expiration date. Depending on the type of reactor, thickness of steel, etc... The engineers determined how long a plant could meet the designed risk (they are not safe) specifications in operation.
And once they get there, they are even riskier to operate. A sudden change in temperature, pressure, or a physical shock from an earthquake, etc... Can cause the pressure vessel and/or connected plumbing to fail.
Back to the sinking fund... Costs of operation were higher than expected, cost of decommissioning is higher than expected, and not all plant operators made the payments they were supposed to... If you asked them to show the money, most will come up far short of reality.
Excellent technical paper on reactor pressure vessel embrittlement. The NRC had an even better one but it was pulled from their site shortly after Fukushima exploded... . .
http://www.space.com/10906-space-storms-threat.html
http://www.solar-storm-warning.com/
Do you think the back-up generators are going to save you? Think again.
http://www.gregpalast.com/no-bs-info-on-japan-nuclearobama-invites-tokyo-electric-to-build-us-nukes-with-taxpayer-funds/
Politicians and industry are putting people's lives at risk because they don't care. They have a "stick your head in the sand" attitude, and time and time again they refuse to factor in or anticipate any type of malfunction or disaster. Every man made disaster, even ones that stem from natural disasters preceding them, can and should be predicted. It's only prudent when you're dealing with such a deadly and long lasting force as radioactive matter from fission products.
Taxpayers should not be forced via government to fund and insure these plants, and then take all the risk when something goes wrong. It's outrageous that this has been accepted and is still being accepted by the population at large.
The nuclear overseers are fake agencies funded and controlled by nuclear power industry.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/04/nuclear-regulators-are-fake-agencies.html
There is no safe level of exposure to radionuclides from fission products. None.
http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1
From your link:
Back in the day, when we checked the emergency back-up diesels in America, a mind-blowing number flunked. At the New York nuke, for example, the builders swore under oath that their three diesel engines were ready for an emergency. They'd been tested. The tests were faked, the diesels run for just a short time at low speed. When the diesels were put through a real test under emergency-like conditions, the crankshaft on the first one snapped in about an hour, then the second and third. We nicknamed the diesels, "Snap, Crackle and Pop."
Not new news.
No one cares enough to do anything. You will all die...sooner or later.