NRC Whistleblowers: Risk of Nuclear Melt-Down In U.S. Is Even HIGHER Than It Was at Fukushima

Massive Cover-Up of Risks from Flooding to Numerous U.S. Nuclear Facilities

Numerous American nuclear reactors are built within flood zones:

NuclearFloodsFinal Highres Nuclear Regulatory Commission Engineers Charge Government Coverup:  Reactor Meltdown “Absolute Certainty” If Dam Fails ... 100s of Times More Likely than Tsunami that Hit Fukushima
As one example, on the following map (showing U.S. nuclear power plants built within earthquake zones), the red lines indicate the Mississippi and Missouri rivers:

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Engineers Charge Government Coverup:  Reactor Meltdown “Absolute Certainty” If Dam Fails ... 100s of Times More Likely than Tsunami that Hit Fukushima

Numerous dam failures have occurred within the U.S.:

dam failures map

Reactors in Nebraska and elsewhere were flooded by swollen rivers and almost melted down.  See this, this, this and this.

The Huntsville Times wrote in an editorial last year:

A tornado or a ravaging flood could just as easily be like the tsunami that unleashed the final blow [at Fukushima as an earthquake].

An engineer with the NRC says that a reactor meltdown is an “absolute certainty” if a dam upstream of a nuclear plant fails … and that such a scenario is hundreds of times more likely than the tsunami that hit Fukushima :

An engineer with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) … Richard Perkins, an NRC reliability and risk engineer, was the lead author on a July 2011 NRC report detailing flood preparedness. He said the NRC blocked information from the public regarding the potential for upstream dam failures to damage nuclear sites.

Perkins, in a letter submitted Friday with the NRC Office of Inspector General, said that the NRC “intentionally mischaracterized relevant and noteworthy safety information as sensitive, security information in an effort to conceal the information from the public.” The Huffington Post first obtained the letter.

***

The report in question was completed four months after … Fukushima.

The report concluded that, “Failure of one or more dams upstream from a nuclear power plant may result in flood levels at a site that render essential safety systems inoperable.”

Huffington Post reported last month:

These charges were echoed in separate conversations with another risk engineer inside the agencywho suggested that the vulnerability at one plant in particular — the three-reactor Oconee Nuclear Station near Seneca, S.C. — put it at risk of a flood and subsequent systems failure, should an upstream dam completely fail, that would be similar to the tsunami that hobbled the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility in Japan last year.***

The engineer is among several nuclear experts who remain particularly concerned about the Oconee plant in South Carolina, which sits on Lake Keowee, 11 miles downstream from the Jocassee Reservoir. Among the redacted findings in the July 2011 report — and what has been known at the NRC for years, the engineer said — is that the Oconee facility, which is operated by Duke Energy, would suffer almost certain core damage if the Jocassee dam were to fail. And the odds of it failing sometime over the next 20 years, the engineer said, are far greater than the odds of a freak tsunami taking out the defenses of a nuclear plant in Japan.

“The probability of Jocassee Dam catastrophically failing is hundreds of times greater than a 51 foot wall of water hitting Fukushima Daiichi,” the engineer said. “And, like the tsunami in Japan, the man‐made ‘tsunami’ resulting from the failure of the Jocassee Dam will –- with absolute certainty –- result in the failure of three reactor plants along with their containment structures.

“Although it is not a given that Jocassee Dam will fail in the next 20 years,” the engineer added, “it is a given that if it does fail, the three reactor plants will melt down and release their radionuclides into the environment.”

***

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post, Richard H. Perkins, a reliability and risk engineer with the agency’s division of risk analysis, alleged that NRC officials falsely invoked security concerns in redacting large portions of a report detailing the agency’s preliminary investigation into the potential for dangerous and damaging flooding at U.S. nuclear power plants due to upstream dam failure.

Perkins, along with at least one other employee inside NRC, also an engineer, suggested that the real motive for redacting certain information was to prevent the public from learning the full extent of these vulnerabilities, and to obscure just how much the NRC has known about the problem, and for how long.

Huffington Post notes today:

An un-redacted version of a recently released Nuclear Regulatory Commission report highlights the threat that flooding poses to nuclear power plants located near large dams — and suggests that the NRC has misled the public for years about the severity of the threat, according to engineers and nuclear safety advocates.

“The redacted information shows that the NRC is lying to the American public about the safety of U.S. reactors,” said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer and safety advocate with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

***

According to the NRC’s own calculations, which were also withheld in the version of the report released in March, the odds of the dam near the Oconee plant failing at some point over the next 22 years are far higher than were the odds of an earthquake-induced tsunami causing a meltdown at the Fukushima plant.

The NRC report identifies flood threats from upstream dams at nearly three dozen other nuclear facilities in the United States, including the Fort Calhoun Station in Nebraska, the Prairie Island facility in Minnesota and the Watts Bar plant in Tennessee, among others.

***

Larry Criscione, a risk engineer at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who is one of two NRC employees who have now publicly raised questions about both the flood risk at Oconee and the agency’s withholding of related information, said assertions that the plant is “currently able to mitigate flooding events,” amounted to double-speak.

Criscione said this is because current regulations don’t include the failure of the Jocassee Dam — 11 miles upriver from Oconee — in the universe of potential flooding events that might threaten the plant. “I think they’re being dishonest,” Criscione said in a telephone interview. “I think that we currently intend to have Duke Energy improve their flooding protection and to say that the current standard is adequate is incorrect.”

According to the leaked report, NRC stated unequivocally in a 2009 letter to Duke that it believed that “a Jocassee Dam failure is a credible event” and that Duke had “not demonstrated that the Oconee Nuclear Station units will be adequately protected.” These statements — along with Duke’s own flood timeline associated with a Jocassee Dam failure and NRC’s calculated odds of such a failure — were among many details that were blacked out of the earlier, publicly released report.

***

Richard H. Perkins, a risk engineer with the NRC and the lead author of the leaked report, pointed to the analysis by the Association of Dam Safety Officials in an email message to The Huffington Post. “I felt it made a significant point that large, fatal, dam failures occur from time to time,” he said. “They are generally unexpected and they can kill lots of people. It’s not credible to say ‘dam failures are not credible.’”

Dave Lochbaum, the Union of Concerned Scientists engineer who reviewed a copy of the un-redacted report, says these revelations directly contradict the NRC’s assertions that Oconee is currently safe. “Fukushima operated just under 40 years before their luck ran out,” Lochbaum, who worked briefly for the NRC himself between 2009 and 2010, and who now heads the Nuclear Safety Project at UCS, said in a phone call. “If it ever does occur here, the consequences would be very, very high.

“Japan is now building higher sea walls at other plants along its coasts. That’s great for those plants, but it’s too late for Fukushima. If in hindsight you think you should have put the wall in,” Lochbaum said, “then in foresight you should do it now.”

Other Comparisons Between Dangers In U.S. and Fukushima

There are,  in fact, numerous parallels between Fukushima and vulnerable U.S. plants.

A Japanese government commission found that the Fukushima accident occurred because Tepco and the Japanese government were negligent, corrupt and in collusion. See this, this and this.  The U.S. NRC is similarly corrupt.

The operator of the Fukushima complex admitted earlier this month that it knew of the extreme vulnerability of its plants, but:

If the company were to implement a severe-accident response plan, it would spur anxiety throughout the country and in the community where the plant is sited, and lend momentum to the antinuclear movement ….

The U.S. has 23 reactors which are virtually identical to Fukushima.

Most American nuclear reactors are old.  They are aging poorly, and are in very real danger of melting down.

And yet the NRC is relaxing safety standards at the old plants. Indeed, while many of the plants are already past the service life that the engineers built them for, the NRC is considering extending licenses another 80 years, which former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority and now senior adviser with Friends of the Earth’s nuclear campaign David Freeman calls “committing suicide”:

You’re not just rolling the dice, you’re practically committing suicide … everyone living within a 50 mile radius is a guinea pig.

Indeed, the Fukushima reactors were damaged by earthquake even before the tsunami hit (confirmed here). And the American reactors may be even more vulnerable to earthquakes than Fukushima.

Moreover, the top threat from Fukushima are the spent fuel pools. And American nuclear plants have fuel pool problems which could dwarf the problems at Fukushima.

And neither government is spending the small amounts it would take to harden their reactors against a power outage.

The parallels run even deeper.   Specifically, the American government has largely been responsible for Japan’s nuclear policy for decades. And U.S. officials are apparently a primary reason behind Japan’s cover-up of the severity of the Fukushima accident … to prevent Americans from questioning our similarly-vulnerable reactors.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Leslie-Corrice/100001938983145 Leslie Corrice

    Two problems here. First, the blog never mentions that all US plants have had emergency-power supply systems which were upgraded after 9/11 to withstand rare-but-not-impossible natural calamities, including floods. If Japan had similarly upgraded (water-proofed existing locations, or moved the diesels and batteries to a separate dedicated building, or etc.) THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO FUKUSHIMA ACCIDENT. Second, David Lochbaum has never given the nuclear industry or the NRC credit for anything. Plus, he always exaggerates to get the best-possible media pop. He’s nothing more than a bigot with respect to nuclear energy.

    • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

      Could you provide your sources for the information regarding the upgrades please? I’d like to learn more about them.
      Thank you.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=549066379 Chris Cassino

        http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2063117

        There’s some of the industry information there.

        I have two problems with this article though.

        First, the US NRC is the main reason a nuclear site has any risk due to flooding at all. They won’t let the US nuclear industry reprocess spent fuel, they won’t approve a long term storage site like Yucca Mountain, and they won’t approve more cintering facilities to encase spent fuel in glass. But they still require the US Nuclear industry to pay for all of these things, and the current fund for a long term storage facility has billions of dollars in it now. If the US NRC doesn’t want a risk of damaged fuel in a flood situation, they need to stop obstructing the industry.

        Second, even if you ignore the constant bleating from the Union of Concerned Scientists about things that they don’t like without good reason, if we know that certain dam failures will lead to other drastic consequences, then why isn’t that cause for a national infrastructure program to prevent those failures?!

        • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

          I gather from the tenor of your comments that you are a proponent of nuclear energy.

          Thank you for the link. I have bookmarked it and will read the article later. Frankly, I’m more interested to read what Nuclear Engineering International has to say about Fukushima and will probably read their “Fukushima news” first.

        • CaptD

          RE: “the constant bleating from the Union of Concerned Scientists ”

          The nuclear industry denies that they need to do any real safety upgrades and complains about any NRC required safety upgrades, yet they will not insure themselves against risk,having gotten Congress to pass that risk along to the US Govt. and the people of the USA, thanks to the Price-Anderson Act.

          Per the NRC: Fact Sheet on Nuclear Insurance and Disaster Relief http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html

          In short, if there is more than $12 Billion in damages, residents are left holding a empty radioactive bag! This is only a tiny fraction of what it will cost in Fukushima, which I estimated to be about a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster!

          What is the value of all the homes and Commercial property downwind of Southern California or yet another nuclear power plant (NPP)?

          Probably at least several TRILLION dollars…

          Here is a great graphic that will help everyone visualize what is downwind of any of the US reactors! NRDC Nuclear Fallout Map: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/fallout/

          Just click on a reactor and zoom in… (BTW: These are conservative fallout estimates).

          Where will the US Government get the REST of the money if it happened at to a reactor upwind from where you live, next week, probably from Social Security and or Medicare?

          BTW: Your homeowners insurance does not cover anything related to nuclear pollution, so you are going to suffer big loses should anything BAD happen!

    • CaptD

      Your claim that all US reactors are safe is 100% false!
      A single example:
      San Onofre was a nuclear “near miss” thanks to its operator SCE trying to slip its poorly designed replacement steam generators past the NRC! Now after less than two years for Unit 2 and less than a single year for Unit 3 they both have more damage than all the rest of the US nuclear fleet combined!

      http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/steamgeneratortubespluggedbyageandsanonofresteamgeneratorproblems2012-11-03.pdf

      Utilities are focused on profits not safety, despite saying the opposite, and that what makes US (and other countries) nuclear power plants (NPP’s) dangerous!

      • Marcelo Pacheco

        Near miss is still a miss. If you are on the sidewalk and a massive truck passes inches from you, you’re still alive and kicking.

        Unless you are a nuclear engineer that actually knows how nuclear power plants, you have no qualifications to analyze what is a near miss or not anyways.

        After taking this class: https://www.coursera.org/course/nuclearscience
        The safety characteristics of Light Water Reactors and Boiling Water Reactors became crystal clear to me and it also became clear that the anti nuclear folks are constantly overblowing every little nuclear “potential” issue.

        Its interesting that the vast majority (90%+) of you anti nuclear activists don’t show an ounce of technical knowledge of nuclear power plants. That’s because those that actually study them know they are 1 to 5 orders of magnitude (10x to 10000x) safer than coal/NG/hydro which are the bulk of today’s electricity generation, and are actually less deadly than solar and wind.

        Still no deaths nor cancer cases from Fukushima.
        About the mandatory evac zone.
        The economic impact of the deepwater horizon accident was orders of magnitude larger than fukushima, yet I don’t see people calling for an end to all oil/natural gas extraction worldwide. It was a gas explosion that started the problem, causing an oil spill that destroyed the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem for almost a decade.
        Coal ash piles have been washed away by serious floods dozens of times, polluting the environment in ways orders of magnitude worse than Fukushima or Chernobyl, yet I don’t see protests in front of coal power plants.
        You have ZERO credibility unless you start attacking coal with 10x the zeal that you attack nuclear.
        This whole anti nuclear thing is a result of a carefully orchestrated, CIA level, extremelly effective anti nuclear PR campaign by the Coal and Big Oil interests.
        Either you are a paid shill of those interests or you have been brainwashed by their factoids.

        • CaptD

          Marcelo Pacheco – You claim to understand nuclear reactors yet fail to read all the info that has been published by teams of EXPERTS, some of which were working at San Onofre before it started leaking ☢.

          In short, FEI occurred in Unit 3 and is the first time it has occurred in a US Reactor’s Steam Generator thanks to SCE’s in-house design.

          I suggest that you read up on the technical aspects before you accuse others of not having any technical knowledge, especially those that have had multiple meeting with the NRC about San Onofre…

          • Marcelo Pacheco

            I have just re-read the whole topic on San Onofre shutdown on energyfromthorium.com discussion board. No mention of a near miss.
            I’ll go out on a limb and say what if it was a near miss. What if there actually were a nuclear accident like Three Mile Island. TMI was a non event for public safety. The midia made a huge spectacle around it, saying people might die, possible large number of cancers. In the end there were zero deaths, zero cancers, and not even a miserly contamination of soil with any measurable radiation. The reactor was a total loss, but that’s strictly an economical problem.
            Chernobyl doesn’t matter, it didn’t have proper secondary containment. Proper nuclear power is based on defense in depth strategy, and the former USSR reactors were faulty in every depth of defense except for the first one (proper defense in depth is at least 4 strong defensive barriers, including internal containment, secondary containment, isolation perimeter and medical emergency preparedness). Existing USA/Canada/French/UK nuclear safety protocols would have prevented a Chernobyl type accident.
            Fukushima type accident is the result of an old reactor without proper safety planning for an area prone to extreme earthquakes. Newer reactors have zero dependence on circulation pumps once the reactor is shutdown (like AP1000, ESBWR, Fast Sodium reactors, MSR reactors). In the case of the AP1000, there is a water tank that holds enough water for the first 3 days, and a miserly 15HP water pump would be required 70hrs after shutdown to replenish the tank. After the first replenishment, follow on replenishments happen with much larger intervals as the reactor decay heat quickly decreases.
            The real problem is people have made up their minds that nuclear is bad, but old nuclear is orders of magnitude safer than coal, new nuclear is an extra two orders of magnitude safer, yet still you don’t accept the fact that an AP1000 or ESBWR reactor is immune from TMI, Chernobyl or Fukushima type accidents, and designs like Fast Sodium or MSR reactors are walk away safe (automatic shutdown based on the laws of physics, doesn’t require human or computer intervention, the operators can walk away from the reactor without creating a safety risk).

          • CaptD

            Marcelo – As usual, you are not using the most up to date info to base your comment upon, thy using either the NRC documents about San Onofre or one or more of the excellent papers listed on the web about the San Onofre design debacle. If you are not reading about FEI occurring in Unit 3 then you are not reading the best documents.

            Plus, here is a great graphic (that even the NRC accepted as factual) that shows San Onofre’s replacement steam generators had more tube damage than all the rest of the entire US nuclear fleet, despite being in service less than one year for (Unit 3) and less than 2 Years (for Unit 2)

            http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/steamgeneratortubesplugged1.pdf

          • Marcelo Pacheco

            Even if the steam generators failed, it would be a nuclear accident like TMI. No risk to the public. It would be a major financial loss for the operator.
            The thread I read on San Onofre DOES convict the supplier of San Onofre reactor and the operator as seriously faulty, but it DOESN’T show any real risk to the public. So still you are trying to say the failure could result in a fukushima style accident, but the nuclear experts say it doesn’t.
            What they do say is that the reactor could have been operated at 70% power with extra monitoring without risk. Instead the NRC forced the shutdown of the plant, wasting about US$ 2 billion in investment.
            As usual you anti nuclear pundits don’t understand exactly how nuclear reactors work.
            THE FACT IS THERE ARE OVER 400GWe worth of nuclear generating power online in the world. Over half of those reactors are from the same generation reactors of TMI and Fukushima (2nd gen reactors). If nuclear was that unsafe as you try very hard to pretend it is, we would have a major accident every year or more. But we don’t. You don’t understand nuclear technology. So don’t criticize it.
            Nuclear IS safe. Coal ISN’T safe. Natural gas ISN’T safe.
            The entire nuclear power supply chain (mining, transportation, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor operation and spent nuclear fuel storage) killed a single person over the last ten years. Compare that to an estimated 13000 people per year that coal kills in the USA alone.
            So, no, there is no way in hell I’ll buy your conspiracy theory arguments.

          • CaptD

            Marcelo – Fact Every San Onofre RSG had 9,747 tubes and most had damage of one form or another, and note that SCE did not use the best tube inspection tech available so even those numbers are questionable!

            Fact: Since the tubes hold a huge percentage of the reactor coolant, a FEI induced cascade of tube failures could have easily caused a reactor coolant loss, especially if i occurred during a large earthquake, which would have made the small radioactive leak just the first hint of impending disaster!

            Coal and Nuclear should both be phased out ASAP starting with the oldest and/or most at risk plants first, with gas being used in the USA, not shipped outside the USA to enriched the Gas companies, to help us transition to clean Solar (of all flavors).

            The countries that shift to Solar (of all flavors) first will have a huge advantage over those that do not because every year it becomes ever more expensive to decommission nuclear plants, as France is now learning!

            PS You completely left out any admission to the fact that your knowledge about San Onofre is lacking to say the least, why is that?

            Why are you afraid of learning new information?

          • Marcelo Pacheco

            Confirmed:
            At no time was there a chance of a LOCA, Loss Of Coolant Accident, with the steam generators. The main technical problem was that at power rates over about 70% tubes in the steam generators would vibrate causing wear , and leaks. When one leaked the reactor had to be shut down, and the tube plugged. As tubes were taken out of service, power would have to be reduced more.
            If the plant were put back into service at 70% of rated output it could have been run until some time in the future when new steam generators could be built then installed, but the anti-nucs using politics made that impossible, so the plant was shut down.

            Anti nuclear people distort facts on purpose. Either you are in their con, or you are being fooled by them.
            My argument on the number of nuclear reactors in the world and the number of actual accidents and incidents make all the point I need to make. Nuclear IS safe.

          • CaptD

            Marcelo – I disagree with your comment because if there was a LOCA at San Onofre while Unit 2 and Unit 3 were both at 100% power then all those damaged tubes could have cause a cascade of reactor coolant tube leaks that could have then led to a one or more meltdowns at San Onofre! As it happened it was by sheer luck that the massive amounts of tube damage were discovered during a scheduled fuel replacement in Unit 2 when Unit 3 started leaking, which is why I called it a nuclear near-miss which put about 8 million people in southern California at risk!

            Also regarding opinion about operating San Onofre Unit 2 at 70% being OK, even the NRC disagreed with what you said, so it seems that you are not as technically savvy as you would have readers think.

            If you don’t agree, try (again) reading what has been written by the NRC in their San Onofre AIT reports and also read what the NRR said about San Onofre planning to operate at 70%. You can even watch the NRC video of the NRR questioning the SCE people and I bet it will even make you shake your head.

            You might know something about reactors and their operation but your specific knowledge about what happened at San Onofre makes you look uninformed!

          • CaptD

            Here are two important charts that will help those learn why SCE’s in-house design team at San Onofre’s RSG Project created a multi-billion dollar design debacle.

          • Joe Dick

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

            See? I can cut and paste too. Sadly, you refuse to answer the most basic of questions…

          • Joe Dick

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

  • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

    Not to worry! I have it on good authority, from experts commenting on the recent nuclear weapons articles on this very site, that radiation is harmless, or at least its dangers are vastly exaggerated.

    So chill. It’s all good.

  • http://chimaeraimaginarium.wordpress.com/ Richard_William_Posner

    Not to worry! I have it on good authority, from experts commenting on the recent nuclear weapons articles on this very site, that radiation is harmless, or at least its dangers are vastly exaggerated.

    So chill. It’s all good.

    • Nano

      Richard, it is a fact that the dangers of radiation are routinely exaggerated. It is a matter of the radiation dose rate. And the fact is that no-one who understands the situation in Fukushima (scientists, physicians, etc) actually say that the public was harmed, or will be harmed in any way. The only people who have actually obtained significant amounts of radiation dose where the plant workers.

      Of the 3700 workers at the Fukushima site who worked to control the disaster, about 100 of them got a dose of of about 100 MSv, 2 people got 650 MSv and about 300 got between 50 and 100MSv.

      These doses are very small, however, an estimate can be made (and was made) of the number of additional cancer deaths among this group of 3700 people, sometime in the future. It turns out that 5 workers (out of all these 3700) are liable to have their lives shortened due to cancer.

      This is tragic of course, but of these 3700 workers we should realize that about 20% are likely to die from cancer anyway. Cancer is a rather common disease after all, with or without nuclear accidents! 20% of 3700 people is about 700 people who are likely to die from cancer anyway, to which now are probably added 5 more people. A tragedy, but it must pale in comparison to the actual tragedy which is the destruction caused by the tsunami and earthquake.

      • CaptD

        Nano, get a grip, citing current issues is silly since the health implication from Fukushima will take years to appear! You have also no listed the effect on the land or nearby waters from the radioactive pollution, which is like cherry picking numbers to make your case that nuclear pollution is not any big deal

        Ask the 150,000+ people that are displaced from Fukushima or all the children that now have to play indoors because it is not safe to play outside!

  • CampbellH

    These reactors are not going to disappear overnight. However the lessons learned in Japan need to taken on board. To fail to do so is the height of criminal irresponsibly. Personally, I am anti-nuclear power – for a variety of reasons, but that is not the point. To hijack this issue for politics is again extremely irresponsible – in manner that reminds me of the vilification of carbon dioxide. The point is that diesel engines and water do not mix – so do something about diesel powered emergency cooling systems, Immediately. Don’t argue wider issues to make a political point. Just do it.

    • CaptD

      Every US nuclear power plant must have multiple WORKING generators ALONG WITH ENOUGH tanked STORED WATER TO COOL THEM FOR AT LEAST A WEEK, otherwise they are at risk…

  • dubld

    Wow, stunning. And not alarmist at all;)

    Now how about providing us with a map of all the coal fired plants in the US and overlaying it with a map of retail outlets that sell matches, cigarette lighters, and campfire starters. Then we’ll be really really afraid…

    • CaptD

      Justifying the RISK of nuclear by calling out coal fired plants is a lame argument, especially when other countries (like Germany) are shifting away from both and not only making money but creating huge numbers of clean GREEN jobs!

  • Matthias

    In 2011 Barak Obama authorized the building of 9 new nuclear power plants in the US, 3 in Georgia and 3 in South Carolina are already in the works. The US is going to be destroyed in every possible way, and by DESIGN. From jobs sent overseas, the American Majority being replaced via immigration, the handing over of taxpayer TRILLIONS to the banksters by Bush and Obama both, much more could be listed such as Affirmative Action, H-1B Visas, etc but SOMEBODY, somebody POWERFUL has it in for the US and the Enemy is WITHIN.

  • Nano

    “Moreover, the top threat from Fukushima are the spent fuel pools. And American nuclear plants have fuel pool problems which could dwarf the problems at Fukushima.”

    Nonsense, the Fukushima spent fuel pools are not a threat at all. This ‘issue’ is a hoax. A very well crafted and executed hoax, but a hoax none the less.

    http://atomicinsights.com/2012/05/debunking-the-fukushima-spent-fuel-fable.html

    The rest of the article seems to contain little more than half-truths and complete falsehoods. Hopefully, some experts will show up in the comments section to debunk every one of them.

  • Dennis Wilson

    THORIUM energy alternative to Nuclear Power + GOVERNMENT meddling to suppress it!
    http://tinyurl.com/THORIUM-energy

    • Dennis Wilson

      By weight, thorium can produce 200 times
      as much energy as uranium, reactors are cheaper to design and waste,
      much cheaper to store – even if it is stored; for in thorium reactors,
      the waste can be regenerated for use as fuel. It is also inherently
      safer, since its fission reaction has to be primed; absent an external
      neutron stream, it shuts down automatically.

      India is switching to thorium, and as Evans-Pritchard remarked, China is committed to extensive use of this technology.

    • CaptD

      Thorium is Borium…

      Solar (of all flavors):

      … Is faster to install,

      … Costs less to install

      … Is ready for 24/7 power

      … Requires no decommissioning costs

      … And has no Nuclear RISK…

      Thorium is yet another Black Hole that has taken billions in R & D and is nowhere near ready for prime time, unlike Solar (of all flavors)…

      • Marcelo Pacheco

        Solar and wind are not even 20% of the solution to get us off coal and natural gas.
        Only countries with lots of hydro electrical power can add lots of solar and wind (like over 25%) without crashing their electrical grid.
        The Germany renewables plan is stuck, because there is no economical grid scale energy storage except for very limited pumped hydro.
        Solar is far better than wind, but still not a complete solution today. It’s not a matter of solar panel prices dropping. We need chemical batteries that cost 10% per GWh than the cheapest batteries we have today. Then we could install boatloads of solar panels and power the grid half the year in Germany, but in the winter, solar is useless (losses 90% of its energy production).

        Learn the inconvenient facts about solar and wind.
        The REAL reason SOLAR and WIND are today’s reneables sweetheart is exactly because they aren’t a complete solution. Big coal and natural gas knows we are some 50 to 100 years away from even 25% of the world’s power production being solar+wind.
        Nuclear can power the world, in as little as 20 years we could increase nuclear electricity production to replace half of all coal burning in the world.
        I’m not anti solar or anti wind. I just know its limitations, and I know its limitations are serious enough I can’t be a pro solar/wind cheerleader.

        • CaptD

          Marcelo Pacheco – – More on why nuclear is near the end of its economic lifespan despite what Pro-Nuclear cheerleaders say:

          Kurzweil: Solar Energy Will Be Unlimited And Free In 20 Years

          http://www.businessinsider.com… via @BI_Science

          Find out more and then perhaps you will change your outlook, remember we are just in the first stages of shifting to Solar (of all flavors) and the next 5 to 20 years will be very exciting for Solar (of all flavors).

          • Marcelo Pacheco

            Then lets get rid of solar and wind subsidies. I guarantee you if wind subsidies are gone, not a single wind turbine will be added to the grid.
            Solar is starting to actually make economic sense for end users with feed in tarifs, and at least solar doesn’t destroy baseload generation. But without subsidies, utility scale solar… Uneconomical right now.
            I’m not a nuclear cheerleader, I just care about facts, I care about the technical details that keep the lights on, that you probably don’t want to bother understanding.
            And I really care about solving climate change, instead of chasing the solar+wind religion.
            All serious climatologists have done the math you don’t want to do and say there’s no solution to climate change without a LOT of nuclear.
            Coal is filthy (even disregarding climate change). Nuclear is clean.
            Coal emits far more radioactivity than any nuclear power plant will ever be allowed to. Lets end the double standard and regulate coal radioactivity like a nuclear power plant. Would shutdown all coal power plants immediately, without any possible remedy !

          • CaptD

            Marcelo Pacheco – If there were no subsidies for Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind or Solar, it would only make wind and solar get installed faster since all the rest are even more subsidized than either wind or solar!

            Nuclear is the king of subsidies, since the industry does not even pay to guarantee that if a nuke goes bad they will pay for it, since they have already gotten Congress to pass the Price-Anderson Act to limit their ☢ liability.

            If you add all the costs and risks, /Solar and Wind will win, and soon large scale batteries will even make Solar (of all flavors) an even better deal!

            Since Solar Development is just getting started, the above ratepayers are going to be really unhappy in the future, since the price of Solar will continue to drop, which will make NPP’s ever more expensive, and that is if everything goes according to plan, which we all know is not always the case, then all bets are off if ☢ goes BAD, ask the Japanese!

            Posted in part : http://nuclear-news.net/2014/0

          • Marcelo Pacheco

            Untrue. Wind is uneconomical without subsidies in North America and Europe. Wind needs a fixed per MWh subsidy, cause it often produces at times when the grid is paying little to negative values for electricity (11PM-5AM). But since the wind credit in the USA is a fixed amount per MWh, it allows wind producers to overload the grid in the lowest demand hours forcing electricity prices to go negative (if the grid has too much electricity, prices go negative to force some generators to shutdown temporarily). In such periods, wind generators pay 1 cent per MWh generated (instead of earning) while they get at least 20 cents per MWh of credits. INSANE !

            The Price-Anderson act liability limits were never needed, even in the Three Mile Island accident. I don’t need to set the record straight, there are plenty of web pages that do that. You just need to search.

            Nuclear power plants are very expensive upfront, even more expensive per MWe of capacity than hydro. Except you can’t install a hydro plant close to metro areas that need that power, you must instead create long transmission lines to connect those. Nuclear power plants can be installed fairly close to the metro areas it will generate for. Transmission lines have installation cost, maintenance costs and cause a loss of electricity transmitted. But since hydro doesn’t have fuel costs, it makes economical sense.

            Nuclear power plants are certified for 40 years operation initially, but they are designed to operate for at much as 80 yrs if well maintained.
            When you dilute the initial costs to bring a nuclear power plant to operation by 80 yrs of operation, the cost is minute. And once started up a nuclear power plant is cheap to maintain as long as it operates at over 95% capacity factor over its lifetime. Its costs are mostly per month instead of per GWh produced.

            The reason new nuclear power plants aren’t being installed is the unfairness of wind tax credits and the temporary low cost of natural gas, not the cheapness of solar panels.
            We won’t ever be able to agree if you don’t get outside your radical pro solar/wind bubble.
            I am pro solar and wind, when it makes sense.
            Read up on solar+wind success in Australia. That’s because Australia is a tropical country with lots of vacant desert land, lots of shoreline where wind produces reliably, in stark contrast with most of North America and Europe.
            I am 100% pro what is being done with solar+wind in Australia because there it’s economical. But installing wind turbines to catch wind spikes due to frontal passage is economical suicide, only justified by extremely stupid wind credits.

  • David Dean

    I am a nuclear engineer (29 years experience) and a libertarian (even longer). Yes, I am pro-nuclear energy, but I would not expect anyone to just accept my background as sufficient to justify that position. It is simply not possible to do justice to the questions raised here in so short a forum. It is asking too much to expect anyone to be expert in the multitude of technological risks in modern industrial society. To decide such questions by political means, democratic or otherwise, will not achieve a rational result. All I want is to remove the many distortions imposed through regulations, subsidies, taxes, and lack of accountability through full liability of all competing sources of energy. Let accountability and a free people choose in a free market. I have confidence in the potential of nuclear power to prevail. If wrong, it deserves failure in that world.

    If you are interested in the safety and environmental impact of nuclear energy, start by examing to total record, not just the few spectacular failures. How many people died from Fukashima? How many died in the many petroleum and gas fires sparked by the same earthquake and tsunami? What is the total fatalities and environmental effects of nuclear energy compared to others, for the same amount of energy? Then ask why that is so. It has to do with enormous energy per mass of fuel, leading to less damage, in so many ways, to liberate that energy for useful work. In thermodynamic terms, the higher the availability, the less the increase in entropy for the same amount of useful work.

    • CaptD

      How many Japanese nuclear Experts thought their reactors were 100% safe before Fukushima?

      The problem is that all it takes is one nuclear failure to destroy a countries economy!

      • Marcelo Pacheco

        Doesn’t matter. Nuclear power have killed over its entire lifetime less people than natural gas + oil kill worldwide every year.
        No energy source is 100% safe. Even solar and wind kill more per energy produced than nuclear power. Hydro is deadly, yet we use it as much as possible because it is extremelly economical.

        Learn about nuclear facts, instead of anti nuclear propaganda designed to sow radiophobia. Radiation is not the boogeyman most think it is. It is an easy target since it’s invisible, has no smell, no touch sensation. But radiation is everywhere. Our bodies produce radiation, a truckload of bananas produce enough radiation to trigger radiation detectors in ports. We are subject to lots of radiation from cosmic rays, the sun, radon, carbon 14, potassium 40.

        • CaptD

          Marcelo Pacheco – Forget the name calling and labels, nuclear is not only dirty but it also has lots of ☢ baggage, the least of which is all the nuclear waste it adds daily to the environment, which is why nuclear reactors are now, thanks to a recent NRC ruling, becoming long term ☢ waste storage sites!

          • Marcelo Pacheco

            You haven’t explained how storing spent nuclear fuel on site is a hazard.
            Coal and natural gas kills every day. Nuclear doesn’t.
            Solar & Wind is not a solution to replace even 50% of coal burning in the world.
            Nuclear is.
            If you don’t think coal is filthy and deadly, than you have no credentials to speak of.
            Stop ignoring the inconvenient facts that show you wrong.
            Nuclear is safe. There are enough nuclear reactors in operation in the world that if they were all in North America they would power 100% of north america’s electricity needs.
            Given the very large scale of nuclear if it was dangerous, you would be able to show nuclear causing deaths and cancers easily, yet you can’t. Hence all of your argument is strictly FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), meaning you don’t can’t prove anything so all your kind does it try to make people afraid of nuclear with misleading and false data.

          • Joe Dick

            You are the one with baggage, “CaptD”. As is readily understood by tracing your presence on the internet, you are either a paid-for troll from the heavily subsidized solar panel industry, reaping 90 cents per kilowatt-hour, when it costs 82 cents more that to provide the energy that most in the US pay round about ten cents for; either that, or you are suffering from Hiroshima Syndrome. Which is it? Oh yes, you never get back to me when I cloud your issues and your “issues” with the facts. Get help, kid. Some us want to exchange ideas. Marcelo is right.

          • CaptD

            Joe Dick
            Your three wrongs (hove) don’t make you right, especially about using Nuclear!

            When all subsidies (cradle to grave including mining, decommissioning and risk payments) are tallied nuclear is by far more expensive than Solar (of all flavors), and I challenge you to post a link that says otherwise!

          • Joe Dick

            Oh, look, you posted your propaganda here too. So I might as well cut and paste my response here as well:

            LOL. Solar subsidies are 90 cents per kilowatt-hour and cost $1.72 per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear and Coal pay for themselves. Nuclear is the cheapest form of energy generation we have.

            I gave you the references and asked the question multiple times. When you finally do respond, you’re the one that resorts to name-calling.

            The information I provided is not “nuclear baloney”. Until you can carry on an enlightened discussion instead of spewing propaganda, why don’t you just shut the hell up and go the hell away? I’m laughing! At you!

            “You are a fluke of the universe.
            You have no right to be here.
            And whether you can hear it or not,
            The universe is laughing behind your back.”

          • CaptD

            Joe Dick The nuclear industry “gangs” are doing their best to keep

            ratepayers from going Solar and gaining freedom from ever higher utility bills.

            Everyday ever more people globally are installing Solar (of all flavors) and waving good bye to their Big Utilities and that is just the beginning since many are also using electric vehicles to eliminate having to pay for gasoline and/or diesel fuel. Typical records say that many are now able to drive for about one US$ of electricity per day of urban commuting, while also using the vehicles battery to store more of the energy they generate!

            Solar Panels and/or Wind Generation + electric vehicles (with storage batteries) = freedom for BOTH Big Nuclear Utilities and Big Oil.

            The ☀ future is ours to see… CaptD

            This link says it all:

            http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2534207/while_governments_back_fossil_fuels_and_nuclear_popular_renewables_boom.html

          • Joe Dick

            Wow. You must be using restaurant grade aluminum foil for your “tin”-foil hat…

          • kimyo

            you’re only winning captd’s argument for him. you want him to shut up? deliver a convincing argument rather than resorting to that last refuge of the incompetent, playing the tin foil hat card.

            you claim solar gets more subsidies, should be easy to prove, yes? numbers, sources, simple.

            you don’t deliver, you lose, simple.

          • Joe Dick

            No, the nameless entity that uses the avitar “CaptD” refuses to acknowledge what I asked “it” to respond to, namely facts. http://m.wsj.com/articles/BL-258B-905, regarding known solar subsidies. In case you can’t click on a simple link, here’s the content – something that captain disinformation has been invited to refute on more than several occasions… Two years ago, NY Times columnist Paul Krugman put it simply: “That’s right: Solar power is now cost-effective.” He was wrong then and is wrong today. Solar energy is not close to being cost effective for consumers or for the environment.
            The National Renewable Energy Laboratory recently concluded that in the sunny Western U.S., solar “could” be competitive in 12 years. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) agrees. In its cost projection for 2018, solar is 67% more expensive than wind and twice as expensive as natural gas. At the Pacific Northwest Regional Economic Conference this year, one utility energy planner reported that solar costs about 80 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) compared to the national average of about 10 cents per kwh.

            Solar energy is one of the worst ways to reduce carbon emissions. McKinsey and Company’s analysis found that nuclear, wind and even coal with carbon capture are more effective. Bloomberg New Energy Finance found the same result, ranking solar panels 28th out of 33 carbon-reduction options.

            Then why is solar popular? Huge taxpayer subsidies hide the actual cost. Other renewables receive a subsidy of about one cent per kwh, solar energy receives about 96 cents per kwh. We pay solar’s cost in the form of taxes instead of as electric rates.
            A new study co-authored by William Nordhaus, a man Krugman calls a “mentor,” noted how ineffective subsides are, saying “very little if any GHG reductions are achieved at substantial cost.”
            Finally, as a recent study reveals, people desire solar panels because they convey “green” status. Solar panels increase home prices “in communities with more registered Prius” owners. Although solar panels yield tiny environmental benefits, some pay the price to look “green.”
            This misconception is not harmless. Billions are spent propping up wasteful solar energy instead of projects that effectively reduce carbon emissions.

          • kimyo

            i followed your link. it contains no numbers on nuclear subsidy.

            none. i did ctrl-f, nuclear. one result, extolling how nuclear will save us from the imaginary carbon monster.

            do you actually have any figures which support your claim that nuclear receives less subsidy than solar? if you’re right, should be easy, yes?

          • Joe Dick

            Because there are no subsidies for nuclear power. Fully added up, nuclear is a tad over two cents per kilowatt-hour, but solar gets 90 cents subsidy paid for by taxpayers and then yet again as consumers they pay an additional 82 cents – all neatly hidden from view. Did you not even read the article?

          • kimyo

            clearly, the number is not zero. were you counting the monies spent by the doe for nuclear plant security? or, the salaries and budget of the nrc?

            there’s also the $30 billion or so spent/allocated for the savannah river mox fuel plant.

          • Joe Dick

            Are you that thick? Ever use a dictionary? Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive, e.g. paying farmers not to grow crops. Nuclear, all tallied, including the bits you mention, is just over two cents per kilowatt-hour; solar is 82 cents after a 90 cent subsidy. Sorry to get snippy, but captain disinformation is a known and possibly paid for troll, and some of us are tired of his kind. Me, yep, that’s my name, and you can, for instance read the article Scientific American invited me to write, “Helium Hokum”. Meanwhile, captain disinformation torments discussions and refuses to say who he is, and leads people astray and away from honest providers of experience and information. So, go read my article, and then ask yourself, who are you going to invest in following up on? The correct answer is both, but at least I have the guts to use my real name. Good luck in your pursuit of knowledge – if that is indeed what you seek.

          • kimyo

            nuclear, all tallied

            provide the tally so that we can be assured that your information is correct. your repeated failure to provide any numbers or links belies your esteemed stature as ‘as seen in sci-am’.

            if the doe spent $25 million providing security to wind farms, would that count as a subsidy? why doesn’t it count when it’s the nuclear industry?

            who was going to use the fuel produced by savannah river? if the doe budgeted $30 billion to build a plant to process coal for con edison, wouldn’t that count as a subsidy?

            where is the calculation to support your $0.02 / kw claim? link?

            who’s going to pay to decommission san onofre and crystal river after their failed uprate disasters?

          • Joe Dick

            Duh. Follow the links I provided. Do I have to hold your hand? You can’t even, say, Google it on your own? The only thing you have to do is look, and I gave you some very excellent leads already. I swear, there must be more truth to the statement “you can’t fix stupid” than I ever thought possible!

          • kimyo

            you can see why nuclear engineers get paid so much more than dumb little old me.

            the nuclear industry would never hire me, cause it would never occur to me to leave the giant mess i made for my grandkids to clean up in 2074. gonna argue with me about ‘giant mess’? how much did duke energy (yes, THAT duke energy) save by doing the engineering in-house (you nuclear geniuses, you)? that is, how much did they save the ratepayer before they destroyed the plant and had to begin decommissioning?

            takes balls to make a plan in 2014 dollars for expenses to be incurred in 2074. well, unless of course you’ll be long gone from the scene.

            you could win a bundle betting that there won’t even still be a dollar by 2074. just make sure to place the wager in gold or lead lined codpieces.

            no worries, though, cause a giant banner emblazoned with ‘SAFSTOR’ will protect us from the various sporadic leakages (the public is NOT in danger. repeat…..repeat….).

            Duke Energy submits Crystal River nuclear plant decommission plan to NRC

            Duke Energy has selected the “SAFSTOR” decommissioning option — one of three options approved by the NRC, and one chosen by several other retired U.S. nuclear plants. Under this option, the plant will be placed in a safe, stable condition for 60 years until decommissioning work is completed in 2074.

          • Joe Dick

            There’s just no helping some people. You’re apparently correct about not not getting hired by the nuclear industry, or power generation in general.

            First, if you’d read the words you yourself highlighted, decommissioning work will be completed in 2074, and thus there won’t be a “giant mess” for your grand-kids to clean up in 2074, rather, the job will be done. That’s what decommissioning means: Removal and disposal of radioactive components and materials: http://www.nei.org/master-document-folder/backgrounders/fact-sheets/decommissioning-nuclear-energy-facilities

            Second, you apparent assertion that I am a nuclear engineer is incorrect (“you nuclear geniuses you”). I am an aeronautical engineer, which you would know if you’d followed the link I provided regarding that.

            Third, Crystal River was up and running for over thirty successful years. It generated very inexpensive electricity which lowered the cost to consumers compared to if the electricity had all been provided by fossil fuels: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

            Since the plant was so conservatively designed, the decision was taken to attempt to extend its life with new turbines; however, the original design did not provide access for their replacement, and the attempt to create an access port didn’t work out. So, your assertion that it was some sort of cock-up that put your life at risk and created a “giant mess” for your grand-kids is a really interesting spin on the real story.

            By the way, since you’ve previously proven to be too lazy to do something as simple as google something as simple as “how much does electricity cost to make”, which leads directly to the US Energy Information Administration’s website, where you can find the costs, I’ve pasted the link for you above so you don’t have to do a lick of research. Given your mindset, however, I’m clearly wasting my time; but despite people like you, nuclear energy will go on to be developed, and the salt-based reactors we developed in the 1960s will be the way forward. What a pity you can’t take the time to get a handle on reality, instead of participating in the fear-mongering of this blog.

          • kimyo

            The cost of on-site dry-cask storage for an additional 35,000 tons of older spent fuel is estimated at $3.5–7 billion dollars

            let’s do some math.

            250 employees @ $50k each for 60 years = $750 million
            casks for 1,000 tons of spent fuel = $200 million (using the upper end of the ‘estimate’)

            duke energy has $1 billion ‘put aside’ (is that in the market? treasuries? bubble gum?) for the de-commissioning.

            rather important line items not included above:
            the plant will be consuming electricity for the next 60 years: $???
            the plant will require security personnel (not included in the operational personnel above – this item alone will push the total over $1 billion)
            equipment such as pumps and backup generators will need to be replaced at least once every 20? years. vehicles every 10? years.

            the costs of demolishing the plant will not be insignificant.

            it’s really amazing how quickly you can blow through a billion dollars. especially when it’s the public’s purse you’ve got your hand in.

          • Joe Dick

            That’s pretty funny shit. Where did you get these supposed “facts”? You demand sources from me, which I had provided elsewhere but i gladly I repeated them directly to you. Yet you don’t provide a single reference when you spout your drivel. You’re a riot. Thanks for the big chuckle! You’re right, you are to dumb to ever work in technological business.

          • kimyo

            the estimated cask storage costs have been widely reported. it is in 2003 dollars, so right there we’ve got an issue. also, it would be nice to have some ‘real-world’ figures to work with.

            the ieee reports on the issue here. this is a quote from the article:

            It would take about 10 years at a cost between $3.5 and $7 billion.

            if my figures are wrong, you’re always welcome to post your numbers.

            here’s one i couldn’t find: how much electricity will the plant require during the 60 years? the lighting alone has to be millions of dollars.

            if you can’t answer that question, you can’t even begin to tell us you know how much it will cost to decommission crystal river.

          • Joe Dick

            You people really are extraordinary, whining and complaining about the odd billion dollars. Seriously. Why can’t you think about it?

            Crystal River’s nuclear plant was an 875MW plant. It ran for 30 years. That’s 2.63*10^5 hours. Let’s say it was running at capacity for 80% of the time. That’s a total energy of 1.8*10^11 kilowatt-hours.

            The cost to produce that with nuclear power, including amortization, is $0.02548 per kilowatt-hour. During it’s lifetime it provided that energy at a cost of $4.69*10^9 dollars, or $4.69 trillion dollars,

            Had it been a coal fired plant, the cost per kilowatt-hour would have been $0.03189. To provide the same amount of energy would have cost $5.87*10^9, or $5.87 trillion dollars.

            The total cost savings by using nuclear power thus amounted to $1.18*10^9, or $1.18 trillion dollars.

            Let’s just assume for a moment that the cost of decommissioning the plant is not amortized into the running cost of the plant. I’ll even give you, say, $2 billion to decommission the plant, which is way over the number of a billion and change you cited.

            Now tell me, as a ratepayer, which would you rather pay: An extra $2 billion to decommission the plant, or $1.18 trillion dollars to have had that power come from coal? That’s 590 times as much!

            Look, if it’s about being afraid of nuclear power, then fine, be afraid of it if you want to be; but please! Don’t make it about, “Oh dear, they’re going to saddle us with decommissioning costs!” Bitching about paying 1/590th of what you would have had to pay is just ignorant.

          • kimyo

            i’d just say no to flying in an airplane designed by an engineer who thinks he can derive useful information about crystal river by starting his calculations with a national average cost per kw hour. engineers work with raw data, not averages.

            governments use averages to tell us how they saved us 80 kabillion dollars. typically they say this just before going on to tell us we’ll be needing to tighten our belts and face higher taxes.

            your reasoning is like the government telling us we saved 80 kabillion dollars by switching to cfl lighting. on average, you see, according to them, a typical homeowner will save $40 per bulb. think of the savings if you change every bulb in the house!

            meanwhile, back in reality, like everyone else, i’ve tossed 3 times as many dead cfl’s as incandescents. like everyone else, i put up with inferior lighting for decades. like everyone else, i’m beginning to think the government’s numbers may not be entirely accurate.

          • Joe Dick

            You clearly know nothing about how engineers work. Strength of materials? Based on averages. Fatigue properties? Based on averages. Aerodynamics? Wind tunnel averages. The science of fluid mechanics yields solveable equations and works because of the assumption that, on average, air is comprised of a molecule that represents the mixture of the molecules which comprise it, and that they, on average, are moving in certain directions at average velocities. The chemistry that describes combustion in any engine is based on the average reaction in a combustion chamber. The same is true of your car, your house, roads, bridges, you computer…

            Fortunately these averages, in engineering, are a lot more meaningful that you appear to think. Airplanes fly, cars drive, the bridges get you across, and the huge number of circuits, all working “on average”. In engineering, we use things like Weibull analysis, which isn’t your great-grandfather’s bell curve. Weibull doesn’t assume it’s a bell curve and then calculate a correlation; Weibull curves actually represent the data with uncanny accuracy. In automotive engineering alone, what was done with the bell-curve in the 1950s took over a hundred samples to guarantee the life of a shaft or a bearing. With Weibull, that dropped precipitously to as few as six samples for fatigue tests, and still had better accuracy.

            So, as it turns out, averages are a pretty tool in engineering, a tool we couldn’t do without. Now, if you have historical data for Crystal River, that’s fantastic! Bring it to the table instead of whining incorrectly about using averages in engineering.

            Now you are right about cfl light bulbs. Sure, they save energy in use, but yes, life cycle cost is deplorable. Me, I use Ferrowatt light bulbs – reproductions of Edison’s – because I pay the electric bill and I’ll burn the kind of light bulbs I want to, thank you very much. Here again though, you miss the point. The Government push for expensive but low power, unreliable light bulbs was intended to lower demand on the national grid, in part driven by the whole CO2 thing; sadly, politicians and environmentalists alike don’t seem to get that power is consumed in the manufacture of all things, and they actually drove up the demand for electricity and fossil fuel consumption rather than reducing it.

            As an engineer, I find it terribly sad that our schools in any era, and especially today, do not equip the public with the basic skills to navigate our engineered world. Even worse, uneducated activism leads to things, like you say, cfl light bulbs; but it also leads to your attitude here. The next time you turn on a cfl light, take a moment to wonder if you’re doing to others as has been done unto you.

          • kimyo

            you cannot provide any useful basis for discussion of crystal river’s profitability by multiplying out a national average. the number which results is meaningless in terms of evaluating duke energy’s looting the public for a billion here or a billion there (it’s only people with their hand in your pocket who can so casually say ‘what’s another billion or so’?)

            debacles such as cfl ‘light’ bulbs and corn based ethanol have shown us that we cannot rely on the industry in question to self-report.

            we cannot trust merck to be truthful about vioxx. when you ask apple how secure the i-cloud is, you don’t get a truthful answer. we are assured that ‘best industry practices’ are being followed, but target/home depot/jp morgan’s failure to correct gaping security flaws compromised your personal information.

            if you ask the va, they’ll tell you that patient wait times have ‘improved dramatically’. the general in charge assured us that the ‘iraqi army’ was ready to handle the country’s security.

            bank of america informs us that hamp has rescued hundreds of thousands of mortgage holders.

            monsanto’s ‘research’ demonstrates the ‘safety’ of using glyphosate to dessicate wheat 4 days before harvest. you see, only a ‘negligible’ amount, practically ‘too small to measure’ ends up in our food.

            so, this is why we don’t trust the nuclear industry to self-report. like the cdc, apple and goldman sachs you people spend way too much time clapping each other on the back and telling us what a great job you’re doing.

            provide the raw data so that we can determine if crystal river was profitable or (more likely) if the public is now on the hook for another ‘billion or two’.

          • Joe Dick

            Wow. You are one angry paranoid person. Sorry you’re so far gone that simple facts and analysis are rejected out of hand by your delusions of “knowledge”. Better get some restaurant grade aluminum foil your hats!

          • kimyo

            if you had the numbers which proved that crystal river was a profitable enterprise, you’d be plastering them all over the page.

            every industry has its successes and failures. let’s learn from the failures. let’s not sweep them under the rug for 60 years, saying ‘nothing to see here’.

          • Joe Dick

            I gave you the numbers, then explained to you how they are valid. What’s wrong with you?

          • kimyo

            i think you missed your calling. you should have been an accountant! you’d have been right at home at enron. arthur andersen was looking for people just like you.

            you cannot use a national average multiplied by an estimated kw produced to calculate the profitability of crystal river. no matter how many times you repeat yourself. no matter what initials follow your name. krugman has a bunch of letters awarded by a bunch of universities and we all know how reliable his pompous pontifications have turned out to be.

            you haven’t provided ANY sources for your hallowed ‘average cost per kwh’. you keep repeating the number, yes. but you continue to fail to provide any support or raw data.

          • Joe Dick

            No sir. I didn’t “miss my calling”; I invested years developing my knowledge and skills for the betterment of the human race. To compare me to a bean counter is, as you have done before disparaging my profession for using and mastering averages to make your safe transport by air, sea, and land as safe as it is, beggars the imagination.

            I’ve already explained to you how your entire life depends on averages. It’s what science and engineering do, and you won’t even give me a thank you for to explaining it. You, like captain disinformation, engage in tales told by an idiot, full of sound an fury, signifying nothing. If you don’t like living in the prosperity and ease created by engineers, go create one for yourself without the back-talk. I dare ya to do so – without the tools and lifestyle my kind handed your kind on a platter. You live on the grid and bite the hand that feeds you and gives you freedom. So go on. Do it on your own. Outdo the engineers you despise. Bring your best game!

            …and as the crickets chirp, I’m am most assuredly not holding my breath. :)

          • kimyo

            meanwhile, back on planet earth: Tritium up tenfold in Fukushima groundwater after Typhoon Phanfone

            Some 150,000 becquerels of tritium per liter were measured in a groundwater sample taken Thursday from a well east of the No. 2 reactor. The figure is a record for the well and over 10 times the level measured the previous week.

            In addition, materials that emit beta rays, such as strontium-90, which causes bone cancer, also shattered records with a reading of 1.2 million becquerels, the utility said of the sample.

          • Joe Dick

            So, you disrespect me personally for taking the time to share how things are calculated in engineering, and tell you that your issues lie with misperception of what goes on in business and engineering. Instead of having the courtesy a single compliment for my taking the time to do so you continue not to learn, and finally get down to what I asked you to address: your fear of nulear power instead of lying to yourself about how it actually saved 1.18 trillion dollars over coal. Fine. I’m with you. Let’s talk about that.

          • kimyo

            meanwhile, back on planet earth: Luxembourg hands out iodine pills over fears of French nuclear mishap

            A series of accidents at France’s controversial Cattenom nuclear power station has prompted the government in neighbouring Luxembourg to take the unprecedented step of issuing free iodine pills to its half a million citizens to help protect them in the event of a serious nuclear incident at the plant.

            The government in the neighbouring German state of Saarland has also issued every locality in a 25 kilometre radius of Cattenom with its own supplies of iodine

          • Joe Dick

            What you have already addressed by example still attains: You think aeronautical engineers should not use probability to design airplanes, yet they fly, rather successfully I might add. I think you shouldn’t use newspaper articles to make decisions.

            That, and your response has more than once begun with, “Meanwhile, back on planet earth”… Again, if you don’t like your lifestyle products, quit using the products of my peoples’ imagination that you live on like a parasite. Seriously, what have you done but consume the products of hard working people and all you do is botch it up and complain. Again, either offer a solution or get off the Internet which, again, my kind provided your kind. Grab a sharp stone and carve it on a tree and hope somebody walks by to see it! : )

          • kimyo

            meanwhile, back on planet earth: Ex-supervisor at Indian Point nuclear plant charged with fabricating fuel tests

            In 2011, the NRC threatened to shut plant down because unacceptable levels of contaminants were found in tests of diesel in the emergency generators.

            Wilson, of the Westchester town of Walden, submitted bogus test results in 2012 showing fuel contaminant levels had been corrected and lied about it to NRC investigators, officials said.

          • Joe Dick

            Wow. Again, step away from the media.

          • kimyo

            meanwhile, back on planet earth: Plastic bags, tape, broomsticks fix San Onofre leak

            SAN DIEGO – An inside source gave Team 10 a picture snapped inside the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) showing plastic bags, masking tape and broom sticks used to stem a massive leaky pipe.

            San Onofre owner Southern California Edison (SCE), confirms the picture was
            taken inside Unit Three, but did not say when. The anonymous source said the picture was taken in December 2012.

            Unit Three is the same unit that leaked radiation in January 2012. SONGS has been shutdown since then as a precaution.

          • Joe Dick

            I’m laughing. You’ve depended on your entire career here, an that of your supposed grandchildren, for what you want to say and how no investment you want it to go “your way”. Good luck with that; you’ll need it without, say, books. By the way, ever compute how much radiation you’re exposed to from isotopes of potaßium? Then Special K is sure to cause your death. Oh, wait! This just in: sitting nexr to other people causes more exposure than going to the beach on a sunny day. A sense of perspective is what’s called for here. Good job occupying the conversation. Can you compute to your expose your daily exposure to nacium and kallium? Do refresh my memory as to how that is done. Tick… Tick… Tick………..

          • kimyo

            meanwhile, back on planet earth: Panic in paradise: Malibu high school community shaken by cancer fears

            Twenty faculty members sounded the alarm last week in a letter which said three teachers had been recently diagnosed with stage 1 thyroid cancer, another three had thyroid problems, and seven suffered migraines. The letter also cited incidents of hair loss, rashes and bladder cancer.

            The school had begun testing for air and soil contamination last month, said Lyon. She apologised for not communicating that before the teachers’ letter forced the issue into the open, but said there was no evidence students were at risk. “We know they are safe, just as much as you know that your house is safe.”

            Few seemed reassured. Questions rained down. Would inspectors test
            for radioactivity?
            How advanced were the cancer cases? Several parents cited having children with cancer and other ailments,….

          • Joe Dick

            By the way, if you really care about all the unnecessary expenditure of money by taxpayers, do ask yourself: Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?…

          • kimyo

            meanwhile, back on planet earth: Mysterious US spaceplane returns to Earth

            A US plane on a top-secret, two-year mission to space has returned to Earth and landed in California.

            j/k. :)

            and now, resuming our regularly scheduled programming: meanwhile, back on planet earth: Indian Point’s Tritium Problem and the N.R.C.’s Regulatory Problem

            Turning to the bad news, the NRC needs to get off the bench and into the regulating game. All the rhetoric about 20,000 picocuries per liter and neighbors drinking two quarts a day for a year is totally irrelevant.

            N.R.C.’s regulations do not allow a drop of radioactively contaminated water to leave Indian Point except via monitored and controlled pathways. Even if the monitoring wells constituted a monitored pathway (which they don’t despite the name), it’s not a controlled pathway. Thus, N.R.C.’s regulations are being violated. But N.R.C. does not enforce those regulations.

          • Joe Dick

            So, not one drop of radioactively contaminated water is allowed to leave. Bananas are not indigenous, and thus any water containing potassium from another continent should be banned. In fact, consumption of bannanas increases potassium in human beings, and increases the risk of cancer to those in close proximity, such as at football games. Therefore we should either ban bananas and the minions that eat them in cartoon movies, or wear lead suits to stadiums. Who’s with me on this, and banning di-hydrogen monoxide, because it’s in our food….

          • kimyo

            mbope: PART II: AP IMPACT: Tritium leaks found at many nuke sites

            Under NRC rules, tiny concentrations of tritium and other contaminants
            are routinely released in monitored increments from nuclear plants;
            leaks from corroded pipes are not permitted.

            The leaks sometimes go undiscovered for years, the AP found. Many of the
            pipes or tanks have been patched, and contaminated soil and water have
            been removed in some places. But leaks are often discovered later from
            other nearby piping, tanks or vaults. Mistakes and defective material
            have contributed to some leaks. However, corrosion — from decades of use
            and deterioration — is the main cause. And, safety engineers say, the
            rash of leaks suggest nuclear operators are hard put to maintain the
            decades-old systems.

            not allowed to leave, not permitted – say that, over and over, in your head, like wallace shawn saying, ‘inconceivable!’

            There were 38 leaks from underground piping between 2000 and 2009,
            according to an industry document presented at a tritium conference.
            Nearly two-thirds of the leaks were reported over the latest five years.

            Here are some examples:

            —At the three-unit Browns Ferry complex in Alabama, a valve was
            mistakenly left open in a storage tank during modifications over the
            years. When the tank was filled in April 2010 about 1,000 gallons of
            tritium-laden water poured onto the ground at a concentration of 2
            million picocuries per liter. In drinking water, that would be 100 times
            higher than the EPA health standard.

            —At the LaSalle site west of Chicago, tritium-laden water was
            accidentally released from a storage tank in July 2010 at a
            concentration of 715,000 picocuries per liter — 36 times the EPA
            standard.

            —The year before, 123,000 picocuries per liter were detected in a well
            near the turbine building at Peach Bottom west of Philadelphia — six
            times the drinking water standard.

            —And in 2008, 7.5 million picocuries per liter leaked from underground
            piping at Quad Cities in western Illinois — 375 times the EPA limit.

          • Joe Dick

            Wow. You can cut and paste. Say, you supposedly have a degree in physics according to… You. So do tell me. Where are the solar powered solar panel factories?

          • kimyo

            meanwhile, up on planet nukular: Bush Says

            Speaking in front of this hamlet’s twin nuclear cooling towers on
            Wednesday, Mr. Bush promoted the 2005 energy bill he signed into law,
            which provides tax incentives, loan guarantees and federal risk
            insurance
            for companies building nuclear plants. Before the law, he
            said, only 2 companies were considering building plants, but now 16 are.

            incentives/guarantees/no-cost insurance are not subsidies if they benefit the nuclear industry. we have never been at war with eastasia. fool me once…..

          • Joe Dick

            And by the way, seriously, where are the off-grid solar panel solar panel factories? j/a = just asking….

          • kimyo

            meanwhile, back on planet earth: Does nuclear power produce no CO2 ?

            Proponents of nuclear power always say that one of the big benefits of nuclear power is that it produces no Carbon dioxide (CO2). This is completely untrue, as a moment’s consideration will demonstrate that fossil fuels, especially oil in the form of gasoline and diesel, are essential to every stage of the nuclear cycle, and CO2 is given off whenever these are used.

            (amazing photo series at link, especially if you’re fond of heavy equipment. the benefits to the environment of uranium mining and preparation are clear for even the most untrained eye to see.)

          • Joe Dick

            Amazing propaganda. You and captain disinformation…

          • kimyo

            mbope: Nuclear waste piles up, and it’s costing taxpayers billions

            At the time DOE officials signed the contracts in late 2008, the government faced – and still faces – scores of lawsuits by nuclear utilities seeking compensation because the government has not stored their spent fuel as promised. Instead, the utilities must store it on their own sites. When DOE officials signed the deals, the government had already paid $565 million in damages and faced $790 million in judgments on appeal.

            what’s $565 million here, $790 million there? no worries, the government has got tons of cash. it’s not like the taxpayers are footing the bill.

          • Joe Dick

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? Shouldn’t they be off the grid if they’re “renewable energy”? You think you’re getting screwed by bad light bulbs? You think you’re actually paying extra for decommissioning a nuclear plant? Give me a break about your concerns. In your best logic, if solar panels are “renewable energy”, do tell me…

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?
            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

            Just do me a favor and ask yourself that…

          • kimyo

            meanwhile, up on planet nukular: Everything You Never Wanted to Know about Nuclear Containments

            By way of qualifications, my training is in physics in which I have a bachelor’s degree. I also worked for five years at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey. Like the Fukushima plants, Oyster Creek is a GE BWR-I with a Mark I containment. It has a power rating roughly 1/3 higher than Fukushima Daiichi 1. I worked on a number of projects while there including managing the computer system used by the core engineering group to manage the reactor core and fuel usage.

            I am also one of those 99th percentile bastards who screwed up the grading curve from time to time … sorry about that.

            Bottom line, they’re certainly not out of the woods yet but a full meltdown at any of the units seems highly unlikely at this point

            note the m.o.: first they smugly tell you how much of a genius they are, then they go on to provide disinformation of the highest order.

            in my book, there’s really no difference between a person who feels compelled to tell you how smart they are and a hipster casually whipping out the latest i-gadget.

          • Joe Dick

            Wow, and you never learned that all engineering and physics is based on proper use of statistical averages? You won’t fly on an aeroplane based on said use? You should ask for your money back. Not much of a physics degree. Pardon me if I doubt you now that you finally concoct this story for public consumption. Yet another so-called knowledgeable person claimoling knowledge behind an aviatar. In my considered opinion, you couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn door with a neutron.

          • kimyo

            sorry, that’s your guy with the physics degree who should be seeking a refund, not me. and i love flying on planes, especially single prop. i just wouldn’t fly on one YOU designed, for obvious reasons.

            meanwhile, back on planet earth: The Energy Return of Nuclear Power (EROI on the Web-Part 4)

            The longest standing, and perhaps most important, direct subsidy for
            nuclear power
            in the US is the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries
            Indemnity Act. This act artificially maintains low insurance costs with
            “no-fault” insurance for operators. The first ten-billion dollars of
            damage from a major disaster would be covered by the nuclear industry
            (not solely the operator), and above that the government up the tab.
            Thus the nuclear industry in the USA has had to bear only a small
            proportion of the risk, the rest is assumed by the state or imposed as
            an uncovered risk on the public (Proops 2001). If commercial plants had
            to cover the full risks, such as the human, environmental and property
            damages from a major accident or terrorist attack, nuclear power would
            be extremely uneconomic
            (Proops 2001). In unsubsidized markets there are
            many natural-gas plants being built but not a single new nuclear plant,
            suggesting unsubsidized returns are not competitive with similar sized
            fossil-fuel plants
            (Proops 2001)

          • Joe Dick

            It is a shame that so many people fight the hands that feed them. If you don’t want the future of energy to happen in the United States of America, based on research our fathers and grandfathers paid for, and let China and India get ahead of us in energy, well, get used to working as a WalMart greeter. Some of us are here defending prosperity and the environment. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=knofNX7HCbg

          • kimyo

            fukushima sure spilled a lot of ‘prosperity’ onto japan’s environment.

          • Joe Dick

            Fine. Go through life with eyes wide shut. See if I care. http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html

          • Joe Dick

            Delivered previously. Available to you, courtesy not of a website that anyone can buy, or people that spout off for free on someone else’s, but from people that earned the right to contribute and are respected for publishing: http://m.wsj.com/articles/BL-258B-905.

          • Joe Dick

            You lose. Complicated, apparently, for you.

          • Joe Dick

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

          • CaptD

            Joe Dick

            RE: Nuclear and Coal pay for themselves. Nuclear is the cheapest form of energy generation we have.”

            This is ☢ BS, especially when all costs are considered,

            For Coal health costs need to be included.

            For Nuclear, all mining and decommissioning health costs need to be included. Plus their would be no nuclear in the USA if the Price-Anderson Act did not shelter the nuclear industry from lawsuits if something BAD happens and the US Gov’t. did not “accept” all nuclear waste, which they are not really doing; both of which need to factored into the cost of generated Energy!

            Wall Street knows what Energy costs which is why only the US Gov’t. is lending money for Nuclear, since Nuclear owns so many in Congress.

            A perfect example:
            Solar, wind cost-competitive for peak energy, study finds

            Consultant questions subsidies for residential solar when costs are dropping

            snip

            Solar and wind power are increasingly cost-competitive with conventional forms of electrical power, including coal and nuclear, even without subsidies, according to a new study.

            “The economics of alternative energy have changed dramatically in the last decade,” said George Bilicic, global head of the power energy and infrastructure group at Lazard Ltd. and author of the report.

            http://www.cbc.ca/1.2781609

          • Joe Dick

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

          • kimyo

            seconding captd: give us the numbers you’re working with.

            if defies reason to argue that subsidies given to solar and wind are anything more than a tiny fraction of those given to nuclear.

            but, share your numbers so that you can best make your argument. all you have to do is put them down here and the argument would be won. why not do that?

          • Joe Dick

            Funny how that works. I provided captain disinformation with my data and sources repeatedly, but like “it” you cannot be bothered to avail yourself of the real power of google unless the propaganda suits your need for fictiional accounts. I gave him the damn numbers, and he refuses to respond:
            Two years ago, NY Times columnist Paul Krugman put it simply: “That’s right: Solar power is now cost-effective.” He was wrong then and is wrong today. Solar energy is not close to being cost effective for consumers or for the environment.
            The National Renewable Energy Laboratory recently concluded that in the sunny Western U.S., solar “could” be competitive in 12 years. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) agrees. In its cost projection for 2018, solar is 67% more expensive than wind and twice as expensive as natural gas. At the Pacific Northwest Regional Economic Conference this year, one utility energy planner reported that solar costs about 80 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) compared to the national average of about 10 cents per kwh.

            Solar energy is one of the worst ways to reduce carbon emissions. McKinsey and Company’s analysis found that nuclear, wind and even coal with carbon capture are more effective. Bloomberg New Energy Finance found the same result, ranking solar panels 28th out of 33 carbon-reduction options.

            Then why is solar popular? Huge taxpayer subsidies hide the actual cost. Other renewables receive a subsidy of about one cent per kwh, solar energy receives about 96 cents per kwh. We pay solar’s cost in the form of taxes instead of as electric rates.
            A new study co-authored by William Nordhaus, a man Krugman calls a “mentor,” noted how ineffective subsides are, saying “very little if any GHG reductions are achieved at substantial cost.”
            Finally, as a recent study reveals, people desire solar panels because they convey “green” status. Solar panels increase home prices “in communities with more registered Prius” owners. Although solar panels yield tiny environmental benefits, some pay the price to look “green.”
            This misconception is not harmless. Billions are spent propping up wasteful solar energy instead of projects that effectively reduce carbon emissions.

          • Joe Dick

            Shared and shared again. I shouldn’t have to “win”. The facts do speak for themselves. You only have to have an able ear. We gave you that, those of us that helped pioneer this point of access that you abuse.

          • kimyo

            if you don’t post any facts, how can we verify your claims? i’ve scanned the whole thread, you haven’t posted anything which gives us the amount of subsidy the nuclear industry has received.

            how much did the nuclear industry receive in 2013? if you don’t know, just say so.

          • Joe Dick

            “Then why is solar popular? Huge taxpayer subsidies hide the actual cost. Other renewables receive a subsidy of about one cent per kwh, solar energy receives about 96 cents per kwh. We pay solar’s cost in the form of taxes instead of as electric rates.” Strange that you cannot read the provided information! Nuclear doesn’t get subsidies. I get angry when politicians rob me with a pen and paper, don’t you? Taxpayer dollars spent to pretend to be green is so very awesome, don’t you think?

          • kimyo

            do you have a number or not? it appear you don’t.

          • kimyo

            if you don’t post any facts, how can we verify your claims? i’ve scanned the whole thread, you haven’t posted anything which gives us the amount of subsidy the nuclear industry has received.

            how much did the nuclear industry receive in 2013? if you don’t know, just say so.

  • CaptD
  • CaptD

    The French have plenty of problems with Nuclear also!

    French Nuclear Disaster Scenario Was So Bad The Government Kept It Secret http://www.businessinsider.com/potential-cost-of-a-nuclear-accident-so-high-its-a-secret-2013-3 via @bi_contributors

    snip

    Catastrophic nuclear accidents, like Chernobyl in 1986 or Fukushima No. 1 in 2011, are, were incessantly told, very rare, and their probability of occurring infinitesimal.

    But when they do occur, they get costly. So costly that the French government, when it came up with cost estimates for an accident in France, kept them secret.

    But now the report was leaked to the French magazine, Le Journal de Dimanche. Turns out, the upper end of the cost spectrum of an accident at the nuclear power plant at Dampierre, in the Department of Loiret in north-central France, amounted to over three times the countrys GDP.

    Hence, the need to keep it secret. The study was done in 2007 by the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), a government agency under joint authority of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Environment, Industry, Research, and Health.With over 1,700 employees, its Frances public service expert in nuclear and radiation risks. This isnt some overambitious, publicity-hungry think tank.

    It evaluated a range of disaster scenarios that might occur at the Dampierre plant. In the best-case scenario, costs came to 760 billion more than a third of Frances GDP. At the other end of the spectrum: 5.8 trillion! Over three times Frances GDP. A devastating amount. So large that France could not possibly deal with it.

    Yet, France gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear power. The entire nuclear sector is controlled by the state, which also owns 85% of EDF, the mega-utility that operates Frances 58 active nuclear reactors spread over 20 plants. So, three weeks ago, the Institute released a more politically correct report for public consumption. It pegged the cost of an accident at 430 billion.

    There was no political smoothening, no pressure, claimed IRSN Director General Jacques Repussard, but he admitted, its difficult to publish these kinds of numbers. He said the original report with a price tag of 5.8 trillion was designed to counter the reports that EDF had fabricated, which very seriously underestimated the costs of the incidents.

    Both reports were authored by IRSN economist Patrick Momal, who struggled to explain away the differences. The new number, 430 billion, was based on a median case of radioactive releases, as was the case in Fukushima, he told the JDD, while the calculations of 2007 were based more on what happened at Chernobyl. But then he added that even the low end of the original report, the 760 billion, when updated with the impact on tourism and exports, would jump to 1 trillion.

  • CaptD

    What is wrong with our Country when we are giving “whistle blowers” such a hard time instead of our thanks for exposing things that are unsafe?

    This is especially important when it come to anything related to the nuclear industry, since the cost of even one nuclear accident could destroy our Countries economy for generations!

    Utility profits have replaced SAFETY as the most important thing for utilities to consider since if their is any big problems there are not on the hook for them having past that risk onto their ratepayers!

    If the nuclear industry had to self-insure there would be no nuclear power plants in the USA! That statement alone, should cause all ratepayers to question not only the nuclear industry but all those that support them and not just in Congress!

  • CaptD

    What is wrong with our Country when we are giving “whistle blowers” such a hard time instead of our thanks for exposing things that are unsafe?

    This is especially important when it come to anything related to the nuclear industry, since the cost of even one nuclear accident could destroy our Countries economy for generations!

    Utility profits have replaced SAFETY as the most important thing for utilities to consider since if their is any big problems there are not on the hook for them having past that risk onto their ratepayers!

    If the nuclear industry had to self-insure there would be no nuclear power plants in the USA! That statement alone, should cause all ratepayers to question not only the nuclear industry but all those that support them and not just in Congress!

  • Marcelo Pacheco

    The US NRC is commited to destroying the very industry its suposed to regulate.
    This article is a big heap of boloney. Paid in full by the coal+natural gas interests.

    The tsunami that knocked out the Fukushima nuclear power plants shifted the earths orbital axis by a few milimeters, and shifted the main Japanese island by many inches east. Even with all of that, should all backup diesel generators not have been placed in the basement, the nuclear reactors would have survived the incident and would already be back in production.
    If we applied the same logic to the oil and gas industry, we would be demanding all extration of oil worldwide stopped, since we had the Deep Water Horizon accident, or that the 200 thousand yearly deaths caused by coal be a reason to shutdown the entire worldwide coal industry.
    Nuclear power is the only credible alternative to replace coal for electricity production.
    The current shale natural gas fenomena is a huge con, eventually natural gas supply will run short and natural gas prices will increase 500% and make all of those natural gas thermal plants uneconomical.
    Only nuclear can operate at reasonable costs, since the actual uranium costs are just a very tiny percentage of the total costs of operating a nuclear reactor, and we have the solution to increase uranium utilization so that it produces at least 20x more energy per ton of uranium, making any “we’re running out of uranium” completely illogical, and even using current very low efficiency nuclear power plants (use less than 1% of mined uranium for energy production, the remaining 99% becomes depleted uranium, unfissioned uranium or plutonium on spent nuclear fuel).

  • CaptD

    From another blog, from another trusted source:

    http://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/the-fukushima-experiment-an-email-from-david-chanin/

    http://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/attempted-decontamination-of-farmland-in-japan-by-ploughing-farmers-of-the-world-skill-up/

    https://www.academia.edu/84241

    https://www.academia.edu/84009

    https://www.academia.edu/83554

    The Ergen Report shows that by 1967 the AEC, was fully aware of the risk of core meltdown in multimegawatt reactors and know also that some means of catching corium was imperative. Hasnt happened.

  • Joe Dick

    You want to blow whistles? Then blow this one:

    Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

    Renewable energy? I don’t think so. Otherwise it would be off the grid from the get go, say, back in the 70s….

 

 

Twitter