April 29, 200917 yr There is no nuclear plant in Madison, In. There are the remnants of 20% completed nuclear plant in Mt. Washington, IN, called Marble Hill. The plant was built in the late 70s, early 80s, but was never finished due to going WAY over budget for the whole project with only a portion completed. In addition, the concrete in the containment buildings wasn't poured correctly and would have been too weak to be of protection in an explosion. One of the employees exposed attempted coverups for the shoddy work. This is part of the nuclear science unit I teach to my Chemistry II students. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_Hill_Nuclear_Power_Plant http://www.abandonedonline.net/index.php?catid=179 http://wikimapia.org/1361663/Marble-Hill-Nuclear-Power-Plant-Abandoned I didn't know where it was exactly and don't care really.
April 29, 200917 yr So I was reading about the emissions from a nuclear power plant and it is on the same line as a coal powered one so I don't see anything different except safety.
April 29, 200917 yr Why are we as Americans not clamoring for the use of nuclear power as a means to fight "climate change." When it comes down to it, no amount of geothermal, wind or solar power is going to be enough to replace the kind of power on a consistent basis that coal generate. Looking at the situation there are numerous problems with the most popular "green" energy source at the moment. The talk of the day, of course, is wind power and wind turbines. Wind turbines are essentially eyesores that have potential consequences that really have not been talked about. Air and Wind currents affect weather patterns, bird migrations, seed pollinations and so on. People aren't discussing the potential effect that these massive turbines will have on the aforementioned items. On top of that, wind turbines do not offer the kind of "on demand" control of power that other sources do. The peak hours of demand often do not coincide with the peak hours of power generation. You are probably thinking "Well what about batteries?" the problem you run into with batteries is that you need something that can be charged and discharged quickly without causing considerable damage to the battery. At this point in time said batteries do not exist and the attempt to use any other type would end up being prohibitively expensive. Nuclear power does not have that problem. The United States has some of the largest deposits of Uranium in the world and we have the means to access it. Pebble bed reactors, which I have discussed ad nauseum, are safe, controllable and lead to far less and more manageable waste. They have no pressurized steam and if left unattended will go into a neutral state thus preventing meltdowns. Further safety to the passive system can be added in the form of the control rods that are common in most nuclear reactors today. So I ask you, why are we not talking about Nuclear power as a viable option? Are we still in the shadow of Chernobyl? If so then it is a shame. Can we build one in your neighborhood? We need more jails, because of the overcrowding problem. Can we build one next to the nuclear plant, which we want to build five doors down from you? People dont mind nuclear. They just dont want it in their backyard. And it's an awfully big group.
April 29, 200917 yr So I was reading about the emissions from a nuclear power plant and it is on the same line as a coal powered one so I don't see anything different except safety. What were you reading??? :confused: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies the following average emission levels in the production of 1 MWh of electricity Pounds of Emissions per MWh Coal Oil Natural Gas Nuclear Carbon Dioxide 2249 1672 1135 0 Sulfur Dioxide 13 12 0.1 0 Nitrogen Oxides 6 4 1.7 0 Source: http://www.epa.gov/clean energy/impacts
April 29, 200917 yr So I was reading about the emissions from a nuclear power plant and it is on the same line as a coal powered one so I don't see anything different except safety. Link? This is contrary to all sources of information that I have seen.
April 29, 200917 yr I didn't know where it was exactly and don't care really. My wording was bad on that. I didn't mean to offend you. I just wanted to give the information (really interesting story).
April 30, 200917 yr My wording was bad on that. I didn't mean to offend you. I just wanted to give the information (really interesting story). Sorry for the comment.
April 30, 200917 yr What were you reading??? :confused: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies the following average emission levels in the production of 1 MWh of electricity Pounds of Emissions per MWh Coal Oil Natural Gas Nuclear Carbon Dioxide 2249 1672 1135 0 Sulfur Dioxide 13 12 0.1 0 Nitrogen Oxides 6 4 1.7 0 Source: http://www.epa.gov/clean energy/impacts Sorry I misunderstood my co-workers. Can you really put a price on human life if one blows up?
April 30, 200917 yr Author Can we build one in your neighborhood? We need more jails, because of the overcrowding problem. Can we build one next to the nuclear plant, which we want to build five doors down from you? People dont mind nuclear. They just dont want it in their backyard. And it's an awfully big group. Sure, I would be happy to live near one. Same with prisons. I am not afraid of nuclear power and I own guns in the event of a jailbreak.
April 30, 200917 yr Sure, I would be happy to live near one. Same with prisons. I am not afraid of nuclear power and I own guns in the event of a jailbreak. I'm the same way as you. I'd be no more reluctant to have a nuke plant next to me than I would a coal burning plant. There are nuke plants that have worked very well for a long time in the States. I believe I was told that nukes have provided a significant percentage of electricity in South Carolina for quite some time. The problem with nuke construction is not the safety aspect: it's the construction costs and the cost and time involved in getting federal approval isn't it?
April 30, 200917 yr Author Sorry I misunderstood my co-workers. Can you really put a price on human life if one blows up? They don't explode, they meltdown and the likelihood of a meltdown is slim. Especially with Pebble Bed designs. They have a passive safety system which should shut down the reactor in the event of anything close to meltdown in the event that the "should" doesn't happen active safety features involving control rods to stop the reaction can be lowered into the reactor to stop any potential problems. The whole "blows up" thing is a common misnomer and problem when it comes to nuclear power. The common citizen hears it and thinks: 1) Explosions 2) Mutation 3) Radiation People think of Chernobyl when they think Nuclear power and is unfortunate because anyone who uses a Soviet disaster as an example is reaching. The Soviets put far less of a premium on human life than we did, in fact they even seemed to put less of a value on competency than we do, and given the state of our government THAT is saying something!
April 30, 200917 yr Author Can we build one in your neighborhood? We need more jails, because of the overcrowding problem. Can we build one next to the nuclear plant, which we want to build five doors down from you? People dont mind nuclear. They just dont want it in their backyard. And it's an awfully big group. At the same time people don't want wind turbines in their backyard either because they are an eyesore.
May 1, 200917 yr They don't explode, they meltdown and the likelihood of a meltdown is slim. Especially with Pebble Bed designs. They have a passive safety system which should shut down the reactor in the event of anything close to meltdown in the event that the "should" doesn't happen active safety features involving control rods to stop the reaction can be lowered into the reactor to stop any potential problems. The whole "blows up" thing is a common misnomer and problem when it comes to nuclear power. The common citizen hears it and thinks: 1) Explosions 2) Mutation 3) Radiation People think of Chernobyl when they think Nuclear power and is unfortunate because anyone who uses a Soviet disaster as an example is reaching. The Soviets put far less of a premium on human life than we did, in fact they even seemed to put less of a value on competency than we do, and given the state of our government THAT is saying something! :thumb: The Chernobyl accident is interesting. So many safety alerts/issues were ignored. It really should have never happened.
May 1, 200917 yr Anyone ever done a study on coal-related deaths (e.g. mine disasters) in the U.S. vs. nuclear-related deaths?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.