Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jfl25

NUCLEAR POWER

Recommended Posts

With the announcement by NuStart energy development that SRS has been picked as one of six finalist to recieve a nuclear power plant ,and Duke energy conducting a study to possibly put a new nuclear plant in their service area ( including the upstate) I wanted to get everyones opinion on weather they are for or against nuclear power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Oh, I guess I should give my opinion to start off the topic. I believe that Nuclear energy when properly regulated is a great way to produce power.I am for the new power plant as long as EVERY percaution is followed in building this plant. With rising oil prices and concerns of polution I think this would be a cost effective alturnative to coal ,and fossil fuel power plants. I also think this would be one of the first steps toward becoming less dependant on other countries to supply or power needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can concur with what jfl25 said. Nuclear power can be very good, but it can be very dangerous. All precautions should be taken from its production, its security, and everything in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duke Power wants the Carolinas to be come a net Exporter of Energy, the idea is to produce power to sell to other states, at least that is how I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RestedTraveler I saw the post about SRS on the South Carolina site,but only after I had started this topic. This topic deals with both SRS and the potential new Duke plant. However both posts are very simular in thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that the government is pushing to have new nuclear plants placed on older closed military bases, which I feel is a great idea. I also would like to see these new plants placed in areas where they can turn around an area through intelligent redevelopment, like what is going on in GV with the Westend.

Are there any older closed military bases in the upstate or areas that need redevelopment that could benefit with a nuclear plant redevelopment?

Additionally, I wanted to add that in an earlier thread in another topic someone mentioned a possible three mile island/chernobyl saftey risk in reference to the new nuclear plants. I am not an expert by any means, but it is my understanding that the aforementioned plants were a type known as graphite construction and that newer plants do not have the same risk factors and are considerably safer. Maybe someone else can better describe the difference.

I personally feel that we need to do everything possible right now to replace coal, oil, and fossil fuels and develop renewable energy sources: biodeisel, corn based, hydrogen, nuclear, and similar until such a time as fusion reactors are ready to come online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, I wanted to add that in an earlier thread in another topic someone mentioned a possible three mile island/chernobyl saftey risk in reference to the new nuclear plants. I am not an expert by any means, but it is my understanding that the aforementioned plants were a type known as graphite construction and that newer plants do not have the same risk factors and are considerably safer. Maybe someone else can better describe the difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another thing you must consider is that while these two events are certainly bad- they are just two. How many other nuclear reactors have never had problems? How many exist in the world? Its all alot more than 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that the government is pushing to have new nuclear plants placed on older closed military bases, which I feel is a great idea. I also would like to see these new plants placed in areas where they can turn around an area through intelligent redevelopment, like what is going on in GV with the Westend.

Are there any older closed military bases in the upstate or areas that need redevelopment that could benefit with a nuclear plant redevelopment?

Additionally, I wanted to add that in an earlier thread in another topic someone mentioned a possible three mile island/chernobyl saftey risk in reference to the new nuclear plants. I am not an expert by any means, but it is my understanding that the aforementioned plants were a type known as graphite construction and that newer plants do not have the same risk factors and are considerably safer. Maybe someone else can better describe the difference.

I personally feel that we need to do everything possible right now to replace coal, oil, and fossil fuels and develop renewable energy sources: biodeisel, corn based, hydrogen, nuclear, and similar until such a time as fusion reactors are ready to come online.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nuclear Reactors need to be near very large bodies of water for cooling purposes, and in the case of Keowee Toxaway they use the Lakes to suplement the nuclear power with hydro electric during the day and then at night when they are making more power than is needed they expend it by pumping water from hartwell back in to Keowee, or is it Keowee back in to Jocasee? I forget.

Are their military bases on large rivers or lakes?

I like the presidents idea of using the old military bases for Oil Refineries myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear Reactors need to be near very large bodies of water for cooling purposes, and in the case of Keowee Toxaway they use the Lakes to suplement the nuclear power with hydro electric during the day and then at night when they are making more power than is needed they expend it by pumping water from hartwell back in to Keowee, or is it Keowee back in to Jocasee? I forget.

Are their military bases on large rivers or lakes?

I like the presidents idea of using the old military bases for Oil Refineries myself

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do too. It doesn't matter to me what is developed on the bases, as long as they are redeveloped.

There are many closed military bases located near water sources, not just Naval bases either. The Air Force has a few too.

Additionally, Keowee and another lake (I think Jocassee) were manmade and built for the express purpose of supporting the hydro electric operations for the Oconee nuclear station. The water is recycled in the process and the net loss is minimal.

The ultimate location of the nuclear plant probably will have more to do with the current and future need and the electrical grid and infrastruction needed to support the additional power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our dependence on foreign oil supplies impacts in so many ways - economically, politically, militarily, and socially. I personally believe that our dependence on mideast oil is a major reason we have been embroiled in that region since the 1970's. If we stopped importing mideast oil today we would probably stop being shot at.

Nuclear is the way to go. It's been proven, safe (except for TMI in 1979), and relatively inexpensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I=

Additionally, I wanted to add that in an earlier thread in another topic someone mentioned a possible three mile island/chernobyl saftey risk in reference to the new nuclear plants. I am not an expert by any means, but it is my understanding that the aforementioned plants were a type known as graphite construction and that newer plants do not have the same risk factors and are considerably safer. Maybe someone else can better describe the difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are correct concerning Chernobyl's reactors. They were less sophisticated graphite designs but the real reason for the failure was the running of a dangerous safety test coupled with the inexperience of the operators and the reluctance to report bad news in the Soviet system. The Soviets did not place a containment building around their reactors which made the problem much worse when the reactor exploded.

You were mistaken about the TMI system. The reactor at TMI was a modern pressure water reactor built by Babcock & Wilcox. It was as modern as they get for commercial reactors. Failure was due again to poor construction and really bad management. And like in the Soviet Union there was a cover up. Fortunately in the USA reactors were placed in containment buildings so the radiation threat to the surrounding area was fairly non-existant. Ironically there was a hit movie at the time called "The China Syndrome" which depicted a similar scenario.

(china syndrome is the name coined to describe a nuclear reactor meltdown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct concerning Chernobyl's reactors.  They were less sophisticated graphite designs but the real reason for the failure was the running of a dangerous safety test coupled with the inexperience of the operators and the reluctance to report bad news in the Soviet system.  The Soviets did not place a containment building around their reactors which made the problem much worse when the reactor exploded. 

You were mistaken about the TMI system.  The reactor at TMI was a modern pressure water reactor built by Babcock & Wilcox.  It was as modern as they get for commercial reactors.  Failure was due again to poor construction and really bad management.  And like in the Soviet Union there was a cover up.  Fortunately in the USA reactors were placed in containment buildings so the radiation threat to the surrounding area was fairly non-existant.  Ironically there was a hit movie at the time called "The China Syndrome" which depicted a similar scenario. 

(china syndrome is the name coined to describe a nuclear reactor meltdown)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the clarification. Are there elements of the current designs that make nuclear power even safer than the units built 20 to 30 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification. Are there elements of the current designs that make nuclear power even safer than the units built 20 to 30 years ago?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It depends more on who built the reactor. The best reactors from a safety standpoint are built by the US Military for Navy vessels but the expense of these things would preclude them from commercial power generation. The designs are closely guarded state secrets of the USA as well.

Duke Energy is known for designing and operating the most efficient and safest nuclear plants in the USA.

A nuclear reactor can be safe as long as it is properly constructed and operated by qualified people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an article in today's Charlotte Observer indicating that Duke is planning to build a new Nuclear Plant and has applied for a license to do so. This will be the first new nuclear plant built in the USA in decades, and will result in 1000s of construction and long term well paying jobs.

Duke has not said where it plans to locate this plant but the Observer indicated that it could be located in Cherokee county or in the Yadkin Valley (near Winston Salem) where it has been holding property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im all for Nuclear Power. They plan to build it along the Yadkin River near Mocksville, at least thats what Fox 8 said yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Britain and France get all or most of their power from nuclear plants. If done right this is the way to go. With new technology coming in to play these plants are very safe. As it stands Europe leads the world in nuclear power plant know how. I am for it. The only thing that bothers me is the waste produced from it. Other than that it is an energy source that has more legs than fossil fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that bothers me is that SC is still the dumping ground for our nation's nuclear waste. That arrangement was supposed to end along time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that bothers me is that SC is still the dumping ground for our nation's nuclear waste. That arrangement was supposed to end along time ago.

Yeah that is the downside. The government is trying to build a waste facility out here in Nevada called Yucca mountain which will take a great deal of the the waste and store it inside the mountain. However there is huge opposition to this after the project has already started. As a country we have to move foreward with things like this if we want to get off of fossil fuels. I hate close-minded politics. Where do these people prefer the waste be stored. In a dense state with all kinds of natural habitat or a mountain in the middle of the desert 100's of miles from the nearest river. I don't get it.... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading a blurb about that. What exactly are they complaining about? I agree that is one of the best places to put it considering it has to go somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading a blurb about that. What exactly are they complaining about? I agree that is one of the best places to put it considering it has to go somewhere.

They are looking for excuses from all angles. First all the project is on government land and the state is upset that there was no consulting with them. Also the project is overbudget which makes sense because of all the geological studies that had to be made. The DOD and DOI owns about 80 percent of Nevadas desert land so I don't see why the state and NIMBYers have anything to complain about. Nobody cared about Yucca mountain until the waste site was started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a lengthy article on this issue earlier this year. There is some sort of commission made up of representatives from each state that makes these decisions. Supposedly every state that meets certain characteristics will get some waste sooner or later. SC was supposed to stop recieving nuclear waste in the 80s, as it was only a temporary thing. No state wants the stuff, so its hard to get anyone motivated. I can't blame Nevada for not wanting it, but they need to realize that they have NO people living out there, whereas we do have people living near the SRS.

If I can find that article I'll post some more precise info on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a lengthy article on this issue earlier this year. There is some sort of commission made up of representatives from each state that makes these decisions. Supposedly every state that meets certain characteristics will get some waste sooner or later. SC was supposed to stop recieving nuclear waste in the 80s, as it was only a temporary thing. No state wants the stuff, so its hard to get anyone motivated. I can't blame Nevada for not wanting it, but they need to realize that they have NO people living out there, whereas we do have people living near the SRS.

If I can find that article I'll post some more precise info on it.

Well considering the type of growth SC is going and is experiencing I don't think having a waste site sitting a small state with a population climbing though 5 mil. I'm no rocket scientist but I know it anything were to happen at a waste site that youi want it to be isolated and away from large populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.