Archived

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

Cotuit

Would you support nuclear power generation in RI?

Would you support nuclear power generation in RI?  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you support nuclear power generation in RI?

    • Yes
      13
    • Not under any circumstances
      7
    • I'd have to hear the proposal to consider it
      11
    • Don't know/Unsure
      4
    • Other
      0


Recommended Posts

This article in today's Boston Globe brings up the important question about how New England will tackle it's energy needs over the coming decades (and in fact, today when we face shortages).

Utility officials ponder coal, nuclear plants. Facing power crunch, the once-unthinkable options get a 2d look. [Boston.com]

So the question is, if a nuclear plant were proposed for RI, how would you respond to that proposal? The other question for this thread is, what other sources should RI be looking at to add it's share of power to the New England grid?

I also read an article about nuclear power in a magazine this month (National Geographic or Metropolis?). I'll see if I can find a link to it, or paraphrase it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


So the question is, if a nuclear plant were proposed for RI, how would you respond to that proposal? The other question for this thread is, what other sources should RI be looking at to add it's share of power to the New England grid?

I'd like to know of a single town that wouldn't fight tooth and nail to keep a nuclear plant far, far away from it.

on edit: maybe this will wake up the populace and the editorial pages about the people on Cape Cod. That windfarm could power all of cape cod and I think with some overflow. Them rich people are among the first to call themselves environmentalists, but I guess that means they support these things so long as they're built near the poor people. I read in a magazine a while ago that states such as New Jersey and Connecticut offer pretty good tax incentives to homeowners who put solar panels on their roofs, and that they wind up making money over the cost of putting it up from selling it to the grid in a few years. That would be a great thing to see in RI and MA if they don't have such incentives already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the question is, if a nuclear plant were proposed for RI, how would you respond to that proposal? The other question for this thread is, what other sources should RI be looking at to add it's share of power to the New England grid?

no one is gonna want it, but at the same time, no one is gonna want to reduce their power consumption. i think this goes back to the story that someone posted about the couple who lived in manhattan and how it's actually very environmentally friendly. their power consumption and ecological footprint increased after moving to northwestern CT.

for the record, i'm not against nuclear power. it does far less damage to the environment than fossil fuels.

the problem that will come up is where to put it. the only place that really makes any sort of sense in my opinion is around quonset. it's already highly industrial and it's near the water. it's probably one of the only locations near the water that's not prime residential real estate or beach/park.

they proposed the wind farm near the cape, what about another one near block island? the only issue i can see arising from that is that ships need to get in and out of the bay and in and out of LI sound. also, there should be incentives like those in CT, to use solar panels or maybe a wind turbine.

it eventually all gets back to NIMBY-ism. even people who want to get off hte grid have hard time because people don't want wind turbines blocking their view... happened to jon fishman (drummer from phish). he wanted to do taht at his place on lake champlain in VT. his neighbors complained to the town because it would be in their view of the lake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got it! What about wind turbines in India Point Park? :rofl: Sorry, I couldn't resist that one...

the only place that really makes any sort of sense in my opinion is around quonset.

Agreed, that's the place that would make the most sense. And I think any plan would have to have, as a goal, not only taking care of our immediate and future needs, but to do so in a way that could start to make our energy costs competitive with other locations in the US (South, Midwest, etc).

- Garris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be opposed to it, would have to understand a bit more. The cooling towers are ugly though and they dominate the landscape for miles around. I am not scared of it though for safety or environmental reasons.

I find wind farms more aesthetically pleasing from a design stance, and from the fact that I know that they are non-polluting and producing clean energy. There is something mesmersing about watching a field of wind turbines too. The cape cod proposal should have been built years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be opposed to it, would have to understand a bit more. The cooling towers are ugly though and they dominate the landscape for miles around. I am not scared of it though for safety or environmental reasons.

I find wind farms more aesthetically pleasing from a design stance, and from the fact that I know that they are non-polluting and producing clean energy. There is something mesmersing about watching a field of wind turbines too. The cape cod proposal should have been built years ago.

nuclear power is more or less clean... the waste is the only issue... but that's what nevada's for. :whistling:

i also happen to think that the nuclear plants don't have to be ugly... plus if it's in quonset, it's already highly industrial and not very aesthetically pleasing.

Not all nuclear plants require large cooling towers. It depends upon the design and the availability of water.

for example, millstone in CT doesn't have huge towers... they just use long island sound. fisherman love the area there because the water is warm year 'round, meaning more fish...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Pilgrim in Plymouth has any cooling towers, they use Plymouth Bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This past week, Duke Energy (based in Charlotte), announced that it was going to build a new nuke in Cherokee county, SC. This will be the first new nuclear plant built in the USA in decades. While some may protest it, it is expected to bring thousands of relatively well paying jobs to that area for years during construction. They are big economic generators as well as power generators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all nuclear plants require large cooling towers. It depends upon the design and the availability of water.

ok, thanks. Thats all I am used to seeing. I think that is what most people are used to seeing in their minds when "nuclear power plant" is said.

Still, while I dont oppose a nuclear plant in RI or anywhere, I would really like to see attention paid to wind and other alternative energy that does not produce waste at all.

I also dont know enough about the advances in coal power in terms of dirtiness. i have read that it is not as dirty as a lot of people think. Anyone know if this is true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, thanks. Thats all I am used to seeing. I think that is what most people are used to seeing in their minds when "nuclear power plant" is said.

millstone.jpg

for reference... that's millstone in waterford, CT.

they actually have some walking paths to the water and a fishing pier and stuff on the site (obviously you can't get into the plant itself or the surrounding areas, but right nearby, i think it's owned by millstone, is the walking path and pier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also dont know enough about the advances in coal power in terms of dirtiness. i have read that it is not as dirty as a lot of people think. Anyone know if this is true?

Burning coal is still dirty. But there are other ways to get the energy out of coal without burning it.

check out the Fischer-Tropsch process:

EPA pdf

wiki

Also advantageous in that the US controls a good portion of the available coal supply.

That said, I have nothing against nuclear power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burning coal is still dirty. But there are other ways to get the energy out of coal without burning it.

check out the Fischer-Tropsch process:

EPA pdf

wiki

Also advantageous in that the US controls a good portion of the available coal supply.

That said, I have nothing against nuclear power.

i'll admit i only read the wikipedia article, but it doesn't seem like it's meant for a large scale supply of energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll admit i only read the wikipedia article, but it doesn't seem like it's meant for a large scale supply of energy.

It can be scaled as large as you want. the problems have always been that the economics of building the processing plants and removing the greenhouse gas pollutants have always been a hindrance compared to the relatively cheap price of oil. If oil experiences another spike and goes to say $75 or $80 per barrel (in today's dollars) then the economics could work out. Right now there are some who want to start working on this for political (i.e. lower reliance on middle eastern oil) reasons even though the economics don't quite make sense yet.

Now, I'm not saying it's the answer or even a viable answer, I'm just saying there are ways to get energy out of coal without having the traditional big columns with black smoke pouring out of them.

I would also like to see some more research into bio-deisel, although both the filtering and burning process of bio-deisels are big issues, as well as the waste from the filtering process.

Or, we can all wait for our Mr. Fusions!

landing_dmc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Governor of Montana is on a big campaign to adopt the Fischer-Tropsch process. He's biggest argument for it is the foreign reliance issue, and of course, his state has huge coal reserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to see some more research into bio-deisel, although both the filtering and burning process of bio-deisels are big issues, as well as the waste from the filtering process.

bio diesel should have more research money going towards it. it's probably the most viable alternative to fossil fuels in cars and trucks right now.

good info on it at www.biodiesel.org. i think there's a couple stations in RI that sell it... i was thinking about converting my old car to it, but that car's gone and it probably would've taken a lot to do it (since it ran on gasoline).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the "Hafta see" option in the poll, but to be honest I think I'd be very much in favor of a nuke plant here in RI.

The NIMBY opposition would be outta this world. It'd be funny to watch. :w00t:

They are big economic generators as well as power generators.

I find this interesting. Anybody else have anything to add on this head?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll throw a little devil's advocate in here. I'm surprised there's not a single person here who's against this!

Millstone has really been a mess, and I'd try not to fish in those warm waters as there have been radiation leaks. From what I hear, nuclear technology is far safer than it was when Millstone was built, but you'll never be 100% safe from disaster. That and the fact that the waste would be trucked on the same highways we drive on all the way to Yucca Mountain, and I can see why some people have jitters about the whole thing.

http://www.mothballmillstone.org/index3.html

There are a lot of good paying permanent jobs created by these things, many of which are non-skilled and would be great for the uneducated class. When I was working at that Wal-Mart there were employees who were trying to get into working security at Millstone and there was also an older employee who worked there in the past. At the time, they were looking for a good number of security guards due to terrorism concerns. The base pay was around $20/hour (for unarmed, more for the armed guards) and you worked 4 12 hour shifts 4 days in a row, then took 4 days off. This was due to OSHA issues regarding all the radiation you're exposed to while you work there (another reason a new plant will not be built anywhere near here).

The guy who worked there in the past (he may have been sensationalizing, I really don't know) says one time they put him in this place that's somewhat close to the core reactor. The room was over 100 degrees, and he says you were required to stand there for hours at a time in rotating shifts. He says when he came out whatever it is they give to the workers to monitor radiation had "popped" and he didn't notice, indicating a high radiation exposure. That was his last day there.

I'd rather see wind, solar, hyrdoelectric and whatever it's called when you harness the ocean's waves used a lot more. Nuclear power isn't 100% safe, but I'd rather see them built than more coal or oil plants. There's also wood burning power plants like the one being proposed for Plainfield, CT. They claim to be clean, but environmentalists say that pollutants from the wood will get through to the air. The incinerators, like the proposed plant, claim to only produce steam exhaust, but I occasionally see black smoke eminating from the smokestacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nuclear power is more or less clean... the waste is the only issue... but that's what nevada's for. :whistling:

Happy Birthday everyone, here's the lone voice of dissent on the issue.

Nuclear power cannot be more or less clean if the waste is it's primary fault. Contradictions don't exist. The waste doesn't go away. It DOES NOT go away. The most promising estimates regarding the waste being sent to Yucca is that it will last for hundreds of thousands of years. The containment tunnel is said to be meant to last for 10,000 years (even though there will no longer be a U.S., if anybody, to care for it by then) but the tunnel engineer is quoted as saying "I'll guarantee this tunnel for 100 years, after that I hope they'll have somewhere else to put this stuff.". The mountain is near several major fault lines and over the underground water supply for much of the southwest. I can imagine what sort of effect the waste will have on such a delicate area once it starts spilling out. This place is going to become an embarrasing, glowing, cold sore on the face of the planet for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Carbon emmissions would at least just destroy our species (and many others) and eventually go away so as to give the planet a second chance (not to say I'm cool with our self-induced extinction but we could at least try not to destroy EVERYTHING in the process if it happens).

Now I know it's not as easy as saying that this form of energy is bad or that form of energy is bad when we're all still sucking down electricity like an XL ice coffee that's more ice than we realize. There is no sole easy solution to this problem but putting a reactor in the middle of over a million people doesn't come close to being a solution in my personal (and fallible) opinion. If there were to be one, I'd suggest it being as far from anything valuable as humanly possible, including fragile natural features. It's never far enough away. I'd really like to see us implement better ways to manage or cut the potential waste of existing sources of energy but it seems like it's getting a little late for that. The human race has failed as a whole to realize that we're already really late approaching these problems and that our tardiness requires more drastic solutions. We're almost at the point where we'll have to nearly stop polluting altogether or ever-more serious issues will continue to arrise. So I suppose I'm not totally dismissing nuclear power but it's definitely not nearly as harmless as we all wish it was and until somebody can prove to me beyond any doubt that it would be totally secure and not produce permanent waste, I don't wanna be anywhere near it.

Sorry, I actually wanted to cover more with that but I don't have the time right now. Looking forward to counter-points though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear power cannot be more or less clean if the waste is it's primary fault. Contradictions don't exist. The waste doesn't go away. It DOES NOT go away.

Where do countries such as France and Germany, who are dense as hell and use Nuclear power for a very large percentage of their energy, put all their waste? As for "it DOES NOT go away" that's very true, but a problem with that is the powers that be simply don't give a crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dumb question here... Why can't we throw the waste away in space?? Maybe store it for a year and then send a few ships up to drop it somewhere far enough to be away from our gravitational pull. I've always wondered that about any substance that we can't get rid of or that we have to burn (mainly landfills), i'm guessing money is an issue and feasability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dumb question here... Why can't we throw the waste away in space?? Maybe store it for a year and then send a few ships up to drop it somewhere far enough to be away from our gravitational pull. I've always wondered that about any substance that we can't get rid of or that we have to burn (mainly landfills), i'm guessing money is an issue and feasability.

you know... this has been brought up in the past. that might just not be cost effective enough though... but something to think about is since we're looking at mars, why not send all our nuclear waste to mars when we send something else up there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because the martians would be very upset at us and attack us with their ray guns. :D

Seriously, I dont think we know enough to say we can throw it into space. There was a time that we thought we could just dump everything into the oceans and look how that is working out for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because the martians would be very upset at us and attack us with their ray guns. :D

Seriously, I dont think we know enough to say we can throw it into space. There was a time that we thought we could just dump everything into the oceans and look how that is working out for us.

i remember when i was younger... people used to say we could develop some sort of booster that would push garbage towards the sun. it'd eventually burn up long before it reached the sun. while we might have the technology to do something like this, it just wouldn't be cost effective, considering it costs millions just to send something into orbit, nevermind sending something to the sun.

however, wasn't there something that they recently put into orbit that was made to gradually come down, but burn up upon re-entry to the point that it won't be noticed by anyone on earth? they obviously can't do that with nuclear waste, but garbage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.