Skip to main content

Blogger on Nuclear Energy: Yes In My Backyard

By Eric McErlain
Here's one blogger who just moved to Florida and was happy to discover that his electricity was provided by a nuclear power plant:
I'’m still a relatively "“new"” import here in Florida, so naturally I'’m still learning the lay of the land and getting an idea just what kind of stuff inhabits the area with me. I was pleasantly surprised to learn there'’s a nuclear power plant about sixty miles south of here. Apparently nuclear power accounts for 17% or so of all power generation done here in Florida; presumably because I live so close to the plant there in Saint Lucie my power here is generated by one of its reactors.
Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hey newcomer,
Look up, there is a lot of sunshine.

Smell the coffee while your at it... The Sun's fuel is free and there is a 93,000,000 mile emerency planning zone.

Give up that old sea turtle sucker at St. Lucie...

Gunter, NIRS
December 4, 2006 at 8:43 PM
Stewart Peterson said…
Look up at night, or when it's cloudy, or when the wind isn't blowing. Reverting to thousand-year-old technology is most certainly not "free," either, since there is a definite opportunity cost to being unable to operate modern technology--which is usually expressed in the lives of the young, elderly, and sick. Personally, I would be dead if a high-energy modern hospital were unable to operate. Try telling me that we should abandon a high-energy society.
And yes, there's a lot of sunshine; far more than we could ever use. Unfortunately, it's spread out over an area far larger than we could ever collect it from.

And I'm sure you'd rather have a coal-fired "sea turtle sucker"--since that's a cooling system problem and doesn't have anything to do with the nuclear part of the nuclear power plant.
December 5, 2006 at 3:49 AM
Anonymous said…
The sun has no containment. It gives off lots of dangerous radiation which gives thousands of people fatal cancer every year.

We must phase out the sun. There are many excellent alternativers. Only they have been blocked by the oil and nuclear industries.
December 7, 2006 at 8:21 PM
Brian Mays said…
I agree with Starvid. The Sun is far too dangerous to be allowed to continue. It must be stopped now!

Just think of the waste ... why it will generate waste that is over 300,000 times the mass of the entire Earth! And this waste will last for thousands or millions of years (the EPA is still deciding). What will we do with it all?!

Furthermore, this waste includes tonnes and tonnes of deadly tritium and heavy radioactive isotopes. In fact, all of the radioactive isotopes that we find here on Earth were actually created, not in our sun, but one just like it. We're still dealing with the radioactive waste of former suns, why should we let this sun continue to produce more waste?

The sun is also an excellent terrorist target. In fact, it is well known that suns are prone to explode all by themselves. Thus, a sun is far too dangerous to have around, and I absolutely refuse to have one of these ticking nuclear timebombs in my solar system.
December 8, 2006 at 9:44 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more