Welcome back to iBrattleboro.com Wednesday, February 08 2012 @ 12:52 AM GMT+5  
Home |  Submit Story |  Calendar |  Site Stats |  Directory |  Advertising |  Contact |  Help |  Policies |  Local Links |  Polls | 
What's New
STORIES
8 New Stories

COMMENTS last 2 days
  • Meetings at the M... [+4]
  • President to Visi... [+3]
  • Being Born So Gay... [+17]
  • New Supermarket i... [+14]
  • Nation of Change ... [+4]
  • Meow! Squeak! Meo... [+3]
  • This Winter May B...
  • Suzanne Farrell B... [+2]
  • Wood Pellet Stove...
  • BAPC Launches Med... [+4]

  • LOCAL LINKS last 2 weeks
    No recent new links


    iBrattleboro Market and More
    Brattleboro Demographic and Housing Data
    iBrattleboro BMedia

    iBrattleboro Job Market
    Brattleboro Community Brain Trust
    BrattleBarter
    iBrattleboro Assignment Desk
    Brattleboro Maps
    iBrattleboro RSS Feed
    BrattleRide

    Recent Stories
    Sunday 05-Feb
  • BCTV Channel 8 & 10 Schedules - Week of 2/6/12 (1)

  • Saturday 04-Feb
  • Meow! Squeak! Meow! Squeak! Meow! Squeak! (3)

  • Friday 03-Feb
  • Brattleboro Citizens' Breakfast - Selectboard Candidates’ Forum (0)
  • Contact Improvisation Class, Sunday February 5 @ 9 am (0)
  • Tai Chi Demonstration at the Co-op (4)
  • BAPC Launches Media Campaign on Developing Brains and Marijuana Use (8)
  • Winter Songs: A Romantic Evening of Opera, Art Song & More (0)
  • Brattleboro Committee Meetings Schedule (0)
  • Data Analyst Volunteer Needed (0)
  • Wood Pellet Stoves - Advice? (5)
  • Dr. Meg Mott to Speak at Landmark College (0)
  • Shumlin Applauds Komen Decision to Restore Planned Parenthood Funds (0)
  • Brattleboro Selectboard Agenda and Notes - February 7, 2012 (0)
  • Brattleboro Union High School Board Meeting and Agenda (0)
  • WBA Breakfast Meeting at Sunny's Thurs Feb 9 at 8 am (0)

  • Sections
    Home
    Activism (1,411)
    Arts (830)
    Books (352)
    Business (518)
    Creative (429)
    Education (599)
    Entertainment (1,067)
    Food (430)
    Features (175)
    Health (636)
    History (213)
    Kids (246)
    Home & Garden (301)
    Media (549)
    Music (1,007)
    Nature (366)
    Obituaries (96)
    Opinion (1,556)
    Pets (251)
    Police (163)
    Politics (1,833)
    Recreation (357)
    Rumors (172)
    Sci-Tech (220)
    Spiritual (271)
    Town News (2,694)
    Town Plan (434)
    Questions & Answers (1,482)
    Other (1,004)
    iBrattleboro (152)

    Who's Online
    JeffPotter
    Guest Visitors: 112

    User Functions
    :

    :


    Lost your password?


    Nuclear Update - Not Taking the Heat Too Well    
    Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 05:22 PM GMT+5
    Contributed by: gfv

    Sci-TechWhen the going gets warm, the nukes power down ,

    Hot weather has caused more nukes to curtail power. Power has been reduced at:
    MN: Monticello (Xcel)
    MN: Prairie Island units 1 and 2 (Xcel)
    IL: Quad Cities (Exelon)
    IL: Dresden unit 2 (Exelon)
    PA: Limerick unit 2 (Exelon)

    Exelon's Zion reactor in Illinois also had some interesting heat-related damage. Hot-water related problems have also been plaguing reactors in Germany, Spain and France

    Nuclear is not safe – if it was why have evacuation plans and potassium iodide ? (available next to the municipal building in Bratt at the state Dept of health

    Nuclear is not Clean-If it was, then why the risk of radiation, then why the elevated fenceline dosimeter readings around VY at certain times?, then why was VY mandated to put up a concrete shielding back in the seventies to protect their neighbors from radiation coming off the turbine building. Why are they dumping 100 degree water – most of the generated heat comes off the reactor as waste heat… warming the river...?

    Nuclear is not cheap. If it was local home and business owners would be able to protect their investments. If it was the cost of the storage and protection of the waste for 100 thousand years would be factored in making nuclear far more expensive than any other option..

    Nuclear is not green and Nuclear is not the answer to global warming. In order for nuclear to meet needs of the electricity industry in the world to decrease carbon based emissions, there would need to be a new 1000 megawatt reactor coming online every 15 days between 2010 and 2050. If this were to occur there would need to be a new Yucca mountain repository of waste every 3 to 5 years to contain the immense waste. All this construction requires huge carbon based emission outlays.


    Peter Bradford, a former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC):

    The abiding lesson that Three Mile Island taught Wall
    Street was that a group of N.R.C.-licensed reactor operators, as good as any others, could turn a $2 billion asset into a $1 billion cleanup job in about 90 minutes


    An accident May 2nd at the Prairie Island nuclear power reactor site near Winona, Minnesota contaminated "about" 100 workers internally with radioactive iodine-131. The crew was far inside the reactor’s mis-named containment area when they were doused with the toxic metallic fumes. The Nuclear Management Company, which runs the reactor for Xcel, said the fumes were leaking from one of the system’s thousands of uranium fuel assemblies. None of the employees were wearing respirators when the gas "was inadvertently released on th eworkers and inhaled," according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.



     

    What's Related

    Story Options
  • Printable Story Format

  • Nuclear Update - Not Taking the Heat Too Well | 11 comments | Create New Account
    The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they may say.
    Nuclear Update - Not Taking the Heat Too Well
    Authored by: rwiggam on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 08:39 PM GMT+5
    Are the problems (aside from Zion water issue?) nuclear related or are they due to power grid limitations which are outside the control of a specific nuke or any other type of power plant.

    As I understand it at some point as the actual wires in these large grids heat up and they can only handle so much capacity before the load across them has to be reduced. So if a nuke plant were tied in at or near such a choke point in the system it might have to back down but then again so might a coal plant, dam, windmill, or solar complex?

    Also while you put out a mouthful of information in your post is the blurb about the river temperature specific to the nuke plant don't all thermal energy plants (coal/gas/nuke) reject 2/3rds of their heat energy?
    Nuclear Update - Not Taking the Heat Too Well
    Authored by: darqmatr on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 09:10 PM GMT+5
    The limit on how much they can raise the temp of a river causes them to cutback on power. AND... the coal fired units have the same issue.

    Besides, Gary, I thought you'd be happy they were producing less power/waste ;)
    Nuclear Update - Seriously hot, Seriously toxic
    Authored by: gfv on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 10:59 PM GMT+5
    Great I got two pro nukers responding to me. Sheesh.

    Yes Mr Wiggam. Coal, oil and nuke all waste two thirds of the heat - thus each one of em is a literally vital waste. At least coal or oil can be used for cogen - ie warming the school across the street in winter instead of sauteeing the fish

    I am not a scientist. I am not an engineer. In all honesty I do not really care why the nukes had to derate, just that they did. I find it humorous that the supposed saviour solution to global warming(crock of stuff) does not work when the heat's on. It is either a solution to global warming or it is part of the problem. The truth- nuclear is part of the problem.

    According to a 1997 study done at the Oko Institute in Bonn, Germany, a nuclear power station of standard size (1250 MW) indirectly emits between 376 billion and 1300 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year — after taking into account the whole fuel-to-waste cycle. Compared to renewable energy, nuclear power releases four to five times more CO2 per unit of energy produced.

    And Darq- I find your response nothing other than distracting. This is a hugely serious issue.

    A November 2000 DOE study, titled Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, found that energy efficiency and renewable power could meet 60 percent of the nation’s need for new power capacity over the next 20 years. A 2001 study conducted by the Safe Energy Communication Council (SECC), a policy watchdog coalition, found that energy efficiency could replace all the electricity currently supplied by nuclear power for the same cost as continuing to operate existing U.S. nuclear reactors

    Countering the massive propaganda that supports the use and expansion of nuclear power is one of the biggest challenges facing safe energy proponents in the coming years. This country is in need of a long-term energy policy that makes sense. We must create a long-term energy future that is environmentally sustainable and economically viable; one that addresses the problems of climate chance ozone depletion, nuclear proliferation and security all at the same time. Nuclear power doesn’t merely worsen these problems; it wastes the material and intellectual resources necessary to solve them.

    Much of the above response material I borrowed from Molly Mechtenberg- Berrigan
    Nuclear Update - Seriously hot, Seriously toxic
    Authored by: PutneyReject on Friday, August 04 2006 @ 08:47 AM GMT+5
    More half-truths, disingenous analagies, and biased, unsupported studies from Gary, big suprise.

    Let's get started picking out the errors;

    Zion has been shut down since 1998 and the damage was to a lightning arrestor.

    If riding in a car was "safe", we wouldn't need ABS, seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, child sets, etc. Same goes for bike helmets, motorcycle helmets, etc. Where's your emergency plan for the chlorine tanker that rolls by on the railroad tracks? Try googling railcar derailments and see how many times people have been evacuated. Nothing is without risk, time to put that stawman arguement to bed.

    There is currenty >15 billion dollars set aside to deal with the issues surrounding spent nuclear fuel disposal. These costs, as well as decomissioning costs, have been included in the price of nuclear power since the beginning. Find a new argument.

    As far as "clean", nuclear power is "cleaner" than every other form of baseload power. Every form of power production has some impact, the wind turbines, solar cells, and lead-acid batteries all involve energy intensive manufacturing. Where does most of that energy come from in the US? It's coal.

    In your last "argument", you build yet another strawman so you can attempt to knock it down, how pathetic. Why don't your replace the word "nuclear plant" with "wind turbine", do the math and report the results. No one is proposing that scenario (unlike many wackos who seem to think we can power the whole US with just wind) so why even bring it up? Why should try to increase car fuel efficieny 5 mpg? It won't solve all the world's problems so let's not do it.

    I'm forced to come to conclusion that Gary is willfully misrepsenting the facts simply because he hates nuclear power power sooo much. It's funny because it's exatly what most right-wing evangelicals do.
    Nuclear Update - Seriously hot, Seriously toxic
    Authored by: PutneyReject on Friday, August 04 2006 @ 09:11 AM GMT+5
    Before you borrow material, maybe you should check the facts.

    According to your friends at NIRS, who also quote that 1997 study, nuclear is comparable to hydro in lifecycle CO2 costs and slightly higher than wind (all of which range from 20-35 (gram CO-eq. /kWh) compared to coal at ~1000.

    http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf

    The entire report is at:

    http://www.oeko.de/service/gemis/files/info/nuke_co2_en.pdf

    For additional studies, see:
    http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm

    I see you just parroted an exact quote from someone else since you are too lazy to spend 5 minutes verifying the numbers.

    Nice jingoism there Gary, "It is either a solution to global warming or it is part of the problem." Sounds just like it came out of the Bush White House.

    Most people who have looked at wind power integration, including the wind power lobby, AWEA, realize that wind can provide ~20% of our total power needs (even this is a stretch considering no one seems to want windfarms build near them - ahh sweet irony.) I look forward to that day. I also look forward to day nuclear power supplies 50% of our power needs. Rational people understand they can coexist.
    Windy
    Authored by: cgrotke on Friday, August 04 2006 @ 10:08 AM GMT+5
    I want windfarms. I think they look nice. Of course, I'm in a minorty.
    : )

    I also don' think the US can get its current power from wind, but that
    we are not taking full adavantage of wind or water opportunities at
    the current point in time. There are low-flow water turbines, for
    example, that can be placed in smaller places that could generate
    regular power. There are small "windmills" in Europe that can fit on a
    rooftop. And new advances in solar power are leading to paper-weight
    solar collectors that could cover all sorts of surfaces never before
    imagined.


    I met someone from Massachusetts recently who said they power their
    entire home with new solar - and they run dishwashers, dryers,
    computers, TV's... he said with no problem.

    My solution, since I take full responsibiity for the worlds' energy
    situation, is to slowly end the days of big power plants and replace it
    with a new paradigm - power generation at the source. As many here
    have pointed out - power is a "mystery" to many people. Putting it
    on, in, and around their homes and in their neighborhoods would
    increase their knowledge and awareness by, at the very least, making
    people watch their meters and usage.

    VY has provided and will work past its original expiration date. At
    some point, though, it HAS to close. The building will physically
    deteriorate like all things. That's the point of time I'm most interested
    in. When that happens, do we rebuild VY, or do we have something
    newer and better to work with?

    I'm hoping we have a superior alternative and better technology to
    choose when that happens. One without any dangerous waste
    products.
    Windy
    Authored by: PutneyReject on Friday, August 04 2006 @ 10:35 AM GMT+5
    Distributed generation is a fast growing segment of the power industry but is not the cure all. There will always be a need for larger baseload power generation.

    Even some of the DG systems are in relatively large, i.e., >50MWe. Another benefit is that many of them can be used for cogeneration if needed.

    Again, I see them as part of the future energy mix, but not the sole solution.

    http://www.eere.energy.gov/EE/power_distributed_generation.html

    Nuclear Update - Seriously hot, Seriously toxic
    Authored by: PutneyReject on Wednesday, August 09 2006 @ 02:05 PM GMT+5
    Kind of pathetic that as soon as Gary's borrowed "facts" are challenged, he turns tail and runs.

    I wonder if he is repsonsible for handing out the radiation stickers which are spreading around downtown.

    Shame on whoever is handing out the stickers (and shame on whoever is defacing property with them)
    Nuclear Wastecase
    Authored by: Floyd on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 11:56 PM GMT+5

    A bit of topical humor here

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51072
    Nuclear Update - Not Taking the Heat Too Well
    Authored by: annikee on Friday, August 04 2006 @ 07:29 AM GMT+5
    Sometime last fall my brother in Pa. told me about a group active in bringing back coal-with advanced filtering technology-as a viable energy alternative. I believe their group's name was/is COALition. Anybody hear about this group? They're anti-nuke, by the way.

    ---
    *******
    BB & 93
    Coal Gasification
    Authored by: cgrotke on Friday, August 04 2006 @ 09:44 AM GMT+5
    The governor of Montana is a big fan of new uses of coal as fuel -
    Fischer-Tropsch liquids to be exact. Diesel and airplane fuel can be made
    from it.

    http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp
    Weather Link
    Look outside, then look here.

    Brattleboro Weather Forecast and Links


    Brattleboro Events
    In the next 2 weeks

    Wednesday 08-Feb
  • Brattleboro Community Conversations
  • Meg Mott speaks at Landmark College
  • Transition Putney - Tools for Holistic Living community

  • Thursday 09-Feb
  • Transition Putney - Putney Jobs Breakfast
  • Living Memorial Ski Lift Open 3-9
  • Free Children's Art Time
  • Southern Vermont Scrabble Club
  • Artist ala Mode
  • Marina Open Mic w/ Kevin Parry
  • Bluegrass/OldTime Music Jam
  • WSWMD Board of Supervisors
  • The Mabel Story - 7:30pm

  • Friday 10-Feb
  • Living Memorial Ski Lift Open 3-9
  • Stonyfield Yogurt VP Discusses How to Sustain Our Values In Business
  • Cardy Raper "Love, Sex, & Mushrooms: Adventures of a Woman in Science"
  • Shall We Dance, Brattleboro Ballroom
  • Darol Anger, Brittany Haas, Lissa Schneckenburger
  • The Mabel Story - 7:30pm

  • Saturday 11-Feb
  • Waldorf-inspired Preschool Open House
  • Living Memorial Ski Lift Open 10-4
  • Winter Farmers' Market
  • Valentine Card Workshop
  • Winter Songs: Opera, Art Song & More
  • Vermont Jazz Center presents The Tia Fuller Quartet

  • Sunday 12-Feb
  • Paintings - David Rohn Exhibit
  • Transition Putney - Women’s Hormonal Health:Holistic Solutions for Endocrine Balance
  • Music for a Sunday Afternoon Concert by Matan Rubinstein

  • Monday 13-Feb
  • Neither Wolf Nor Dog Talk by Kent Nerburn
  • Reel Queer Movie Nights: Small Town Gay Bar

  • Tuesday 14-Feb
  • Singing Valentines by Brattleboro Women's Chorus
  • Flamenco at Luna Azul Valentine´s Day
  • Sweetheart's Snowshoe at BEEC
  • Phantom Limb Company-69 Degrees South

  • Wednesday 15-Feb
  • Allan Stewart Konigsberg's (Woody Allen )Winter Film Festival: Sleeper

  • Thursday 16-Feb
  • Free Children's Art Time
  • Marina Open Mic w/ Kevin Parry
  • The Beloved Community in Action Talk by James Kates
  • Sacred Harp Singing Group

  • Friday 17-Feb
  • Ensemble Datura: World Music & Mideast Feast
  • Shall We Dance, Brattleboro Ballroom

  • Saturday 18-Feb
  • Harris Hill Ski Jumping Competition
  • Drawing & Composition Series with Charlie Hunter Begins
  • Winter Farmers' Market
  • Community Sledding Party

  • Sunday 19-Feb
  • Harris Hill Ski Jumping Competition
  • Music for a Sunday Afternoon - Concert by Benjamin Hochman, piano
  • Green Mountain Songwriter Series

  • Monday 20-Feb
  • BEEC's Winter Vacation Camp Begins

  • Brattleboro Weekly Poll
    In high school, my favorite subject is/was
    math, such as algebra, trig, geometry or calculus
    English
    science, such as biology, chemistry, or physics
    a language
    history, social or political science
    shop or home economics
    gym
    band, chorus, or orchestra
    art
    other
    Results
    44 votes | 6 comments