NUCLEAR WASTE....A NIGHTMARE for us now and for future generations to come!

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

125 posts / 0 new

Since the links I try to post on the 1st message rarely work, I am going to post the links I am referring to in the next comment. I wish to share two links about the above topic in hopes you will check out what is going on with our aging nuclear plants and how they are storing the toxic waste associated with them. It certainly makes me wonder how we can continue to approve building more nuclear plants.

Just like over flowing landfills for our TRASH, we will run out of places to store the waste. The first article is regarding the unsafe storage of nuclear waste and there are other links on that page for signing petitions or for more info. The 2nd site is a Nuclear Information and Resource page.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Comments

I tried to post BOTH links but only one would work on this comment so now I have to post ANOTHER comment! I don't understand why this is happening!!! Check out the other link on the next comment. SORRY FOR THAT!!

http://sanonofresafety.org/

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Here is the 2nd link I tried to post that wouldn't work on the above comment! I'm just glad it's not PAPER that I'm wasting! :-)

http://www.nirs.org/home.htm

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Here is a cute video where YOU make CHOICES.

http://makenuclearhistory.org/

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Un-oh, look out! Before ya know it Ms. BJ, you'll be hearing from nuclear power's biggest cheerleader: Instant-RunOff! Don't be surprised if you find yourself drowning in a sea of half truths and bogus numbers, with a dash of hokus-pokus nonsense thrown in.

Meanwhile, girlfriend, you've been warned.

Happy Sunday... - AIW

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am

Hey Mrs BJ, I got a question for you. How is those anti-nuclear ENGO's that you worship and get all your pro-Oil & Gas propaganda from, get to leave blank the name of their > one $million donors on their IRS 990 tax forms?

And a 2nd question for you, what $billionaire would give $million donations to schlock anti-nuclear lobby/ENGOs run by well-paid Dorks, when they could give that money to help the millions of hungry children in the US, or sick kids, or cancer research. Too bad they are pushing electricity prices so high that single moms must chose between feeding their children or paying the electricity bill.

I like how in one of your schlock anti-nuke NGO's, the top guy got paid $288,000 in one year. Wouldn't be these $billionaires make their money in oil & gas and they make these vast tax deductable donations in order to knee-cap their only competition? Nah, they wouldn't do that, business in America believes in fair play, yep, yep.

http://atomicinsights.com/antinuclear-activists-modest/

http://atomicinsights.com/contradicting-arjun-makhijanis-claim/

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Say, Mrs BJ, over there in CaliFracknia, how is that water supply doing? What with all those millions of gallons of precious potable water and thousands of tons of poisons, toxins, carcinogens you pump into the ground & water table to get that gas that supplies 60% of your electricity and rising, what with shutting down perfectly good nuclear power plants, that are actually desalinating water for the dire water shortage:

http://atomicinsights.com/diablo-canyon-pitching-in-to-help-alleviate-dr...

And tell us Mrs BJ about all that precious water you send to giant biofuel farms, mostly sorghum and sugar cane, in order to produce that wonderful "renewable fuel" Ethanol that California politicians just love. They call it "Green Energy". Just 1700 gals of your water supply to produce one gallon of ethanol. It will run a green California SUV 15 miles. So 113 gals of water for every mile of travel. The wonders of "green" CaliFracknia politics.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

If you really want to learn about Nuclear waste, not Big Oil/NG propaganda, which Mrs BJ promotes:

Californians for Green Nuclear Power:

http://www.cgnp.org/

James Conca: Are California Carbon Goals Kaput?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/10/02/are-california-carbon-...

Geoff Russell: Nuclear Waste Part 1: The elephant (shrew) in the room:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/07/29/nuclear-waste-series-p1/

The presidential blue ribbon commission recently concluded that nuclear waste storage as is done has NO safety issues and can continue indefinitely. They recommend some time in the far future a central repository site be built, meanwhile dry cask storage is straightforward. ONLY nuclear contains its wastes. Fossil fuel and biomass waste kill 7 million people every year, according to the WHO, nuclear = zip. Funny you ain't worried about that. So in fact every statement you made about nuclear waste is false. And your Greenpeace still flatly refuses to disclose the sources of its massive funding of over $360M/yr. When will they come clean with the public?

Say here is good summary of Mrs BJ's alternative-to-Nuclear, namely Coal Waste:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/coal-power-and-waste-details.html

In one year one of Mrs. BJ's modern 2.2GW Coal power plant releases about 1.4 TBq per year of radiation. And most of that radiation is extremely long-lived.

In addition the Coal power plant releases 15000 tons of CO2 p yr, 44000 tons of sulfur oxides & 45000 nitrogen oxides (=Acid rain) , 2200 tons particulates (carcinogens), 660lbs mercury, 500lbs lead, 15 tons beryllium, 97 tons arsenic, 9 tons cadmium, 53 tons radioactive uranium & 26 tons radioactive thorium and more - all of which are toxic to humans, plants & animals. And most lasts forever. And unlike the Nuclear wastes none of it is contained but instead is dumped into our land, water & air with reckless abandon for us lowly citizens to eat, drink and breath.

We won't get into all the heavy metals, carcinogens, asbestos, PCBs, dioxins, furans and more that are released in the daily coal, oil & gas fires and explosions that occur in every country on the planet. Or all the oil spills being dumped into our oceans.

Hey Mrs BJ, How's this for a fair deal, I will bury my one cup of Nuclear Waste generated if all my lifetime’s worth of Electrical Energy was generated by Nuclear on my property, if you bury your substitute 110 tonnes of radioactive, carcinogenic, forever, Coal Solid Waste you generate during your lifetime on your property. And also you should bag up the 580,000 cubic meters of CO2 you will produce, and store it on your property. That will be a column of about 1 km high. Good luck on that.

Also, I don’t see why you should get away with burning up that 420,000 cubic meters of oxygen for free, whereas I don’t burn any for my Nuclear Power. How about a reasonable charge of $1 per cubic meter, that’s a bill to you for $420,000 for wasting the Earth’s Oxygen needlessly. Both Coal & Natural Gas release > 100X more radiation to the environment than Nuclear.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Hey Mrs. BJ, your California fracking paradise, running on Fracked Natural Gas, is having some issues, they might need to buy some more politicians:

http://www.nofrackingway.us/2014/04/08/califracknia-town-tells-frackers-...

http://www.nofrackingway.us/2014/03/02/califracknia/

"...Pacific Gas & Electric is agreeing to pay $170 million to help both San Bruno, Calif. and the victims of a 2010 pipeline explosion there. That disaster cost eight people their lives, resulted in numerous burn victims and wiped out 38 homes...The accident, meanwhile, has triggered lawsuits that are expected to cost the utility's stockholders at least $1 billion..."

http://www.energybiz.com/article/12/03/natural-gas-pipeline-explosion-st...

http://atomicinsights.com/what-does-san-bruno-pipeline-catastrophe-tell-...

Maybe they will have to build another Solar plant so fracking king, Chevron can advertise all over the MSM media how green they are:

"...Chevron is putting solar technologies to the test

The oil giant is checking out possible candidates to power its global operations. To gauge performance, an 8-acre site near Bakersfield has been filled with 7,700 solar panels from seven firms..."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/business/la-fi-chevron-solar22-2...

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/sbo/2011/02/chevron-completes-2...

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/sbo/2012/05/a-california-city-g...

Gotta love that greenwashing. Mrs BJ takes it all in. A few MW's of solar will make a few GW's of fracked gas look as green as butterflies & hummingbirds in the tropical rain forest. On Chevron's next ad campaign.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

See, Ms. BJ -- I'm psychic! Four posts in a row; his usual MO. Have fun!

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am

What IRO does not tell you is that the storage of spent fuel is subsidized 100% by the Government. All costs associated with the long term storage of the fuel is paid by your tax dollars. Even if you do not get 1 watt of nuclear energy you are still paying for it. You are also subsidizing the nuclear plants with the Price Anderson Act which covers the liability of a nuclear plant. The plants cover a small part of the liability in the event of an accident and the Government (you) pay the rest. He does not mention that the 5 recent shutdown plants (due to age or physical issues) will not be decommissioned for 40 years and the costs are basically uncontrolled. He also does not mention that the costs to build new plants has gone through the ceiling. Areva a French builder of Nuclear plants (also with a large prescence in the USA) is going bankrupt from 2 plants that it is building. Also those plants have reactors with faults and will probably have to be scrapped if they cannot pencil whip it. Nuclear is a bloated costly industry. That have had 50 years to solve the fuel waste problem and have not done it. They leave it for the next generation. They are currently building 5 reactors in the USA with no solution to the fuel problem. He does not mention the disposal of low and high level radwaste which is buried in South Carolina. He does not mention that the plants have about 450 security guards per plant because of the terrorist threat. But no protection from aerial attack. He fails to mention that all of those dry casks have a 40 year life and will have to be emptied at some point by someone which has not been figured out yet.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

In Japan, a crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet no one received a dose of radiation to be lethal in either the short or long term. Some nightmare.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Legend:

What IRO does not tell you is that the storage of spent fuel is subsidized 100% by the Government. All costs associated with the long term storage of the fuel is paid by your tax dollars. Even if you do not get 1 watt of nuclear energy you are still paying for it. You are also subsidizing the nuclear plants with the Price Anderson Act which covers the liability of a nuclear plant. The plants cover a small part of the liability in the event of an accident and the Government (you) pay the rest. He does not mention that the 5 recent shutdown plants (due to age or physical issues) will not be decommissioned for 40 years and the costs are basically uncontrolled. He also does not mention that the costs to build new plants has gone through the ceiling. Areva a French builder of Nuclear plants (also with a large prescence in the USA) is going bankrupt from 2 plants that it is building. Also those plants have reactors with faults and will probably have to be scrapped if they cannot pencil whip it. Nuclear is a bloated costly industry. That have had 50 years to solve the fuel waste problem and have not done it. They leave it for the next generation. They are currently building 5 reactors in the USA with no solution to the fuel problem. He does not mention the disposal of low and high level radwaste which is buried in South Carolina. He does not mention that the plants have about 450 security guards per plant because of the terrorist threat. But no protection from aerial attack. He fails to mention that all of those dry casks have a 40 year life and will have to be emptied at some point by someone which has not been figured out yet.

Well, I hope he reads this because personally I could care less what he has to say. What you posted above is exactly the reasons why he needs to quit blowing his hot air at me because he's just wasting his time. It's unbelievable that we are still going to build MORE nuclear plants. I didn't know that the dry casks need to be emptied at some point. Hopefully they won't leak but after what I read at the links I provided, they aren't using the best materials to store the waste.

I HATE that I have to help pay to decommission a nuclear plant that I never got power from and never asked for it to even be built but that's what's happening here in California.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am
Quote Aliceinwonderland:

See, Ms. BJ -- I'm psychic! Four posts in a row; his usual MO. Have fun!

Seriously, I don't care what he has to say. He can post his pro nuclear manifesto until his fingers are bleeding but that won't change my mind about the dangers of long term storage of the waste involved with nuclear and that's just the beginning of the negatives. It's insane that we would consider building more of these dangerous plants that could easily become very big targets for jihadist or other terrorists. Cyber warfare could disrupt their computers and easily cause a meltdown situation. I could go on but no reason to. All the relevant info is at the websites I linked.

PEACE.......

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

The below is a quote from an article I'm going to link.

"Southern California Edison has no adequate plan to replace cracked canisters at San Onofre and their monitoring system onlyalerts us after the canisters leak radiation into the environment.

Edison plans to spend almost $1.3 billion of ratepayer funds to store over 1600 metric tons of San Onofre nuclear waste in thin 5/8” steel canisters that may crack within 20 years after loading. Existing canisters were loaded as early as October 2003."

http://sanonofresafety.org/

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Link from above that didn't work.....SORRY

http://sanonofresafety.org/

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am
Quote stwo:

In Japan, a crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet no one received a dose of radiation to be lethal in either the short or long term. Some nightmare.

There are thousands of workers now receiving the maximum annual dose allowed that may get cancer. There are thousands of workers that were at the plants prior to the Tsunami that may get cancer. There were several workers during the Tsunami that received doses above the annual dose limit that may get cancer. There is no safe dose.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Also that "crappy old plant with inadequate safety features" is identical to about 26 plants in the USA.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am
Quote Legend:

Also that "crappy old plant with inadequate safety features" is identical to about 26 plants in the USA.

I believe San Onofe was one of them. We shut it down! THANK GOD ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST! :-)

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

There goes our resident Big Oil cheerleader, Legend, inventing more Nuclear disinformation. Hey Legend do the words: honesty, integrity, rationality mean anything whatsoever to you. Let's nail down the credibility of Legend once and for all:

Legend Lie #1: "...the storage of spent fuel is subsidized 100% by the Government..."

Nope, wrong. The commercial nuclear industry in the USA pays for spent fuel storage with a 0.1 cent per kwh fee. The fund is now over $30B, increasing by $750M per yr, not used due to incessant lawsuits & political cronyism of well paid anti-nuclear lobbies preventing any build of a repository.

Legend Lie #2: "...subsidizing the nuclear plants with the Price Anderson Act ..."

Wrong again. Price Anderson requires NPPs to carry more insurance than ANY other industry. Hardly a subsidy. Many industries are legislated to have no requirement for insurance i.e. vaccine manufacturers, carbon capture, weapons. Other industries have much lower coverage, i.e. aircraft and airlines.

Legend Lie #3: "...shutdown plants (due to age or physical issues) will not be decommissioned ..."

"...Nearly 30 civil prototype and commercial reactors have been decommissioned in the USA, and in 2013 four more joined them. Twelve have been totally dismantled (Decon optionf) so that the site is released for unrestricted use, notably Fort St Vrain, Big Rock Point and Shoreham... total $32 billion estimated to decommission all eligible nuclear plants at an average cost of $300 million, about two-thirds had already been funded. The remainder would be funded over the next 20 yearsg. See also appended Table....The NRC regularly reports on the adequacy of decommissioning funds..."

Only Nuclear pays up front for decommissioning costs. Oil, Gas, Coal, Solar, Wind & Hydro do not.

So as we see Legend in his own Mind, just makes stuff up. Not one thing he said is true. Notice he hasn't answered even one point that I made. Not even one.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Mrs BJ, has told us her true nature. She could care less:

1) about 7 million deaths from fossil fuels and biomass burning every year

2) about thousands of deaths every year from her oil & gas fires

3) runaway global warming that could kill a billion people

4) high energy prices that could cause another billion or more deaths, At the very least the poor suffer the most from the effort of her wealthy buddies to push energy prices sky high. Notice how her sources refuse to tell us where their funding comes from.

But Mrs BJ is all worried about incredibly solid, dense ceramic fuel elements leaking out of Dry Storage Casks that have been tested to resist the direct impact of Jet fighter at full speed. Like Legend, Mrs BJ just makes stuff up to spread nuclear fearmongering. Contrary to the bull she claims, the Dry Casks have 28 inch thick reinforced concrete exterior, and a 2.5 inch steel liner and in addition the 5/8 inch stainless steel inner housing and lead lining. Yep real scary, the ceramic pellets will "leak out". Only a blithering idiot would believe that.

47 people burnt to death and an entire town destroyed by Mrs BJ's Oil trains of which there are thousands on our railroads. Thousands of tons of deadly carcinogens released into the air, land & water. No protection or containment whatsoever. Mrs BJ ain't worried about that.

Gulf Oil spill of 5 million barrels of carcinogen crude dumped right into the water - no containment - everyone in the region is breathing, drinking & eating the crud. No problem for Mrs BJ.

But she's worried to death that some day a few nuclear radiation "thingies" might somehow find there way out of a dry cask and somehow might maybe cause somebody to get a "boo-boo". Wow - is that ever scary.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioact...

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

In a Nutshell, the Whole Truth:

DEATHS PER TWH OF ENERGY:

Coal: 161

Oil: 36

Biomass: 12

NG: 4

Hydro: 1.4

Wind: 0.15

Nuclear: 0.04

And that does not include the inevitable millions if not billions who will die from Climate Change which BJ, Legend and Wonderland could care less about.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/09/accidents-that-caused-immediate-deaths.html

That in itself demolishes every argument BJ & Legend has made. You can be assured that neither BJ, Legend or Wonderland will respond to those hard facts.

And as for BJ's Nuclear Waste she is so worried about, we could be burning it in Integral Fast Reactors if the well paid Natural Gas lackey, Bill Clinton hadn't ordered the project terminated, in spite of a test reactor successfully completed & tested with a full station blackout - cut all the power - no operator interventions - beyond even FUKU style - reactor remained stable.

Just think the IFR would run one full Giga-Watt of energy for a full year on ONE TONNE of spent nuclear fuel. Legend would rather we instead use 20 giant LNG tankers every year, each carrying 180 thousand cubic meters of highly explosive LNG, feeding NG power plants through long and dangerous NG pipelines and storage terminals. All easy terrorist targets. No protection. Each LNG tanker is quite capable of incinerating a large city. BJ has no worries about that. And imported from the Middle East, funding ISIS and other terrorists, raping & murdering children, as well as killing American jobs. All AOK with Legend.

http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Reply to #11: Excellent points, Legend!

Reply to posts #20-22: RunOff, isn't this baseball season? Maybe your time would be better spent on that. You're wasting your efforts promoting that shit here, in case you haven't noticed.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am

Speaking of nuclear (or nookyilar as George W called it), how bout that deal with Iran? Is it a good thing or a bad thing for Obama to get a deal done that Bush passed over? Do less centrifuges in Iran make the world a better place? Will Iran have to fill their energy gap with more fossil fuels? Is death by emphysema better or worse than nuclear incineration?

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Speaking of nuclear, there is radium in my glow in the dark watch dial and I was wondering what brand watch might be best for spelunking when some potential submergence of the watch might occur.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Casio G-Shock or Luminox with tritium. The G-Shock probably being the tougher of the two.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 8:35 am

More importantly, are renewable energy pursuits that lack immediate economic feasibility worthy of investment in the face of difficult economic times or should the existing fossil and nuclear power industries continue to be subsidized even if it puts renewable energy at a relative disadvantage? However, your watch conundrum seems very important.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This is a link to a page of articles that should be of interest here.

http://ecowatch.com/news/energy-news/nuclear-energy-energy/

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am
Quote Instant-RunOff-Voting:

Mrs BJ, has told us her true nature. She could care less:

1) about 7 million deaths from fossil fuels and biomass burning every year

2) about thousands of deaths every year from her oil & gas fires

3) runaway global warming that could kill a billion people

4) high energy prices that could cause another billion or more deaths, At the very least the poor suffer the most from the effort of her wealthy buddies to push energy prices sky high. Notice how her sources refuse to tell us where their funding comes from.

But Mrs BJ is all worried about incredibly solid, dense ceramic fuel elements leaking out of Dry Storage Casks that have been tested to resist the direct impact of Jet fighter at full speed. Like Legend, Mrs BJ just makes stuff up to spread nuclear fearmongering. Contrary to the bull she claims, the Dry Casks have 28 inch thick reinforced concrete exterior, and a 2.5 inch steel liner and in addition the 5/8 inch stainless steel inner housing and lead lining. Yep real scary, the ceramic pellets will "leak out". Only a blithering idiot would believe that.

47 people burnt to death and an entire town destroyed by Mrs BJ's Oil trains of which there are thousands on our railroads. Thousands of tons of deadly carcinogens released into the air, land & water. No protection or containment whatsoever. Mrs BJ ain't worried about that.

Gulf Oil spill of 5 million barrels of carcinogen crude dumped right into the water - no containment - everyone in the region is breathing, drinking & eating the crud. No problem for Mrs BJ.

But she's worried to death that some day a few nuclear radiation "thingies" might somehow find there way out of a dry cask and somehow might maybe cause somebody to get a "boo-boo". Wow - is that ever scary.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioact...

Why would anyone want to even read what you post when it seems that you don't care to have a conversation about a topic. Instead you slander, call names, accuse others of making things up and lying. You remind me of a 10 year old throwing a tantrum.

You obviously do not know anything about me or you would have never made the slanderous statements that you made above. I am a person of peace but I have my limits. I am advising you that you are dangerously close to crossing them.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

“…you don't care to have a conversation about a topic…”

What conversion, all you do is post links to anti-nuclear lobby groups about topics you don’t understand, and don’t discuss. In fact you didn’t answer one point I made, while I did respond to your points. That is what you call discussion.

“…Instead you slander, call names, accuse others of making things up and lying…”

Yep, because they did make things up and they did lie, and if you bothered to read my comments and maybe do a little research you would find that out for yourself.

“…You obviously do not know anything about me or you would have never made the slanderous statements…”

Nope, wrong. Not slanderous, I say the same thing about Wonderland or any other anti-nuclear type. Except for the pro-burn-baby-burn crowd, that’s a different case. It’s called consequences and the laws of physics. Something you, Wonderland and most anti-nukes try to ignore, and I call that hypocrsy. FACT: If you oppose Nuclear energy, you are embracing fossil fuels and all the inevitable consequences of that, which I listed above. You may not like that, and you can call that slanderous all you want, but in fact it happens to be just harsh reality. And you don’t have to listen to me on the subject, you can read the World’s #1 climatologist James Hansen, the Worlds foremost Green Economist, Jeffrey Sachs, the Father of Environmentalism James Lovelock, amongst many others.

Now maybe Legend here, is just a pro-fossil-fuel, screw nuclear type, and if he accepts the consequences of that, well I can respect that, that is an honest position. Not hypocrisy. Cruel and selfish, but not hypocritical. He just needs to come right out and say it and not make stuff up about nuclear that simply ain’t true, as I previously documented for his benefit.

A good case in point. Your anti-Nuclear Lobby groups succeeded in shutting down Nuclear power in Japan for over four years. Consequence of that, Japan imported an additional $350 billion in oil, gas and coal to replace the missing nuclear power. According to WHO data, on fossil fuel mortality rates, that works out to an additional 14,000 deaths. That’s consequences, and those deaths are on the shoulders of all anti-nuclear types, including yourself, Wonderland and Legend. And you should at least have the backbone to accept that.

“…I am a person of peace but I have my limits…”

There you are, ignoring consequences again. Your “person of peace” inevitably implies Oil wars, poverty, social insurrection, ten’s of millions in fossil fuel deaths, oil & gas funded terrorism, death & destruction in the Middle East, pollution on a vast scale, climate change and all the consequences of that. Once again all I am asking is for you and Wonderland, and all anti-nuclear energy types, to have the backbone to take responsibility for the effects on the world of your own energy agenda.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

“…Maybe your time would be better spent on that. You're wasting your efforts promoting that shit here ..”

Wonderland, you will note I didn’t start this topic. I guess your idea of discussion is anyone can post what ever propaganda, FUD or disinformation they want and everyone else should just quietly accept that. Debate is forbidden.

You and Mrs. BJ have shown us you know zilch about Nuclear Energy, Radiation Health Physics or Energy Issues in general. And you have shown zero interest in learning about those subjects, and I have tried to help you out in that regard. And Climate Change science is very much an Energy Issue. So instead, I would recommend you just abandon that subject altogether and stick to other topics, not everyone can be knowledgeable in everything, since you ain’t interested in Energy, than just don’t go there.

Actually, I consider this site to be a political one and not really appropriate for energy discussion, except regarding the strong political component, which is the vast network of corruption that exists in our governments and institutions with energy corporations & interests, including OPEC nations.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

You didn't start this discussion, jerk-off; Ms BJ started it and like I predicted, you barged in with your steaming pile of shit. So then, why not call Thom on his show and debate him? He's much more scientifically and technically literate than many of us, which I more than suspect is precisely why you haven't taken the challenge. Coward.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am
Quote Laborisgood:

More importantly, are renewable energy pursuits that lack immediate economic feasibility worthy of investment in the face of difficult economic times or should the existing fossil and nuclear power industries continue to be subsidized even if it puts renewable energy at a relative disadvantage? However, your watch conundrum seems very important.

I dunno, I thought you were discussing the Iran deal.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

As a call-in, he would make it less than a minute. Hartmann hates conservative callers that have facts, and I guarantee Hartmann would talk all over him before potting him down and going on a solo rant before dismissing his call altogether.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 8:35 am

As a call-in, he would make it less than a minute. Hartmann hates conservative callers that have facts, and I guarantee Hartmann would talk all over him before potting him down and going on a solo rant before dismissing his call altogether.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 8:35 am

No wonderland, in fact, I NEVER listen to radio shows, hate them, never heard Thom's radio show and doubt I ever will, I watch Thom on RT, no call-ins. I would be perfectly happy to debate Thom on energy issues right here or anywhere else via text, where references, calculations etc can be provided. Your lack of knowledge in Energy is very apparent here, Energy is all about data, numbers & calculations. You can't do that talking on some radio show.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

By the way, Denmark is off to the races with wind power! Check out this link:

https://www.facebook.com/marc.araujo.3/posts/10207230921916708?from_clos...

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am

In your realm of reality, jerk, only people with heads full of numbers and calculations have any business expressing opinions about nuclear power, despite the obvious negative impacts it has already had on public safety and the environment. And that's as big a steaming, smelly pile of crap as I've encountered in these forums.

Meanwhile you've written not one word in response to my dissertation about those uranium mines in Colorado! All you do is talk over us and fill up these threads with multiple long-winded posts in an obvious effort to intimidate and silence us. It's not working.

I don't give a flip about your numbers and calculations. They don't intimidate me; they just bore me. Anyone who would scoff at Japan's ongoing crisis, with all that leaked radiation and its consequences, has no credibility to begin with, so you can just shove those numbers and calculations right up your ass JerkOff. You might be the loudest fucking shill on the block, but the only person impressed by those numbers is you. No one else gives a damn either, as well they shouldn't. What we care about are things like poisoned water, radiation sickness, thyroid cancer, leukemia and birth defects. So why don't you just kiss my royal ass?

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am
Quote Instant-RunOff-Voting:

There goes our resident Big Oil cheerleader, Legend, inventing more Nuclear disinformation. Hey Legend do the words: honesty, integrity, rationality mean anything whatsoever to you. Let's nail down the credibility of Legend once and for all:

Legend Lie #1: "...the storage of spent fuel is subsidized 100% by the Government..."

Nope, wrong. The commercial nuclear industry in the USA pays for spent fuel storage with a 0.1 cent per kwh fee. The fund is now over $30B, increasing by $750M per yr, not used due to incessant lawsuits & political cronyism of well paid anti-nuclear lobbies preventing any build of a repository.

Legend Lie #2: "...subsidizing the nuclear plants with the Price Anderson Act ..."

Wrong again. Price Anderson requires NPPs to carry more insurance than ANY other industry. Hardly a subsidy. Many industries are legislated to have no requirement for insurance i.e. vaccine manufacturers, carbon capture, weapons. Other industries have much lower coverage, i.e. aircraft and airlines.

Legend Lie #3: "...shutdown plants (due to age or physical issues) will not be decommissioned ..."

"...Nearly 30 civil prototype and commercial reactors have been decommissioned in the USA, and in 2013 four more joined them. Twelve have been totally dismantled (Decon optionf) so that the site is released for unrestricted use, notably Fort St Vrain, Big Rock Point and Shoreham... total $32 billion estimated to decommission all eligible nuclear plants at an average cost of $300 million, about two-thirds had already been funded. The remainder would be funded over the next 20 yearsg. See also appended Table....The NRC regularly reports on the adequacy of decommissioning funds..."

Only Nuclear pays up front for decommissioning costs. Oil, Gas, Coal, Solar, Wind & Hydro do not.

So as we see Legend in his own Mind, just makes stuff up. Not one thing he said is true. Notice he hasn't answered even one point that I made. Not even one.

I have been traveling and have not had time to respond and I do not live on this site as some do. Also I am not going to spend hours on a resonse to such an idiot. Also your making up what I think or Mrs BJ or anyone else thinks only shows your ignorance and poor method of coming to conclusions. You are a sick individual that needs counseling.

"Lie 1" Do a google search on "who pays for storage of spent Nucear fuel". It is easy.

"Lie #2" Do a google search on the Price Anderson Act. The limited Liability is set way below the potential liability. If Indian Point melted down it would be in the hundreds of trillions. We have an example with Fukushima where the local residents have been totally screwed.

"Lie #3" I am sure that you are aware of the decommissioning schedule of SONGS 2 & 3. Kewaunee, Crystal River and Vermont Yankee. So who is the liar. Interesting that you mention Shoreham. A plant that ran at 5% power and then was decomissioned and had to pay $100,000,000.00 to get someone else to take the fuel.

You are living in the era of "nuclear power is too cheap to meter". Times have changed. You are upset that "environmentalists" have shut it down. But the argument against nuclear out weighs the argument for it. Taiwan finished a 9 billion $ plant and mothballed it. 54 plants shut down in Japan, That is trillions of dollars. Germany shutting down nukes. Sweden shutting down 2 nukes this year. No other country other than USA goes past 40 years for operation. The cost to build has gone out of control. Finland has one under construction that is about 9 years and billions over estimate. France the same. It is an industry that is totally out of control for costs. None of your figures for death from nuclear include cancer. The major side effect. How many cancers were caused by Chernobyl? How many from Fukushima?

At one time I thought Nukes were the answer. But I have seen how it works. I do not believe in coal. I now believe in replacing as much as we can with renewables and supplementing with gas etc. as needed. We currently have about 62 MW of wind power. That is about 62 nukes out of 100 and something.

Pay attention to the costs of Nukes. We have 4 under construction that are all ready over budget and over schedule and barely out of the ground. Watts Bar 2 was started in the 70's and is still under construction and is Billions of dollars over budget.

Still no solution by the industry about waste. How long doe it take? The blame is on the industry not the "ENVIRONMENTALISTS".

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Trains never wreck????

AMERICA’S FAVORITE PROBLEM to ignore—what to do with radioactive waste—just got worse. Since 1987, the grand (and controversial) idea was to put it all in one place, a series of tunnels deep below Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. Well, last week America got three new national monuments, including the 704,000 acres of the Basin and Range National Monument. And guess what? The train that was supposed to carry all that nuclear guck to Yucca Mountain runs right through it.

“It’s another nail in the coffin for Yucca Mountain,” says Timothy Frazier, a former Department of Energy official who now works on nuclear waste for the Bipartisan Policy Center. “It certainly adds time, and would require more money to resolve.”

For the past several years, Yucca Mountain has been a political hot potato—dare I even say it’s radioactive? It’s a real mess. Yucca Mountain was supposed to be a place to safely store radioactive waste from power plants and weapons production for the next 10,000 years. The state of Nevada, however, was not happy with being America’s nuclear dump. It filed a lawsuit that dragged out planning and building. Senate leader Harry Reid—from Nevada—and President Obama both opposed the repository. The whole idea has been mothballed.

But radioactive waste doesn’t disappear if you ignore it. The US has 75,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste—spent reactor fuel and the byproducts of processing it—that now sit in pools or dry casks at nuclear power plants, facilities never intended for long-term storage. The risk of leaks is high. Because the stuff stays radioactive for millennia, the safest course of action is supposed to be entomb ingit in rock like at Yucca Mountain, where it can remain inaccessible to future humans.

Now, Yucca Mountain plans have dragged on so long that all the high-level radioactive waste in the country exceeds its storage capacity. The Department of Energy hasn’t even built the repository yet, and the country already needs a second.

With a different Congress and a different president, there could be a Yucca Mountain revival. Republicans have advocated for it. In that case, there could be alternative rail routes to the repository, according to Gary Lanthrum, an engineer who directed the office that worked on Yucca Mountain’s transportation plan.

The teal shape on this map is the newly-created Basin and Range National Monument, with the Caliente rail line running through on its way to Yucca Mountain in the rectangle below. DOE/BLM/WIRED

Lanthrum’s office had assessed several different potential rail alignments, eventually settling the so-called Caliente route, which is the one that now runs through Basin and Range. Caliente came out on top because it passed through land already owned by the federal government. Incidentally, the fact this was public land made it easy to convert to a national monument, as President Obama did last just week. Now, it’ll very difficult politically to argue for tearing up the protected land with a railroad, much less one for carrying radioactive waste.

Other possible routes to Yucca Mountain, like the Mina, are actually shorter and pass through fewer mountains. But they posed other problems. For example, the Mina rail alignment cuts through the Walker River Indian reservation, which has opposed the nuclear transportation line in the past. Other routes also pass through more private land, creating extra hurdles for building a railroad.

Nobody wants radioactive waste to be their problem, and it ends up being, well, everyone’s problem. The federal government has paid $4.5 billion to keep high-level waste at nuclear power plants, and it’s on track to spend another $22.6 billion. At the same time, the plans for Yucca Mountain are all drawn up and and even its initial tunnels have been drilled. “The technical solutions are ready to be implemented when the political will reasserts itself,” says Lanthrum.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT!!! What a MESS we have on our hands THANKS TO NUCLEAR ENERGY!

What does that cheerleader have to say about what you posted? I'm waiting to hear his reply on how we are supposed to fix the mess we are in with regards to storage problems!

Thank you again for posting that!

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

MsBJ, on another thread ("Climate Deniers Fiddle While The Earth Burns"; July 9th), I left two lengthy posts on this subject. One was about the uranium mining that has damaged much of the landscape in Colorado and poisoned its water; the other was about radiation and the impact various doses of radiation have on human health. JerkOff ignored that too, except to fire sophomoric insults in my direction, tell lies about me and talk over me. But that's what some people do when debates don't go their way; they try diverting the conversation to personal attacks while straying way off topic. What may have begun as a legitimate debate thus devolves into an inane battle of egos and personalities. I wouldn't expect any different here and now. After all, we're denigrating Mr. Cheerleader's nuclear wet dream! So we're pond scum to him. Awww...

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am

What Instant Run Off does not understand is the costs of Nuclear have gone through the ceiling and there are no solutions for the waste. If the industry ran efficiently and solved its problems it would be better. But like I say it is being shut down in most countries or never started. There are countries like China where it is expanding but it was expanding here in the 70' and 80's. Maybe they have to go through the cycle. Instant should do a Wiki search on "cancelled Nuclear Plants". The list incredible. The arguments against outweigh the arguments for. And that does not make us for coal or fracking. Cut energy usage (ie turn off lights at night, every watt helps), build renewables, build back ups to renewables. I have a view of a city and lights are on all night. A recent power magazine was devoted to back up sources of power to renewables. Over the next few years I expect there will be a lot of energy storage developed. The Tesla battery has hopes for the home to become self sufficient. Target and Walmart are both looking at this for its stores. Exelon is close to shutting down several reactors. 5 reactors have been shut down in the last few years. More will follow. If they made economic sense there would be a lot under construction. No bank will finance them because of the record of being over schedule and over budget. The 4 under construction are subsidized by a loan guarantee from Obama. Bush did nothing for nuclear except pronounce it wrong. The 4 under construction are over budget and schedule and barely out of the ground. But Instant cannot figure that out. He blames it on environmentalists but in fact it is a losing industry. Fukushima has shown the really bad side of nuclear. It will be trillions in cleanup and is producing nothing. 54 reactors are shut down in Japan. There has been several close incidents in the USA. A plant in Ohio had corrosion of the reactor that almost burst which would have lost the cooling water. A plant in Alabama had a fire below the control room. A plant in Florida was weeks dependant on 2 diesel generators after a hurricane. How close do you have to come? Management cuts maintenance so that the CEO's can take home millions. Each reactor has about 400 security guards. For a reason that Instant cannot seem to figure out.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Instant can't seem to absorb much in the way of reality when it comes to nuclear power. Yet he persists in his efforts to confound and out-shout us. Takes a whackin' and keeps on quackin'. - AIW

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am

I notice no response.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am
Quote Aliceinwonderland:

Instant can't seem to absorb much in the way of reality when it comes to nuclear power. Yet he persists in his efforts to confound and out-shout us. Takes a whackin' and keeps on quackin'. - AIW

He must be out looking for more copy and paste materials.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Nuclear Costs:

Vogtle 3, dual AP1000's in Georgia: This is a First-Of-A-kind GenIII nuclear plants, with zero supply chain, zero trained workforce, zero experienced contractors after a 25 yr boycott of Nuclear construction in the US, and an NRC run by a fanatical anti-nuclear stooge who tried to delay and block construction of these reactors anyway possible. And extraordinarily well-funded anti-nuclear lobby groups, like the SACE, with non-stop legal, political & media efforts to delay, impede & increase costs of these builds. Interesting how these lobby groups refuse to disclose the sources of their immense & tax-exempt funding.

In spite of that, $14B total with cost escalations and including major transmission upgrades for 2.2GW @ a 90%CF = $7.1 per delivered watt. Vs latest solar in California @ $25.2 per delivered watt and wind running $9 to $30 per delivered watt. Nuclear is 24/7, night/day, summer/winter, sunny/cloudy/volcanic eruption, windy/calm, north/south power that lasts for 60-100yrs not 25yrs like solar or 12-15yrs like wind. And the solar & wind costs do not include the 3-8X oversized transmission lines.

Cost comparison of four new clean energy power plants:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/10/21/tcase15/

In spite of the serious omissions of wind & solar grid costs, Nuclear works out cheapest @ a levelized cost of 6.75 cents per kwh, that's First-of-A-Kind, Solar PV @ 24.4 cents, Solar CSP @ 29.6 cents and 10 cents. And note Wind & Solar DO NOT REPLACE ANY CAPACITY, unlike nuclear, that means all wind & solar does is replace some fuel. That is not a big cost saving with Coal & NG fuel costs of < 3 cents per kwh.

the Finland reactor, a First-Of-A-Kind EPR, 1600MW reactor @ inflated cost of 6.3 BEuros or $US8.6B @ a 90% typical CF for nuclear that's a cost of $6 per watt of avg output. And yet well-paid ENGOs, like Greenpeace, constantly whine about the cost of the super-safe, Gen III EPR. And sue at every opportunity. Funny how Greenpeace refuses to reveal the sources for its almost unbelievable, massive $360M per year in funding.

Wind farm costs run from $10 to $30 per watt of avg output. Not including the 3-4X oversized, usually long distance transmission lines. For a very low grade, intermittent, unreliable source of energy that does not replace ANY fossil fuel capacity. It only replaces some fuel. That's 1.7 to 5X the cost of the above EPR. And the turbines only last 12-15 yrs vs 60-100yrs for the EPR.

As a comparison, the largest Solar PV farm in North America, in sunny Arizona, 290MWpk, finished April 2014 was $6.21 per peak watt, and $25.2 per avg delivered watt. So let's see that is only 25.2/6 = 4.2X the cost of the Finland EPR. And that EPR is designed to last 80-100 years vs 25 years for the solar farm. And that EPR produces power 24/7, night/day, summer/winter, north/south, rain/cloud/sun, windy/calm unlike solar & wind. And solar does not replace any fossil fuel capacity. It only replaces fuel.

The new Indian 700 MW PHWR pressurized heavy water reactor is being built for $1.90 per delivered watt. There is no energy source on the planet that cheap.

The Korean APR-1400 being built in UAE are $4 per delivered watt. That is cheaper than gas or coal as well as solar & wind (by a long shot).

"...The APR-1400 was selected as the basis of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) nuclear power program, with the first four reactors to be operating at Barakah by 2020 under a $20.4 billion contract. Construction of the first two units is underway..."

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/korean-apr1400-nuclear-reactor.html

Wind & Solar all use the most modern factory construction and assembly line production. That hasn't even been begun yet for Nuclear. Easy to factory produce nuclear on barges, as one US company was going to do in the early 70's before the Nuclear boycott shutdown the nuclear build. Russia is now planning on buiding Nuclear barges which it will park offshore developing nations and sell power to them.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Nuclear Waste:

Geoff Russell: Nuclear Waste Part 1: The elephant (shrew) in the room:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/07/29/nuclear-waste-series-p1/

"...When you compare the nuclear waste problem with other waste problems, it quickly emerges as one of the easiest to solve safely and completely. Globally, another of our waste problems kills 3.5 million people annually. Which one? No, it’s not waste from coal fired power stations. Human sewage would be a good guess; it certainly kills millions. But the one I have in mind is a renewable energy source. Which one? Please read on..."

"....First, how can radiation “escape”? Even a few metres of water, rock, soil or damn near anything you care to mention can protect against radiation from even the highest of high level waste … by which people mean uranium fuel rods after use. So radiation can’t “escape”. For there to be any risk at all, radioactive material has to move. So how hard is it to keep waste from moving? Scientists have no problem at all in finding, drilling and obtaining cores from areas that have been undisturbed for hundreds of thousands or millions or even billions of years. How hard can it be? Find, drill, dump, fill, forget. How precisely is it going to move if you put it in rock that hasn’t moved for a billion years? It won’t..."

"...Germany is predicting that it will be 2050 before they get to the same level of clean electricity from renewables that France got to with nuclear in 1990. That’ll be 60 years of massive CO2 emissions that the anti-nuclear movement has cost the planet..."

The presidential blue ribbon commission recently concluded that nuclear waste storage as is done has NO safety issues and can continue indefinitely. They recommend some time in the far future a central repository site be built, meanwhile dry cask storage is straightforward. ONLY nuclear contains its wastes. Fossil fuel and biomass waste kill 7 million people every year, according to the WHO, nuclear = zip.

Coal vs Nuclear waste:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/coal-power-and-waste-details.html

A modern 2.2GW Coal power plant releases about 1.4 TBq per year of radiation directly to the environment And most of that radiation is extremely long-lived.

The same size Nuclear plant produces 77 tons of radioactive waste, 96% is just plain old depleted uranium, less radioactive than the ores found all over the planet, and the stuff the US military likes to shoot all over the desert. And that 77 tons of "waste" can produce more energy than 30 of those giant coal power plants each year, burnt in GenIV nuclear power plants like the Integral Fast Reactor that the natural gas stooge, Bill Clinton, ordered shutdown.

In addition the Coal power plant releases 15000 tons of CO2 p yr, 44000 tons of sulfur oxides & 45000 nitrogen oxides (=Acid rain) , 2200 tons particulates (carcinogens), 660lbs mercury, 500lbs lead, 15 tons beryllium, 97 tons arsenic, 9 tons cadmium, 53 tons radioactive uranium & 26 tons radioactive thorium and more - all of which are toxic to humans, plants & animals. And most lasts forever. And unlike the Nuclear wastes none of it is contained but instead is dumped into our land, water & air with reckless abandon for us lowly citizens to eat, drink and breath.

We won't get into all the heavy metals, carcinogens, asbestos, PCBs, dioxins, furans and more that are released in the daily coal, oil & gas fires and explosions that occur in every country on the planet. Or all the oil spills being dumped into our oceans.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Nuclear Plant Construction

Most reactors currently planned are in the Asian region, with fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.

Many countries with existing nuclear power programs (Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Czech Rep., India, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea, South Africa, UAE, Ukraine, UK, USA) have plans to build new power reactors (beyond those now under construction).

In all, over160 power reactors with a total net capacity of some 186,000 MWe are planned and over 300 more are proposed. Energy security concerns and greenhouse constraints on coal have combined with basic economics to put nuclear power back on the agenda for projected new capacity in many countries.

In the USA there are plans for five new reactors, beyond the five under construction now. It is expected that some of the new reactors will be on line by 2020.

In Finland, construction is now under way on a fifth, very large reactor which is expected to come on line in 2017, and plans are firming for another large one to follow it.

France is building a similar 1600 MWe unit at Flamanville, for operation from 2016, and a second may follow it at Penly.

In the UK, four similar 1600 MWe units are planned, and a further 6000 MWe is proposed.

Romania's second power reactor istarted up in 2007, and plans are being implemented for two further Canadian units to be built.

Slovakia is completing two 470 MWe units at Mochovce, to operate from 2017.

Bulgaria is planning to build a large new reactor at Kozloduy.

Belarus is building two large new Russian reactors at Ostrovets.

In Russia, six reactors and two small ones are under active construction, one large one being a large fast neutron reactor. About 30 further reactors are then planned, some to to replace existing plants. This will increase the country's present nuclear power capacity by 50% by 2030. In addition about 5 GW of nuclear thermal capacity is planned. A small floating power plant is expected to be completed by 2016 and others are planned to follow.

Poland is planning two 3000 MWe nuclear power plants.

South Korea plans to bring a further further four reactors into operation by 2018, and another eight by about 2030, giving total new capacity of 17,200 MWe. All of these are the Advanced PWRs of 1400 MWe. These APR-1400 designs have evolved from a US design which has US NRC design certification, and four been sold to the UAE (see below).

Japan has two reactors under construction but another three which were likely to start building by mid 2011 have been deferred.

In China, now with 26 operating reactors on the mainland, the country is well into the next phase of its nuclear power program. Some 24 reactors are under construction, including the world's first Westinghouse AP1000 units, and a demonstration high-temperature gas-cooled reactor plant. Many more units are planned, including two largely indigenous designs – the Hualong One and CAP1400. China aims to more than double its nuclear capacity by 2020.

India has 21 reactors in operation, and six under construction. This includes two large Russian reactors and a large prototype fast breeder reactor as part of its strategy to develop a fuel cycle which can utilise thorium. Over 20 further units are planned. 18 further units are planned, and proposals for more - including western and Russian designs - are taking shape following the lifting of trade restrictions.

Pakistan has third and fourth 300 MWe reactors under construction at Chashma, financed by China. Two larger Chinese power reactors are planned.

In Kazakhstan, a joint venture with Russia's Atomstroyexport envisages development and marketing of innovative small and medium-sized reactors, starting with a 300 MWe Russian design as baseline for Kazakh units.

In Iran a 1000 MWe PWR at Bushehr came on line in 2011, and further units are planned.

The United Arab Emirates awarded a $20.4 billion contract to a South Korean consortium to build four 1400 MWe reactors by 2020. The first three are under construction.

Jordan has committed plans for its first reactor, and is developing its legal and regulatory infrastructure.

Turkey has contracts signed for four 1200 MWe Russian nuclear reactors at one site and four European ones at another. Its legal and regulatory infrastructure is well-developed.

Vietnam has committed plans for its first reactors at two sites (2x2000 MWe), and is developing its legal and regulatory infrastructure. The first plant will be a turnkey project built by Atomstroyexport. The second will be Japanese.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Canceled nuclear plants and units[edit]Name[n 1]UnitReactor typeStatusLocationNet
capacity
in MWGross
capacity
in MWContract
yearConstruct-
ion
startedProject
closeAllens Creek1Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanTX1,1601,2071973-1982-09-01Allens Creek2Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanTX1,1601,2071973-1976-09-01Atlantic1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanNJ1,1501,2121972-1978-12-01Atlantic2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanNJ1,1501,2121972-1978-12-01Bailly1Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanIN66068619671974-01-011981-08-01Barton1Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanAL1,2091,2541972-1977-11-01Barton2Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanAL1,2091,2541972-1977-11-01Barton3Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanAL1,2091,2541974-1975-11-01Barton4Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanAL1,2091,2541974-1975-11-01Bellefonte1Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionAL1,2351,26319701974-09-011988-01-01Bellefonte2Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionAL1,2351,26319701974-09-011988-01-01Black Fox1Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionOK1,1501,22619731978-07-011982-02-01Black Fox2Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionOK1,1501,22619731978-07-011982-02-01Blue Hills (formerly Sunken Log)1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanTX9309571973-1978-08-01Blue Hills (formerly Sunken Log)2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanTX9309571974-1978-08-01Bodega Bay Canceled ConstructionCA 1964Callaway2Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionMO1,1201,17619731975-10-011981-10-01Carroll County1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanIL1,1201,1501978-1988-12-01Carroll County2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanIL1,1201,1501978-1988-12-01Cherokee1Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionSC1,2801,34319731976-06-011983-04-01Cherokee2Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionSC1,2801,34319731976-06-011982-11-01Cherokee3Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionSC1,2801,34319731976-06-011982-11-01Clinch River-Fast breederCanceled PlanTN3503801973-1983-11-01Clinton2Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionIL93398519731975-10-011983-10-01Clinch River-Fast breederCanceled PlanTN3503801973-1983-11-01Levy County1 & 2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanFL1117 2008-2013-08-01Davis Besse3Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanOH9109601973-1980-01-01Douglas Point (US)1Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanMD1,1781,2061972-1980-05-01Douglas Point (US)2Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanMD1,1781,2061972-1978-01-01Erie1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanOH1,2601,3001976-1980-01-01Erie2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanOH1,2601,3001976-1980-01-01Floating1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanFL1,1501,211--1979-01-01Fort Calhoun2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanNE1,1361,1821972-1977-02-01Fulton1HTGRCanceled PlanPA1,1601,200--1976-03-01Fulton2HTGRCanceled PlanPA1,1601,200--1976-03-01Greene County-Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanNY1,1911,277--1979-04-01Greenwood2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanMI1,2081,268--1980-03-01Greenwood3Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanMI1,2081,268--1980-03-01Columbia (WPPSS-1)1Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionWA1,2591,33919721975-08-011983-01-01Columbia (WPPSS-4)4Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionWA1,2501,34019741975-08-011982-01-01HartsvilleA1Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionTN1,2331,26919721976-04-011984-08-01HartsvilleA2Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionTN1,2331,26919721976-04-011984-08-01HartsvilleB1Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionTN1,2331,269-1976-04-011982-08-01HartsvilleB2Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionTN1,2331,269-1976-04-011982-08-01Haven1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanWI900960--1980-02-01Haven2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanWI900960--1978-05-01Hope Creek2Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionNJ1,0671,11819691976-03-011981-12-01Jamesport1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanNY1,1501,182--1980-01-01Jamesport2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanNY1,1501,182--1980-01-01Marble Hill1Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionIN1,0301,090-1977-07-011984-01-01Marble Hill2Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionIN1,1301,190-1977-07-011984-01-01Midland1Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionMI49152619681973-03-011986-07-01Midland2Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionMI81685519681973-03-011986-07-01Montague1Boiling water reactorCanceled PlantMA1,1501,298--1980-12-01Montague2Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanMA1,1501,298--1980-12-01NEP1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanRI1,1501,194--1980-01-01Nep2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanRI1,1501,194--1980-01-01North Coast (formerly Aguirre)1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanPR583614--1978-12-01North Anna3Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionVA90795019711971-06-011982-11-01North Anna4Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionVA90795019711971-12-011980-11-01Pebble Springs1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanOR1,2601,314--1982-09-01Pebble Springs2Pressurized water reactorCanceled planOR1,2601,314--1982-09-01Perkins1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanNC1,2871,345--1982-02-01Perkins2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanNC1,2871,345--1982-02-01Perkins3Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanNC1,2871,345--1982-02-01Perry2Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionOH1,205--1974-10-011984-04-01Phipps Bend1Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionTN1,2331,269-1977-10-011982-08-01Phipps Bend2Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionTN1,2331,269-1977-10-011982-08-01Pilgrim2Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanMA1,1801,240--1981-09-01River Bend2Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionLA93499119721975-08-011984-01-01Satsop (WPPSS-3)3Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionWA1,2401,32419731977-04-011983-01-01Satsop (WPPSS-5)5Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionWA1,2401,31619741977-04-011982-01-01Seabrook2Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionNH1,1491,19919721976-07-011988-01-01Sears Isle1 ME 1977Shearon Harris2Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionNC90096019711978-01-011983-12-01 (2013)Shearon Harris3Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionNC90096019711978-01-011983-12-01 (2013)Shearon Harris4Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionNC90096019711978-01-011983-12-01Skagit1Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanWA1,2751,335--1983-08-01Skagit2Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanWA1,2751,335--1983-08-01Somerset 1 NY Somerset 2 NY South River 1 NJ South River 2 NJ South River 3 NJ Stanislaus 1 CA Stanislaus 2 CA Sterling1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanNY1,1501,185--1980-01-01Sterling3 & 4Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanNY1,117 2008-1980-01-01Sundesert 1 CA Sundesert 2 CA Surry3Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionVA85991919721974-01-011977-03-01Surry4Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionVA85991919721974-01-011977-03-01Tyrone1Pressurized water reactorCanceled PlanWI1,1501,188--1979-07-01Verplanck
(formerly Indian Point-4)1Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanNY1,1001,115--1975Verplanck
(formerly Indian Point-5)2Boiling water reactorCanceled PlanNY1,1001,115--1975Yellow Creek1Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionMS1,2851,33919741978-02-011984-08-30Yellow Creek2Pressurized water reactorCanceled ConstructionMS1,2851,33919741978-02-011984-08-30Zimmer1Boiling water reactorCanceled ConstructionOH810840-1972-10-011984-01-01

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Easier to go to the site:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants_in_the_Uni...

Other sites:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/nuclearpower/11727000/Areva...

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/renewables-outpace-nuclear-i...

I do not understand if nuclear is so good why are they not building more.

also you can look at Greenpeace annual reports on their web page. The massively financed Greenpeace has a web page.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

America: Meet Your Overlord Rupert Murdoch...

Thom plus logo The main lesson that we've learned so far from the impeachment hearings is that if Richard Nixon had had a billionaire like Rupert Murdoch with a television network like Fox News behind him, he never would've resigned and America would have continued to be presided over by a criminal.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system