Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
As opposed to the US nuke plant in Omaha back in 2011 that just barely escaped the same fate as Fukishima by a few feet? Or all those still births by farm animals after 3 Mile Island in NY?
Why is the left afraid of nuclear energy?
- Thread starter Tinkerpeach
- Start date
As opposed to the US nuke plant in Omaha back in 2011 that just barely escaped the same fate as Fukishima by a few feet? Or all those still births by farm animals after 3 Mile Island in NY?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The Fort Calhoun plant has a secondary containment (the big concrete dome thing). Even if the plant flooded, the reactor wouldn't have been effected. Fukushima failed because it lacked a secondary containment system and the emergency generators on site were situated in a basement so were flooded immediately. It is something of an oddity though using a Combustion Engineering reactor design.
At the time of the flood you cite, the plant was shut down for refueling so flooding would have made zero difference in any case as the reactor was defueled at the time.
The plant was shut down in 2016 in any case so the whole question is moot.
As for the still births, got a citation for that? I studied that incident in great detail and there was no significant release of radiation involved. So, it is likely--almost certainly--that whatever that was wasn't caused by the TMI meltdown.
Tinkerpeach
New member
How many people and animals have died due to climate change?
Which do you think is worse?
I’m left. I’m not against nuclear.
Why do you make such a blanket statement? Out of partisan ignorance? Yeah, no doubt.
It is not actually all about you.
Well, unlike you, I wouldn’t want a reactor near me. I would want to be outside of the 50 mile range in case of mishap and evacuation. I would also want to know what types of cancer and disease are associated with living near a facility.
floridafan
Verified User
3 mile island
[FONT="]Here's what we know. This July 24, 2008 photo shows the Monticello nuclear power plant in Monticello, MN. In November 2022, the plant confirmed a 400,000 gallon leak of water containing tritium and reported it to officials.[FONT="]Mar 19, 2023[/FONT]
[/FONT]
https://www.npr.org › 2023/03/19
[h=3]A nuclear power plant leaked contaminated water in Minnesota. Here's what we know - NPR[/h]
Where do you get it's low cost???? BTW I am not oppose to nuclear energy; I myself have worked in commercial nuclear plants during shut downs.
Hmm.... Never happened? There has never been a major radiation leak in the US but just this year...
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/...icello-nuclear-plant-radioactive-tritium-leak
Low cost for the consumer.
How can you justify that????
Tinkerpeach
New member
Everything has risks but the benefits of nuclear energy far outweigh them
I’m sure every lefty here would say that climate change is far more dangerous then a few people getting irradiated every 30 years
I’m sure every lefty here would say that climate change is far more dangerous then a few people getting irradiated every 30 years
Tinkerpeach
New member
In fact, more people have died installing windmills then have died from nuclear accidents
I get monthly bills from the utility company.
That doesn't explain how nuclear power is more economical.
Tinkerpeach
New member
Because nuclear energy can power our entire grid
Green energy cannot which means we would still need to use fossil fuels
The process of turning fossil fuel into energy is extremely expensive
How do you justify what you posted????
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Nuclear power is more economical because of the capacity factor of the plant. This is particularly true when you compare it to solar and wind.
Solar and wind typically have capacity factors between 20 and 30% while a nuclear plant is typically 96 to 98%. Put another way, a nuclear plant gets up and running and stays online for months, even years, steadily producing massive amounts of power 24/7. Wind and solar--particularly solar--produce power intermittently when the wind blows or the sun shines. Even when producing the output is highly variable.
Thus, neither wind or solar can be relied on for base loading of the grid unlike nuclear. That means you have to duplicate capacity and have backup power plants that can be quickly brought on line and taken off to make up for solar and wind's unreliability. That adds lots of costs that otherwise wouldn't be present with a stable, reliable production system.
Have you ever been at a commercial nuclear plant?????????????