First U.S. nuke plant in 30 years

LadyT

LadyT

JPP Modarater
Contributor
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/new.nukes.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Power producer NRG Energy Inc. will submit the first application for a new nuclear reactor in the U.S. in nearly 30 years, the company's chief executive said Monday. Nuclear regulators expect Tuesday morning to receive NRG's application for two new units at its facility in Bay City, Texas, about 90 miles southwest of Houston.

_____________________________________________________

I say go for it. They're just Bush supporters.
 
ahh to use the con argument. Why does TX need reactors when they have plenty of oil ?
Or is that argument just for Iran ?
:D
 
My cousin is an engineer and is responsible for monitoring the emisson from this plant in Bay City. I have visited it several times since I go there (the Bay City area) often to fish. They have a pretty good educational visitors center across the road from that particular plant. I hope they get approval for this. It is amazing how much area they supply electricity for just from the two reactors that are set up there now.
 
All of the well run fission plants in the world can't make up for one poorly run facility. And there's an enormous financial incentive to cut corners.

Sadly, I long ago concluded that we probably do need more fission power plants. On balance, they're less destructive than coal plants. I'd like to keep the number down as far as possible though. I simply do not trust the profit motive to keep a lot of reactors running safely for a long time.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
All of the well run fission plants in the world can't make up for one poorly run facility. And there's an enormous financial incentive to cut corners.

Sadly, I long ago concluded that we probably do need more fission power plants. On balance, they're less destructive than coal plants. I'd like to keep the number down as far as possible though. I simply do not trust the profit motive to keep a lot of reactors running safely for a long time.
Click to expand...
Hmm... It is cleaner in the long run, they even have the ability to shorten the time that it is a danger before they put it in the ground.

We are so paranoid here in the US because of the accident in Pennsylvania that we are willing to use over 50% of the oil that comes here for power and refuse to allow any other sources. It is ridiculous.
 
"Sadly, I long ago concluded that we probably do need more fission power plants. On balance, they're less destructive than coal plants. I'd like to keep the number down as far as possible though. I simply do not trust the profit motive to keep a lot of reactors running safely for a long time."

I have been very conflicted on nukes. They are MUCH cleaner, in general, than fossil fuel sources. However, the problem of waste is kind of mind-boggling, given the half-life periods involved.

We can do better. We haven't yet, but it should be a priority.
 
I continue to be completely behind nuclear power given the insight I have received from my cousin. I am for anything to get us off the mid-east oil tit. While I supporte nuclear power I don't think we should just go whole hog into it without exploring alternatives either. But in the meantime ....
 
They are not all that risky.. but if something was to happen its catastrophic. Accidents. intentional sabotage or terrorism, and of course the waste issues.
 
The United States has large resources in sandstone deposits in the Western Cordillera region, and most of its uranium production has been from these deposits, recently by in situ leach (ISL) mining. The Powder River Basin in Wyoming, the Colorado Plateau and the Gulf Coast Plain in south Texas are major sandstone uranium provinces. Other large sandstone deposits occur in Niger, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Gabon (Franceville Basin), and South Africa (Karoo Basin). Kazakhstan has reported substantial reserves in sandstone deposits with average grades ranging from 0.02 to 0.07% U.
 
Yeah there is a big stink I read recently about reopening a Uranium mine somewhere in the USA....
The not in my back yard kind of stuff...
 
OrnotBitwise said:
All of the well run fission plants in the world can't make up for one poorly run facility. And there's an enormous financial incentive to cut corners.

Sadly, I long ago concluded that we probably do need more fission power plants. On balance, they're less destructive than coal plants. I'd like to keep the number down as far as possible though. I simply do not trust the profit motive to keep a lot of reactors running safely for a long time.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know about you, but businesses have a much better record at keeping their customers alive than government does in keeping their victims, sorry "customers" alive.

Your silly theory doesn't really hold up too well to history, see there was this place called Chernobyl which had a nuclear reactor and wouldn't you know it, even without even a slight profit motive and nothing but pure Socialism, the fucking thing blew up.
You'd think employees who get paid the same and live in equality no matter how bad or what kind of job they do, would be superior at safety but no it turns out that those who seek profit can only really get it by satisfying their customers while retaining better employees with better incentives to work harder and be safer.
 
TheDanold said:
Well I don't know about you, but businesses have a much better record at keeping their customers alive than government does in keeping their victims, sorry "customers" alive.
Click to expand...
You aren't really stupid enough to believe that, are you? :(

Bhopal
Minamata
Love Canal
The entire State of Florida
Niigata
large tracts of the State of New Jersey
The continuing rape of the California Central Valley

Oh, hell. The examples are too manifold to even bother enumerating: it's like naming snowflakes.

Private industry cannot -- ever -- be trusted with matters of environmental and public health. They have little or no incentive to act responsibly and an enormous incentive to not care. This is, in fact, the great flaw of capitalism.
 
I think he is.
All evidence points in that direction.

Ohh and lets not forget the refinery explosion where several were killed. and the investigation showed it was due to cost reductions in safety and maintenance during a time of record profits.

Then the alaska pipeline debacle, cutting down on anti corrosives to save money, again during a time of record profits.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
I think he is.
All evidence points in that direction.

Ohh and lets not forget the refinery explosion where several were killed. and the investigation showed it was due to cost reductions in safety and maintenance during a time of record profits.

Then the alaska pipeline debacle, cutting down on anti corrosives to save money, again during a time of record profits.
Click to expand...
Call those snowflakes Fred and Barney. :)

Governments kill people too, of course. Worst of all is when business and government start working together toward the same goals: that's when nightmares become hell on Earth. The problem is that some people seem to believe there's some way we can limit business without strengthening government.

If they want to imagine that the Moon is made of green cheese, well, let 'em. We can't allow our public policy to be influenced by their fantasies, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top