and it starts: Lieberman wants to halt new nuclear plants

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
Lets just invade the oil bearing countries, enslave the men, breed with the women, and take their oil.


Gotta spread those Christian family values somehow and what better way then rape, pillage, and plunder! Killing them all and letting God sort them out just seems so wasteful.

The trick in these desert countries is to control the water supply. If the masses start to revolt or pull a Gandhi on us a few days without water is all it takes.
 
Last edited:

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Ideally we would want millions of tiny electric power plants spaced every block or so.

There are no easy answers.



That is what Edison wanted, and thank God it never happened. Loss is not an issue to the point that we need plants every block, just one every few hundred miles would suffice. You can thank Tesla for that.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
How many of you have actually checked to see where your power comes from or how many plants your homes utility provider has or is planning to construct ?

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/nuclear/state_profiles/nuc_state_sum.html
Most consumers haven't a clue. They don't know if it is gas, coal, nuclear wind or water, only that they turn on a switch and things work.



Some of the comments by politicians are wrong, no surprise there, especially the ones about no new applications or construction plans.

NC gets 1/3rd of its power from nuclear and it doesn't scare me at all. It is far better than the many coal plants they would be using. The one reactor below , the one I get power from for my home, ran for 707 days straight with no downtime. The tech can work if it is run correctly.

Brunswick in Brunswick County
Between 2002 and 2005, Progress Energy added 244 MW in new capacity at units 1 and 2 through uprates.
In 2003, Unit 1 set a world record for continuous operation of a boiling water reactor (BWR), 707 days.
Operator: Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.

Location and Service Territory: The Brunswick power plant, named for the county in which it is located, covers 1,200 acres at the mouth of the Cape Fear River.

Construction Cost: $2.490 billion (2007 USD)

Reactor Descriptions: Both units are General Electric Type 4 boiling water reactors.

Cooling System: The Brunswick facility is cooled with a once-through system that pulls water from the Cape Fear River and discharges it 2,000 feet out in the Atlantic Ocean.




Shearon Harris in Wake County
The last construction permit issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission went to the Harris Plant on January 27, 1978.

On February 19, 2008, Progress Energy applied to the NRC to build two AP1000 reactors at the Harris plant. The application is currently under review.
Shearon Harris: Progress Energy Carolinas submitted a COL application to the NRC in February 2008 to construct and operate two additional reactors at the Shearon Harris site. The reactor design will be Westinghouse’s AP1000. According to Progress, commercial operations would begin no earlier than 2018.


I suspect the Harris site has been approved since my uncle a 30+ year engineer for the company said they had already started constructing new substations to support them.
 

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
The COLA for Harris Units 2 and 3 is still in review and the schedule for its completion has been pushed back to 2014.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
How many of you have actually checked to see where your power comes from or how many plants your homes utility provider has or is planning to construct ?


Why I live in Virginy son and of course we use West Virginy coal for most of our power. Oh, we have a token nuclear reactor to make the military boys in Tidewater happy and now provide natural gas fueled electricity for other states, but its good old fashioned red neck coal that keeps us goin.
 

Jaepheth

Platinum Member
Apr 29, 2006
2,572
25
91
At this rate I'll never fulfill my dream of building a 1st gen graphite cooled reactor directly on the San Andreas Fault made entirely of C4 and Papier-mâché, covered in ungrounded lightning rods and graffiti mocking every belief system in existence
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
At this rate I'll never fulfill my dream of building a 1st gen graphite cooled reactor directly on the San Andreas Fault made entirely of C4 and Papier-mâché, covered in ungrounded lightning rods and graffiti mocking every belief system in existence

Don't you give up hope son. This is American, the land of the free and winner takes all.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
At this rate I'll never fulfill my dream of building a 1st gen graphite cooled reactor directly on the San Andreas Fault made entirely of C4 and Papier-mâché, covered in ungrounded lightning rods and graffiti mocking every belief system in existence

you forgot building a swimming pool on the roof to store your nuclear waste in..

oh wait a minute, that idea's been taken.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,133
220
106
Lieberman is out to lunch.

Aren't you glad you didn't vote that idiot in with mcsame? whew!
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,133
220
106
If it takes a 9.0 earthquake followed by a tsunami to almost kinda sorta meltdown a nuclear reactor, then I want Japan building all my power plants.


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

No shit! One of the 5 strongest earthquakes ever recorded!
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Lets just invade the oil bearing countries, enslave the men, breed with the women, and take their oil.

The men make poor slaves and the women are horrid and prudish. Kill the whole lot and take the oil.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The men make poor slaves and the women are horrid and prudish. Kill the whole lot and take the oil.
Not to mention their disturbing propensity for exploding.

Not in favor of killing them either though.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
Not to mention their disturbing propensity for exploding.

Not in favor of killing them either though.


No, lets give the nice exploding Arab a big group hug instead. I'm sure he'll change his mind and just give us all the oil we want for free.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,158
20
81
So what you're saying is that because there's a slim chance that two gigantic natural disasters might occur within an hour of each other and because one plant had trouble with them, we should stop building and disregard the entire technology as "too dangerous".

Shit, if we had that kind of attitude, we'd have stopped refining oil after Katrina, and certainly after the BP spill last year. I mean, heck...disasters might cause problems, so obviously the entire industry is unsafe.

But, hey, that's OK, because we always have wind and solar...at least until something happens at a wind or solar farm.

Seriously, shit happens...get over it. If anything, this should spur the government into action to allow more, newer nuclear reactors to come online so that the old, unsafe ones can be decomissioned.

But honestly, this is NOT what he's saying. He's saying to re-evaluate the problems of nuclear power especially after the Japan disaster.

In any real world environment, say in industry work, when shit happens, you don't say it's a fluke. When your #1 team loses a game today where you should've steamrolled opponents, you don't just ignore it. Yes there are sometimes bizarre disasters or weird crap that happens, but you need to figure out what went wrong and evaluate then.

I understand that the plant wasn't built for a 9.0, but most of the problems occurred because of the tsunami. With the sea wall protecting the plant, this was more of a flooding issue than anything else.

I don't think you can just say "Well this shit ain't happening before I win the lottery so let's keep going." Any sensible person would stop for a second and figure out what improvements we can make.

Too many people are jumping on anyone who says anything about slowing down. The wise thing to do is to rethink what we can do here to improve nuclear power plants. I don't mean stopping for 20 years. If it means taking 3 months to re-evaluate any current projects and to certify disaster capabilities, then that's fine. If it puts a 5 year halt on our plans, I think that's a bit ridiculous.


Until this diaster it was my layman's understanding that all US nuclear plants were supposed to be like this. It was my understanding that if there is a problem/loss of power the rods were supposed to drop by gravity into the block that stops/greatly slows the reaction. I thought the multiple redundant backup systems beyond simple gravity were just icing on the cake. At least that's the way it has always been sold to us from PR material and tours of the power plants I went on as a kid.

Chernobyl didn't worry me much-Russian design and Russian workmanship. Only the North Koreans would cut more corners on safety than them. This worries me a lot because I think it's safe to assume the nuclear plants in Japan are at least as well designed, built and maintained as those here, including the one about ten miles from my home.

The pro-nuclear proponents here are grossly overreacting, to use a bad pun. All Lieberman said was let's hold up until we figure out what went wrong in Japan, and whether we should make corrections here. Pretty common sense, especially when we don't have a whole lot (if any) new nuclear plants in the construction pipeline anyway. He did not call for shutting down our current plants, or a future ban. The reaction is kind of like when the NRA gets its panties twisted when there are calls to regulate in any way cop killing armor piercing bullets, machine guns or bazookas.

Thank you for being sensible instead of the "OMG NUCULAR IS BAD" or "OMG WATCH THE GREENIES SQUASH NUCULAR"
 
Last edited:

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
I guess I can understand just waiting for this thing to go over and look over what happened, see what we can do to prevent those same things from happening here etc

I really hope we don't slow it down too much though. The last reactor was built in what 1979?

And now that we are finally going to start building some more theres another incident.
I hope our politicians don't make any knee jerk decisions because of this, thats probably asking a lot though unfortunately.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
If it takes a 9.0 earthquake followed by a tsunami to almost kinda sorta meltdown a nuclear reactor, then I want Japan building all my power plants.

Considering the nuclear industry chose to build a plant that requires intervention and a power source to prevent meltdown, to save a few bucks, in a place known to experience tsunamis and earthquakes... fuck them, I don't want them building anything close to me.

I can see the apologists now... A category 6 hurricane destroys a nuclear power plant on the Gulf coast, and they say "Well considering it got hit by the biggest hurricane ever we did pretty good. Take your iodine pills!!"
 
Last edited:

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
I guess I can understand just waiting for this thing to go over and look over what happened, see what we can do to prevent those same things from happening here etc

I really hope we don't slow it down too much though. The last reactor was built in what 1979?

And now that we are finally going to start building some more theres another incident.
I hope our politicians don't make any knee jerk decisions because of this, thats probably asking a lot though unfortunately.

Finally people who were assuaged by the nuclear industry PR monkeys are starting to question how safe is safe enough, and that is a good thing.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Well how are people supposed to charge up their Volts now??? Sorry guys, maybe you can strap a windmill to the top of the thing.

Now that you mention it, YES! I'll take this...


and this...


and this...


over this...


or this...


Knee jerking at its best.

George W. Bushwhacko, lied that we might learn about Saddam's non-existant WMD's in the form of a mushroom cloud, and the right wingnuts bought into his fear mongering lies without so much as questioning them or demanding evidence.

What is it they don't understand about the same kinds of threats to human lives from a nuclear catastrophy at nuclear power plants, especially in seismically active areas, when they have mountain of hard evidence at their fingertips in real time?

Why do they call the least bit of common sense and caution "knee jerking at its best?"

I can only conclude they are knee jerkoffs at their very worst! :thumbsdown: :\
 
Last edited:

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Harvey, while you're at it, let's post some other pictures:

Cool! How many people died spewing blood from every pore while their skin peeled and fell off in scaley clumps when those windmills blew?

How many more previously healthy people suffered and died from various forms of cancer for decades after those pics were shot?

How many infants were poisoned with radioactive iodine in their mothers' milk and in the milk produced at dairy farms for decades? :'(

How many square miles were rendered absolutely uninhabitable and useless to humanity by radiation for the next pick your number of thousands of years?

How many people hundreds or thousands of miles away from those windmills suffered the same fates when radioactive material was carried all over shit's creek by prevailing weather patterns?

Go ahead, and try to blow smoke (preferably not radioactive) about the chances of such an event happening, and I'll ask you what part of the price of ONE (count 'em on one finger) meltdown don't you understand?

If you want to talk about calculated risk versus the benefit to be derived from a given activity, then please explain what benefit is worth the demonstrated risk of any number greater than ZERO when it comes to a nuclear catastrophy.
 
Last edited:
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |