How close is your home to a nuclear power plant?
 

.

Click link below...


How close is your home to a nuclear plant?

>

30 km - just under 19 miles - as the crow flies.
And I work a lot closer to it.

3033 miles :D

(It allows me to enter a UK postcode but only has US plants in it - apparently according to CNN the internet stops at the US border :rolleyes:)

Nearest one to me is ~50 miles (Torness).

There's one within 100 miles, if you (as CNN does) exclude the local university's reactor. Meanwhile, there are 11 coal-fired power plants within 100 miles of me: Existing U.S. Coal Plants - SourceWatch

CNN doesn't care, though. The impact of coal is too spread out and subtle to make the news.

4183 ft. (.79 miles)

Hello -

~60 miles.

CarloSW2

Apparently their ability to write working web code is no greater that their knowledge of radiation physics. On a scale of 0-10, seems that both would require a leading 0. :-) Map that displays as just a black area with orange dots, information apparently conveyed in popups... I say apparently, because of course I have popups blocked. Doesn't everyone?

22!

~20-80+ miles depending on where I happen to be staying.

125 miles, and all of them "down wind"

As far as I know, the closest nuclear power plant to me is in Japan, over 5500 miles away. The closest I have ever stayed overnight to a nuclear power plant is 24 miles, while in Dearborn, MI in February

83 miles from my home.
The radiation from nuclear power plants isn't much when they are working properly.
What they do with the spent uranium is a different story.

There is a coal power plant in Milwaukee, about 55 miles away.

65 miles to the plant in St Lucie county.

I'm glowing!
 

According to the linked page I have 8 nuclear reactors operating at 5 facilities ranging from 22 to 64 miles from my home. This includes the U.S.'s second largest nuclear generating facility, a combination of two of the above facilities with 3 reactors total, 33 miles away. The four physical locations of these plants are roughly North, South, East and West of my location. :thumbup:

I bet there are nuclear-powered ships and subs closer to you than that, courtesy of my tax dollars. :thumbup:

They may be closer, but are not allowed into NZ waters.


The tendency in this part of Europe, is to put nuclear facilities near the border.
We do it in Belgium, the Dutch do it, and so do the French.
Does that also happen elsewhere ?
Sharing the nuclear risk with the neighbours on the other side of the state / country border ?

In France wherever you are, you are never at more than 200km = 125mi from a nuclear plant.

I'm at 80km = 50mi from Golfech. It has 2 reactors from 93 & 95 for 1.3GW. Since 98 it has 10 incidents including 7 at level 1.

France has the second park in the world after US (58 vs 104 reactors and 101 vs 64GW) but this produces 78% of French electricity, vs 20% for US.

Denis.

Oh, they're there, you just don't see them...;)

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/f...esCAGOSAZX.jpg






Showing a lack of confidence in their nuclear programs should be a tell-tale sign that it may not be as safe as it is made out to be.


>

It's a sign that Europeans do not think of themselves as Europeans, but rather as Belgians (or Flemish and Walloons), French, etc. I don't see that mentality much in the US, as we really are a nation, not a federation of 50 independent states. The situation in Europe would improve a few generations after member states cede most of their power to the federation, including the rights to have foreign diplomacy and to leave the EU.

http://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm...100907-067.jpg

Anyway, here's a map. US reactors are primarily located on the outskirts of population centers. There are a few interesting trends here, though. Check out the large number of reactors near Chicago, where the nuclear reactor was invented. There's also a disproportionate number in the South. Why do they like nuclear?

Nearest active is 70 miles.
Nearest retired is about 15 miles.

after living on the Georgia coast for three years you realize every summer the air gets very stagnate and hazy, and when the choice is coal which adds to the haze or nuclear which doesn't i think most people would like nuclear more. just what i always figured there are probably plenty of other reasons

That's indeed the case.


When I look at that map, I see a lot of reactors near state borders.
It'd be interesting to see it in more detail.

Because in a lot of cases the borders are rivers & lakes, which are handy for cooling water?

...the 3 LARGE Palo Verde reactors here in AZ are ~60 miles west of Phoenix, basically smack-daub in the middle of the desert.

jamesqf -

I wasn't correlating borders to rivers, but I agree that the French nuclear reactors use rivers :

Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy

http://www.world-nuclear.org/images/info/france.gif

CarloSW2

...and, if you consult the geologists, you'll find that many rivers "follow" the cracks in the earth created by plate-boundaries and geologic fault lines!

seems like thats a dumb idea, do they truck in the water? is it a well? wouldn't you risk running dry?

They are also convenient places to locate cities.

When you look at a squiggly state border in the US, it's not based on centuries of border disputes, but natural geography. I think there are four borders based on mountain ranges (WV, TN, KY, MT), and literally all the rest of the squiggly ones follow rivers.

Long, straight borders, anywhere in the world, happen when the people drawing the borders view the lands as being nearly completely empty.

Btw, Teleman, I hope you know that most of the world's rivers don't follow fault lines. Rivers are actually very short-lived, among geologic entities. They are wiped out by glaciation. After 10k years of flooding, meandering, and depositing silt, they may begin to cut a new path to the sea.

Do you know why endoheric basins only form in dry regions?

Odin -

Made me look :

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CarloSW2

...at least the effluent (gray) water evaporates "quickly" due to the "...dry heat..." (ha,ha).

gray water, brown water ........it all stinks

37 miles from here to Surry 1&2

Sure, and you can build a closed-cycle cooling system for a nuclear plant, it's just cheaper to use a handy river, lake, or ocean. But of course if you're going to build one anywhere near Phoenix, those are not exactly options :-)

You also need to remember that coal-fired plants (and non gas turbine natural gas fired ones) also need cooling. If you had a map of the locations of larger conventional plants, I wouldn't be surprised to see that they have a similar distribution to nuclear.

I'm more concerned about where the closest coal-fired plant would be than where the nearest nuclear plant would be.

http://www.powermag.com/Assets/Image...-Fired_map.gif

Or for a Google Map, click on your state in the link I posted earlier: Category:Existing coal plants in the United States - SourceWatch