Poll - Nuclear plant in your town

[botsapper]

SoCal's 'twin peaks' San Onofre plant is slowly shutting down. Excessive wear & tear, costs from strict environmental & regulatory standards and being on top of an active seismic region makes it difficult to support. Meanwhile our regional sweltering temps put more demands for more power production.

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by botsapper

SoCal's 'twin peaks' San Onofre plant is slowly shutting down. Excessive wear & tear, costs from strict environmental & regulatory standards and being on top of an active seismic region makes it difficult to support. Meanwhile our regional sweltering temps put more demands for more power production.

Power outages and brown-outs was what San Onofre's owners and operators threatened in 2011 during the early stages of the effort to put an initiative on the 2012 ballot that would shut down the plant. Their claims were printed in the OC Register and the LA Times: official spokespeople predicted we'd see power failures during the summers if the plant was shut down. Then in Jan 2012 the accident at San Onofre forced regulators to shut it down unexpectedly. Although it has been off-line for nearly 9 months, we have had no such brown-outs this summer. It's dated, unsafe, and not nearly as necessary as the industry likes to claim. Let's keep it offline and use the sun that bakes us to cool us too.

[jamesqf]

And from today's news, coal power adds two more to its death toll, while Fukushima is still at zero: Two killed as CSX train derails in Ellicott City overnight - The Washington Post

[Piwoslaw]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

And from today's news, coal power adds two more to its death toll, while Fukushima is still at zero: Two killed as CSX train derails in Ellicott City overnight - The Washington Post

You haven't taken into account how many lives coal has added to humanity. I heard about a study, done maybe 40 years ago (?), about a small rural village with a population explosion. The best explanation anyone could come up with was that the village was next to a railroad track used by coal trains going to a power plant. In the wee hours of each morning a train would roll through the village and wake everyone up. And what do couples do when awake in bed, when it's was too late to go back to sleep, but too early to get up?

Disclaimer: I haven't seen this research paper, I've only heard about it from someone who also heard about it. It may be baloney, but there may be some truth in it.

[jamesqf]

So we can thank coal for its contribution to overpopulation too?

And in the news today, for those who think the supply of uranium will run out any time soon: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD ? The Register

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

I believe it will be about as easy to move away from diesels as it has been to move away from tobacco...

The phasing out of diesel could be started in a matter of years.
Private diesel vehicles can go from day 1 - there are plenty of alternatives.

Commercial diesel vehicles may take longer, though there are already alternatives - fuel blending can be retrofitted as an interim solution.

Since gasoline engine exhaust was put on the list of "CHEMICALS KNOWN TO THE STATE TO CAUSE CANCER OR REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY" in 1990, I don't believe they were only referring to gas engines which have direct injection.

The particles are the issue with diesel.
Ever better direct injection systems have created ever smaller particles, with DPFs producing the smallest particles of them all.

With petrol direct injection, we're adding the PM issues to petrol engines as well ... where the problem didn't exist before.

We live in a dangerous world, where our own advances in technology expose us on a daily basis to chemicals and products which increase the risk of cancer or birth defects or other many other illnesses that we'd not encountered before the technologies were developed.

We've replaced an ancient set of clear and present dangers, with a modern set of sneaky, obscured, and long-term hazards.

Technology has enabled us to live a lot longer - that's only one side of the coin.
The flip side is it's also endangering us to some degree.

[NachtRitter]

OK, I know we're drifting off topic here...

Originally Posted by euromodder

The phasing out of diesel could be started in a matter of years.
Private diesel vehicles can go from day 1 - there are plenty of alternatives.

Commercial diesel vehicles may take longer, though there are already alternatives - fuel blending can be retrofitted as an interim solution.

I still don't see how it will be "easy" ... getting rid of tobacco should be "easy" too, in theory. I mean, who wants to willingly increase their risk of dying of cancer by as much as 22 times?!? Apparently, that's not much of a dis-incentive for a really large number of people! We've still got people starting to smoke despite the cost, the messaging, the legal roadblocks... How would you get people to "easily" give up diesels?

Originally Posted by euromodder

With petrol direct injection, we're adding the PM issues to petrol engines as well ... where the problem didn't exist before.

It must have existed before, if gasoline exhaust was considered a contributor to cancer over 20 years ago...

Originally Posted by euromodder

We've replaced an ancient set of clear and present dangers, with a modern set of sneaky, obscured, and long-term hazards.

Technology has enabled us to live a lot longer - that's only one side of the coin.
The flip side is it's also endangering us to some degree.

I think we've still got some clear and present dangers along with the sneaky ones... but yes, you're right... and the fact that we live longer gives those sneaky long term hazards a chance to show up in large enough numbers to become meaningful and a bit frightening.

[Varn]

22 times more likely to die if we smoke? Pretty interesting statistic considering our chance of dying is 100%. The big picture is that why would we voluntarily give up diesel vehicles.

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

OK, I know we're drifting off topic here...



I still don't see how it will be "easy" ... getting rid of tobacco should be "easy" too, in theory. I mean, who wants to willingly increase their risk of dying by as much as 22 times?!? Apparently, that's not much of a dis-incentive for a really large number of people! We've still got people starting to smoke despite the cost, the messaging, the legal roadblocks... How would you get people to "easily" give up diesels?


It must have existed before, if gasoline exhaust was considered a contributor to cancer over 20 years ago...


I think we've still got some clear and present dangers along with the sneaky ones... but yes, you're right... and the fact that we live longer gives those sneaky long term hazards a chance to show up in large enough numbers to become meaningful and a bit frightening.

[MGB=MPG]

i have been watching this thread stay alive
.. i have a major coal plant about 15 miles down wind , thing burns 20,000 tons of coal a day..
but the wind is not always blowing and the whole area is pervaded by fine *soot* . on my walls , in my airhandler filters . on the roofs ..
and this plant has a pretty high tech scrubber but 20K TONS a Day ..
Cumberland Power Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a lot of stuff gets out .. every day it runs..

for example 8.7 Million pounds of sulfuric acid in a year. [ thus all the acid rain die off east [down wind] ]
i think id just as soon have a well designed Nuke . that would normally emit nothing .

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by Varn

22 times more likely to die if we smoke? Pretty interesting statistic considering our chance of dying is 100%.

LOL! Thanks for catching that, Varn. Left out the key words "of cancer", that is, 22 times more likely to die of cancer. That's what I get for not proofreading my own post.