Nuclear Power for Galena? (Fairbanks, Prudhoe Bay: condo, rent, company)

[maxwell26690]

Hi there!

My name is Stuart and I live near Glasgow in Scotland. I am doing an advanced higher in Geography which invloves completing a 2000 word essay on a Geographical issue. After much research i decided to write about the proposed nucear power plant in Galena.

After hours of looking up articles, my research has run a bit dry and was wondering if the good people of the forum could help me out if they have any info regarding the project especially within the last 3 months. Also any info with quotes from Rob Rosenfeld (director of the Yukon Intretribal Watershed Council) and Doug Rosinski (Lawyer representing Toshiba, the company in charge of the proposed reactor) would be especially helpful.

Thanks!

p.s If you have no idea what i'm talking about here's a couple of links to articles on the subject

adn.com | front : Village invited to test cheap, clean nuclear power

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner » Archive » Galena still eyeing nuclear power plant

[SueToo]

good luck with your research But how sad I am to learn that a nuclear power plant might be built in Galena It is such a beautiful unspoiled place I wouldnt want it to be spoiled by a power plant

[Marty Van Diest]

I haven't heard lately if it's still on track.

Other places are looking at wind power. Places out in the tundra areas.

I'm all for finding other kinds of power, including nuclear power.

[mal_flisk]

The plant proposed is a modular plant built in Japan. It supposedly has fuel for 10 years. Why it is being proposed for testing in Galena is a question for smarter men than I.

[icarian]

Originally Posted by SueToo

good luck with your research But how sad I am to learn that a nuclear power plant might be built in Galena It is such a beautiful unspoiled place I wouldnt want it to be spoiled by a power plant

As stated, this is supposedly not a "huge" plant with the distinctive cooling tower, etc. Since Galena is so small, I imagine the footprint will be rather small.

Now as far as unspoiled (the reason I responded to this thread), don't they use fossil fuel (diesel and its variations) to power their electricity? That is doing less for their local environment than a small scale nuclear power plant ever "thought" about doing imho.

And as mal said...I have no idea why Galena.

[Rance]

Yeah but what if it goes Chernoble? Did you know northern Sweden is polluted with radioactive material that settled onto the vegetation from the Chernoble incident... and now they can't even eat the wildlife like reindeer etc because those critters eat off the land and have become contaminated themselves. It's a pretty sad deal. And Russia just turned their backs like they had nothing to do with it. I guess we are dang lucky the wind was not blowing our way in al that mess. But Sweden is very similar to Alaska and I feel damn sorry for them. Some beautiful country has been basically ruined. Maybe this system will be more up to date and better monitored who knows...but man I'd hate to see something go wrong right here in our own state.

[Arcticthaw]

While I agree with Rance, my understanding is the inherent design of Chernobal was an accident waiting to happen. the one propoesed for Galena would self shut down in case of a system failure and a Chernobal incident is extremely unlikely. The company says it better, but the new designs are much better. The problem with the Nuke industry and regulations is they keep designing new units and not a standard proven safe design.
This makes getting permits and such very difficult due to the process.
Bla bla bla...

[Rance]

Ok I feel better about then. But if anything goes wrong heads are gonna roll!

[Arcticthaw]

Yea,

I was in Prudhoe Bay when Chernobal hit, I was talking with another ham radio operator in Kiev, expressing my condolences and such. He said that Kiev was very lucky as the wind normally blows towards them, but this day was blowing the opposite direction.

[Xa'at]

Not mine, I hope!
I wrote a paper on nuclear power a while back for a chem class. As I recall, nuclear power is among the safer energy sources (along with one of the most efficient), at least speaking in short term. As far as the effects of a safely running nuclear power plant on the landscape, they are minimal. In fact, because of the trace amounts of uranium found in some fossil fuels, coal plants actually produce far more ambient radiation than a nuke plant. The yearly rad dosage for a family living next door to a nuke plant is about equivalent to what you would get on a single flight from LA to NYC. Lifetime expose is about the equivalent of an x-ray.
That said, we are still talking about fusing together the nuclei of highly unstable radioactive isotopes. No matter what fail safes there are, that still carries some risk. Not to mention that the waste produced is highly toxic and radioactive, and we have no real way to dispose of it. Right now they bury it in lead containers at the bottom of the sea or elsewhere. My guess is that in the future should we continue to use nuclear power, the waste will be sent into space. The question then, becomes where are we going to get uranium?
My guess is that fusion will be feasible by then, though.