Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you a customer of Ameren; and, if so, are you currently receiving any electrical power or the benefits of that Callaway County nuclear plant that has been generating electricity in Missouri for nearly 30 years?
As a side note, all electrical utilities massively raised their rates in response to the tougher EPA regulations the Obama administration has promised in leiu of "cap & tax". It takes money to increase the ability to meet federal regulatory compliance; and, that cost is naturally passed down to the consumer, especially when most of this state's electrical energy is derived from coal fired plants.
For those who did not follow the link I previously supplied: in 2005 86% of Missouri electrical power came from coal powered plants and 9% from nuclear our one nuclear plant. Missouri gets significantly less electrical power from nuclear than the national average and significantly more from coal.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 03-17-2011 at 09:34 AM..
China and Europe are watching what's happening in Japan. It's a reminder that Nuclear Energy comes with a huge price tag. When something goes wrong, people have to live with the consequences.
Nuclear plants produce nuclear waste that can't be neutralized and must be safely stored for hundreds of years.
Who pays to protect and store the nuclear waste ?
Obviously, you don't keep up with current events in our state.
Ameren has been trying for several years to build another one. They haven't done it because of a voter approved law that prevents them from charging users for it's construction even before it's producing energy.
Last year, Ameren tried to raise our energy bills by 25%. 25% when our state had 11% unemployment and teachers and state workers were losing their jobs. This year, it's about "only $2 a month"... to support a nuclear plant.
$2 a month is very deceiving. That is to get people to support the bill that prevented them before. The 25% increase is probably only the tip of the iceberg.
Right now, the republicans are in Jefferson City in session. This is on the table.
The Republicans don't seem to care what the voters want. That is becoming very clear - nationwide.
Don't kid yourself, both parties are out of touch. I'm not an Ameren customer (Citizens Electric), but I am against raising rates or taxes on ANYTHING. Period. Unlike your beloved Democrats who just look for new ways to hide taxes. If the Republicans aren't representing what the voters wanted then why were they elected by the people? Regardless, the sooner this country figures out that the individual is the sole point of responsibility the better. That means that all these Republican and Democrat big government types need to be kicked the hell out.
I wouldn't care if unemployment was 4-5% again, I don't want a rate increase, and I don't give a damn about them building a new nuclear plant. I don't want the damn thing but if we are to stop the building of this plant WE NEED ALTERNATIVES NOW! I'm sick of hearing all this talk about alternative energy and no ideas. I go to one of the best engineering schools in the country and even people here talk about alternative energy with no real solutions to anything besides saying "wind and solar oh my!" It's a freaking joke quite honestly!
I'm not a big fan of them, but don't try to blame only Republicans for this mess. There would be less need for more energy if the environmentalists would compromise a little. But of course, that's not going to happen because it's not really about the environment to the environmentalists, is it?
"The Republicans don't seem to care what the voters want. That is becoming very clear - nationwide."
You keep making this thread more political. I can't let that last comment go without asking, did you similarly complain about the manner in which Obamacare was passed last year? How about the failed so-called stimulus? Both were highly unpopular and both led directly to a republican landslide last fall.
This country has an energy problem. We don't generate enough and we have no coherent energy policy. That's a bi-partisan fact.
Our energy needs are increasing, not decreasing. This winter we saw rolling blackouts in the southwest. We've seen them before in other regions. We have seen them in the summer. Blackouts in the winter or summer threaten lives. People die in St. Louis every summer even without blackouts.
Nuclear provides about 20% of our current electricity. It provides as much as 75% in countries like France.
You don't want any nuclear, how do you propose to replace the 20% we generate now from nuclear? How do you suggest France replaces its 75%? How do you propose to meet our increasing energy needs?
I've been hearing about the glories of renewable energy since I was a young child in public schools in the early 70's. I'm all for it. But where is it? It was just another fairly tale, as it turns out.
The technology simply doesn't exist right now to meet our needs. We have, and should, continue to increase our use of solar and wind where it makes sense, but it still cannot and does not come close to meeting our needs.
Okay, seems everyone is in to hypothesizing before they do their observations.
1. Fukushima Daichi plant is a series of Mark I Boiling Water Reactors (BWR)
2. MI BWRs contain the reactor in a 4inch thick lead enclosure within a larger reenforced concrete structure.
3. Spent fuel is kept next to the reactor within the concrete structure
4. Earthquake caused loss of power to the pumps the Mark I relies on to supply coolant. It may have caused damage to other parts of the plant but it would be presumptive to say that happened.
5. A large tsunami wiped out the backup generators (for a Mark I I believe it is at least 3 generators per reactor)
6. Without water to replenish the evaporated water the exposed Zirconium encased fuel rods begin to heat up b/c the coefficent of heat transfer is much lower in air.
7. Zirconium is a volatile substance (a speck of it is used in old school flash bulbs). At 2K degrees Farenheit exposed zirconium will react with oxygen in the air and begin to oxidize (rust) releasing hydrogen gas.
8. Hydrogen gas builds up within the concrete structure (Oxygen is already present so you've got the makings of explosive combustion).
9. A spark, or sufficient heat from the reactor will start combustion and an explosion results (a very strong one at that).
10. As the Zriconium casing approaches 4K degrees Farenheit it will begin to melt. This exposes the Uranium pellets inside and releases radioactive materials, primarily Cesium 137 and radioactive iodine (Iodine is the real bad stuff).
11. News reports show that coolant was restored before the fuel rods could pass the 4K mark. This is a partial meltdown.
12. In a full meltdown all the fuel pellets are released and will coalesce into a radioactive lava that will burn through the bottom of the containment structure while releasing radioactive particulates. Any remaining Zirconium explodes violently furhter spreading contaminants.
13. One of the spent fuel pools is empty due to cracks in the pool (either from quake or hydrogen blasts. Note these hydrogen blasts are not the same as a Nuclear Hydrogen bomb or Fusion Bomb)
14. The spent fuel will begin to heat up w/o coolant. The temperature it reaches depends on how much the fuel has decayed. It is unlikely a meltdown will occur in the pools unless the spent fuel is very recent.
15. Oxidizing Zirconium on the spent fuel rods will release Hydrogen, but with the containment structures blown away the hydrogen can dissipate safely.
So that takes us to now. Japanese helicopters are dropping water onto reactor 3 and the shutdown reactors are now cooler than before (still really hot though).
Looking at the above, you might deduce that Hydrogen is the main culprit in turning this into a catastrophe and that would be a correct deduction. The Mark I is a 40+ year design. Today's Mark III containment addresses the hydrogen problem by igniting the hydrogen when it is in trace amounts (small pops instead of big boom).
The next big thing you might notice as a problem is the loss of coolant despite many redundant systems. Newer BWR models rely on gravity to keep water moving.
Ok, so now some comparison.
Three Mile Island - Pressurized Water Reactor (safer than BWRs but less efficient) A coolant leak occurred and there was a partial meltdown. Gas was released from the containment structure to relieve pressure. Trace amounts of radioactive Cesium and Iodine were detected. However, these amounts were not considered a public health risk. Chernobyl - Experimental BWR with NO CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE. Full meltdown resulted in a catastrophic explosion spreading large amounts fallout in the immediate area and hazardous amounts in nearby countries. This resulted in radiation poisoning to workers at the plant and a 500x greater chance of cancer in the area. Nevada Nuclear Weapons Testing - surface and sub-surface detonations of fission and fusion bombs. No containment. No mitigation of fallout. Effects of these tests are not fully known but fallout from these bombs was likely spread across much of the Midwest and Eastern seaboard. Daichi Plant - Mark I BWR - Multiple partial meltdowns. Spent Fuel pool possibly compromised. Evac zone is 12 miles (US perscibed evac zone is 50 miles). Prior to Hydrogen explosions, gas was released to reduce pressure. Trace amounts of radioactivity in those releases would decay in minutes and primarily blown out to sea. White gas is rising from site, unkown makeup. Significant radioactive particulates, if blown to the East, would mostly decay at sea.
-------------
Ok, so what about Missouri?
Callaway is a PWR. Like I said, these are safer and in the event of a meltdown they are better contained, as in Three Mile Island. No history of incident. PWRs require some enrichment in their Uranium fuel. MURR - University of Missouri Reasearch Reactor is a 10 megawatt (misnomer, I'll explain) research reactor. It is the most powerful research reactor in the nation. Uses weapons grade Uranium (security of this fuel is my main concern, they are converting to LEU). Reactor is cooled by an independent system and the whole assembly is sumberged in a very large pool of heavy water (heavy water absorbs gamma rays, neutrons etc). It operates at 136 degrees and produces no electricity (no boiling water, the 10MW rating is how much the reactor could produce if used to boil water). Primary uses are cancer research, medical supply, sapphire production and nuclear physics research. (Full Disclosure: I did my undergraduate research here) MSTR Reactor - 200kW Similar design to MURR but power levels make it a toy in comparison. Primary uses in nuclear engineering and producing radioactive materials for research.
-------
Alright, now my opinion.
Chernobyl was a complete screw up. It is not really fair to bring it up for comparison but that can not be avoided. It in no way represents how reactors are built today or 40 years ago. The Mark I reactor was designed so that another Chernobyl could not, in any possible way, happen again. So far, that has held up.
I know a lot of people like to tout Three Mile Island as the real reason to not build nuclear. I find this perposterous given how succesful the design of the plant and the staff there were able to control the situation. Really, I see it as a triumph of our safety standards.
The fallout from those incidents (even while the damage of Chernobyl was extensive) cannot even begin to compare with the cummulative eviromental damage of burning fossil fuel. Tons of CO2 contribute to green house gases (warming our planet when it should be cooling during the Sun's cool cycle) and carcinogenic particulates increase cancer rates everywhere there is a power plant. These things happen just from operation, no disaster required.
Nuclear power is tricky too. While I firmly believe nuclear power plant operation is safe and that the results of core failure are well mitigated, there is still the issue of spent fuel. Reprocessing is inneficient and finding suitable storage is controversial.
So, what are we supposed to do. Solar is painfully inefficient, costs a pretty penny to build and comes with its own slew of eviromental concerns during fabrication and resource allocation. Wind power is a cute idea but requires significant tracts of land to scale up to society's needs. Granted, these technologies will get better with time, but what do you think we do for right now?
We can't exactly halt growth while technology catches up. Our society is not built like that. We need to keep providing power to a modern society. Without any power you can bet advances in solar, wind and hydrogen will never occur. So, we need to build coal, oil, and nuclear power plants. We need a mix of different kinds of bad so we don't have too much of any one kind. We need to make our use of energy more efficient. Suburban and rural homes can supply a signifcant portion of their own power with solar, wind and geothermal. With the right incentives and policies we can greatly reduce the load and increase efficiency (supplying power to more sparse areas wastes a very large percentage of produced electricity). Urban dwellers, who already use less energy than suburban counterparts, can further trim their energy usage by being cognizant of their daily usage in the home.
As was mentioned earlier, Callaway is not near the the fault line. It would be foolish to build near the fault line (like some proposals I've seen in California, are they crazy?). Also Callaway is designed to withstand MORE THAN a F5 tornado even though the chance it could be hit by any tornado is slim. If building another nuclear plant makes sense for Missouri economically, fiscally and enviromentally I see no reason not to build. The safety standards we have in the US have been proven at Three Mile Island and by the lack of incidents at other plants. Yes, there is danger involved but that is true for a lot of things we do everyday without thinking. The cost of advancement and growth involves some danger. If you'd prefer we can go back to spears and shields and just wait for danger to come to us. Which, I wouldn't entirely hate if I had no knowledge of modern life.
Last edited by ShadowCaver; 03-17-2011 at 10:51 AM..
Reason: added bold/underline
Are you a customer of Ameren; and, if so, are you currently receiving any electrical power or the benefits of that nearly 30 yr. old Callaway County nuclear plant?
Obviously, I'm a customer of Ameren or I wouldn't be following this since last year.
Last September, Ameren got a $71.6 million increase on the back of a $226.3 million rate increase that took effect in June.
Last year, it was to "make up for off sales due to the recession". Ameren's customers always pick up the tab.
So, we put energy efficient windows in our homes, pay to insulate and reduce our usage because that is the right thing to do.
Once the usage is down, we are charged a surcharge to keep Ameren's profits up.
Obviously, building another nuclear plant will cost more than they are asking for at the present time....
And, they are already producing more energy than is needed by their customers.
Quote:
AmerenUE is also seeking an increase of $263 million, or 11 percent, primarily to cover infrastructure investments.
What are infrastructure investments? Another nuclear plant.
Quote:
AmerenUE generates more electricity than its 1.2 million customers need, and sells the surplus to wholesale customers. Almost all of the profit from those sales benefits utility customers by offsetting fuel expenses.
But the recession dented electricity demand and prices, and AmerenUE saw "off-system sales" revenue decline. So the utility is looking to retail customers to make up the difference
You said that you aren't an Ameren customer. Why are you defending or even concerned with this?
Obviously, I'm a customer of Ameren or I wouldn't be following this since last year.
Last Septemeber, Ameren got a $71.6 million increase on the back of a $226.3 million rate increase that took effect in June. Last year, it was to "make up for
What are infrastructure investments? Another nuclear plant.
You said that you aren't an Ameren customer. Why are you defending or even concerned with this?
Infrastructure investments also include plant maint. and upgrades to meet federal regulatory compliance requirements do they not? Clue: yes.
So, you are an Ameren customer and you likely do either use electrical power generated by the Callaway Co. nuclear plant or have a lower bill because that plant exists. Yet, you are plugged in to the grid and complaining about it. Is that correct? You conveneiently dodged that part of the question twice.
Why am I contributing to this thread? My tax dollars have gone to Missouri all of my life. I have a vested interest in the success of this state. Have I defended nuclear enery? Not exactly. What I have not done is crucify it either.
Unlike you I have provided links to factual information about electrical energy generation in Missouri. What have you offered rather than opinion and finger pointing?
You did not specify from the onset that this thread was exclusively for Ameren customers in Missouri who oppose everything the Republicans in the state legislature may do.
If you are so oppossed to the types of electrical energy in Missouri, specifically the nuclear from the utility of which you are a consumer, I suggest you put up your own power generation station and unplug from the grid entirely; or move to be provided by a utility with which you agree 100%. Until such a time your outrage is selective and hypocritical.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 03-17-2011 at 09:55 AM..
Reason: spelling typo
After a severe earthquake and tsunami threaten meltdowns within Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plants, politicians and pundits have been quick to invoke the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl. For example, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) released a statement saying he hoped "Japanese experts can successfully bring these reactors under control and avert a Chernobyl-style disaster."
While the situation is dire, and still unfolding, it's clear that even if the worst happens at Fukushima the outcome will be much better than Chernobyl. Even though the Japanese and Ukrainian facilities were both built in the early 1970s, the Fukushima plants (along with every plant in the United States and most plants in the world) featured a safer design that already prevented the worst from happening.
For starters, the Fukushima facilities use water to both cool its reactors and moderate its nuclear reaction speeds. The Chernobyl facility also used water to cool its reactors, but used volatile graphite to slow its reactions to produce heat. When Chernobyl's Reactor No. 4 exploded, this graphite caught fire and burned like coal, billowing radioactive material across Europe. "In Fukushima, the fuel will melt, but it is surrounded by water and won't burn nearly the same way as graphite," says Peter Caracappa, a Radiation Safety Officer and assistant professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who has studied the power systems of plants like Fukushima.
The design has prevented plumes of radioactive material. Inside Fukushima's reactor, the fuel rods are clad in zirconium, then surrounded by steel pressure vessels and then encased in several feet of steel-reinforced concrete, known as a secondary containment structure. Several explosions have wrecked the buildings that surround these structures, but the containment systems have, so far, remained intact. If they are breached at Fukushima, either by explosive damage or overheating fuel rods, the core fuel could escape. If Fukushima was built to the same standard as Chernobyl, this would already have happened numerous times. But even if they fail, "there's no pathway that I'm aware of that would drive the material to be released over continents, like Chernobyl," Caracappa says. "The fuel should remain in that building."
Late on Monday, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agreed that the Fukushima accident is unlikely to develop into the kind of worldwide ecological nightmare that Chernobyl caused. But as steam and hydrogen gas pressure builds in the Fukushima reactors, and more explosions reportedly rattle the facilities, being the second worst nuclear disaster in history is a frightening best case scenario.
No, I am not a stockholder in Ameren; but, so what if I were? Do you have a problem with investors who lend money to your utility thus keeping your costs down?
The better questions is: if you are a customer of Ameren why are you not a stockholder? Do you not want a more substantial say in how your utility is run? If you have money going out to them should you not also want a return on that money?
Infrastructure investments also include plant maint. and upgrades to meet federal regulatory compliance requirements do they not? Clue: yes.
So, you are an Ameren customer and you likely do either use electrical power generated by the Callaway Co. nuclear plant or have a lower bill because that plant exists. Yet, you are plugged in to the grid and complaining about it. Is that correct? You conveneiently dodged that part of the question twice.
Why am I contributing to this thread? My tax dollars have gone to Missouri all of my life. I have a vested interest in the sucess of this state. Have I defended nuclear enery? Not exactly. What I have not done is crucify it either.
Unlike you I have provided links to factual information about electrical energy generation in Missouri. What have you offered rather than opinion and finger pointing?
You did not specify from the onset that this thread was exclusively for Ameren customers in Missouri who oppose everything the Republicans in the state legislature may do.
If you are so oppossed to the types of electrical energy in Missouri, specifically the nuclear from the utility of which you are a consumer, I suggest you put up your own power generation station and unplug from the grid entirely; or move to be provided by a utility with which you agree 100%. Until such a time your outrage is selective and hypocritical.
...
But, you're just going to have to get use to the idea that I live here now. I work here. I own a home and I pay taxes.
I plan to stay in Missouri... I vote.
I have the right to voice my opinion about things that concern my well being and the well being of my neighbors.
Please, though, tell me....since you asked me this question...
How far do YOU live from the Calloway plant?
Last edited by ShadowCaver; 03-17-2011 at 11:08 AM..
Okay, seems everyone is in to hypothesizing before they do their observations.
Thank you so much for this post! Great info
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From popular mechanics....
Email
Print
RSS
Share 
