[Starlady01]

NY has less Emissions yes but when you compare apples to apples as in size.

They are neck and neck.

NY is alot smaller then Florida

I will try to do more research later got to bed late and went to doctors today. Just woke up from a nap.

I like the idea of Hydropower better. I would think they could make a Hydropower plant using a fake or false river simulations some how.

Or a plant that uses refuse for burning.

[Starlady01]

Illinois has48 Nuclear plants with high Emissions meaning nuclear is not a fix all.



State Nuclear Industry - Illinois

[MyHomeIsInOcala]

Originally Posted by Starlady01

Illinois has48 Nuclear plants with high Emissions meaning nuclear is not a fix all.



State Nuclear Industry - Illinois

WHAT???

I do not know where you find your info.

In ALL of NRC's Region 3, there are only 22 (TWENTY TWO) Nuclear Power Plant Facilities. Illinois is in this region and has 7 (SEVEN) of those 22, with I believe a combined number of only 13 (THIRTEEN) reactors.



They are: NRC: Find Facility by NRC Region and State - Illinois

• Braidwood – PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor)
• Bryon – PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor)
• Clinton – BWR (Boiling Water Reactor)
• Dresden – BWR (Boiling Water Reactor)
• LaSalle – BWR (Boiling Water Reactor)
• Quad Cities – BWR (Boiling Water Reactor)
• Zion - PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor)

In all of the U.S., there are about 112 Nuclear Power Plant Facilities.

[MyHomeIsInOcala]

I do not know if this will help clear up some of the mis-conception of Nuclear Power being a polluter, but it is an informative piece on the EPA website.

Direct quote: “Nuclear power has been presented as providing net environmental benefits. Specifically, nuclear power makes no contribution to global warming through the emission of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power also produces no notable sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, or particulates.“

Reference:
Murphy, T., Nuclear Issues Paper, Energy Information Administration, Nuclear Power and the Environment, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuclearenvissues.html

[Starlady01]

I hear alot of information from people who say they are environmentalist however I do think using nuclear wouldn't do us that much good. NY comes in 4 as far as clean air but they had 18 hydro plants and are now doing away with alot of them. Hydro messes up the river beds and deposits on them which can cause yet another huge problem for the inviroment. I don't see how anyone can claim using Nuclear can solve our problems. I don't like the idea period.

Number 1. It Nuclear
Number 2. Lots of water needed to cool each plant.
Number 3. Cost
Number 4. Weather in Florida

I like the idea of either Hydro with a false and or simulated river making it better. ( I'm sure they could build one some how)

I also like the idea of burning refuge for electricity.

Nuclear is not a fix all. It's more of a temparary patch.



Plus Florida has to look at other options don't forget we have alot of hurricanes and other weather problems in Florida to look at also. We really don't want a Nuclear plant in the middle of lets say a category 4 or 5 hurricane.

Levy county is more toward Tallahassee which is hit less often. Even tho I don't like it period we try to think of better ideas here in Central and south Florida. Just because Levy county is hit less often don't make it written in stone.

Florida has to look at the bigger picture of weather also. Lets not forget that sometimes these storms can also stall and have been known to last 9 days or longer. I would hate to think what a 3, 4, or even 5 hurricane could do to a Nuclear plant over a period of a few days. Plus Hurricanes do move slow and have been known to stall think what one could make this even worse.

[MyHomeIsInOcala]

Originally Posted by Starlady01

I like the idea of either Hydro with a false and or simulated river making it better. ( I'm sure they could build one some how)

I also like the idea of burning refuge for electricity.

Nuclear is not a fix all. It's more of a temparary patch.

Being concerned about costs and environment are great things and it is nice to see others who share in the willingness to learn and grow when it comes to the need for new Power Sources, but you need to study the garbage incinerators a bit better. They too are costly to build and maintain; they are not ultra clean. I know that you can burn just about anything... so be careful! When working with one gentleman from Honeywell, we found that they will even burn old appliances (refrigerators, stoves and the like). These Burners are so hot, that not much of anything is ever left. I am not against them, but they too are contaminators.

I have not seen anyone state Nuclear is an end-all to America's lust for over consumption of electric, but it is not the orb of death that some people fear it as.

You are exposed each day to Radiation; it is emitted from the earth, items in your house and the SUN (more people have cancer, burns and become sick due to UV rays than from nuclear power plants). It is also used in the food industry (radioisotopes) to detox some foods and provide longer shelf life. What I mean is it destroys insects, fungi or bacteria that cause food to spoil and can cause human disease as well as to prolong shelf-life, keeping food longer and in better condition in warehouses and your home.

A Hurricane will have little effect on a power plant built with the specs of a Nuclear facility, the construction is fortified and massive… They are built with potential disaster in mind. You know, even those Gas Fired plants can kill off massive numbers of people if they explode, in all reality, any and all plants have the ability to cause damage.

The company that owns the Power Plants in Umatilla, Dade City, one in Orlando and one right up the road in Kathleen GA, do have Wind and Solar plants out west. These power companies do facilitate a lot of time and energy to undertake studies of areas and what source would be most beneficial all the way around, in the life span of the facilities. This is not done all willy-nilly, so to say. Things studied are not just the human impact, but those to the environment (conditions at each location for what kind of generation will be best suited, animal life, residential requirements and so forth), the local economy, plus build and operations costs.

I am finding myself compelled to locate more information on this “Hydro with a false and or simulated river” idea that you have brought up a couple of time… do you have any links for information?? I am very curious to see if this too could be a potentially viable source of energy. It sounds very interesting.


Like I said, I am in no way an expert on these plants, but it is part of my family’s daily life... Nor do we see this as and end all, I do not think anyone with any rational sense would.

Star, thanks for hanging in here!! You bring up some very good ideas.

[Starlady01]

I still don't like nuclear in Florida.

As you stated radioactivity is found in lots of things why would we want more of it.



A Nuclear Plant May be strong and fortified but as I recall they said certain building would never fall. They have also been claims of ships being unsinkable. Why take the chance.

I have personally cut back on my electric use and do as much as possible to cut back.

Florida at least I know in my area do as much as possible to recycle and be as green as possible.

I think there are better options out there then Nuclear.

And with hurricanes comes tornado's. Plus the added risk of sink holes. I would think this would also apply to California with the earthquakes.

I think all options should be weighed.

Teco recently obtained a solar and wind facility they have been using.

The more nuclear plants put into the place the larger the risk in certain areas. Florida and California are two examples.

[Starlady01]

I just wanted to say the foods that are being radiated will come off my grocery list.

[echoes53]

I also live in Inglis, i thought about selling my Place and moving to Inverness where I use to live. Living to close to the water is giving me sinus trouble.

[beachmouse]

Originally Posted by Starlady01

Plus Florida has to look at other options don't forget we have alot of hurricanes and other weather problems in Florida to look at also. We really don't want a Nuclear plant in the middle of lets say a category 4 or 5 hurricane.

The eye of category 5 Hurricane Andrew went directly over the Turkey Point facility and there was no damage to the reactor proper (though other parts of the power plant complex had significant damage). The people who worked there as the ride out crew during the storm have said they barely knew there was a storm going on outside.

Nuclear power plants are ridiculously over-engineered so they won't be damaged from those kinds of events.

Florida has to look at the bigger picture of weather also. Lets not forget that sometimes these storms can also stall and have been known to last 9 days or longer. I would hate to think what a 3, 4, or even 5 hurricane could do to a Nuclear plant over a period of a few days. Plus Hurricanes do move slow and have been known to stall think what one could make this even worse.

If a category 5 storm parked over the coastline, it wouldn't stay a category 5 storm for very long. Interaction with large land masses typically knocks down wind speeds pretty quickly, for all that it can take rain bands longer to dissipate. For Alison caused a mess and a half for Houston and Fay swamped a lot of Florida last year, their wind speeds were never very high after landfall.

As for burning rubbish, it's very costly and doesn't work well because of environmental safeguards you need to build into the system.