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.
The problem with nuclear plants is the capital cost, which is largely unknowable until after it's been built. In all the new plants being built, the public is on the hook for the total cost, some of it being paid even before the plants are built. IMO that is a misuse of the regulatory process.
If you can't build a nuclear plant using the same type of power off-take contract one would use to build a wind farm or an independent power plant, then we shouldn't be building them regardless of the other issues.
Apparently you think you're being cute. There have been no new commercial nuclear plants built in the United States in may years. Rather than behave like a child, list the plants you assert were built here.
I said nothing about 'commercial' nuclear plants.
The US has been continuously building nuclear plants.
Seawolf (SSN-21) construction began 25 October 1989, construction was completed 24 June 1995
Connecticut (SSN-22) construction began 14 September 1992, construction was completed 1 September 1997
Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) construction began 5 December 1998, construction was completed 19 February 2005
New Hampshire (SSN-778) construction began 30 April 2007, construction was completed 25 October 2008
New Mexico (SSN-779) construction began 12 April 2008, construction was completed March 27, 2010
Missouri (SSN-780) construction began 27 September 2008, construction was completed 31 July 2010
California (SSN-781) construction began 1 May 2009, construction was completed 29 October 2011
Mississippi (SSN-782) construction began 9 June 2010, construction was completed 2 June 2012
When the protesters get out of the way, the US makes nuclear plants very quickly.
I have served on 3 of them [not 3 of these, rather 3 older boats]
The problem with nuclear plants is the capital cost, which is largely unknowable until after it's been built. In all the new plants being built, the public is on the hook for the total cost, some of it being paid even before the plants are built. IMO that is a misuse of the regulatory process.
If you can't build a nuclear plant using the same type of power off-take contract one would use to build a wind farm or an independent power plant, then we shouldn't be building them regardless of the other issues.
Nukes have pretty much turned out to be some of the biggest welfare bums in the country.
Just make them buy liability insurance like the rest of us -- instead of dumping their liabilities on all of US.
Lawyers will kill them before they could even start the design.
Do you have any information on cancer in the crews that served on nuclear powered boats?
No.
Our radiation exposure is closely monitored. When I retired the VA gave me a 'disability' for my radiation though it is rated at 'zero'. If I do develop any cancers, they will automatically be considered as a feature of that disability. Does not make any difference though the Navy pays for my healthcare, I do not use the VA.
There was a concern about Cadmium exposure in the 80s and 90s. They were doing a lot of tissue sample testing to monitor how much we had in our bodies. I do not recall what they decided that it was coming from. Living in an Industrial environment exposes us to a lot of odd things
I had a tissue sample tested once and found that I had a huge amount of Antimony in me.
Served on my first boat starting in the 78, and I retired in '01; during that period of time I only knew one submariner to get cancer. I suspect he had it before he enlisted, it just was not detected until he was on his deathbed. They had no idea what was killing him, so they opened him up to 'explore' and the cancer had already invaded every organ in his thorax. He died within days after that.
I can't think of any other submariner that got cancer. A few went crazy. A lot are alcoholics. There are not a lot of career submariners.
Instead of a central station model maybe we should look at a system based on "neighborhood" sized plants. Since natural gas fueled turbines are available in the hundreds of MWe size and can be remotely operated why do we need to continue using central station coal or nuclear fueled mega power plants.
As DC noted --- A Natural Gas Combustion Turbine -- sort of big jet engine mounted on the ground that spins a generator is the real cost winner and once it gets a boiler put on the back end for capturing the waste heat and then using that to spin a smaller Steam Turbine -- economically nothing can touch that for quick turn-on, anytime power.
But . . . but . . . when these big plants are placed out in the countryside, and then we have to cover the cost of Transmission (the BIG power lines) and substations, and then Distribution (the little lines out to houses and businesses) . . . and you add up the money math -- the Generation Cost is usually less than half the bill!
That is why I am still thinking that Local, Distributed Generation may still win the day. No Transmission, No Substation, and much lower distribution equipment loads and costs.
But since all that Local Distributed Generation is owned and operated by a bunch of Little People -- that totally destroys the Large Corporate Cash Register model.
When you smash a mini quantum universe - you are stuck with a raging force that is the fire of hell- It takes a lot of water to keep that power from leaking out and setting us all on fire..nuclear power is probably the greatest sin man has performed...to contain hell itself is a major job...There is no such thing as getting something for nothing. Nuclear power has a price- constant vigilance.
The US has been continuously building nuclear plants.
Seawolf (SSN-21) construction began 25 October 1989, construction was completed 24 June 1995
Connecticut (SSN-22) construction began 14 September 1992, construction was completed 1 September 1997
Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) construction began 5 December 1998, construction was completed 19 February 2005
New Hampshire (SSN-778) construction began 30 April 2007, construction was completed 25 October 2008
New Mexico (SSN-779) construction began 12 April 2008, construction was completed March 27, 2010
Missouri (SSN-780) construction began 27 September 2008, construction was completed 31 July 2010
California (SSN-781) construction began 1 May 2009, construction was completed 29 October 2011
Mississippi (SSN-782) construction began 9 June 2010, construction was completed 2 June 2012
When the protesters get out of the way, the US makes nuclear plants very quickly.
I have served on 3 of them [not 3 of these, rather 3 older boats]
Pat yourself on the back, however, military nuclear plants do not translate to civilian nuclear plants. Civilian plants are about an order of magnitude larger than the largest nuclear plants built by the Navy. The construction of the two is completely different. It takes about a decade to build a civilian nuclear plant. There are no protesters in the way only the complexity of the engineering and construction.
I know this because I've worked in both communities. I'm glad you served on several boats, you'll recognize that someone qualified as chief engineer on a naval plants knows something about the issue. You're dismissed.
Last edited by DCforever; 11-27-2012 at 01:41 PM..
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.
Submariner
