Anyone live near a windfarm?

[etpm]

I'm glad your comfortable with your location and I sincerely hope you never have to experience a TMI like incident.

When I had radioactive "seeds" put in my pelvic region to kill my prostate cancer I decided to learn about radioactivity. Knowing what I do now I would not be scared of a TMI level leak if it happened near me. Nevertheless we still need greater safety controls on nuclear plants than we have now. Witness the amount of radiation released from the TEPCO plant in Japan from the flooding caused by the tsunami. That plant should have been much better protected.
Eric

 

[rontaki]

Because when the closed loop blows out, there has to be a large enough reservoir to continue cooling indefinitely would be my guess.

The nuclear plants near us use Lake Michigan and put it back in the lake, so not much water loss.

The fishing is quit good at the warm water discharges in spring and fall, but the fish glow in the dark.

Precooked!

 

[KennyG]

Every nuclear "event" has resulted in a review and upgrade of US safety standards. The basic problem at Fukushima was that the emergency power diesels were in an underground chamber, which was flooded by the tsunami. No US plant had this design. However, all the US plants were upgraded to provide a portable offsite emergency equipment that could be used if the onsite equipment was disabled. The new generation of nuclear plants do not require emergency electrical power to safely shut down. This just another example of how technology advances.

 

[DarkBlack]

Burning gas in a power plant to run an electric stove top of some kind not only keeps the pollutants out of the home, there's less pollution generated for the same amount of cooking.

I’d say the science isn’t settled on that statement .
It’s a fact that over 60% of NG energy is lost before it is used in your home as electricity.
I guess your possible saving grace might be, by arguing “pollution”, not “energy”.
That term allows “science for hire” “experts” , to give the desired data

 

[azbinder]

The best info I can find says that Palo Verde uses less than 5% groundwater. When the plant construction started 50 years ago (design started 60 years ago), nobody wanted the Phoenix wastewater. Things would probably be done differently today.

The waste water that Palo Verde uses is transported via a 6' (I think) "drain" from the 91st Ave treatment plant. I was working for an equipment dealer in the late 70's - 80's, half way between the sewage plant and Palo Verde. Had a couple of contractors whose equipment that we worked on. Been on service calls to the water plant, pipeline, and Palo Verde.

 

[NorTracNY]

Very interesting discussion here. A few things to note.

$12K/yr/windmill is a joke. I know someone that makes a lot more from just a cell tower. That same person has been given over $10K just to let a solar farm company explore the possibility of putting in solar panels on about 10-15 acres of their land.

We certainly have plenty of windmills here in NY. I just came back from Europe and went by several windmill farms. It's EXTREMELY rare to see all of them working. I believe solar is a lot better than wind. There are moving parts and there's always going to be maintenance and problems. Even the solar farms near me which move and track the sun often have about 5% of the arrays not tilting.

As for nuclear, it's certainly not the cheapest. There is a small amount of highly radioactive material which must be stored. It's a small amount, but highly dangerous. The problem is that it will be that way for thousands of years. Anyone want to tell me the cost to rent a storage place for that long? People say it's the cheapest because they are not paying for the full cost. What happens when the government falls? No government has lasted anywhere close to how long that stuff will be dangerous.

Energy is dirty.

 

[gsganzer]

I can’t argue with that, except as I stated earlier about nuclear. It needs a large and abundant water source, so not a really good idea for the interior western U.S. The Arizona nuclear plant is sucking the groundwater dry.

The correct thing to be done by our federal government would have been to tap the brakes on decommissioning coal plants until they completed the testing and design of the modern modular nuclear reactors, like the molten salt design. Every coal plant could have been replaced with a MSR. Coal plants are usually a power grid node and have water readily available.

 

[jyoutz]

The correct thing to be done by our federal government would have been to tap the brakes on decommissioning coal plants until they completed the testing and design of the modern modular nuclear reactors, like the molten salt design. Every coal plant could have been replaced with a MSR. Coal plants are usually a power grid node and have water readily available.

Most coal plants were decommissioned because they were end of life and utilities don’t consider building new ones to be a wise investment because of economic factors. Natural gas turbines are cheaper to operate than coal plants, and renewables often are also.

 

[ning]

The problem with gas stoves is that the combustion products just go into the home's air. To make it worse, the burners are open flame which is the least efficient and most polluting way to burn gas.

Power plants being large can much more economically install pollution control equipment than putting it on every stove. There are big economies of scale for that stuff. Burning gas in a power plant to run an electric stove top of some kind not only keeps the pollutants out of the home, there's less pollution generated for the same amount of cooking.

There's plenty of studies on how gas stoves pollute indoor air- they emit stuff like nitrogen dioxide and PM2.5. I used to not think they were a problem because my cheap air quality meter didn't show it. But my meter is very limited and there's so many studies from reputable sources that show otherwise.

In addition, more and more modern homes have very little fresh air intake / stale air exhaust. It's one thing if the house is drafty, but a modern house is pretty bad with open gas flame.

Which saddens me; we've got a 1950's O'Keefe & Merritt and love it, but I recognize it's not the best thing for us health-wise. Of course 75% of the year we've got doors open so I'm not too concerned... but in the winter, it's a bigger deal.

 

[1 Old Man]

In addition, more and more modern homes have very little fresh air intake / stale air exhaust. It's one thing if the house is drafty, but a modern house is pretty bad with open gas flame.

Which saddens me; we've got a 1950's O'Keefe & Merritt and love it, but I recognize it's not the best thing for us health-wise. Of course 75% of the year we've got doors open so I'm not too concerned... but in the winter, it's a bigger deal.

Newer HVAC systems require a fresh air intake.
Elec cook tops .....nope..... give me the gas for cooking. Instant heat control.
O'Keefe & Merritt? Fantastic! Don't buy an economy exhaust hood. Spend the
bucks, get a good vent system (exhausting to outside air). Enjoy that
O&M range, it's a beast.

 

[Hay Dude]

I live near the Three Mile Island reactor in PA, where we had a near melt down incident in 1979. Evacuation was ordered but it was chaotic. Although no one was killed, there has been a noted increase in certain cancers among residents in the area. I was just outside the evacuation zone at the time but still scared sh!tless. An experience I don't ever care to experience again.

I live closer to Three Mile Island than you.

Plans are underway to reopen the undamaged reactor at TMI to power Microsoft's AI initiative and everyone around here is very concerned. Sure, a lot has changed in the nuclear industry since then, but can anyone really say they are 100% safe?

I’d say they are. Hundreds of other reactors have been operating in my area (Peach Bottom, Limerick) for decades. My wife worked as a teenager at Limerick.

Nuclear may well be the answer but a lot needs to be done to address the location, safety and contingency planning. Unfortunately, those of us who live near nukes are in the minority and feel a whole lot differently than the general population.

Well I have 2 nuke plants, each about 25 miles from me. So I am a firm believer in Nuclear energy, but I’m in the danger zone.

That being said, I'm not against nuclear power generation. It holds great promise for our future energy needs. It's the location of these plants that causes the greatest concern. Unfortunately, due to transmission losses, they need to be located near population centers where energy is needed most. This puts a greater portion of the population at risk.

I’d take that chance over unreliable, mostly foreign made solar and wind power.

 

[rontaki]

 

[D&D]

I'm glad your comfortable with your location and I sincerely hope you never have to experience a TMI like incident.

TMI was operational until 2019. If the location bothered you so much, why didn't you move?

 

[D&D]

Yes, we could argue the issue forever but the question is, do you want a nuke in your neighborhood?

We do agree on one point. Nukes COULD be located away from cities. The trick is to force power companies to do it.

The "company town" will be constructed near the actual work site. Then other people will move in and next thing you know, urban sprawl has come to your backyard.

 

[D&D]

Well I have 2 nuke plants, each about 25 miles from me. So I am a firm believer in Nuclear energy, but I’m in the danger zone.

Probably more danger from an ICBM or drone strike on the grid than the facilities themselves.

 

[D&D]

When I had radioactive "seeds" put in my pelvic region to kill my prostate cancer I decided to learn about radioactivity. Knowing what I do now I would not be scared of a TMI level leak if it happened near me. Nevertheless we still need greater safety controls on nuclear plants than we have now. Witness the amount of radiation released from the TEPCO plant in Japan from the flooding caused by the tsunami. That plant should have been much better protected.
Eric

Oh please, that plant withstood more than probably any other place in the universe. The safety controls did an automatic shutdown when the earthquake hit. The transmission lines were toppled by the earthquake cutting any input grid power. Emergency generators kicked in to provide reactor cooling (required 24/7). Then the seawall (designed for 500 year+events) was breached by the tsunami, in turn, flooding out the generators. Then, and only then, when reactor cooling failed was a true crisis inevitable. Between the earthquake and tsunami the "protective shell" was cracked, allowing some leakage.
From an engineering design/build standpoint, that place was "bullet proof", mother nature showed us where the problems were. Mother nature is always showing people where our faults are.

 

[etpm]

Then the seawall (designed for 500 year+events) was breached by the tsunami, in turn, flooding out the generators.

Yes, the seawall failed which allowed flooding. It should have been taller and the generators should not have been located where flooding could have harmed them. A 500 year event is only a statistical number and is not the kind of thing to be relied on when protecting something as potentially dangerous as the TEPCO plant. Just my opinion.
Eric

 

[rontaki]

The "company town" will be constructed near the actual work site. Then other people will move in and next thing you know, urban sprawl has come to your backyard.

Not to mention that the newcomers will complain about the dangerous nuke in their backyards, until they get it shut down.
Rinse
Repeat

 

[ponytug]

That's a tsunami warning stone from Japan. They generally have a warning on them to the effect of not to build downhill from the marker. Some of the markers are five hundred years old in the Fukushima area.

The reactor was build way below the existing markers. Way below. So nobody at TEPCO can claim ignorance of the risk.

In my opinion, Fukushima was 100% preventable. 100%.

In my book, any engineer or architect who designs a backup power system where it can be flooded deserves to have their license revoked. Permanently. There is a nuclear plant in Iowa that has come with inches of the backup generators flooding several times. Last I knew the generators had not been raised... grrrrr!

All the best,

Peter

 

[Hay Dude]

That's a tsunami warning stone from Japan. They generally have a warning on them to the effect of not to build downhill from the marker. Some of the markers are five hundred years old in the Fukushima area.

The reactor was build way below the existing markers. Way below. So nobody at TEPCO can claim ignorance of the risk.

In my opinion, Fukushima was 100% preventable. 100%.

In my book, any engineer or architect who designs a backup power system where it can be flooded deserves to have their license revoked. Permanently. There is a nuclear plant in Iowa that has come with inches of the backup generators flooding several times. Last I knew the generators had not been raised... grrrrr!

All the best,

Peter

So Peter, is the answer to not build nuke plants?
I agree building anything that close to a flood zone is ill-advised.
But we have to keep progressing towards modernization of our power grid and windmills/solar panels ain’t going to cut it.

Natural gas and nukes will.