flytyer57 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Do you really want to play "What If?" We can try to make connections to Japan if we want to, or we can realize that the flooding water is not going to impact this OPPD plant with anywhere near the force of an earthquake induced tsunami. The plant was built in a flood plain, and has seen flood waters before. 1993 was as big as this is likely going to be and levees were improved following that catastrophe. I think it is safe to say that these nuclear engineers at this particular plant know a little more about it than some armchair nuclear speculator in Arkansas. Isn't that the whole idea of debate over the nuclear power issue? "What If"? Japan is just a recent example of what can go wrong, even when the experts say it can't. The last I heard, the water is topping the levees near this plant in NE and they are trying to shore them up by building more levees around the plant. Like I said, it may or may not happen this time, but the reality is, it will someday, somewhere. For that reason, I am standing by my belief that nuclear power plants should be fazed out and alternative energy should be studied, improved and funded. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
drew03cmc Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Isn't that the whole idea of debate over the nuclear power issue? "What If"? Japan is just a recent example of what can go wrong, even when the experts say it can't. The last I heard, the water is topping the levees near this plant in NE and they are trying to shore them up by building more levees around the plant. Like I said, it may or may not happen this time, but the reality is, it will someday, somewhere. For that reason, I am standing by my belief that nuclear power plants should be fazed out and alternative energy should be studied, improved and funded. Why should CLEAN power be phased out? I guess you prefer coal power. Trust me, the Nebraska City OPPD plant is facing flooding as of Wednesday and it is only going to get worse. My coworkers are up there to fill sandbags and what not to keep as much water out of the railyard as we can and minimize our rebuilding work when the waters recede. If you believe nuclear power should cease to function, maybe you can begin rationing electricity in a way where people don't have to change their way of life. Oh, that's right, we are already at peak capacity. Andy
Al Agnew Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Guys, come on...if somebody says something, take it at face value unless they are a proven prevaricator. We can argue without getting nasty if we act like adults. I don't think any sane person could argue that, in an ideal world where everything works, wind and solar energy would be preferable to ANYTHING we have now. We know the problems with fossil fuel energy. We know the possible problems with nuclear. We know the trade-offs with hydropower. But in the real world, nothing is perfect. We are running up against supply, demand, and timing problems, and right now there are no really good solutions. Wind and solar require large open spaces to set up the kind of megaplants that could largely replace the existing grid, and they don't always work because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. So in the foreseeable future, they can only supplement the existing grid power. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, because as electrical demand rises, the need for new coal or nuclear plants would be less because you have the wind and solar online. But I still think we're looking at this wrong. ANY mega-power-plant is akin to putting all your eggs in one basket, or at too many of those eggs. It isn't the plant, it's the near total dependence upon huge, regional grids. Come up with reliable, easy maintenance solar and wind technology that can be applied on a residential, industrial, or municipal basis and tie each little system into the existing grid, instead of trying to build huge solar and wind plants. That way, if something goes wrong with the solar shingles on my house, it doesn't shut down half the Midwest. And if my windmill gets knocked over in a flood, same thing. And of course, terrorists probably wouldn't consider targeting my windmill like they very plausibly would a huge power plant. And think of the jobs that would be created by supplying millions of small power generation systems instead of a few big ones. Of course, the fly in the ointment here is that the power companies wouldn't be supplying all our electricity, and thus their profits would be lessened considerably. Which is why it probably won't ever happen. I'm not ready to say we should dump the nuclear option. But there's that timing thing. We need new plants SOON if we're going to try to cut down on coal and go nuclear, but new nuke plants take a long time to build, not to mention that they are expensive if done right. And the plan is, or should be, to phase out nuclear as well as the other present options once new renewable energy technology is developed. So that means we'd be spending a lot of time and money building new nuke plants that, hopefully, would become unnecessary before their useful life is over, IF we put in the effort and money we need to put in to develop that new renewable technology. As for the Nebraska plants...whether or not they are "safe", in retrospect it looks really stupid to have sited them in a flood plain. I know you need cooling water, but geez, shouldn't they have been put up on a bluff or something? Whether or not anything bad happens this time, the plants have to be put offline for a period of time that might be weeks at least. It's just one more instance of having way too much faith in the ability of levees and dams to eliminate risk, when in reality they only postpone the inevitable at best.
Tim Smith Posted June 26, 2011 Author Posted June 26, 2011 It's just one more instance of having way too much faith in the ability of levees and dams to eliminate risk, when in reality they only postpone the inevitable at best. This looks like a good note to end on.
Recommended Posts