Remember me
▼ Content

In a Switch, Some Republicans Start Citing Climate Change as Driving Their Policies


In a Switch, Some Republicans Start Citing Climate Change as Driving Their Policies30-04-2019 15:37
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
https://grist.org/article/why-your-brain-doesnt-register-the-words-climate-change/
01-05-2019 00:26
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
So where is the article that they say that?
01-05-2019 00:33
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
dehammer wrote:
So where is the article that they say that?


Oops sorry, wrong article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/climate/republicans-climate-change-policies.html
01-05-2019 01:16
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Not surprising that a politician from a state that has lots of uranium wants to push nuclear to stop global warming.
01-05-2019 01:27
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
dehammer wrote:
Not surprising that a politician from a state that has lots of uranium wants to push nuclear to stop global warming.


Nuclear would have been a good option had it not been deadly radioactive for thousands of years.
01-05-2019 02:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
dehammer wrote:
Not surprising that a politician from a state that has lots of uranium wants to push nuclear to stop global warming.


What 'global warming'? Define 'global warming'. Note that it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 02:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Not surprising that a politician from a state that has lots of uranium wants to push nuclear to stop global warming.


Nuclear would have been a good option had it not been deadly radioactive for thousands of years.


It doesn't have to.

Spent nuclear fuel can be put into a different type of reactor. The material is dangerous because it is putting out energy. That energy can be tapped.

Spent fuel from THAT reactor has no radioactivity beyond background levels. While it can safely be disposed in any landfill, the material is worth money. It's better to sell it to aircraft manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers, which make use of this kind of material.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 04:30
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1454)
Yeah, nuclear is fine, if nothing goes wrong... A reactor takes time to build, lots of money involved, lot of different contractors involved. People make mistakes, people steal, take short cuts. Early reactors had to be perfect in every way, several layers of protection, to make sure there wasn't any mistakes. Any major issues, would be headline news, an kill future reactor projects. Since it's proven to be relatively safe, it's going to be getting them built quicker, and cheaper.

The more reactors you bring online, the more fuel being transported, likely an attractive terrorist target. Not sure how many coal/gas plants a nuclear plant could replace, but it would still mean constructing a lot of them.
01-05-2019 04:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, nuclear is fine, if nothing goes wrong... A reactor takes time to build, lots of money involved, lot of different contractors involved. People make mistakes, people steal, take short cuts. Early reactors had to be perfect in every way, several layers of protection, to make sure there wasn't any mistakes. Any major issues, would be headline news, an kill future reactor projects. Since it's proven to be relatively safe, it's going to be getting them built quicker, and cheaper.

The more reactors you bring online, the more fuel being transported, likely an attractive terrorist target. Not sure how many coal/gas plants a nuclear plant could replace, but it would still mean constructing a lot of them.


Building a nuclear reactor is like building an aircraft that way. If something goes wrong with the design, it's usually caught by a regulatory agency. No nuclear accident has claimed more lives than any other industrial accident, not even Chernobyl (which was a stupid design and badly operated...socialism for ya), or Fukushima (a good design that nevertheless was wiped out by a massive tidal wave).

Nuclear fuel is not useful to terrorists. It's not anywhere near weapons grade stuff. If you put enough together to go supercritical, it simply vaporizes away. No bang. It's also very difficult to get hold of and handle safely. If a terrorist DID get hold of this stuff, they will likely poison themselves before anyone else. Good riddance.

It's far easier to simply build an ANFO bomb and load it in a truck, and/or simply drive the truck into a crowd.

But there's a psychological fear of the things. It's because nuclear radiation is an unknown technology. It's fear is largely the same kind of fear that chemtrail folks suffer from, and for much the same reason. They simply don't know enough about the technology, and they don't trust it.

Heck, the same thing happens with the Alexa service. It's the same kind of fears of the unknown technology that makes it work.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 05:04
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, nuclear is fine, if nothing goes wrong... A reactor takes time to build, lots of money involved, lot of different contractors involved. People make mistakes, people steal, take short cuts. Early reactors had to be perfect in every way, several layers of protection, to make sure there wasn't any mistakes. Any major issues, would be headline news, an kill future reactor projects. Since it's proven to be relatively safe, it's going to be getting them built quicker, and cheaper.

The more reactors you bring online, the more fuel being transported, likely an attractive terrorist target. Not sure how many coal/gas plants a nuclear plant could replace, but it would still mean constructing a lot of them.


Building a nuclear reactor is like building an aircraft that way. If something goes wrong with the design, it's usually caught by a regulatory agency. No nuclear accident has claimed more lives than any other industrial accident, not even Chernobyl (which was a stupid design and badly operated...socialism for ya), or Fukushima (a good design that nevertheless was wiped out by a massive tidal wave).

Nuclear fuel is not useful to terrorists. It's not anywhere near weapons grade stuff. If you put enough together to go supercritical, it simply vaporizes away. No bang. It's also very difficult to get hold of and handle safely. If a terrorist DID get hold of this stuff, they will likely poison themselves before anyone else. Good riddance.

It's far easier to simply build an ANFO bomb and load it in a truck, and/or simply drive the truck into a crowd.

But there's a psychological fear of the things. It's because nuclear radiation is an unknown technology. It's fear is largely the same kind of fear that chemtrail folks suffer from, and for much the same reason. They simply don't know enough about the technology, and they don't trust it.

Heck, the same thing happens with the Alexa service. It's the same kind of fears of the unknown technology that makes it work.



Чернобыля был коммунизм товарищ. Ты знаешь кто ты есть.
Chernobyl was communism Russian comrade. You know who you are.
Edited on 01-05-2019 05:08
01-05-2019 05:21
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.
Edited on 01-05-2019 05:22
01-05-2019 05:26
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The problem is that they decay and they are so dangerous to fix. Everything breaks down over time. Windmills are running into the problem that the older ones are being abandoned as they are too costly to repair and no one wants to "waste" the money tearing them down. Older solar cell plants are running the same situation. Too expensive to fix and too expensive to tear down.
01-05-2019 05:29
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
dehammer wrote:
The problem is that they decay and they are so dangerous to fix. Everything breaks down over time. Windmills are running into the problem that the older ones are being abandoned as they are too costly to repair and no one wants to "waste" the money tearing them down. Older solar cell plants are running the same situation. Too expensive to fix and too expensive to tear down.


That's the real bullshit of this story. They intend to replace it with wind power. They better stay the hell out of my back yard!!!
01-05-2019 11:57
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1454)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, nuclear is fine, if nothing goes wrong... A reactor takes time to build, lots of money involved, lot of different contractors involved. People make mistakes, people steal, take short cuts. Early reactors had to be perfect in every way, several layers of protection, to make sure there wasn't any mistakes. Any major issues, would be headline news, an kill future reactor projects. Since it's proven to be relatively safe, it's going to be getting them built quicker, and cheaper.

The more reactors you bring online, the more fuel being transported, likely an attractive terrorist target. Not sure how many coal/gas plants a nuclear plant could replace, but it would still mean constructing a lot of them.


Building a nuclear reactor is like building an aircraft that way. If something goes wrong with the design, it's usually caught by a regulatory agency. No nuclear accident has claimed more lives than any other industrial accident, not even Chernobyl (which was a stupid design and badly operated...socialism for ya), or Fukushima (a good design that nevertheless was wiped out by a massive tidal wave).

Nuclear fuel is not useful to terrorists. It's not anywhere near weapons grade stuff. If you put enough together to go supercritical, it simply vaporizes away. No bang. It's also very difficult to get hold of and handle safely. If a terrorist DID get hold of this stuff, they will likely poison themselves before anyone else. Good riddance.

It's far easier to simply build an ANFO bomb and load it in a truck, and/or simply drive the truck into a crowd.

But there's a psychological fear of the things. It's because nuclear radiation is an unknown technology. It's fear is largely the same kind of fear that chemtrail folks suffer from, and for much the same reason. They simply don't know enough about the technology, and they don't trust it.

Heck, the same thing happens with the Alexa service. It's the same kind of fears of the unknown technology that makes it work.


Fear is the key to their attacks. No need to make a nuclear explosion, just spreading it around in a dirt-bomb is good enough. Terrorist blow themselves up pretty much daily, down radiation death would be a problem for them.
01-05-2019 20:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Not surprising that a politician from a state that has lots of uranium wants to push nuclear to stop global warming.


Nuclear would have been a good option had it not been deadly radioactive for thousands of years.


Where is this murderous radioactivity at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Over a million people are presently living in Hiroshima and another million in the suburbs. Nagasaki and suburbs has about a million people.

The overall age-adjusted (World Population Standard) cancer incidence has increased from 217 to 301 per 100,000 among males, and from 176 to 197 per 100,000 among females during the first 30 years of cancer registration.

While cancer rates in the US are falling they exceed those in Japan.
01-05-2019 20:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.


The San Francisco bay area freeways and bridges are falling apart. Just yesterday a truck driving under an overpass was narrowly missed by a piece of concrete the size of a basketball.

NOTHING lasts forever though perhaps they can design modern molten salt thorium reactors to be totally maintainable for reasonable costs. But that must be part of the design to start with. Uranium reactors operate at such high temperatures and pressures that they cannot last a very long time.
01-05-2019 21:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, nuclear is fine, if nothing goes wrong... A reactor takes time to build, lots of money involved, lot of different contractors involved. People make mistakes, people steal, take short cuts. Early reactors had to be perfect in every way, several layers of protection, to make sure there wasn't any mistakes. Any major issues, would be headline news, an kill future reactor projects. Since it's proven to be relatively safe, it's going to be getting them built quicker, and cheaper.

The more reactors you bring online, the more fuel being transported, likely an attractive terrorist target. Not sure how many coal/gas plants a nuclear plant could replace, but it would still mean constructing a lot of them.


Building a nuclear reactor is like building an aircraft that way. If something goes wrong with the design, it's usually caught by a regulatory agency. No nuclear accident has claimed more lives than any other industrial accident, not even Chernobyl (which was a stupid design and badly operated...socialism for ya), or Fukushima (a good design that nevertheless was wiped out by a massive tidal wave).

Nuclear fuel is not useful to terrorists. It's not anywhere near weapons grade stuff. If you put enough together to go supercritical, it simply vaporizes away. No bang. It's also very difficult to get hold of and handle safely. If a terrorist DID get hold of this stuff, they will likely poison themselves before anyone else. Good riddance.

It's far easier to simply build an ANFO bomb and load it in a truck, and/or simply drive the truck into a crowd.

But there's a psychological fear of the things. It's because nuclear radiation is an unknown technology. It's fear is largely the same kind of fear that chemtrail folks suffer from, and for much the same reason. They simply don't know enough about the technology, and they don't trust it.

Heck, the same thing happens with the Alexa service. It's the same kind of fears of the unknown technology that makes it work.



Чернобыля был коммунизм товарищ. Ты знаешь кто ты есть.
Chernobyl was communism Russian comrade. You know who you are.


So, according to you, I am a Jewish American Indian that lives in Russia, China, and Seattle at the same time.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-05-2019 21:21
01-05-2019 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

From what I've been able to determine, it's because coal and oil are cheaper forms of energy, and the plant can't compete in the energy markets.
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

The plant is being decommissioned before it's lifetime expectancy. It's simply the markets forcing the decision. Most of the plant machinery can be sold and used elsewhere. The reactor vessel and related components are radioactive waste and will be dealt with accordingly. It is not reusable due to ongoing neutron damage (There is really no market for used reactors).
GasGuzzler wrote:
Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

The jobs at the plant are going bye-bye, but the company is offering generous pension compensation and is planning to relocate many of the employees to other plants they operate.

Oil and coal are just cheaper. What you are seeing is the energy market in action.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 21:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
dehammer wrote:
The problem is that they decay and they are so dangerous to fix. Everything breaks down over time. Windmills are running into the problem that the older ones are being abandoned as they are too costly to repair and no one wants to "waste" the money tearing them down. Older solar cell plants are running the same situation. Too expensive to fix and too expensive to tear down.


Not the reason the plant is shutting down. Do your homework.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
GasGuzzler wrote:
dehammer wrote:
The problem is that they decay and they are so dangerous to fix. Everything breaks down over time. Windmills are running into the problem that the older ones are being abandoned as they are too costly to repair and no one wants to "waste" the money tearing them down. Older solar cell plants are running the same situation. Too expensive to fix and too expensive to tear down.


That's the real bullshit of this story. They intend to replace it with wind power. They better stay the hell out of my back yard!!!


No, they intend to replace it with oil and coal sources of power. There are plants already in place that can easily take up the slack.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 21:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, nuclear is fine, if nothing goes wrong... A reactor takes time to build, lots of money involved, lot of different contractors involved. People make mistakes, people steal, take short cuts. Early reactors had to be perfect in every way, several layers of protection, to make sure there wasn't any mistakes. Any major issues, would be headline news, an kill future reactor projects. Since it's proven to be relatively safe, it's going to be getting them built quicker, and cheaper.

The more reactors you bring online, the more fuel being transported, likely an attractive terrorist target. Not sure how many coal/gas plants a nuclear plant could replace, but it would still mean constructing a lot of them.


Building a nuclear reactor is like building an aircraft that way. If something goes wrong with the design, it's usually caught by a regulatory agency. No nuclear accident has claimed more lives than any other industrial accident, not even Chernobyl (which was a stupid design and badly operated...socialism for ya), or Fukushima (a good design that nevertheless was wiped out by a massive tidal wave).

Nuclear fuel is not useful to terrorists. It's not anywhere near weapons grade stuff. If you put enough together to go supercritical, it simply vaporizes away. No bang. It's also very difficult to get hold of and handle safely. If a terrorist DID get hold of this stuff, they will likely poison themselves before anyone else. Good riddance.

It's far easier to simply build an ANFO bomb and load it in a truck, and/or simply drive the truck into a crowd.

But there's a psychological fear of the things. It's because nuclear radiation is an unknown technology. It's fear is largely the same kind of fear that chemtrail folks suffer from, and for much the same reason. They simply don't know enough about the technology, and they don't trust it.

Heck, the same thing happens with the Alexa service. It's the same kind of fears of the unknown technology that makes it work.


Fear is the key to their attacks. No need to make a nuclear explosion, just spreading it around in a dirt-bomb is good enough. Terrorist blow themselves up pretty much daily, down radiation death would be a problem for them.


The same fear can be more easily made with ANFO.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 21:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Not surprising that a politician from a state that has lots of uranium wants to push nuclear to stop global warming.


Nuclear would have been a good option had it not been deadly radioactive for thousands of years.


Where is this murderous radioactivity at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Over a million people are presently living in Hiroshima and another million in the suburbs. Nagasaki and suburbs has about a million people.

The overall age-adjusted (World Population Standard) cancer incidence has increased from 217 to 301 per 100,000 among males, and from 176 to 197 per 100,000 among females during the first 30 years of cancer registration.

While cancer rates in the US are falling they exceed those in Japan.


Quite true. Cancer rates in both of these cities is lower than in the U.S., where no bomb ever was dropped or manufactured.

Seems the highest cancer rates in the U.S.are along the Gulf coast. Sea level.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 21:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.


The San Francisco bay area freeways and bridges are falling apart. Just yesterday a truck driving under an overpass was narrowly missed by a piece of concrete the size of a basketball.

Ain't living outside the United States in a socialist country grand?
Wake wrote:
NOTHING lasts forever
Especially when you don't maintain it!
Wake wrote:
though perhaps they can design modern molten salt thorium reactors to be totally maintainable for reasonable costs. But that must be part of the design to start with. Uranium reactors operate at such high temperatures and pressures that they cannot last a very long time.

WRONG. A uranium reactor operates at temperatures similar to an oven set on HI. They generally do not exceed 450 deg F in the hottest part of the reactor.

A molten thorium salt reactor still uses uranium for fuel. The salt is simply part of the coolant system These reactors can achieve temperatures up to 700 deg F, producing a more efficient reactor.


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2019 05:26
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

From what I've been able to determine, it's because coal and oil are cheaper forms of energy, and the plant can't compete in the energy markets.
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

The plant is being decommissioned before it's lifetime expectancy. It's simply the markets forcing the decision. Most of the plant machinery can be sold and used elsewhere. The reactor vessel and related components are radioactive waste and will be dealt with accordingly. It is not reusable due to ongoing neutron damage (There is really no market for used reactors).
GasGuzzler wrote:
Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

The jobs at the plant are going bye-bye, but the company is offering generous pension compensation and is planning to relocate many of the employees to other plants they operate.

Oil and coal are just cheaper. What you are seeing is the energy market in action.


Looks like I also need to do my homework.


Did a bit more digging...didn't realize that nuclear was more expensive than natural gas. Story is making more sense now.

However, I was partially right about the wind power...
NextEra said it plans to invest about $650 million in existing and new renewable energy generation in Iowa by the end of 2020. That includes a $250 million investment to repower four wind facilities, providing about 340 megawatts of electricity for Alliant's Iowa customers.
It does sound like NextEra is a great company and will help their workers in the transition to something new.

I do know it's the free markets working as they should, still sad to see it go. Cedar Rapids where I grew up, you could almost always see the billowing cloud to the Northwest in Palo. On a calm day you could always see what the winds were doing at altitudes. I even mistook the damn thing for a tornado one day when I was chasing near there.
02-05-2019 18:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

From what I've been able to determine, it's because coal and oil are cheaper forms of energy, and the plant can't compete in the energy markets.
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

The plant is being decommissioned before it's lifetime expectancy. It's simply the markets forcing the decision. Most of the plant machinery can be sold and used elsewhere. The reactor vessel and related components are radioactive waste and will be dealt with accordingly. It is not reusable due to ongoing neutron damage (There is really no market for used reactors).
GasGuzzler wrote:
Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

The jobs at the plant are going bye-bye, but the company is offering generous pension compensation and is planning to relocate many of the employees to other plants they operate.

Oil and coal are just cheaper. What you are seeing is the energy market in action.


Looks like I also need to do my homework.


Did a bit more digging...didn't realize that nuclear was more expensive than natural gas. Story is making more sense now.

However, I was partially right about the wind power...
NextEra said it plans to invest about $650 million in existing and new renewable energy generation in Iowa by the end of 2020. That includes a $250 million investment to repower four wind facilities, providing about 340 megawatts of electricity for Alliant's Iowa customers.
It does sound like NextEra is a great company and will help their workers in the transition to something new.

I do know it's the free markets working as they should, still sad to see it go. Cedar Rapids where I grew up, you could almost always see the billowing cloud to the Northwest in Palo. On a calm day you could always see what the winds were doing at altitudes. I even mistook the damn thing for a tornado one day when I was chasing near there.


LOL. That's a new one! I can see how it would happen though!


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2019 19:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

From what I've been able to determine, it's because coal and oil are cheaper forms of energy, and the plant can't compete in the energy markets.
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

The plant is being decommissioned before it's lifetime expectancy. It's simply the markets forcing the decision. Most of the plant machinery can be sold and used elsewhere. The reactor vessel and related components are radioactive waste and will be dealt with accordingly. It is not reusable due to ongoing neutron damage (There is really no market for used reactors).
GasGuzzler wrote:
Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

The jobs at the plant are going bye-bye, but the company is offering generous pension compensation and is planning to relocate many of the employees to other plants they operate.

Oil and coal are just cheaper. What you are seeing is the energy market in action.


Looks like I also need to do my homework.


Did a bit more digging...didn't realize that nuclear was more expensive than natural gas. Story is making more sense now.

However, I was partially right about the wind power...
NextEra said it plans to invest about $650 million in existing and new renewable energy generation in Iowa by the end of 2020. That includes a $250 million investment to repower four wind facilities, providing about 340 megawatts of electricity for Alliant's Iowa customers.
It does sound like NextEra is a great company and will help their workers in the transition to something new.

I do know it's the free markets working as they should, still sad to see it go. Cedar Rapids where I grew up, you could almost always see the billowing cloud to the Northwest in Palo. On a calm day you could always see what the winds were doing at altitudes. I even mistook the damn thing for a tornado one day when I was chasing near there.


Presently natural gas is really cheap because of Fracking. But this is pretty short term. But the nuclear power plant under discussion would reach its life expectancy before the increasing natural gas prices would make the nuclear power cheaper.

Yet another reason that molten salt Thorium breeder reactors would be the way to go - these make cheap U235 which would be a lot cheaper than the natural U235 they are separating from U238
02-05-2019 20:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

From what I've been able to determine, it's because coal and oil are cheaper forms of energy, and the plant can't compete in the energy markets.
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

The plant is being decommissioned before it's lifetime expectancy. It's simply the markets forcing the decision. Most of the plant machinery can be sold and used elsewhere. The reactor vessel and related components are radioactive waste and will be dealt with accordingly. It is not reusable due to ongoing neutron damage (There is really no market for used reactors).
GasGuzzler wrote:
Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

The jobs at the plant are going bye-bye, but the company is offering generous pension compensation and is planning to relocate many of the employees to other plants they operate.

Oil and coal are just cheaper. What you are seeing is the energy market in action.


Looks like I also need to do my homework.


Did a bit more digging...didn't realize that nuclear was more expensive than natural gas. Story is making more sense now.

However, I was partially right about the wind power...
NextEra said it plans to invest about $650 million in existing and new renewable energy generation in Iowa by the end of 2020. That includes a $250 million investment to repower four wind facilities, providing about 340 megawatts of electricity for Alliant's Iowa customers.
It does sound like NextEra is a great company and will help their workers in the transition to something new.

I do know it's the free markets working as they should, still sad to see it go. Cedar Rapids where I grew up, you could almost always see the billowing cloud to the Northwest in Palo. On a calm day you could always see what the winds were doing at altitudes. I even mistook the damn thing for a tornado one day when I was chasing near there.


Presently natural gas is really cheap because of Fracking.

No, it's cheap because it is available from many sources and there is more than we need.
Wake wrote:
But this is pretty short term.

No. Methane is easy to find. It's really everywhere. The biggest problem is transporting it to where it's needed.
Wake wrote:
But the nuclear power plant under discussion would reach its life expectancy before the increasing natural gas prices would make the nuclear power cheaper.

No, Wake. The plant is closing because coal and oil are cheaper, not natural gas (although it's cheaper as well).
Wake wrote:
Yet another reason that molten salt Thorium breeder reactors would be the way to go - these make cheap U235 which would be a lot cheaper than the natural U235 they are separating from U238

Thorium reactors do not make U235, Wake. They require U235 to be separated out just like always to run, or it can be combined with plutonium to allow the plutonium to make U235. Last I looked plutonium is expensive.

Thorium by itself is not fissile, and does not work in a reactor except as a coolant.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate In a Switch, Some Republicans Start Citing Climate Change as Driving Their Policies:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
driving with headlights on1112-11-2019 03:11
Start a petition to encourage climate change information516-04-2019 19:04
Climate Change Is Driving Marine Species North, Changing California's Coast514-03-2019 03:47
Arnold Schwarzenegger Planning To Sue Oil Companies To Force Climate Policies108-03-2019 21:28
Republicans force climate-related hearing to adjourn after only 2 Democrats show up228-02-2019 03:51
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact