I’m not 100% advocating nuclear energy - though I do think opponents bring it up in much the same way kids speak of the boogeyman - but if you start bringing in unknown variables (terrorist attack! earthquake!) as reasons against it I think it enters the realm of fear-mongering. That is not a relevant basis to dismiss nuke power.
But, great attempt at snark.
I agree there are severe problems with Nuclear, but the fact is we have used it and apparently will - at least for some time - continue to use it based on this huge need we have created for energy. We will probably lessen it’s use in the future, but in the meantime we will have created a good deal of nuclear waste - and the question remains - should we transport nuclear materials through urban areas?
I personally think the transportation is about as safe as it’s going to be and worry that non-ground-based transportation is riskier though i haven’t seen any stats on that.
I remember in the early hysteria of the 8-lanes for i-240 issue, that people proclaimed that the states improvement to 8 lanes was a ploy to be able to transport nuclear waste through the area. Well, i believe if the safest route is through our urban area then we should be a part of the risk of us as a country using this as energy fuel. Denying transport of nuclear materials doesn’t stop it from existing and needing to be stored, in fact it forces the government to take riskier forms of transportation with that denial.
To me it’s like the massive trash problem. We’ve created the trash, we need to put it somewhere. Deciding that trash is a terrible idea and that we’re gonna produce a whole lot less of it - while an worthy cause - doesn’t do anything with the trash we’ve already created and the trash we will create while we ‘fix’ the trash problem. But nobody wants a trash dump or transfer stations in their back yard and it has to be somewhere. It becomes the responsibility of everyone who creates trash (or uses energy in the case of nuclear) to take some of the heat for it.
So much for nukes not being belt in earth quake zones. This one could potentially destroy the lives of over 8 million people.
NYC Nuclear Plant Likely To Create An Earthquake Hazard
A recent tectonic study on the New York City – Philadelphia area revealed that there is much more seismic activity in the area than previously thought. The findings, which appear in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, are authored by researchers at the Earth Institute at Colombia University.
Although New York City is usually less exposed to big earthquakes, the study did find a new active fault line that runs from Stamford, Connecticut, to Peekskill, New York, and intersects another fault line. Atop of this intersection is none other than the Indian Point nuclear power plant.
However, even though the chances for a high magnitude earthquake are smaller than in California for example, the overwhelming concentration of population and infrastructure here would result in a disaster if such an earthquake would occur.
By analyzing the last 34 years of seismological activity in the area, scientists found potentially powerful structures that suggest dynamics never before seen.
“The research raises the perception both of how common these events are, and, specifically, where they may occur,” lead author Lynn R. Sykes said in a statement. “It’s an extremely populated area with very large assets.”
Indian Point is currently under a lot of controversy. Last year, Governor Eliot Spitzer, New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, and Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano announced the submission of papers to deny the relicensing of the Indian Point nuclear power plant.
“Indian Point is situated at the intersection of the two most striking linear features marking the seismicity and also in the midst of a large population that is at risk in case of an accident,” researchers say in the paper. “This is clearly one of the least favorable sites in our study area from an earthquake hazard and risk perspective.”
Elegy, who owns Indian Point, is now fighting for relicensing the operating plant for an additional 20 years. However, despite the general dissatisfaction with the power plant, it appears that the panel rejected the state’s arguments against Elegy.
So much for nukes not being belt in earth quake zones. This one could potentially destroy the lives of over 8 million people.
It’s kind of the exception that proves the rule, though. The fault was only recently discovered, so the people who built and approved the reactor were working with the best information they had at the time, which is what makes this discovery so problematic. The plant should probably be shut down and rebuilt somewhere less unstable, of course. There are probably things they could do to make it more earthquake resistant as well. I mean, they deal with this stuff constantly in Japan, for instance.
So much for nukes not being belt in earth quake zones. This one could potentially destroy the lives of over 8 million people.
It’s kind of the exception that proves the rule, though. The fault was only recently discovered, so the people who built and approved the reactor were working with the best information they had at the time, which is what makes this discovery so problematic. The plant should probably be shut down and rebuilt somewhere less unstable, of course. There are probably things they could do to make it more earthquake resistant as well. I mean, they deal with this stuff constantly in Japan, for instance.
Not quite correct in spite of what the article says. I lived in the mid Hudson Valley for many years and we were all aware of this fault line near the river. It’s simply not been active in recent years.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Indian Point is Built on Earthquake Fault Line…Reactors Will Break Apart
The NRC decades ago opted to EXEMPT Indian Point from the citing criteria, allowed the now failing reactors to be built on an earthquake fault line…face it, when the BIG QUAKE hits, we are all in serious trouble unless we shut the plants now.
I think nuclear is a better intermediate solution than the myriad of proposals to streeeeetch the use of fossil fuels. Yes, nuclear has risks; but the risks we willingly take everyday are far greater (driving for instance). Nuclear power technology has also improved significantly since we built most of our now antiquated plants decades ago. I think we should replace existing plants and build additional ones until wind, solar, geothermal, conservation technologies, and future breakthroughs progress to the point that they can bear the brunt of our power needs.
Of course more nuclear plants mean more waste (unless reprocessing techniques are utilized and improved), and that waste must be transported to the few places we’ve decided will be sacrificed for the good of all. The tests I’ve seen show trains, planes, and automobiles (amongst other things like explosives) slamming into nuclear transport containers which emerge from massive damage high energy impacts with their air tight seal unbroken. If they are using these containers I would feel perfectly safe with those wastes being transported just a few miles past my home.
Interesting perambulations about nuclear energy, but little about transport issues, tho I did like Zen’s lit-up U.S. map. We’re kinda used to electricity. We expect the lights to come on when we flip a switch. In N.C., most of our electricity is generated by coal-fired plants. Does coal get transported through Asheville? Does natural gas? What kinds of hazardous materials ALREADY slip through Asheville? Trains go right through the heart of Biltmore Village every day, loaded with tanks of strange-sounding chemicals. We only hear about them when there’s a wreck or something like that.
Granted—any type of nuclear-waste spill/wreck/disaster in the Asheville area wouldn’t be good.
We have hazardous-waste response teams for all the other gunk. What would happen if a truck loaded with nuclear waste wrecked in the I-40 gorge west of A’ville? or on Smoky Park bridge?
On another track—how do the French manage to stay safe? They have loads more nuclear power plants ... and cleaner air.
We have hazardous-waste response teams for all the other gunk. What would happen if a truck loaded with nuclear waste wrecked in the I-40 gorge west of A’ville? or on Smoky Park bridge?
The image you’re evoking is one of nuclear waste spilling from a tanker truck into the French Broad, a la The Simpsons.
This should clear that up:
DOE will use robust transportation packages called casks. Casks are typically made of stainless steel and metal shielding more than six inches thick to protect the contents and confine radiation in both routine transport operations and under severe accident conditions. All shipments to Yucca Mountain must be transported in casks certified by NRC. The NRC certification process requires that each transportation cask design must be analyzed or tested to meet the conditions of all of the following tests, in the given sequence:
* A drop from 30 feet onto a hard, unyielding surface that is equivalent to a high-speed crash into a bridge abutment
* A drop from 40 inches onto a shaft six inches in diameter
* A fully engulfing fire at 1,475 degrees Fahrenheit for 30 minutes
* Immersion under three feet of water
An undamaged version of the cask must also be able to survive immersion in the equivalent of 50 feet of water. Furthermore, casks designed for shipping spent nuclear fuel must be able to survive water pressure greater than 600 feet for 1 hour without collapse, buckling, or leaking.
I think nuclear is a better intermediate solution than the myriad of proposals to streeeeetch the use of fossil fuels. Yes, nuclear has risks; but the risks we willingly take everyday are far greater (driving for instance). Nuclear power technology has also improved significantly since we built most of our now antiquated plants decades ago. I think we should replace existing plants and build additional ones until wind, solar, geothermal, conservation technologies, and future breakthroughs progress to the point that they can bear the brunt of our power needs.
Of course more nuclear plants mean more waste (unless reprocessing techniques are utilized and improved), and that waste must be transported to the few places we’ve decided will be sacrificed for the good of all. The tests I’ve seen show trains, planes, and automobiles (amongst other things like explosives) slamming into nuclear transport containers which emerge from massive damage high energy impacts with their air tight seal unbroken. If they are using these containers I would feel perfectly safe with those wastes being transported just a few miles past my home.
The question was about driving nuclear wastes. What does anyone know about a Nuclear accident? I know that they covered up the truth at Three Mile Island in PA.
The point of accidents is, they are accidents! One ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Scientists have found two large leaks in Earth’s magnetosphere, the region around our planet that shields us from severe solar storms. The leaks are defying many of scientists’ previous ideas on how the interaction between Earth’s magnetosphere and solar wind occurs.
The leaks are in an unexpected location let in solar particles in faster than expected and the whole interaction works in a manner that is completely the opposite of what scientists had thought.
The findings have implications for how solar storms affect our planet. Serious storms, which involved charged particles spewing from the Sun, can disable satellites, disrupt power grids, and affect weather on Earth.
The new observations “overturn the way that we understand how the Sun’s magnetic field interacts with the Earth’s magnetic field,” said David Sibeck of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., during a press conference today at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
The Sun operates on an 11-year cycle, alternating between active and quiet periods (solar ‘max’ and solar ‘min’). We are currently in a quiet period, with few sunspots on the Sun’s surface and fewer solar flares, though the next cycle of activity has begun. It is expected to peak around 2012, bringing lots of sunspots, flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs).
FULL ARTICLE: http://earthchangesmedia.com/secure/3247.326/article-9162523598.php
Glolady: What does the magnetosphere have to do with this discussion? That’s something beyond our control—it’s Earth’s magnetic field—and nothing human beings can do will impact it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Earth-based nuclear power.
Nuclear dangers: They exist, and no one is saying that nuclear power is the safest source. It is RELATIVELY SAFE, however, and it’s far cheaper and lower-impact than fossil fuels and far more reliable than solar, wind and wave, which are all dependent on the whims of the weather to deliver energy. You do get some pretty nasty waste, yes, but I think it’ll only be a matter of time before we find worthy uses for it. (There are already some.)
As I’ve said, I see nuclear power as one of many options on the table. It’s not the only one.
Transporting nuclear through population centers: It should be done in the safest way possible with the odds hedged towards the lowest risk to the population, even if it means more trips with less of a load per trip. Routing it through the winding mountain roads of WNC isn’t something I support. But it may be the easier to get it through WNC than through some other areas. In either case, getting it through safely should be the big concern, which I imagine is a top priority for those moving the waste as well.
What controls the Nuclear power stations? Computers
The Solar cycle is increasing in intensity. The flares affect the Earth’s magnetic field.
Which in tern affect everything on Earth.
What… if as predicted by Scientists, the effects will disrupt electrical equipment and grids, will prevent a meltdown?
Why do you think our Ancestors prayed to the Sun God?
If a solar flare of that intensity made it through the Earth’s atmosphere, I think we’d have bigger problems to worry about than whether or not the heavily shielded computer stations inside nuclear reactors would have their various failsafe processes activated. A solar flare powerful enough to do that would probably do more than just fry power grids—it would probably be powerful enough to kill millions of people outright. It’s a doomsday scenario, roughly on par with saying “What if a rogue asteroid hit D.C. ... that’d be bad.” Yes, it would, but it’s also completely out of anyone’s control.
What’s your point here? That we shouldn’t use nuclear power because there’s a slim chance that a proton storm might fry the Earth? There’s a much bigger chance that we’ll suck dry all of the planet’s fossil fuels before that happens, I’d say.
The years ahead could be especially lively. Raeder explains: “We’re entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway. It’s the perfect sequence for a really big event.”
Sibeck agrees. “This could result in stronger geomagnetic storms than we have seen in many years.”
A video version of this story may be found here. For more information about the THEMIS mission, visit http://nasa.gov/themis
It is not if but when.
Everyone gets up in arms about 9-11 or Katrina, why were they not warned?
Because people do Not want to believe until their bubble is pricked.
There is enough FREE energy and technology to make such. It is the GREED in the Profit that keeps the pig suckling.
Why is there the assumption that we can or should continue to consume power in the way we have for the past 50 years?
If we are seriously discussing the implications of transporting nuclear waste, why not first ask if we need to have the capacity to provide the power to let us surf the net all day and power our air conditioners and dishwasher whenever we want.
