Observing the nuke power issue in the US

[Growler]

So, making its way around my Facebook friends today is this link:

>>How far are you from a Nuke plant?<<

It bugged me for awhile, and I finally figured out why.

Take a look at the plant distribution. The overwhelming majority of plants are in the East, mainly east of the Mississippi, but just west of that river isn't ecatly bereft, either.

Then you get to the Rockies, which, understandably, makes for a dearth of nuke plants. Then, the West Coast: One in the Pacific Northwest, and three in the southwest (San Onofre and Diablo in SoCal, and one in Arizona).

Why the disparity? I'm curious as to what you guys think.

[Freiwillige]

Population. The east coast has more build up and denser population centers than the west.

For example Arizona's plant gives all its electricity to California
But then again Most of Arizona is empty desert, Most of Nevada is empty desert, Most of Oregon and Washington are unpopulated forests etc.

Electricity once produced must be used. Storing electricity is not a viable option. Capacitors (see batteries) don't exist that can store the energy.

By logic, larger population areas are much more condusive to nuclear power generation than smaller population areas.

[Growler]

I just can't explain the vast disparity in plant concentration to population density alone - I mean, California is the most populous state in the country, but fields only 2 plants - in the south - three, if you count Arizona's contribution.

Conversely, Maryland is one of the lesser populated states (42nd, according to Wiki) and Pennsylvania (33rd), yet there are two plants less that 50m away, and four less than 100m.

OK, that's not adding up the population densities of all the states on the East Coast equal in area to California, I get that. Nonetheless, if nuke power was such a big safety deal, proximity to population centers would argue for MORE plants out west and fewer here in the east, instead of what the current situation represents - it's not like power distribution lines in So. Cal. aren't getting the juice from those three plants across mountains, deserts, and populated areas as well.

Certainly, earthquake propensity factors into it somewhat - it's not as if the East is immune to temblors, but bigger 5+ magnitude quakes aren't common here. And, as we saw in Japan, earthquake-toughening reactors isn't impossible - If I were in California, I'd be more worried about San Onofre taking a swim than a shake... but here in the East, flooding rains aren't uncommon. I routinely hear of the floodgates at Conowingo Dam Hydroelectric Plant being open to account for the Susquehanna at flood state when the central PA/MD area gets heavy rainfall.

[AVGWarhawk]

We have the plant in Southern MD Growler. Never any accidents that I'm aware of. I think what has happened in Japan is a wake up call to inspect what we have going as far as nuclear plants and handling emergency situations.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

We have the plant in Southern MD Growler. Never any accidents that I'm aware of. I think what has happened in Japan is a wake up call to inspect what we have going as far as nuclear plants and handling emergency situations.

Man cannot control, nor predict nature. Building Nuclear power plants and storing used material on site along coastal plains is a bad idea. THAT WE HAVE LEARNED.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

We have the plant in Southern MD Growler. Never any accidents that I'm aware of. I think what has happened in Japan is a wake up call to inspect what we have going as far as nuclear plants and handling emergency situations.

Calvert Cliffs, some ~80m away from where I sit; Hope Creek and Salem plants are also about that far, Limerick's a bit under 100m. Three Mile Island and Peach Bottom plants in PA are less than 50m from here.

Point is, within 80m of where I currently sit, there are more nuclear plants than there are on the entire West Coast of the US. I thought that was worth exploring, but then again, I'm strange.

I think re-evaluating safety in US plants is a good idea, but I also think any plan to do so will be over-hyped by the media until everyone living in the same state as a plant will start swearing their water's glowing.

<shrug> Just curious, I guess.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Growler

Why the disparity? I'm curious as to what you guys think.

NIMBY?

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

NIMBY?

As good a thought as any - why moreso there than here, though, Ducimus? It's not as if there isn't a strong argument for NIMBY in East, based on the amount of backyards to not be in.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Growler

As good a thought as any - why moreso there than here, though, Ducimus? It's not as if there isn't a strong argument for NIMBY in East, based on the amount of backyards to not be in.

We have more hippies out west.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

We have more hippies out west.

I got nothin' for that.

I never really got that "hippie vibe" from Palm Springs, for instance, when I was there, but LA - yeah, definitely. Which is kinda funny, since both of California's nuke plants are in the south. <shrug>

Beats me. Do you really think it is as simple as that? I mean, Occam's Razor would say so... but it seems like there'd be as vocal a contingent out here as out there, given the amount of plants on the ground.

I'm probably way overanalyzing this - it's just seemed odd to look at it on the map and see the vast difference in numbers West to East.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hell Growler, they could build another to serve more of Baltimore. Get rid of the coal burners running around the clock for BGE.

[Ducimus]

Well i figure it like this (and this is all conjecture):

The states in the mid west aren't called "fly over" states for no reason at all. Comparatively there's not much out there, or not enough in population density to warrant the expenditure of a multimillion (billion?) dollar nuclear power plant.

So that leaves the west coast. California has (and im shooting from the hip here), the most strict enviormental laws in the country. Places like San Fran, are the traditional hippie/liberal/gay places. Oregon and Washington are full of california refugee's. Seattle is also fairly liberal. There is a reason why hardcore conservatives like to call the western seaboard the "left coast" , although i think that term is on the side of embellishment, but this is where im drawing the word "hippie" from.

Political persuasions aside, i think it comes down to strict enviormental laws on the western coast, and not enough going on in the midwest. In both cases, you can toss in NIMBY and be reasonably correct.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Hell Growler, they could build another to serve more of Baltimore. Get rid of the coal burners running around the clock for BGE.

What, and give those a-holes another reason to jack up our rates?

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Well i figure it like this
The states in the mid west aren't called "fly over" states for no reason at all..

You mean the states which feed your family? What a poorly thought out thing to say.