Observing the nuke power issue in the US

Ducimus · 04-01-11, 01:32 PM

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.

04-01-11, 01:37 PM

Quote:

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.

tater · 04-01-11, 02:50 PM

Third Man was spot on on page one. CA has a large population, but they are also very spread out. In addition, as ducimus said, NIMBY. CA is well known for that. They want electric cars, but are perfectly happy for the power generation to happen at a coal plant in NM (having just moved all their tailpipes to another state, they can then be smug).

To be fair, the west coast is not as good a place for nuke plants as the east, given the earthquake situation (though it was the tsunami, not the quake that was Japan's problem).

BTW, while France leads in the % of power that is nuclear, the US has by far the most plants.

04-01-11, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Third Man was spot on on page one.

my genious is recognized.

SPQR

Ducimus · 04-01-11, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

They want electric cars, but are perfectly happy for the power generation to happen at a coal plant in NM (having just moved all their tailpipes to another state, they can then be smug).

SoCal in reality, is nothing but one big honking desert bowl. Everything is piped in from somewhere. Water from NorCal, the colorodo, and every state that has a connection to the same, power from NM and adjoining areas, etc etc. I hear other states are (rightfully) upset. Cut those services, and this place would dry up in no time.

Quote:

To be fair, the west coast is not as good a place for nuke plants as the east, given the earthquake situation
.

I thought of that, though we haven't had a GOOD earthquake in years. We're long overdue. I honestly wish we had ALOT more earthquakes. One, it makes life more exciting, but two, and more importantly, it relieves fault stress. All that stress is backing up. It's Like shaking a soda bottle and popping it wide open instead of cracking the tab a little to let the gas creep out.

Growler · 04-01-11, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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.

I was sorta wondering about that in the back of my coffee-deprived brain. Seems to make sense; and I can understand a business just not wanting to play by California's rules - oh, sh-! Ducimus, I think you nailed it.

On a square mileage basis, there's more national park land out there than in the East.

I think you're on to something, Ducimus.

TorpX · 04-01-11, 02:46 PM

I live in Illinois and there are 8 nuc plants within 100mi. There would be 9, but Zion was decommissioned a couple years ago. As you can see on the map there are quite a few clustered around Chicago.

I think Ducimus is right about the NIMBY- hippie thing. However, I don't think any state is obligated to accept nuc plants if they don't want them. Around here, people were led to believe that they would provide energy that was "too cheap to meter". What a joke! Electric rates have gone up ever since. I'd bet there would be a lot fewer now if they had to approved today.

04-01-11, 02:50 PM	#3
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Third Man was spot on on page one. CA has a large population, but they are also very spread out. In addition, as ducimus said, NIMBY. CA is well known for that. They want electric cars, but are perfectly happy for the power generation to happen at a coal plant in NM (having just moved all their tailpipes to another state, they can then be smug). To be fair, the west coast is not as good a place for nuke plants as the east, given the earthquake situation (though it was the tsunami, not the quake that was Japan's problem). BTW, while France leads in the % of power that is nuclear, the US has by far the most plants. __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine

04-01-11, 02:46 PM	#7
TorpX Silent Hunter Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 3,975 Downloads: 153 Uploads: 11	I live in Illinois and there are 8 nuc plants within 100mi. There would be 9, but Zion was decommissioned a couple years ago. As you can see on the map there are quite a few clustered around Chicago. I think Ducimus is right about the NIMBY- hippie thing. However, I don't think any state is obligated to accept nuc plants if they don't want them. Around here, people were led to believe that they would provide energy that was "too cheap to meter". What a joke! Electric rates have gone up ever since. I'd bet there would be a lot fewer now if they had to approved today.

04-01-11, 01:32 PM	#1
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	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.