Observing the nuke power issue in the US

[Growler]

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]

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.

[tater]

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.

Originally Posted by tater

Third Man was spot on on page one.

my genious is recognized.



SPQR

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

We have more hippies out west.

The herds have all been thinned out in the east.

[Ducimus]

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.

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.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Growler

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

They do not need a reason. They just raise the rate when they feel like it! O'Mallet does nothing.

Three plants within' 130 miles, one on the Minnesota/WI. Border and two right next to each other on the Lake Michigan coast. Basically they are on both sides of me.

Edit: Hey those two plants near Lake Michigan are just 14 miles from Denmark

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Growler

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.

Washington State alone has over forty hydroelectric dams producing electricity for both this state, Oregon and northern California, which probably explains why we have only the one nuke plant at Hanford, which in itself is just a relic of the atomic bomb project there in the 1940s.

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Washington State alone has over forty hydroelectric dams producing electricity for both this state, Oregon and northern California, which probably explains why we have only the one nuke plant at Hanford, which in itself is just a relic of the atomic bomb project there in the 1940s.

Hanford has more than one Nuke plant. It has a burial ground for US Submarine nuke plants.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Hanford has more than one Nuke plant. It has a burial ground for US Submarine nuke plants.

I'm afraid decommissioned and entombed reactors don't generate much electricity. But is the place polluted? You bet.

Originally Posted by Torplexed

I'm afraid decommissioned and entombed reactors don't generate much electricity.

neither do the reactors in Japan. And they are not active or entombed.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

neither do the reactors in Japan. And they are not active or entombed.

What? This is a Fukushima thread now? Growler wanted to know why there are so few nuclear reactors generating electricity on the West Coast. I'm just giving part of the answer.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Washington State alone has over forty hydroelectric dams producing electricity for both this state, Oregon and northern California, which probably explains why we have only the one nuke plant at Hanford, which in itself is just a relic of the atomic bomb project there in the 1940s.

Damn. Hydroelectric, of course! /headslap I really am embarrassed not to have thought of that, especially since I went there in the earlier post with mention of Conowingo Hydroelectric Plant, and that I'm currently playing Fallout: New Vegas, with the storyline only completely dependent on the Hoover Dam.

And with the rivers and waterways of the Northwest, of course it makes sense there'd be hydro-power instead of nuke. The East has the rivers, but also has a LOT of boat traffic on those rivers; the West made better use of rail than the East did, so the rivers can be used to generate power more than they're needed for shipping.

Thanks, Torplexed, for that additional contribution. I think I'm starting to get the picture a little better, between the mentions here by several folks, and my own recollection this morning of the huge wind farm at Banning Pass east of LA.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Theres nothing wrong with nuclear power.

And the funny thing is that since Japan's plants exploded after suffering a tsunami AND a 9 point something earthquake, people thing nuclear power is unsafe because it cant withstand a 9 point something earthquake and a tsunami.

Thats why i just wanna slap the idiots on the news who think they know whatt heyre talking about, who think nuclear power is way unsafe. Its VERY safe. And theyre undereducated Idiots who honestly dont know what theyre talking about. It annoys me so dam much. Its like the people who have some minor symptom like chills and vomiting and go on WEb M.D and it tells them they have Malaria and they believe it.

But S**t happens. Just like everything else in the world, S**T happens. If a gas main explodes after somebody F-ed up, does that mean we need to stop using gas to heat our homes to keep us warm? no. Same CONCEPT applies here.

granted we should take more safety backups. because radiation doesnt just go away. it lingers. But honestly this is to be expected when something like this happens.