Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reactor shut down after fire at Calif. nuke plant; no radiation danger, plant says

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
davidnc76 Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 03:59 PM
Original message
Reactor shut down after fire at Calif. nuke plant; no radiation danger, plant says
Source: AP

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (AP) _ Authorities are investigating a fire at a California nuclear plant that forced a reactor to be shut down.

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant spokeswoman Sharon Gavin said Monday that there was no danger of a radiation leak after a fire the day before. The blaze was in a non-nuclear part of the plant.






Read more: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-nuclear-plant-fire,0,7900457.story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TerribleLarryDingle Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. But But
They keep telling me how safe nuclear or is it nukuler power is. Are they liars? :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidnc76 Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Curious George would say
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
169. Your sig pic is too big.
Edited on Tue Aug-19-08 12:50 AM by kgfnally
This image may not exceed 500 pixels wide, 200 pixels tall, or a file size of 20 kilobytes.


Per DU rules.

Please fix it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I assume you'd prefer more filthy coal plants
that actually do kill people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidnc76 Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Chernobyl? Three Mile Island?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kirby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. FYI. No one died from Three Mile Island...
and your signature is gross... Yuk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidnc76 Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Thanks for that Wiki summary on Three Mile Island
I am guessing you have never seen The Big Lebowski!??!?

I am working on a 'Tropic Thunder' gif. That will be up soon for my signature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kirby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Not really a summary...
I know someone who went to school there and was evacuated when the event happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidnc76 Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Sweet
I know a person of a person who read about the event the year it happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. How many dead miners in the past 2 years?
Oh yeah, they don't count.

Neither does the mercury contamination in your fish. And that bit about climate change? Just leftist propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
100. how many near meltdowns since nuke plants came online? How many "loose nukes" around the world?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #100
109. "near-meltdowns?"
Do tell. TMI wasn't even close, nor Chernobyl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #109
176. dream on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Nukes: no. Coal: no. Wind: yes. Solar: yes. Geothermal: yes. Tidal: yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. You need to do the math (if you want to keep the lights on)
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 04:37 PM by depakid
Sources of electricty generation in the United States (2006)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kirby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Your pie chart is the status quo...
I think most of us are talking about increasing that 'Other Renewables' piece of the pie...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. That's a great idea- but look at the proportions
and tell me how you think that the US is going to scale up exponentially from that tiny percentage?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kirby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. With leadership!!!
With a Manhattan project to tap renewable resources. And to start pricing the damage to the environment into the kw/h cost of existing fuel. Its easy for solar to loose these kw/h litmus tests when all the damage/health effects of competing fuels are ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #23
34. AND
a national Conservation movement to reduce our extravagant level of consumption.

30 - 40% reduction through conservation? maybe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
29. NNadir, is that you???? You're forgetting to call people ugly names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
102. bwahahahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #29
185. NNadir has been curiously absent lately.
I tune into all nuke threads to read his inanity. :)

then occasionally I throw him some chum just to watch him go nuts.

It's a hobby, I admit it. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
41. Start by slapping solar panels on every gov't-owned building, to lead the way...
Then make slapping solar panels on every home affordable, and I don't mean with meaningless tax rebates.

Simultaneously, come up with the 21st Century equivalent of the old Tennessee Valley Authority and Rural Electrification Projects. Channel the ghost of Franklin Delano Roosevelt if you think that will help.

Oh and while you're at it, make this a public works project, not a privatized cash cow for T.Boone Pickens.

Just get started. Just do it.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #41
49. Remember when Clinton left office and we had a budget surplus?
I wrote a letter to Al Gore and suggested just what you said should be done with the surplus money when he got into office. Darn, I had such hope in those days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #49
104. sigh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #41
98. Germany has the most aggressive solar program in the world
The snippet here gives some indication of the scale involved:

Germany Debates Subsidies for Solar Industry

....At the heart of the debate is the Renewable Energy Sources Act. It requires power companies to buy all the alternative energy produced by these systems, at a fixed above-market price, for 20 years.

This mechanism, known as a feed-in tariff, gives entrepreneurs a powerful incentive to install solar panels. With a locked-in customer base for their electricity, they can earn a reliable return on their investment. It has worked: homeowners rushed to clamp solar panels on their roofs and farmers planted them in fields where sheep once grazed.

The amount of electricity generated by these installations rose 60 percent in 2007 compared with 2006, faster than any other renewable energy (solar still generates just 0.6 percent of Germany’s total electricity, compared with 6.4 percent for wind).

This, in a country that gets an average of only 1,528 hours of sunshine a year, less than a third of the total daylight hours. That figure is comparable to London’s but it is one-third fewer sunshine hours than in Florence, Italy, and only half San Diego’s, making German solar installations less efficient, and their growth all the more remarkable.

With wind, biomass and other alternative energy also growing, Germany derives 14.2 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. That puts it ahead of a European Union target for countries to generate 12.5 percent of electricity from alternative sources by 2010.


Assume Germany can more than double its renewables in 10 years. That still leaves 70% derived from other sources....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #98
136. Well darn, you are right, depakid. There's no hope and no point in trying.
Not.

Glad you're enjoying Australia. Nice to hear from you.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #136
146. Never said anything of the sort
My only point is that you're not going to run a modern office tower with solar panels- much less an entire city anywhere on the Eastern Seaboard.

That's just how it is. No combination of renewables adds up to nearly enough flow (part of the reason for that is the concept of power density and part of it has to do with intermittancy of the electricity generation).

There's an excellent article on all this here:

Energy transitions past and future

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_transitions_past_and_future

Speaking of Australia- it's even more reliant of cheap abundant (and filthy) coal for electricity than the United States:



On the other hand, at least coal miners down work under safe conditions and are paid impressive wages.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #41
103. Saint Ronnie should have been slapped for taking solar panels off the WH roof
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 09:05 PM by wordpix
What a saint. not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #103
130. Hell, he should have been slapped on General Principles!
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
43. How quickly did nuclear power grow in the US?
With proper infrastructure, training, funding, and government support, we could the grow the solar and wind sources of power exponentially in a matter of years with today's technology.

Or do you think that nuclear power grew so quickly due to backyard hobbyists? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
101. Answer: tax incentives, subsidies for renewables for starters. Germany does it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #16
186. We use 25% of the worlds energy resources with only 5% of the population
how about we scale down.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. Have we committed to repeating mistakes of the past?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Why do you keep bringing this up?
The answer is not to build anymore coal plants. It's not rocket science. There are many other safer sources of energy, solar, turbine, geothermal and hydro power. None of these pollute nor have a radiation shelf life of a minimum of 50 million years like nuclear does. No coal plant never, ever needs to be built. I heard an expert on radio just today who said that the geo-thermal energy we have would give electricity to the whole nation if developed.

Incidentally, I live near this nuclear plant and all the public relations people from that plant have been caught in lies now and then about how safe everything is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Because I don't believe in magical thinking
Americans have a choice- filthy coal or nuclear power. Coal is by far the worst option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Could you please put up whatever scientific authority that you have that
says that these are the only choices. It seems to me that you are the person who is engaging in magical thinking that being that there is either good or evil and no other choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. The math is what it is
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 04:52 PM by depakid
One doesn't have to like or dislike it.

You can peruse the DOE's stats and see for yourself where the power comes from.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/at_a_glance/gen_tabs.html

Now, if America were a nation like Australia- with massive solar and wave resources AND only 21 million people and few major cities, it might be possible to replace filthy coal without adding nuclear power... with a herculean effort and the right economic incentives. But that's not going to happen in an energy intensive nation of about the same size with over 300 million people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Does your local electric bill come with this?
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 05:07 PM by Cleita
http://www.slocountyoes.com/emergencyplanning/index.html

San Luis Obispo County Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Response Information

This information is provided by the County of San Luis Obispo and Pacific Gas and Electric Company for response to an emergency that might result from operations at Diablo Canyon Power Plant.

This website contains information that you and your family should know, and explain the actions county officials might direct you to take in the event of an emergency at Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Reading this entire nuclear emergency information website is the best way to prepare for an emergency, but you can go directly to the section indicated for more information about specific topics.

If you print out these pages, this website contains vital information that can be taken with you in the unlikely event of an evacuation. All information contained herein can also be found in your current AT&T phone book.

The Early Warning System Sirens are tested annually. The 2007 annual siren test will be conducted on Saturday, August 25 . Quarterly siren low-power, growl tests will be conducted on the following dates: January 2 and 3, April 10 and 11, August 7 and 8, and October 9 and 10.

SIREN INFORMATION - If you Hear a Steady Siren for 3 to 5 Minutes, Go Indoors and Tune To A Local Radio or Television Station for information. When at Sea, Tune to Marine CH. 16.


btw those siren tests and we have the annual one coming up on the 25th of this month totally freak out the animals, horses, sheep, goats, cats and dogs as well as the birds who freak out.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Nope. But, when I'm in the states, I have the good fortune to live near hydro
and wind resources.

Most people in the states aren't so lucky, so they have a choice between fossil fuels (and all the filthy and destructive baggage that goes with them) or nuclear power in order to keep their lights on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. You keep on saying that these are the only choices. They are not. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. The math says otherwise
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 05:19 PM by depakid
This is why I call it magical thinking. People somehow believe that the laws of thermodynamics (not to mention engineering and economics) don't apply to their energy sources.

This is NOT to say that I'm not 100% behind renewable energy projects. Any rational person would be. And I don't mind paying a bit extra for it:

http://www.greenpoweroregon.com/green-power/renewable-energy-options.aspx

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. That's YOUR math. Not THE math.
The energy available from solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal sources is more than adequate to power us. It's a matter of collecting it. You need to explain why this can't be done.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #44
92. That's simply false and doesn't account for matters of scale
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 07:48 PM by depakid
and it's not up to me or anyone to attempt to disprove a negative. I'm just dealing with the reality of the numbers as they are- not as I wish they were.

90% of the US's power sources come from fossil fuels or nuclear power. How many gigawatt wind or solar power facilities are online in the states? None.

Potentially, solar thermal might produce gigawatt baseload power in some regions of the states- but it's not going to supply the East Coast with its current power needs. Nor is wind. Nor will tidal power or any combination of renewables- and the situation only gets more "complicated" as the world's petroleum resources start running down the depletion curve.

See, e.g. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9786445-7.html

Bottom line is that people in some regions are going to have to make due with less- a lot less, or use coal or nuclear to try to make up the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #92
164. Not satisfactory.
The sun provides much more energy than we could ever use. I did a rough calculation some years back, (Fermi math) and concluded that the energy needs of the US could be met by collectors of roughly the same area as the rooftops of all the structures in the US. That was based on the efficiency of solar cells at that time.

Fossil fuels are concentrated solar energy. If, as you say, ambient sunlight cannot satisfy our energy needs, then my math tells me those fuels will be used up. So then we will sit in the dark.

Nuclear is out of the question for me. Environmental hazards in refining and mining, thermal pollution from plant operation, and pileup of nuclear waste are problems far beyond the development of renewables. There are no solutions to the problems of nukes. (Hey, I'm not even counting security problems.) At least the problems you pose for renewables have theoretical solutions.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #164
167. "Nuclear is out of the question for me." Then you're a de facto coal advocate
Edited on Tue Aug-19-08 12:41 AM by depakid
because that's what'll end up picking up the slack on the grid if nuclear power plants aren't built.

PV solar can't come anywhere close to providing the necessary energy flows- not to mention that the sun doesn't shine at night.

Other ardent anti-nuclear folks (yours truly among them) have come to the same inescapable conclusion as Gwyneth Cravens:

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/12/nuclear_qa

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gwyneth-cravens/the-truth-about-nuclear-e_b_71193.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #167
170. I was a complete anti-nuclear power
person once upon a time. Cold reality trumps the unwillingness to change one's mind, however.

Your statement really sums it up well, anti-nuclear = pro-coal. That's the truth of the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #167
187. so by your logic, if no nukes, then only coal. Hmmmm. I run my house on wind.
seems I just busted your inane logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
42. See my post #41 re solar panels and public works projects. Nothing magical about it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TerribleLarryDingle Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. How bout Wind and Solar?
How many have they killed or made sick?

There are other ways to generate power you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #26
99. Not real power.
You know, megawatts of the stuff, the kind of stuff that factories and enormous cities use. The kind we'll need to power millions of electric cars, all zooming about with no carbon emissions and no smog.

Cutesie-poo PV panels ain't gonna cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #99
106. tell that to Amory Lovins
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 09:12 PM by wordpix
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. Why?
He's an anti-nuclear activist like many others. He has a vested interest in pushing his non-energy plans because he makes his living from an organization built around promoting the silly stuff.

Sustainables are great, and conservation magnificent, but there is a real, energy-thirsty world out there, and it's about to get a lot bigger. Satisfying the energy needs with real, proven technology is not optional, it's an absolute necessity. Whirligigs and solar panels can't do it, not in the near term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #110
177. he operates his home in CO solely on solar and conservation - we could all do that
CO is not exactly the SunBelt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
35. Uh, the reactor is fine
The dangerous thing here was the fire, nothing nuclear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. The local report:
Fire reported at Diablo Canyon Power Plant
By Tribune staff report
Posted on Sun, Aug. 17, 2008

A fire broke out at Diablo Canyon Power Plant early Sunday morning.

The fire was in the plant’s Unit 2 main bank C phase transformer.

According to Sharon Gavin, communications manager for the power plant, the fire was reported at 12:12 a.m. and extinguished about 14 minutes later.

An “unusual event” was declared because the fire was outside the plant’s normal activity. The event was called off at 2:31 a.m.

There was no threat to the plant’s nuclear reactors, Gavin said.

The fire appears to have been caused by a transformer failure in an area east of the plant's turbine building, according to a mid-afternoon release of additional information.

Unit 2 was shut down as a result of the fire, and remained shut down Sunday afternoon.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/breakingnews/story/442251.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
14. Nothing to look at here... everyone move along, no problem, just a NUKE ON FIRE.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ON FIRE. Nothing to worry about. Calm down.













JUST A NUKE ON FIRE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kirby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Nuke on Fire? I thought it was a transformer
in a completely different part of the plant?

Link please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. There are two links already posted on this thread if you look and
since that plant is fifteen miles from my house, I can tell you anything you want to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
47. It was sarcasm. Please refer to the original post for any factual information.
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 06:20 PM by truthisfreedom
I'm just screwing around here. Sorry I didn't put a sarcasm thingie in there. I'll do it now.

On edit: It's too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
36. And here we thought only the RW played the fear game well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Well, when our plant blows up because of human error or act of mother
nature, I will make a point of haunting you to remind you that there are some things you should be afraid of especially if they can be avoided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Your plant isn't going to blow up.
It isn't a nuclear weapon. It's a reactor. In a containment building. With redundant and over-engineered safety trips. You can stop living in fear, at least of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Nuclear plants can't "blow up."
This was a fire in a part of the plant that has nothing to do with nuclear power generation, radioactive materials, or waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. I know what happened in the plant. I live close to it.
It was in all the local news. So I suppose by your logic that since a fire can happen in one part of the plant, in the future it can't happen in another part. Never mind that we live in a fire zone, an earthquake zone with not one but many faults and the nuke plant is sitting in the caldera of an ancient and extinct volcano that is still hot enough to heat up sulfur springs in the area. But since nothing has happened so far, it never will in the future by your logic. However, even the company that operates the plant doesn't seem to think so. They have published emergency procedures just in case:

http://www.slocountyoes.com/emergencyplanning/index.html

Now how many electric companies have to do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #46
54. Every last one of them.
Standard safety regulations in every industry that deals with hazardous substances. Nobody is pretending nuclear material is Play-Doh, it's just not the "apocalypse waiting to happen" that the hysterics paint it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Well, I think the survivors of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl will beg to differ
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 06:37 PM by Cleita
with you. Also, every expert I have seen interviewed about this who have no problem with nuclear reactors have a big problem with the nuclear waste and most have said that this problem needs to be solved before they give their stamp of approval.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. There were nothing BUT survivors of TMI
And anyone who compares US reactors to Chernobyl instantly loses the argument at hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #59
69. Does that include the cancer survivors?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/study022497.htm

I mean just because you aren't turned into toast immediately doesn't mean that it won't affect your health down the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #69
77. That study was eyewash.
It directly contravened every other study done. Wing's findings are widely discredited by rsearchers from all over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #56
65. Three Mile Island
had all sorts of safety plans, and plans got more stringent after the incident (in which nobody was hurt or killed, I might add.) As for Chernobyl, well who the fuck knows what the Soviets had in mind; running a graphite-moderated reactor was stupid to begin with, and the damned thing wasn't even designed as a power reactor on the first place. Just raw stupidity there.

As to the waste, we already have a simple, perfect solution, but the scientific illiterates and fear-mongers refuse to allow it's utilization, so we'll just merrily burn coal until the whole fucking place fries.

Enjoy the global warming; it will be the fault of every whining NIMBY that pisses and moans about the cleanest source of power generation that isn't a tiny trickle coming off a PV cell or a wind turbine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. Yes, but what about all the people who got cancer, who didn't need too?
Also, Chernobyl increased cancer patients as far away as Sweden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. You have evidence of cancer
directly attributable to TMI? Bullshit. Do you know what the dose from the TMI incident was? About the equivalent of a single chest x-ray. That's it. One third of your natural exposure to background radiation in a single year.

It was nothing. Less than nothing. Bupkis. Nada. Nil. None. The null set.

As for Chernobyl; as I said, a graphite-moderated reactor designed for nuclear weapon production pressed into service as a power generator is inherently a joke, and we don't run plants of that design in this country. It was a dumb design.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #75
84. The first studies indicated a rise in cancer. Then the white washers came
in factoring smoking, eating twinkies and anything else they could do to water down the studies. Of course, it's their word against their word. If I had the resources I bet if you traced back who paid for those studies, then you would have the absolute truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. Baloney.
It just plain wasn't enough radiation to cause any harm. You get three times that much radiation every year just by existing. Ever had a chest x-ray? I've had one after a car accident, so that was my Three Mile Island experience equivalent -- I feel fine, thanks.

A non-issue. No white-wash was needed because no radiation worth worrying about was emitted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidnc76 Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #89
97. Toxie loves you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #65
112. There's a simple, perfect solution to the nuclear waste problem?
As to the waste, we already have a simple, perfect solution,

Do tell! This would be the first I've ever heard of such a thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #112
125. Nevada (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #125
131. Excuse me but Nevada is a beautiful desert state that is really pristine
in many place and not touched by man. One of the best bird wetlands I ever went to was in northern Nevada. The Ruby mountains have few roads and can only be hiked on or gone on horseback to climb them because the residents don't want to turn the wilderness areas into camping and hunting havens. Why do you think this state is appropriate for a garbage dump let alone a nuclear waste dump?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. You'll never know it was there,
anymore than the folks in Gabon knew they were sitting atop a billion+ year old deep geological nuclear waste repository. This really is a safe and proven concept, Cleita. Honestly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #133
137. No honestly you are wrong. Just how are you going to dig this out?
You are going to be disturbing layers of creation and caves and so much more that many don't even know that live in places like this. I used to be a spelunker and there is a whole ecology and system underground like there is in the ocean. It's not there for us to dig holes in, especially in Nevada or many of the so assumed desert waste areas of the west that humanity thinks they can destroy and modify for their needs because they are what is left of our natural undisturbed earth. Incidentally, I come from a mining background. I know how destructive digging holes in the earth is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #137
141. This is hopeless.
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 11:04 PM by Codeine
That's not even an argument, Cleita. Test bores have been drilled, the geology has been done; this isn't a random patch of ground, it's a specifically chosen area deemed geologically ideal for purposes of this project. The people involved really do know what they are doing.

I can't convince you, and I will cease trying to do so. Understand this, however; clean energy is needed now. This technology allows that. Lifestyles are not easily changed, and power generation is inevitable. The pie-in-the-sky hopes of the renewables are a nice dreams, but that's all they are. Dreams don't power a new generation of clean cars, or even this laptop. Where will we get our future power? Mostly coal, unfortunately.

You and your side have won the argument; nuclear power is finished in this country.

Ultimately I believe we will regret that being the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #141
144. Actually we wont regret it. But time will prove it to you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #133
189. Bullshit
US geological surveys have shown that Yucca Mt. is sitting within a nest of four active fault zones. The EPA has done dye tests starting from the cracks in the base of the Yucca repository, and found that the dye is showing up in Las Vegas groundwater within a couple of weeks. Geologists have also shown that groundwater regularly backs up into the Yucca Mt. repository, due to earthquakes, thus allowing the compromise of the waste containers, and washing and radioactive material back into the groundwater.

Sorry, but Yucca Mt. is a nuclear waste nightmare, and frankly burying it anywhere is a stupid idea, just handing the problems down to our children's children's children. We could always shoot it to the sun, a perfect place for the waste, but given the examples of Challenger and Columbia, atmospheric bursts could be a real killer.

There is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, and we shouldn't be in the business of creating more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #112
127. Then you don't really read much.
read about deep repositories. Read about the Oklo Fossil Reactors. Nuclear waste is easily stored in the correct environment, and will be rendered effectively harmless. By building these storage facilities we will just be following the lessons that nature taught us when it had it's own fissile reactors generating nuclear waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #127
132. Proliferation?
If everyone goes nuclear for their energy needs, I think it would take little math, the exponential type, that would prove that eventually you are going to run out of repositories. I know you hate us environmental types who actually like to use renewable resources and return waste to the land to be used again. Nuclear waste can't do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #132
134. Nuclear waste
doesn't really make a very good bomb, I'm afraid. The best you could do is a dirty bomb, and even that's a bit of a stretch. The stuff is difficult to handle.

I don't hate anybody. Internet arguments get more heated than they need be. Apologies.

Nuclear waste can be stored in such a contained way that the earth will be unaffected. And really, this is a stop-gap solution. The real future or energy, a century or so from now, will be fusion. Then it's no worries. We just need something that can be ramped up quickly with lots of MWs to get us off the coal teat. Nuclear fission reactors coupled with deep storage is the best short-term solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #134
138. I don't give a shit about bombs when it comes to this. I give a shit about
habitat even if it isn't ours. 50 millions years to compost is too long for our planet. sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #138
142. Then why did you bring up "proliferation?"
I'm puzzled. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #142
143. Different definitions for the word.
What I meant was if the nuke plant model became popular and they start popping up all over the planet, then that is what I meant by proliferation of the product. My point was that the more nuke plants there are, the more nuclear waste there is and if you want to multiply it over the years the less space for burial is available and that was what I meant by exponential.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #143
145. Oh, I gotcha. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. Running out of repositories isn't much of an issue.
Nuclear waste doesn't have a huge volume footprint, and the storage space can be as big as needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #135
165. Then how about storing it in your garage?
It's as safe as aspirin I hear. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #165
168. My garage isn't contained within bedrock. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #54
163. My power company does NOT send emergency procedures to its customers.
You are wrong as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
15. Just to add a note to this. I live in the area and Friday morning, after months
of drought where all our surrounding hills of chapparal are tinder dry, we had an hour of early morning lightening and thunder that ignited several fires around the county some of them near the nuclear plant. Although this fire is said to be because of a faulty transformer, maybe next time lightening or an arsonist started fire could be near the nuclear part of the plant. It's located in a canyon surrounded by brush and oak trees that can burn very brightly and quickly especially when we are in a drought. Not only that the plant sits on various earthquake faults and the whole area is geologically the caldera of an ancient extinct volcano that still heats up sulfur springs in the area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
45. I'm reading my way down the thread, & Cleita, some of these folks just do not want to listen at all
I live in Goleta, a hundred miles south of you more or less, and that's too close to the nuclear plant for me. Being a Californian living on several fault lines myself means it boggles my mind that they ever built that thing in the first place.

Forget terrorism for the moment. Wildfires are a threat. The crash of a small aircraft due to pilot error would cause a monumental disaster. Cracks in the holding ponds -- well, the list goes on.

'Tain't worth it. We have all the sunshine, wind, and coastline that we need for alternative energy.

Amazing that several posters really don't want to get it.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. I know and it frustrates me to have to knock heads with them, but
I know they really don't know what it's like living under this threat on a daily basis, especially when the reminders come like the Potassium Iodide pills they pass out, the siren tests on a regular basis. I don't think people who get their electricity from Hoover Dam have quite those reminders. They also don't realize that even though nothing really threatening has happened until now, it will only take one time to make it a disaster on the level of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. We don't get any other chances for error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Jeebus will make your power
with wind and technology that does not exist.

choose, coal fired, natural gas, or nuclear.

No other system exists for industrial demand.

Cant smelt metal on solar, 2nd and 3rd shift are out of luck..

TMI was not a disaster, other than financially, not a single death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. The technology does exist and is actually being used successfully in various
areas. It will take a committed government to get it to happen nationwide. We aren't getting it with the Jeebus loving Republicans though. They want to die and go to heaven any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #53
58. Like France?
they have modern nuclear power. I live near a reactor now. Other than the companies leaving SoCal to come here because it is to expensive to operate, I have no problems and never had an issue.

I grew up within 5 miles of a reactor. Flawless operation.

Sounds like a minor fire being used by some to push an agenda.

Greenpeace and sierra support reactors these days..

Carbon free and actually viable.

Westinghouse ap1000. No solar is being used to generate 500MW of continuous output.

You aren't getting it because it ain't ready for prime time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. I live on the coast of California. We have plenty of sun, wind and
water power. We don't need any nuke plant. What we need are progressive politicians who are willing take us to where we need to be. But that would upset the big energy companies behind the nuke plants so they make sure that people like Arnold are kept in office who protect their interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. Sun, wind, and water power
might serve to produce enough energy to power your local Starbuck's. Get real. Modern industrial existence takes a metric fucking shitload of energy (to use the strictly scientific measurement ;) )and that amount of raw power is not going to be fed with some PV panels and a couple of whirligigs on the ridgeline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Get real.
I know people who run their whole house on solar. My husband and I had solar panels on our trailer that enabled us to run our appliances and lights, even TV when we were out in the middle of the woods. It works. If all roofs in my state were fitted with solar and reverse meters we could sell power back to the power companies to run larger industrial complexes like hospitals and factories. But don't take my word for it, there are scientists out there with degrees who have said the same. There are articles in the recent popular science magazines like Discover and Scientific American who have written articles on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. Home energy
and industrial energy are not the same thing. Not even close. Big power use demands big energy production. We need to generate the enormous amounts of power needed to run the next generation of electric automobiles while also providing power for factories and businesses public works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #76
86. So then maybe existing plants could fill in for this, but there is no need
for new nuke plants when alternative energies can take the pressure off. And, in my home county we don't have industrial needs because we are a vacation resort and agricultural area. So we don't need that nuke plant at all. If your area wants to buy it and move it into your area be my guest. Oh, get used to paying the high bills. This energy is not cheap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #86
91. It's not cheap
because NIMBYs and scientific illiterates have made it impossible to build the damned things. And we will need new power sources because we will have new energy demands. Energy demand is not a constant.

And that's not even considering the huge amount of energy Asia will need as China and India move into our level of affluence. Nuclear power is a 100% absolute-no-questions-asked necessity there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. Again what are they going to do with the nuclear waste?
No one has a satisfactory solution for this. I could make a suggestion. Take it to the moon, but that would be so costly, it hardly makes the technology worth it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. Taking it to the moon is a terrible idea.
Rockets have an unfortunate tendency to explode. Vaporized waste sprinkling down on a bunch of confused Floridians = not good.

Anyway, deep storage is the way to go. The plans exist, but everybody is such a whiny child so frightened of the Radioactive Bogeyman that they can't think straight and so we never get it rolling. Consequently, we store it at the plants themselves or in temporary holding facilities, which is really stupid.

Ironically, the forces of anti-nuclear have only succeeded in making nuclear waste MORE dangerous by eliminating proper storage development.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #95
120. I'm glad that we agree it's a terrible idea because it's all a terrible idea.
If your deep storage plan is so good, why don't you do an in depth post on it, separate from this thread, with all the resources and references that prove that whiney child stuff about radioactivity is just that. So far all you have been able to do is call out names and snotty dismissive adjectives about shrill hysteria and fear mongering with help from those Kremlin guys. I always find when people have nothing to say they wind down to the ad hominem attacks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #120
128. I just did a post about downthread.
Complete with a little bit about the Oklo reactors and their waste created over a billion years ago. it's firmly stored in a deep geological depository, made by nature. We're simply following the lead that our planet has shown us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #95
180. deep storage is the way to go? Tell that to Nevadans living near Yucca Mt.
And what about the transportation to get it there? Who will watch the trains and trucks on the highways and railroads to make sure all is safe? Who will GUARANTEE the safety of nuclear material so it isn't spilled, stolen or bombed during transit.

NO ONE WILL because it's impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #68
111. Perhaps you didn't see this from Friday? 239,000 homes worth
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 09:30 PM by mbperrin
http://yourprojectnews.com/news_item.php?newsID=9073

PG&E Signs Historic 800 MW Photovoltaic Solar Power Agreements With OptiSolar and SunPower
Friday, Aug 15, 2008

Solar Projects Would Supply Enough Renewable Energy Equivalent to the Energy Needs of 239,000 Californian Homes

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Pacific Gas and Electric Company today announced it has entered into two utility-scale, photovoltaic (PV) solar power contracts for a total of 800 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy. This significant commitment to photovoltaic technology will deliver cumulatively 1.65 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable energy annually. This would be equivalent to the amount of energy needed to serve approximately 239,000 residential homes each year.

PG&E entered into an agreement with Topaz Solar Farms LLC, a subsidiary of OptiSolar Inc., for 550 MW of thin-film PV solar power. The utility also signed a contract with High Plains Ranch II, LLC, a subsidiary of SunPower Corporation (NASDAQ:SPWR) , for 250 MW of high-efficiency PV solar power.

"These landmark agreements signal the arrival of utility-scale PV solar power that may be cost-competitive with solar thermal and wind energy," said Jack Keenan, chief operating officer and senior vice president for PG&E. "We will continue to explore such innovative technologies as we aggressively work to increase the amount of renewable energy we provide our customers."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #111
113. By the 2000 Census
there were 11.5 million households in California. This project is less than a drop in the bucket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #113
122. build 60. That's 15 million households. More than enough.
Then we don't need any of the current filthy options.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #122
126. That's just households.
Industry? Transportation? You know those electric cars will need their juice too, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #111
115. Did you know
that on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 California residents set a new record peak demand of 45,597 megawatts of electricity.

800MW, eh? Pissing in the wind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #115
119. It's the size of a nuclear reactor. And the first.
But go ahead and feel free to dump your nuclear waste in my drinking water less than 50 feet underground right here in west Texas. After all, those solar panels have so many side effects, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #119
124. We'll be dumping the nuclear waste in
a deep geological repository, in Nevada. It's safe. Do some reading. Stop being a scare-monger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #124
147. Stop with the bullshit already! Yucca Mtn. is NOT safe! At ALL!
ALL of the "studies" by the repuke idiots that want to push eveyone elses waste in MY BACKYARD have been PROVEN to be FALSIFIED and outright LIES!

YUCCA will NEVER happen. Count on it.

YUCCA has so many thing wrong with it there's not enough space to list them all...

And as far as "NIMBY" - you're damn right about that! Nevad produces ZERO nuke waste and we're being FORCED to store all your GARBAGE - well - it ain't NEVER gonna happen!

Over my dead body!

We are prepared to lay down our lives to stop this travesty by the REST of the fucking country on MY State!

You don't know what the fuck you're spewning...that's for sure!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #147
153. Breathe, buddy.
You're hyperventilating. You and I both know you're not going to lay your life down for anything other than another Hostess snack cake, so let's back off the melodrama, mmkay?

Tell me, how is Yucca Mountain not safe? What element of it's design is flawed? What makes that site and it's bedrock uniquely permeable to substances we know can be stored for incredible lengths of time in identical environments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #153
161. Really?
You don't know Nevadans. However I have a feeling you wouldn't try to enter the state and prove that Hostess snack cake thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #161
173. Well, if Obama wins
Excitable Boy won't have to "lay down his LIFE!!!!" for the issue, as Obama has pledged to cancel the project.

I guess he can't be right about everything. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #119
139. Actually,
nuclear reactors can make way more than 800MW. The San Onofre units make about three times as much as that and that's with one of the reactors retired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #119
140. I'm guessing that you have no idea how much toxic material is involved in PVC solar
that are already finding their way into groundwater....

Very nasty stuff.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #140
188. Oh so I guess some toxic is okay with you, but the other toxic isn't?
That doesn't make sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #115
121. So build 60 of them. By math, that's 48,000 megawatts.
More than enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Throckmorton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #121
190. Actually, its not enough
The capacity factor for solar power approaches 25% in Southern California, at about 5.8 full power sun hours per day, on a yearly average.

So to meet 45,000 MW-hours of demand, from solar sources, will require a gross generation of about 188,000 MW peak. Or about 232 800 mw solar installations, provided you can store the energy and release it over the dark hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #68
179. uh, are you PAID by the nuke utilities or what? Sure sounds like it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #179
183. Damn, I wish.
I could use the cash.

I wonder if you ask the folks who support PV or wind power the same question. This is just my opinion based on my reading. I think nuclear is the way to go. :shrug: No underlying profit motive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #63
73. Don't build them
free country. Just dont complain when your power is 10 times what mine is. Don't complain when anything that likes cheap power leaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #73
83. This is another myth. We do not have cheap power. It's very costly.
So if you think you are going to have cheap power guess again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. I see the bills
for massive operations. I work in industrial shops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. Our household bill for a small trailer and a three bedroom house is
over $350 a month. I'm trying to talk the family into getting solar panels with reverse meters. Our roofs face west and are up on a hill so the sun shines on them from sunrise to sun down. I figured out what we could get for what we use and we could sell electricity back to the electric company. It works for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. Bull, I live fifteen miles from a plant, and I don't live in fear
You do because you apparently don't understand that US plants are not constructed like Chernobyl, and that plants do not "blow up."

And I'm guessing that those sirens aren't just for the plant. They are tested everywhere, for all sorts of disasters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. No. They are just for the nukes. They aren't any use for anything else unless
for air raids, which is what they were used for in WWII. However, they probably won't work if a meltdown comes. The last earthquake we had knocked half of them out of service along with the electricity, cell phone towers and many of the roads. The only think left working were the telephone land lines. I'm willing to bet that a nuclear emergency will do the same to the sirens as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. So your area doesn't have
fires, prisons, flooding, tornados, or anything else sirens are used for? I've never been to such a place, must be nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #64
82. It is nice. Flooding is rare because we are a semi-desert. Tornadoes usually
form over the ocean and aren't that strong. We call them water spouts. Fires burn out the electric lines that the sirens are powered with so they are pretty useless there and quite honestly you can see the smoke from the fires in plenty of time to evacuate. We have prisons but they don't use the air raid sirens for them either except maybe within a couple of miles of the prison. Earthquakes knock out the electricity which power the sirens so they are pretty useless for them too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
108. a place where fires and earthquakes abound sounds like a perfect site for a nuke plant
NOT. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #108
117. Nevermind. I'm just a whiney, fearful type.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
25. I have it on good second hand authority that this is what happened.

I know a PG&E contractor with contacts inside the company who says that the "non-nuclear event" was a transformer explosion large enough to blow out several windows of an office building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. This isn't a secret. It was on the news.
So it wasn't a nuclear accident. The problem is that the day those close calls do become a nuclear accident, what then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. I haven't followed this
A good friend told me about what he knew
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElZorro Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
33. Problem solved...
Just go to the store and buy a few candles... no need for any more coal, wind, solar, nuclear power plants... that's a great plan guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #33
159. Hi there.
Yes, it's a great plan because with the fabulous nuclear plant we have, we often have to do that because there is no electricity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
51. And McGoo says Nukes are safe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. See USN
millions of hours of problem and carbon free power.

Other than nevada, who we already nuked with real bombs, pretty much win win.

Apple had a fire over the weekend..Apples are BAD, thermal fire...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. So, since you are such a smart person, if Nuke plants are built across the
world to handle all of humanities energy needs, where is all that exponentially extra spent radioactive waste going to go? Nevada can't hold all of it in the decades to come for the millions of years it needs to decompose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. Breeder reactor
technology can fuel a peer in 5 years.

nevada is a big state. We dropped 61 nuclear weapons on them, I think they can handle reactor waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. How about we put it in your back yard?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. If they put it in a deep repository
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 06:54 PM by Codeine
of geologically stable rock thousands of feet deep my backyard would be just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #66
90. That still doesn't solve the problem of where you are going to
put your radioactive waste. Whose back yard are you planning on...Nevada?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #90
94. Read my post.
Deep geological repository. Nevada is ideal; it has the needed geology to develop this sort of storage area.

Have no fear, however; your lot have, sadly, won the argument with effective use of shrill hysteria and scare-mongering, with a little help from the idiots in the Kremlin. Nuclear power - safe efficient, and carbon-free - will never be allowed to fully develop and help us move away from the destructive energy systems we use now, and airy-fairy pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams like solar will always be a drop in the bucket.

Enjoy your global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #94
116. You obviously haven't read the latest on global warming.
It turns out that a lot of that smut in the atmosphere keeps things cooler. When it all goes the sun shines through. I don't know what to think of this latest piece of speculation and I kind of hope it's crap, however, think about it.

I do resent the shrill hysteria and scare-mongering accusation. Maybe you have come to the wrong forum. Oh, I love the "idiots in the Kremlin" reference. Reminds me of all those commies who are really convenient scapegoats when there is no one else to blame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #116
129. Idiots in the Kremlin
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 10:18 PM by Codeine
referred to the imbeciles that OK'd the Chernobyl reactor, not a reference to any pernicious activities occurring here. I'm an actual Communist, so you won't hear me make that claim. ;)

Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #94
150. Nevada is FAR from "ideal" - it's been PROVEN unsafe ALREADY!
Stop with pushing your OPINION as "fact" - you are COMPLETELY wrong on this one...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #150
154. LOL! Calm down, tiger.
Tell me, how is it unsafe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #150
155. Finally a Nevadan willing to bring the truth out. n.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #155
156. The Truth?
He's just screaming some half-assed talking points. Putting them in ALL-CAPS doesn't make them any MORE TRUE!!!! Even with extra EXCLAMATION POINTS and HYPERBOLE!!!!! !!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #156
157. Not everyone is as glib as you.
He's defending his state in the only way he can. Please don't be so rude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #157
158. Touche! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #66
181. that's what they thought Yucca Mt. was, until the trickles of water streamed down
Edited on Tue Aug-19-08 10:26 AM by wordpix
and scientists now find the area is geologically unstable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #61
67. Please, got one
, adding more.

Sharron Harris runs rtp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #61
74. Lol.... Good Reply
Do people realize how long it takes for a Nuclear power plant to actually make any return... how expensive and how fricking dangerous it is? How about investing money in alternatives like SOLAR, WIND, GEO-THERMAL, TIDAL...... geeeee.... let's just keep wasting money while we waste time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #74
78. Westinghouse AP1000
the regulations make it a pain in the ass. See the us navy. Not running on pipe dreams.

My power is supplied by a reactor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #74
80. sorry "ignored"
but you are on ignore....lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #80
87. When all else fails
like a kid with fingers in his ears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #60
81. Just ask yourself for how long. Also, there are residents of Nevada
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 07:45 PM by Cleita
who don't think that their state should be a nuclear dump. For those whose experience in Nevada is Las Vegas or Reno, this state is one of the few left whose natural features haven't been touched that much by man. There are mountains that are like they were when Europe invaded America full of wildlife, wetlands and other ecological wonders. The whole north is a natural preserve that hasn't been polluted by men. Why would we put our nuclear waste there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #81
96. Because deep underground
it will have zero impact on anyone or anything. Such storage is safe and efficient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #96
114. Deep underground, where?
Maybe some old mines? Who is going to get all that concrete down to places that are filling up with water and other liquids?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #114
123. Do some reading, Cleita.
Deep geological repositories are built in areas with special sorts of geology, where the stable bedrock will contain the radiation.

"How do we know it will contain it," you ask? Very easily. About a billion-and-a-half years ago in a site geologically identical to the proposed depository sites there was a naturally-occurring fission reaction, in essence a natural-made nuclear power plant, complete with moderating. These are known as the Oklo Reactors, or the Oklo Fossil Reactors.

It's really quite remarkable, and it ran for a few hundred thousand years before conditions were no longer ideal. There were actually three of these reactors very close to each other, and they are the only known natural nuclear reactors to ever exist. The half-life of the uranium involved makes it impossible for any of these reactions to ever occur naturally again.

About seven tons of nuclear waste material were formed in the end, and they have been immobile and stable for over a billion years. If we place our nuclear waste in a similar environment, but with modern containment vessels, it will be as harmless as is imaginable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #123
152. Again - more BULLSHIT! All recent studies show that YUCCA is GEOLOGICALLY UNSTABLE.
plus water leaks like a SIEVE there.

YUCCA IS NOT STABLE AT ALL!!!

ALL studies (by the nuke industry, naturally) that have said otherwise HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALSIFIED AND LIES!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #96
151. BULLSHIT! The water is ALREADY leaking from the site - it's on a MAJOR fault line...
Storage is NOT safe there by all reports by the experts...

It will have MAJOR impact on MILLIONS almost IMMEDIATELY - you forget the transport of the crap...

Why did mcINSANE make a law PREVENTING of any transshipment thru HIS state?!?!

and, BTW, Texas and Arizona have already been proven MUCH SAFER for any "storage" but was immediately NOT even considered...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #151
160. How about linking to some of those reports
beats shouting about it....;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #160
171. He read it on a blog.
In between Bigfoot reports.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #60
149. BULLSHIT!
Nevada never produced the stuff. YOU produce it - YOU keep the waste!

Simple solution.

The casks leak, the caves leak and are GEOLOGICALLY UNSTABLE. Ground water is already leaking from the site - and OUR ground water will be CONTAMINATED if this is built.

AND, to top it all off - it will relquire BILLIONTS of gallons of water WE DON'T HAVE TO SPARE!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #149
192. Sorry, Nevada it is. You got the shaft
61 air bursts and a nuclear dump. That is reality.

The government will move the water in if the state plays games.

The feds will win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #52
148. You can keep your CRAP out of OUR State!
Bury it in your own backyard.

YOU want it - YOU keep the garbage...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidnc76 Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #148
191. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
71. LOL... "no radiation danger, plant says"....Sorry...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #71
79. How could there be?
The fire was well away from the portion of the plant that deals with nuclear materials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #79
105. Says who?
The same sort of propaganda announcements that laid 911 on a bunch of Iraqis with boxcutters? Of course they're going to say it was well away from the nukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. Ai yai yai
That's the best you've got? There's not even any good way for there to BE a fire on the nuclear side of things. A transformer blew up. Happens all the time both in and out of power plants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #79
182. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #182
184. It's OK to ask me if that's true.
Out-and-out accusations are a little beyond the pale. I am but a humble and poverty-stricken blue-collar, paycheck-to-paycheck sort. No money flowing from Big Nuclear's coffers into mine, I'm afraid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-18-08 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
118. Pocket billiards anyone n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
162. I can remember protest marches to shut down this insane plant
in the late seventies... maybe they should have listened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #162
166. We still have the same people
in charge of what happens here in charge. What can I say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #162
172. That would have been great.
Two or three coal-powered generators pumping untold billions of tons of shit into the air 24/7 instead of a clean, safe plant quietly powering Californians. My goodness, it sounds like Paradise. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #172
174. Yes it would have, if the staggering bundle of loot that went into this monster
and continues to pour into it had gone into researching and developing renewable energy resources instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #162
193. I was one of those protesting diablo canyon. I was wrong.
Doesn't matter either way.

The greatest threat to our civilization and the natural environment is our innumeracy. We could bury nuclear waste along with the ordinary trash and it wouldn't kill so many people as our moldy-bread-for-brains ignorance does.

I suspect we'll be running the nuclear reactors at diablo canyon long past their expected lifetime whilst wishing we had more... well at least so long as the oceans don't rise or some witless researcher commits a random act of deux ex machina that gives us more than enough energy to complete our civiliztion's slow messy suicide.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
175. Wow
one fire, with no danger of a radiation leak, after 23 years of providing clean electricity to 3 million homes. Clearly we should have put that money in to coal power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-19-08 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
178. Paging Garrett Morris(former SNL-er) "We need someone to go in and clean up the leaked water" ...
Edited on Tue Aug-19-08 10:17 AM by Blackhatjack
A classic Saturday Night Live Skit had Garrett Morris (playing a janitor) called om to clean up water that leaked inside a nuclear reactor.

The bogus assertions by the nuclear plant officials that there was absolutely no danger and the look on Garrett's face said it all ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC