Comments on: Op-Ed: Regulators Say Indian Point Nuclear plant is safe, But Can Chernobyl-On-The-Hudson Happen?

By: anon for this

anon for this — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:08:47 +0000

Raphael Kaufman, thanks for the correction about new power plants. I see now that Georgia Power is building a couple of new units at Vogtle, where is the other new unit?
But besides for regulatory/ licensing costs, nuclear plants are just much more expensive to build than fossil plants.

By: Raphael Kaufman

Raphael Kaufman — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:35:45 +0000

P.S. there can never be a Chernoblyl-on-the-Hudson (except for New Square). The Indian Point reactors are not graphite pile reactors as was Chernonyl and cannot catch fire. There could, however, be a Three Mile Island-on-the-Hudson. (Please note that the Three Mile Island accident had no measureable negative effect on the surrounding countryside even after thirty years).

By: Raphael Kaufman

Raphael Kaufman — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:30:11 +0000

#1, the fact is that nuclear fuel is even cheaper than coal on a dollar/btu basis. When Indian Point was operated by Con Ed, it had the lowest incremental cost (the total cost to operate, including fuel, maintenance,payroll and taxes) of any powerplant in their system by a factor of ten. In new reactor designs which have an initial fuel charge good for thirty years at ful power (like naval reactors), the incremental fuel cost is essentially zero as the fuel is part of the original cost of theractor.

#2, The the actual equipment and labor cost to build a nuclear power plant is roughly the same as the cost of a comparable fossil fired plant of (and about 1/4 the cost of a wind or solar plant of the same capacity.) The construction cost of nuclear plants has been artificially inflated by making inspection and licensing particularly onerous and time consuming thereby drastically increasing the finance costs (cost of money).

#3, The NRC has recently approved licenses for construction of three new power plants.

By: anon for this

anon for this — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:00:59 +0000

Regarding building new nuclear plants, no new nuclear plants have been planned since Three Mile Island. In any case, one issue in siting new plants is getting the power to the grid. Adequate transmission lines are necessary for that.

Nuclear plants in this country originally were licensed for 20 years; as the licenses expire many companies have been applying for and receiving 20 yr license renewals for functioning plants.

Hydroelectric plants are environmentally better in the sense that they don’t pollute. But people aren’t willing to have rivers diverted and water flows disturbed to accomodate them. The effects on migrating fish is another issue; currently water flow is diverted from existing plants for spawning salmon.

Many people die or become sick every year due to particulate pollution from coal plants.

By: esmith92000

esmith92000 — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:40:06 +0000

The fact that you know of few Americans killed by power plants does not mean it doesn’t happen, but that’s not the main point of my reply.

The fact is that this plant is situated in about the worst possible spot. I am not suggesting that it be shut down immediately. However, we might consider building another plant to replace it, in some much less populated area. If my memory serves me correctly, Montana has the least dense population, but I have no idea about faults in the area, or any other problems. One problem that hits me right away is the lack of water. However, somewhere with a less dense population would seem to me to make sense.

As to nuclear plants being better environmentally, that would depend upon the window you are using to measure it. They certainly produce some waste we haven’t figured out what to do with yet. Also, hydro electric plants are usually cheaper and better environmentally than any of the others you mentioned.

As to nuclear plants being cheaper, they are certainly more expensive to build, and depending upon their lifetime, their cost may or may not be able to be spread over a long enough time span to make the electricity they generate cheaper.

As to people being killed, coal is certainly the worst offender in that regard, if you include mining the coal.

By: akuperma

akuperma — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:29:06 +0000

If you really want to be safe, try avoiding all electricity. Afterall, all the Gedolim prior to the mid-19th century made no use (zero, effesh, nada, zilch) of electrical applicans, and that didn’t prevent them from living a full life.

Any power plant is inherently dangerous. Just think of all the Americans killed by power plants. Think very hard.Think very very hard.

Nuclear plants are cheaper and better environmentally than the alternatives. Solar plants are “clean” but produce little electricity. Coal is cheaper, but much dirtier (and that is ignoring the questionable theory that buring coal affect climate).