Nuclear Plant Destroyed...On Purpose

Recently UPI posted a story about the planned demolition of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant in Ranier, OR on 5/21/06. The pinnacle of the demolition was the controlled implosion of the plant's 499 foot cooling tower.



Initially I decided to post this news-tidbit due to the all-too-cool pictures of the cooling tower during its demolition. Upon reflection, two thoughts crossed my mind:

1) I believe that this is the first of what will be a series of public admissions that nuclear energy is not the fossil-fuel replacement is was heralded to be. Despite the fact that many nuclear plants operate at a significant loss, their mere presence was at least a minor thorn in the fossil-fuel industry's side. Should a prolonged decomission campaign be undergone, the oil companies' strangle hold on the energy consumer will tighten even further.

2) Now the PTB have a clear understanding as to how to drop a nuclear cooling tower back on its foundation. Let's hope that the only similar events we see in the future are intentional, controlled demolitions and not acts of real or false-flag terrorism.

Going...


Going...


Gone.


Images Courtesy of Seattle Times

[edit on 31-5-2006 by chaosrain]

Chaosrain,
Thanks for the cool pics and all. But I am just wondering one thing. You said it was a failed experement in nuke power. I am not really up on all the ins and outs of nuke power. Could you let me know what it was that failed in there nuke power plant?

One failure does not justify a complete failure of the whole idea. There are dozens of nuke plants in our country alone working just fine. From what I know the only two serious incidents in nuke power history are Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The one in Oregon could have failed as a result of bad management and/or inexperienced workers contributing to inefficient maintenance and workmanship.

Nuclear energy does provide a much higher yield in energy supply, and although it is not a clear solution to fossil fuel energy, it does fill in a gap to aleviate some of the demand on fossil fuel.

Originally posted by RedGolem
Chaosrain,
Thanks for the cool pics and all. But I am just wondering one thing. You said it was a failed experement in nuke power. I am not really up on all the ins and outs of nuke power. Could you let me know what it was that failed in there nuke power plant?

In the case of this particular reactor, the failure was the fact that at no time during its operation did it cease to hemmorhage cash. As a viable economic replacement for fossil fuels, any replacement must be able to produce energy at a profit.

As for technical failure, that was not my point. I agree that technical failures of nuclear power generation facilities are few and far between. Most of the failures or near-failures of US reactors were directly related to poor maintenance more than anything.

Ultimately, however, when vying for a place in either a global economy or American capitalist economy failure and success are measured in dollars. In this case, the state of Oregon determined that nuclear power was infeasible in their state. This reactor was a pilot designed to demonstrate the economic viability of nuclear power as a replacement for fossil-fuel based electricity generation. Not only was this plant destroyed as a testament to that economic failure, but Oregon's entire nuclear energy effort was effectively scrapped with the destruction of this reactor. Short of technological advances or massive economic shifts in the energy market, Oregon has given up on nuclear power altogether.

I'd call that a failure.

Chaosrain,
I see thanks for the exsplanation.
It is unforchanent that this plan did not show the be profatable. It seems strange when so many others aparently are. Hopefully what ever problems there were will be fixed elsewhere.

Actually, nuclear power may be profitable, but not sufficiently so to be worthy of the investment:

Once the massive construction costs are factored in, nuclear plants simply aren't as profitable as their competitors, coal and gas-fired plants.

"It's not as if Greenpeace killed the industry. Guys in pinstripe suits on Wall Street killed the industry," said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington.

From: Forbes

To consider environmental issues alongside economic ones, nuclear still loses:

The specter of caps on carbon emissions--which many in the power industry believe are inevitable--certainly increases the appeal of nuclear power, which is emissions-free. But even with the run-up in natural gas and coal prices, nuclear is not profitable without a raft of government subsidies. Still, with the largess it extracted from the government last year, the nuclear industry may have put even the ethanol lobby to shame.

From: Forbes

The article goes further to demonstrate that one of the greatest expenses for nuclear energy generation is covered directly by the US government...waste collection and storage. So, like the US airline industry, the profit is made on the backs of massive government subsidy. Nice work if you can get it, but you're effectively making money from a collective gouge on the American people, not from your faculties as an effective business manager.

Now it seems that as a component of an overall energy generation policy, nuclear power definitely has its place, as it limits reliance on fossil fuels and offers no carbon emissions for its effort. But one must consider the mindset of the profit-centric investor. It is a collection of these very minds which have managed to sell us vehicles with declining efficiency, packaging materials which contribute to overall energy consumption on a staggering scale, and pet rocks. As an American investor and consumer I fully comprehend the "sacrifices" made and the shortcuts taken in the name of capitalism, but capitalism buoyed by government subsidy is robbery.

Ultimately, I think that some would argue that in exchange for the waste produced and the costs of initial investment, we would be better off putting that money into R&D for an even more viable energy generation system. An important component of any growth strategy is the ability to know when to quit and move on, or change direction. There has to come a point when people say, let's not build another reactor, let's give a shot at a solar powered methanol machine to extract hydrogen OR let's stop subsidizing energy production and look to subsidizing manufacturers for significant reductions in energy consumption associated with the products they produce.

Chaosrain,
I do think those are some of the most wise words I have read in a lont time.
And thus I doubt any person in a position of authority will pay them a passing glance

I'm sure this is not your intended point here but as far as the cooling tower itself >> It's only a hollow shell. The only thing in a cooling tower is honeycomb plastic panels in the base . I've worked inside one several times. It would be alot more complicated to demolish a 2 story building and make it land on its foundation than this thing.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the economics of Nuclear Power. Its a common understanding in our field that it's only a matter of time before several more plants with more modern technology and design will be constructed. I'm a Spent Fuel and Refuel Tech for several different plants. I can tell you that the company I usually work for has already been approved to start construction on a new reactor in 08'. and another company in the south has also been approved for a new plant construction.