Calvert Cliffs-3 Reactor License Denied; NRC Licensing Board Rules In Favor Of Intervenors, Says Ato

Calvert Cliffs-3 Reactor License Denied; NRC Licensing Board Rules In Favor Of Intervenors, Says Atomic Energy Act

uspolitics.einnews.com

In a 29-page decision, the ASLB agreed with intervenors that the Calvert Cliffs-3 project would be in violation of the Atomic Energy Act's prohibition against foreign ownership, control or domination, and that the project's owner, UniStar Nuclear, is eligible neither to receive a license nor to even apply for a license. UniStar is 100% owned by the French government's Electricite de France.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?

It's almost as if America is doing everything it possibly can to destroy itself.

Unistar energy wants to build a reactor that will cost almost ten billion dollars, employ thousands of people, generate 1.65 gigawatts of electricity (enough to provide power for 1.2 million people) for 60 years. It would benefit the great great grandchildren of those who would have built it.

Yet it was denied. Not because the operator is not competent. Not because the reactor design is unsafe.

But because they're French.


uspolitics.einnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by C0bzz


It is kind of ironic, given the fact Amoco was offered up in sacrificial fashion to BP (a BRITISH firm) with nary a peep...

From your original source:

"Marylanders need not fear another dangerous nuclear reactor in our state, nor the accumulation of still more lethal radioactive waste on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay.

For several years, I lived within 30 miles of the plant. I never feared the plant. These stories are so full of hyperbole and rhetoric it is sickening.
ETA: For example, this further quote from your source:

That contention argued that the Environmental Impact Statement for the project understated the potential contribution of solar and wind power as alternatives to Calvert Cliffs-3.

How many wind and solar power generators would it take to equal what the nuclear plant would generate? I have an idea it was absolutely, unequivocally, beyond reasonable doubt, CORRECTLY stated!

And yet...the nutsoes win out again...

Originally posted by C0bzz
Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?

Unistar energy wants to build a reactor that will cost almost ten billion dollars, employ thousands of people, generate 1.65 gigawatts of electricity (enough to provide power for 1.2 million people) for 60 years. It would benefit the great great grandchildren of those who would have built it.

Yet it was denied. Not because the operator is not competent. Not because the reactor design is unsafe.

But because they're French.


uspolitics.einnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 31/8/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 31/8/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 31/8/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

You know what els its will give our grandchildren? Cancer, Heart Disease, Down-syndrome, and a vast number of other genetic related diseases. Oh yeah and that nuclear waste that they will have to store for hundreds of thousands of years. We have proven that the human race is not at a level where we can handle nuclear power. I mean we probably shouldn't use it at least till we have a solution to the waste problem. Its actually a win for me, maybe not economically but generally its a win.

reply to post by totallackey


Im sure some people in Japan and the Soviet Union thought the same thing. "These reactors have to be safe, the gov. said so" but they probably don't think the same now. But I guess out of sight out of mind.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

You know what els its will give our grandchildren? Cancer,

Gotcha...cancer did not exist prior to the advent of nuclear generated electricity...

Heart Disease,

Gotcha....same with heart disease...ZERO cases of that prior to nuclear energy...

Down-syndrome,

OMG!!! No Down Syndrome prior to nuclear energy...how could I be so blind!?!

and a vast number of other genetic related diseases.

This is AMAZING...How could I have forgotten all these other VAST NUMBERS!?!

Oh yeah and that nuclear waste that they will have to store for hundreds of thousands of years.

It appears we are already storing it...got any news proving we are having extreme difficulty with the storing of these materials?

We have proven that the human race is not at a level where we can handle nuclear power.

Who is we? Got a mouse in your pocket or something?

I mean we probably shouldn't use it at least till we have a solution to the waste problem.

We are already using it...to provide electricity to homes, businesses, etc., and to power warships...and we are storing the waste..

Its actually a win for me, maybe not economically but generally its a win.

What did you win? A booby prize?

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

You know what els its will give our grandchildren? Cancer, Heart Disease, Down-syndrome, and a vast number of other genetic related diseases

Total nonsense.

The radiation emissions from nuclear power stations are extremely well known as are the effects of those radiation emissions. Those effects are in reality not higher, but actually lower, than other competing energy sources. Try actually reading the science (Externe, SOARCA, BEIR) about radiation and nuclear energy, rather than just regurgitating pop-culture crap.

Oh yeah and that nuclear waste that they will have to store for hundreds of thousands of years.

More total nonsense. Nuclear waste is only more radioactive than the ore it was mined for a few hundred thousand years, but the problem is, the ore the fuel it was mined from doesn't tend to be very radioactive, thus using that as a setpoint for the time-period it needs to be safely stored and confined for is completely arbitrary.

The most dangerous component of the waste, fission products, which are the only actual waste that is innate to nuclear power, are more radioactive than the ore for a few hundred years. The rest could be burned in fast reactors.

Its actually a win for me, maybe not economically but generally its a win.

It wasn't stopped for any of the (false) reasons you stated. But because the company is not american. I'm betting if this was applied to other infrastructure, then perhaps a lot of other infrastructure wouldn't get built.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by BriGuyTM90

 

You know what els its will give our grandchildren? Cancer,

Gotcha...cancer did not exist prior to the advent of nuclear generated electricity...

Heart Disease,

Gotcha....same with heart disease...ZERO cases of that prior to nuclear energy...

Down-syndrome,

OMG!!! No Down Syndrome prior to nuclear energy...how could I be so blind!?!

and a vast number of other genetic related diseases.

This is AMAZING...How could I have forgotten all these other VAST NUMBERS!?!

Oh yeah and that nuclear waste that they will have to store for hundreds of thousands of years.

It appears we are already storing it...got any news proving we are having extreme difficulty with the storing of these materials?

We have proven that the human race is not at a level where we can handle nuclear power.

Who is we? Got a mouse in your pocket or something?

I mean we probably shouldn't use it at least till we have a solution to the waste problem.

We are already using it...to provide electricity to homes, businesses, etc., and to power warships...and we are storing the waste..

Its actually a win for me, maybe not economically but generally its a win.

What did you win? A booby prize?

First I never said any of those things didn't exist before nuclear power so I don't know why your pointing it out? Your mocking of me about the VAST NUMBER of genetic diseases doesn't change the fact that they still occur in people who's relatives where exposed to radioactive isotopes. We are still storing the spent fuel in what was supposed to be temporary storage ponds and still have not come up with a solution to storing it long term. Most of our older reactors have spent fuel pools with 4x the amount of spent fuel that they were originally designed for. and NONE of it is in longer term storage. So we re not have trouble storing it we are still in the process of figuring out how to do it. WE = Humans. The rest of your post I'm just not going to respond to sense its just immature joking.

reply to post by totallackey


The number of wind turbines that it would take to replace the 1650 MW of power would be as follows:
Typical wind turbine produces 2 MW
Typical capacity factor of 25% to 27% because they only produce 2 MW at wind speeds in excess of 30mph. The production drops off dramatically with wind speeds less than this. If the wind speed is half of whats rated, the power output drops by a factor of 8.
Sooooo..... 1650 MW divided by 2 MW equals 825 wind turbines, However with only a 25% capacity factor. We have to multiply this by 4.
So 825 x4 = 3300 wind turbines needed to replace this power plant
Hmmm, I wonder how much area this would cover.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

First I never said any of those things didn't exist before nuclear power so I don't know why your pointing it out?

The implication of your statements within your post were clear. You cannot backpedal a bicycle and expect to move forward.

Your mocking of me about the VAST NUMBER of genetic diseases doesn't change the fact that they still occur in people who's relatives where exposed to radioactive isotopes.

Just post the numbers of the VAST NUMBER and do a comparison of pre-nuke energy and post-nuke energy, along with a statement demonstrating conclusive correlation, and I will write a public retraction, along with an apology for what you consider as, "mocking you." Until then, my reply, which you interpret as mocking, stands. If you interpret my reply as, "mocking you," that would be a strong indicator you understand your position on this matter is highly untenable. I suggest you act on it and correct: A) the way you express your thinking; or, B) your thinking.

We are still storing the spent fuel in what was supposed to be temporary storage ponds and still have not come up with a solution to storing it long term. Most of our older reactors have spent fuel pools with 4x the amount of spent fuel that they were originally designed for.

Evidently it is apparent some safeguards were built in for excess storage.

and NONE of it is in longer term storage. So we re not have trouble storing it we are still in the process of figuring out how to do it.

WE = Humans.

If WE= humans, then we would not be in a state of existence where nuclear energy was currently used.

The rest of your post I'm just not going to respond to sense its just immature joking.

I really do want to know what you won...tell me and the rest of the readers what you won.
Yeah, you were the one stating we were having trouble storing it...Looking for solutions to many varied problems is a constant process relating to a myriad of issues.

Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by BriGuyTM90

 

You know what els its will give our grandchildren? Cancer, Heart Disease, Down-syndrome, and a vast number of other genetic related diseases

Total nonsense.

The radiation emissions from nuclear power stations are extremely well known as are the effects of those radiation emissions. Those effects are in reality not higher, but actually lower, than other competing energy sources. Try actually reading the science (Externe, SOARCA, BEIR) about radiation and nuclear energy, rather than just regurgitating pop-culture crap.

Oh yeah and that nuclear waste that they will have to store for hundreds of thousands of years.

More total nonsense. Nuclear waste is only more radioactive than the ore it was mined for a few hundred thousand years, but the problem is, the ore the fuel it was mined from doesn't tend to be very radioactive, thus using that as a setpoint for the time-period it needs to be safely stored and confined for is completely arbitrary.

The most dangerous component of the waste, fission products, which are the only actual waste that is innate to nuclear power, are more radioactive than the ore for a few hundred years. The rest could be burned in fast reactors.

Its actually a win for me, maybe not economically but generally its a win.

It wasn't stopped for any of the (false) reasons you stated. But because the company is not american. I'm betting if this was applied to other infrastructure, then perhaps a lot of other infrastructure wouldn't get built.

edit on 31/8/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

I was talking about the effects of nuclear accidents and not emissions. We re averaging a major accident once every 10 years or so. Also Im not regurgitating pop culture crap Ive done my own research on this topic. I was speaking of spent fuel when I said waste, and yes when every thing works right nuclear energy can be a great source of power. But as has been proven every thing doesn't always work right. And when it doesn't the consequences can be devastating. I don't know if you've been keeping up on the news but we are far from being out of the woods in Japan. If one of these things melted down in your area I'm sure you'd have an entirely different view on how good and safe nuclear power is.

reply to post by totallackey


I wasn't back pedaling I just stated that I never said that and that your argument was irrelavant I still stand by what I said.

www.reuters.com...

Today in Ukraine, 6,000 children are born every year with genetic heart defects. More than 3,000 will die for lack of medical attention. Children born since 1986 are affected by a 200 percent increase in birth defects and a 250 percent increase in congenital birth deformities. 85 percent of Belarusian children are deemed to be Chernobyl victims: they carry “genetic markers” that could affect their health at any time and can be passed on to the next generation. UNICEF found increases in children’s disease rates, including 38 percent increase in malignant tumours, 43 percent in blood circulatory illnesses and 63 percent in disorders of the bone, muscle and connective tissue system.

www.chernobyl-international.com...

Stating that Radioactive contamination isn't link to genetic defects is just denial. No need to apologize I really don't care

Originally posted by totallackey

 

We are still storing the spent fuel in what was supposed to be temporary storage ponds and still have not come up with a solution to storing it long term. Most of our older reactors have spent fuel pools with 4x the amount of spent fuel that they were originally designed for.

Evidently it is apparent some safeguards were built in for excess storage.

and NONE of it is in longer term storage. So we re not have trouble storing it we are still in the process of figuring out how to do it.

WE = Humans.

If WE= humans, then we would not be in a state of existence where nuclear energy was currently used.

The rest of your post I'm just not going to respond to sense its just immature joking.

I really do want to know what you won...tell me and the rest of the readers what you won.
Yeah, you were the one stating we were having trouble storing it...Looking for solutions to many varied problems is a constant process relating to a myriad of issues.

Just show me the documentation that these safeguards were put in place and the studies that show that this is adequate for long term nuclear fuel storage and I will retract my statement about spent fuel storage. Also your wrong about my usage of the word we and I don't know why you brought it up to begin with. its a win for me is a figure of speech but then again I dont know why you bring it up?

double post sorry

Originally posted by C0bzz

Calvert Cliffs-3 Reactor License Denied; NRC Licensing Board Rules In Favor Of Intervenors, Says Atomic Energy Act

uspolitics.einnews.com

In a 29-page decision, the ASLB agreed with intervenors that the Calvert Cliffs-3 project would be in violation of the Atomic Energy Act's prohibition against foreign ownership, control or domination, and that the project's owner, UniStar Nuclear, is eligible neither to receive a license nor to even apply for a license. UniStar is 100% owned by the French government's Electricite de France.

(visit the link for the full news article)

My problem with the nuclear power industry is that in the event of another meltdown they have limited liability. Why? If nuke power was so safe why would you need the federal government to insure your ass?

I worked in a nuke plant for 18 months and in my opinion they should be shut down.....

Secondly, I don't believe that a foreign country should be buying of building American infrastructure. Or have contracts for things like shipping ports and such....

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


Technically its the American people that will pay for the accident sense the money will come from their tax dollars. Also the only reason people think nuclear energy is so cheap is because it is given large subsidies by the Gov. The new plants in Georgia are gonna cost around $20,000,000,000 but the utility will only pay a part of that and the rest will be covered with tax dollars. Also Fukushima is expected to cost $250,000,000,000 to decommission the site and surrounding areas.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

I was talking about the effects of nuclear accidents and not emissions. We re averaging a major accident once every 10 years or so.

From here, we can see there have been 29 accidents. Divided by (approximately) 60 years, this equates to an average of 2 per ten years. Out of these 29 accidents, Fukushima and its after effects are, as yet, undetermined. As for the rest, you can read the results of the studies. 93 confirmed casualties as a direct result of radiation from the accidents. I would state you have no case for the rhetoric you are printing here.

Originally posted by totallackey
I would state you have no case for the rhetoric you are printing here.

What?

He referred to MAJOR accidents and you referred to accidents. I don't know why you're disputing him, I think you're both right.

The lack of adequate liability coverage is more than adequate justification to not allow foreign owners but the liability coverage should be addressed for domestic owners also. Obviously the major accidents have shown how inadequate the liability coverage is.

reply to post by totallackey


I'm well aware of that list and as I'm sure you are there is a completely separate list of military nuclear accidents which would increases the rate of accidents. Also that number is skewed most of the studies are done by a regulatory commission (IAEA) which states its purpose is to PROMOTE peaceful nuclear power generation and receive a lot of their funding from the nuclear industry. Also people that didn't die from acute radiation sickness just don't matter? or how about the children that got thyroid cancer from Chernobyl and is clearly about to happen in Fukushima at a higher rate. Yes, a lot of them will survive thyroid cancer but does it makes it ok that they got it in the first place? or that their children will have a higher chance of getting it? But like I said until this happens in your back yard it doesn't concern you does it?

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

Stating that Radioactive contamination isn't link to genetic defects is just denial. No need to apologize I really don't care

I never said that radioactive contamination is not a link to genetic defects. It certainly can be. But that is not how you stated your case in the beginning. You stated your case with this opening salvo:

You know what els its will give our grandchildren? Cancer, Heart Disease, Down-syndrome, and a vast number of other genetic related diseases.

It is clear from this statement, you do not like nuclear power and want it eliminated because of the potential of exposure alone...If this is the case, then actively campaigning against all known causes of birth defects would be a wise move, correct? How long will that take you? Need some help? Easter Seals is a good place to start.

From your source of reuters:

The findings, reported in the journal Pediatrics, stand in contrast to a 2005 U.N. report stating that there is no evidence of an increased risk of birth defects or other reproductive effects in areas contaminated by radiation from the Chernobyl accident. The results point to a need for continuing research into birth defects in regions affected by chronic low-dose radiation from Chernobyl, according to researcher Dr. Wladimir Wertelecki of the University of Southern Alabama in Mobile.

There are obviously conflicting studies; therefore, no direct causation/correlation can be determined.
The chernobyl international site is shilling for money. Compare this statement:

Children born since 1986 are affected by a 200 percent increase in birth defects and a 250 percent increase in congenital birth deformities.

to these from reuters:

The findings are "not definitive," Wertelecki said.

and

It also lacked data on women's diets. This is important because the birth defects that were elevated in Rivne can also result from fetal alcohol exposure or, in the case of neural tube defects, a deficiency in the B vitamin folate early in pregnancy. "In the Ukraine," Wertelecki said, "alcohol is also a problem. Malnutrition is also a problem."

As for your VAST NUMBERS increasing because of nuclear energy contamination, let us compare the rates:
neural tube defects -- serious anomalies of the brain and spine, including spina bifida
Area of Rivne - 22 out of 10,000 versus 9 per 10,000 for the rest of Europe
Polissia - 27 out of 10,000 versus 18 per 10,000 for the area of Rivne
Conjoined twins
Area of Rivne - 0.6 percent versus 0.2 percent average estimated for Europe
Sacrococcygeal teratomas
Area of Rivne - 0.7 percent versus 0.25 to 0.5 percent known studies published inclusive.

Two other birth defects -- microcephaly, where the head is abnormally small, and microphthalmia, in which the eyes are undersized -- were more common in Polissia than in other regions of Rivne. There were 3.7 cases of microcephaly for every 10,000 children in Polissia, compared with 1.3 per 10,000 in the rest of Rivne; the rate of microphthalmia was 1.8 per 10,000, versus 0.4 per 10,000 in other regions.

It is QUITE evident the reports of this study was CHERRY PICKED and comparisons were made TO OVERSTATE the issue (appeal to emotion).
You and others who like to trump up your positions with hyperbole and patently false claims need to take a step back.