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

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

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.

No documentation necessary...The FACT the material is where it is and there have been no incidents clearly demonstrate, as of right now, there were contingencies in place at the time of construction and these contingencies are currently sufficient. Granted, things can happen and it may be exceeding desired capacity, however, strain and excess are expected in all human endeavor and are accounted for when possible.

Also your wrong about my usage of the word we and I don't know why you brought it up to begin with.

I brought it up because you are made THIS statement...

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

It is obvious WE have been ready for 60 years!

its a win for me is a figure of speech but then again I dont know why you bring it up?

A figure of speech indicating you have WON something! Now please, share with us what you have won...

reply to post by fltcui


I have not thanked you for the post. Excellent work! S for you!

reply to post by totallackey


OK so your gonna go with the we don't have any definitive proof? To be honest with you with you I dont need a double blind study to tell me there is an increased number of genetic defects in that area. Its quite obvious to any one that looks at it.

www.slate.com...



go ahead and wait for your definitive study that says that says those deformities and disorders were cause by the accident, but you might be waiting a while.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90


So in other words, the statistics are wrong because they don't support your deluded viewpoint. Yet another wonderful leap in logic brought to you by ATS.


Nuclear is the best power source available to us now, and the French are certifiable experts on it, getting close to 80% of their power from nuclear. And how many nuclear accidents do you hear of coming out of France, hmm? Chernobyl and Fukushima were both caused entirely by human error and aren't inherent issues with nuclear power.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

What? He referred to MAJOR accidents and you referred to accidents. I don't know why you're disputing him,

I am disputing the hyperbole. 93 confirmed casualties, directly attributable to nuclear accidents, over a course of 60 years, is nothing compared to the number of fatalities related to other power plant disasters. Please read.

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.

My issue with foreign ownership is this. We allow in terms of BP taking over Amoco and running refineries and drilling sites in the US. Do you not believe this is a little hypocritical? As far as liability, you will have to demonstrate the inability to provide adequate compensation. I am unaware there is any indication this is the case. Whether you think it is obvious or not. This is not a "sky is blue," type of discussion.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by BriGuyTM90

 

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.

No documentation necessary...The FACT the material is where it is and there have been no incidents clearly demonstrate, as of right now, there were contingencies in place at the time of construction and these contingencies are currently sufficient. Granted, things can happen and it may be exceeding desired capacity, however, strain and excess are expected in all human endeavor and are accounted for when possible.

Also your wrong about my usage of the word we and I don't know why you brought it up to begin with.

I brought it up because you are made THIS statement...

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

It is obvious WE have been ready for 60 years!

its a win for me is a figure of speech but then again I dont know why you bring it up?

A figure of speech indicating you have WON something! Now please, share with us what you have won...

First you are wrong Fukushima has proven that spent fuel storage does not have adequate safety measures. 4 fuel pools lost most if not all of their water, #4 caught on fire and released large amount of of radioactivity into the environment. Now two of the reactor buildings are on the verg of collapsing and spilling the spent fuel out of the pools. The contingencies are not currently sufficient just because you say so. The whole argument you put forth is basically that because the nuclear industry is currently doing something there for its safe based solely on the fact that they are doing it. I questioned your questioning about my grammar because we are discussing nuclear power and not the English language. And we obviously haven't been ready for 60 years if we cant keep our nuclear reactors form melting down and blowing up. But yeah keep bringing up things like the way I worded my sentences it adds a lot of value to this discussion.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by BriGuyTM90

 

So in other words, the statistics are wrong because they don't support your deluded viewpoint. Yet another wonderful leap in logic brought to you by ATS.


Nuclear is the best power source available to us now, and the French are certifiable experts on it, getting close to 80% of their power from nuclear. And how many nuclear accidents do you hear of coming out of France, hmm? Chernobyl and Fukushima were both caused entirely by human error and aren't inherent issues with nuclear power.

No that's your opinions I said the statics where wrong because they are biased in favor of the nuclear industry and that there are obvious reasons to believe other wise. Fukushima wasn't caused by human error it was caused by nature over coming the design bases that the reactors where built to withstand. But why is human error not an inherent issue? I think its a pretty big issue considering the consequences.

The french have had 12 accidents
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

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.

Add those in and come up with a new number of casualties. Then compare that number to the number attributed to conventional warships and conventional power plants and let us all know the results.

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.

What is wrong in promoting peaceful nuclear power generation? Got proof they were skewed or is this speculation? I believe it is the latter. Show me your data set.

Also people that didn't die from acute radiation sickness just don't matter?

I posted the numbers. The death toll included those who died as a result of acute radiation sickness. Of course it matters.

or how about the children that got thyroid cancer from Chernobyl and is clearly about to happen in Fukushima at a higher rate.

People get thyroid cancer from other sources as well. Are you pushing just as hard to eliminate all those sources? The jury is still out on Fukushima and nothing about that picture is clear at all. Or do you also believe in crystal balls?

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?

Again, you are arguing from emotion and it is quite evident. I utilized the numbers and language from your own resources to make this quite evident. When you can cease with the emotion and start to utilize your thinking cap, then come back and discuss it.

Nobody, especially me, has stated people do not matter or there is no reason for concern. But your line of reasoning is faulty and if it was followed to its logical conclusion, we would still be cowering in fear in some cave, with nothing but two sticks to rub together. So stop backpedaling. Nuclear power is REAL. It has been REAL for over 60 years. The comparative studies have clearly demonstrated it is safe, clean, and efficient, in comparison to all other forms.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90


Fukushima was human error because some idiot thought putting a nuclear reactor right on top of an active fault line next to the ocean was a good idea.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

To be honest with you with you I dont need a double blind study to tell me there is an increased number of genetic defects in that area. Its quite obvious to any one that looks at it.

A) If you are content in your ignorance, then yes you do not need a double blind study.
B) If you are going to use a single study as evidence to support your emotional appeal, then it will need to be conclusive and falsifiable.

Because it is NOT OBVIOUS!

reply to post by totallackey


The problem with PROMOTING nuclear power is that they are a regulatory commission. Yes the proof is that there are large number of birth deformity in former soviet russia after Chernobyl yet the IAEA still states there's no connection between them. They have an agenda to promote yet they are looked at as a unbiased regulatory commission which to me is absurd.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

First you are wrong Fukushima has proven that spent fuel storage does not have adequate safety measures. 4 fuel pools lost most if not all of their water, #4 caught on fire and released large amount of of radioactivity into the environment. Now two of the reactor buildings are on the verg of collapsing and spilling the spent fuel out of the pools. The contingencies are not currently sufficient just because you say so.

Fukushima is, no doubt, a tragedy. And we will learn from it. As another poster already identified, I cannot see the wisdom in building a plant on top of a known fault line; however, that does not warrant a conclusion that all plants are Fukushimas waiting to happen. This is your argument.

The whole argument you put forth is basically that because the nuclear industry is currently doing something there for its safe based solely on the fact that they are doing it.

You show me one time in any of my responses where I stated this...just one time. I stated nuclear power generating plants are the safest, cleanest, and most affordable, compared to other sources. I have numbers to back that claim up. I did not make this claim because the nuclear industry is "currently doing something."

I questioned your questioning about my grammar because we are discussing nuclear power and not the English language. And we obviously haven't been ready for 60 years if we cant keep our nuclear reactors form melting down and blowing up. But yeah keep bringing up things like the way I worded my sentences it adds a lot of value to this discussion.

I never made a mention of your grammar. I have called into question your tendency to make emotional appeals and use of hyperbole to make your claims. If you eliminate it, we may make progress in this discussion. If not, you will be left behind.

Civilian nuclear power generation...that involves the use of fission reactor's, is an obsolete form of electric power generation; as demonstrated by our other-worldly friends who visit our planet in fusion plasma-encased starships.

Foofighter's

Erno86

I never said nuclear power wasn't feasible. I believe that nuclear power should part of our future. I don't how ever agree with the way its being handled and is most likely going to continue to be handled. There are other reactor designs that are much cleaner and safer yet we still use reactor designs that where originally designed for producing as much plutonium for nuclear weapons as possible not for SAFE power generation. molten salt reactors are a lot safer and don't produce transuranics. But there is big oppositions for the uranium industry because it uses thorium as fuel and not their product. Also we need a regulatory agency thats not in bed with the industry its regulating. Nuclear power can work and can be clean and but but that's not what it is right now. But As long as there are greedy people controlling the industry and building reactors to make a profit and not to be safe I am opposed to it.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

The problem with PROMOTING nuclear power is that they are a regulatory commission.

Image courtesy of i1.kym-cdn.com...
So, let me get this straight...in essence you do not want regulatory commissions to ensure or promote activity in any particular endeavor...Better tell the FAA, EPA, FDA, and all other individual government or international regulatory commissions, to cease and desist all oversight and stop promoting the safe and peaceful use of airline travel, the surrounding environment, and growth and manufacture of, respectively, food and pharmaceuticals. Oh yeah...sounds like a GREAT PLAN!!! Are you freaking serious?

Yes the proof is that there are large number of birth deformity in former soviet russia after Chernobyl yet the IAEA still states there's no connection between them. They have an agenda to promote yet they are looked at as a unbiased regulatory commission which to me is absurd.

After having bantered back and forth with you in this thread, I am of the belief bicycles are an absurd thing to you; however, I am going to give this one more shot...
1) The IAEA has continued to monitor Chernobyl and will continue to do so.

We are all familiar with the sad outcome of the 1986 Chernobyl accident. It led to the deaths from radiation sickness of around 50 people engaged in the immediate emergency and recovery operations. Some 600 000 people were affected by high radiation doses. The Chernobyl Forum - made up of representatives from the IAEA, the governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and other international organizations - concluded some years ago that around 4 000 of them may die prematurely in the coming decades as a result of their exposure. The social consequences of the accident were extensive. More than 100 000 people were evacuated from their homes immediately after the accident and the total number of evacuees from severely contaminated areas eventually reached 350 000. This was deeply traumatic for all concerned and had a lasting impact on their lives.

2) Has the IAEA made a public statement there is no correlation between Chernobyl and an increase in birth defects? Do you have a source that proves this? The IAEA could make the statement there is no connection between Chernobyl and increases in birth deformities because there has been no study that conclusively links the two.
AND,
3) For the final time, CORRELATION ≠ CAUSATION.

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. It is a common fallacy in which it is assumed that, because two things or events occur together, one must be the cause of the other. By contrast, the fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, requires that one event occur after the other, and so may be considered a related fallacy.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90

I never said nuclear power wasn't feasible.

I know. I never claimed you did make that statement.

I believe that nuclear power should part of our future. I don't how ever agree with the way its being handled and is most likely going to continue to be handled.

Again, nuclear power is already a very real part of our past/present/future. People did not/do not like automobiles, sailing ships, electricity in DC or AC form, airplanes, microwaves, and vaccines. They did not/do not like the way they were/are being handled. But all of these things are also part of our past/present/future. How do we handle this? Image courtesy of photobucket
First, if you notice there is a lot going on in that box Pandora opened...We are dealing with all of it the best we can; however, the littlest item of all is still near the opening of the box...it is labeled HOPE! I believe that needs to be the focus. The things we have in place may very well be killing us. But we were killing ourselves prior to the things we have in place.

There are other reactor designs that are much cleaner and safer yet we still use reactor designs that where originally designed for producing as much plutonium for nuclear weapons as possible not for SAFE power generation.

I agree. Weapons grade byproducts should not be the goal of nuclear energy power plants. Hence the mission statement of the IAEA.

Molten salt reactors are a lot safer and don't produce transuranics. But there is big oppositions for the uranium industry because it uses thorium as fuel and not their product. Also we need a regulatory agency thats not in bed with the industry its regulating. Nuclear power can work and can be clean and but but that's not what it is right now. But As long as there are greedy people controlling the industry and building reactors to make a profit and not to be safe I am opposed to it.

MSR's are viable and they have been built. There are factions of people with a lot of stake in their particular products. The airline executives prefer you to fly versus the rail line executives who prefer you to ride the train versus the auto executives who prefer you to drive. An industry can only survive and remain profitable as long as it is as safe as possible. Given accidents are bound to happen regardless of what humanity puts their minds and hands and effort toward, it is best to proceed with caution.

But I do not agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Originally posted by totallackey
As far as liability, you will have to demonstrate the inability to provide adequate compensation. I am unaware there is any indication this is the case.

Limited Liability – Nuclear Energy’s ‘Mother of all Subsidies’

The nuclear energy industry only exists thanks to what insurance experts call the “mother of all subsidies”, and the public is largely unaware that every nuclear power plant in the world has a strict cap on how much the industry might have to pay out in case of an accident.

In Canada, this liability cap is an astonishingly low 75 million dollars. In India, it is 110 million dollars and in Britain 220 million dollars. If there is an accident, governments – i.e. the public – are on the hook for all costs exceeding those caps.

Japan has a higher liability cap of 1.2 billion dollars, but that is not nearly enough for the estimated 25 to 150 billion dollars in decommissioning and liability costs for what is still an ongoing disaster at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Seven weeks after the tsunami caused the disaster, radiation levels continued to spike higher.

No one knows when the reactors will finally be in cold shutdown, or when the costs of the Fukushima disaster will stop piling up. One report suggests decommissioning will take 30 years.

We don't know the total cost but this puts a range to it based on buying up land within 20km of the plant:
Fukushima cleanup could cost up to $250 billion

the costs of the accident could range from nearly 71 to 250 billion dollars. The figure includes 54 billion to buy up all land within 20 kilometers of the plant, 8 billion for compensation payments to local residents, and 9 to 188 billion to scrap the plant's reactors.

We probably won't know the cost for 30 years. So what about outside the 20km area? Are they adequately cleaning this up? According to their own adviser, some schools are not safe, see below.



TEPCO to be nationalised for at least 10 years
Not only could TEPCO not survive the liability burden without the government stepping in, but even the government is harshly criticized for making safety standards looser lower the liability costs:

Government Adviser Quits Post to Protest Japan's Policy on Radiation Exposure for Fukushima Schools

TOKYO—A prominent Japanese radiation safety specialist has resigned his governmental advisory post in protest over what he calls "inexcusable" standards for school children in Fukushima Prefecture. The Yomiuri Online news web site reported in Japanese this evening that Toshiso Kosako, a radiation safety expert at the University of Tokyo, feels the standards are too lenient and that his advice has been ignored.

Basically Japan wants to set the limit for exposure to schoolchildren at 20 times higher than the general public limit of 1 mSv/yr, to the elevated exposure allowed for limited periods of time for radiation workers:

What is the basis for the ICRP limit for a member of the public of 1 mSv/y and of 20 mSv/y for the occupational radiation worker?
Note that radiation workers are only allowed temporary (maximum 5 years) exposure to such elevated levels according to that link. The full liability costs are not being recognized due to the refusal of the Japanese government to apply the 1 mSv/y safety standard to even its schoolchildren.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
And how many nuclear accidents do you hear of coming out of France, hmm? Chernobyl and Fukushima were both caused entirely by human error and aren't inherent issues with nuclear power.

These are two of the lamest argument I've ever heard.

How many nuclear accidents did we hear of coming out of Japan before Fukushima? Is this supposed to convince us that there's no risk of an accident in Japan?

Regarding the human error, even if what you say is true about accidents being caused by human error, how does this not make human error not an inherent issue with the safety of nuclear power? As far as I know all nuclear plants still have humans in them so as long as they do, human error will always be a possibility. Everything about them is influenced by human error including design, construction, operation, maintenance.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Thanks for the reply. It certainly does demonstrate the liability is spread over the shoulders of many; however, anytime a posted source fails to provide names and only refers to their sources as "experts," it certainly calls into question the validity of what is contained in the article. I take reports like these with a grain of salt. Spotty and iffy journalism. Having stated that, there is this source I found:

The structure of insurance of nuclear installations is different from ordinary industrial risks. Insurance (direct damage and third party liability insurance) is placed with either one of the many national insurance pools which brings together insurance capacity for nuclear risks from the domestic insurers in the local country, or into one of the mutual insurance associations such as Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) or Overseas NEIL based in USA or EMANI and ELINI based in Europe. These are set up by the nuclear industry itself. Third Party liability involves international conventions, national legislation channeling liability to the operators, and pooling of insurance capacity in more than twenty countries. The national nuclear insurance pool approach was particularly developed in the UK in 1956 as a way of marshalling insurance capacity for the possibility of serious accidents. Other national pools that followed were modeled on the UK pool - now known as Nuclear Risk Insurers Limited, and based in London. The mutualisation of insurance risks began with the forerunner of NEIL in 1973.

There is a primary reason for the spreading of risk:

On the other hand it was realized that nuclear power makes a valuable contribution to meeting the world’s energy demands and that in order for it to continue doing so, individual operator liability had to be curtailed and beyond a certain level, risk had to be socialized.

So, the liability after the insurer pays, does fall to the government (aka, the taxpayer). But the concept present in liability caps on individual operators and the resultant hand-off of liability to the government is present with many other industries.

Finally, we get to what I was stating before hand. The "chicken little syndrome," as opposed to the "China Syndrome."

Experience over five decades has shown the fear of catastrophe to be exaggerated, though the local impact of a severe accident or terrorist attack was shown at Fukushima in 2011 to be considerable, even with minor direct human casualties. Prior to that, the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 was taken as being indicative.

Like I said earlier, all of these wondrous things we have at our disposal are very real. And there is certainly reason for caution. But, like spilled milk in the kitchen, we clean up our mess and move along.

Originally posted by totallackey
So, the liability after the insurer pays, does fall to the government (aka, the taxpayer). But the concept present in liability caps on individual operators and the resultant hand-off of liability to the government is present with many other industries.

This doesn't make it right.

And yes we try to clean up the mess, but increasing the the radiation exposure of schoolchildren up to 20-fold in Japan indicates that we may not be able to do such a good job of that.