Nuclear power and bureaucracy

scaeagles · 08-08-2005, 09:18 AM

I'm a bit irked.

We have the largest nuclear power plant in the US (used to be in the world, but I'm not sure about that anymore) on the outskirts of Phoenix - Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

They are about to undergo a 700 million dollar project to boost power output.

I'm all for progress, right? But the projected boost of power output? 3%.

I'm thinking this sounds a bit pricey. What does a new nuclear plant cost? So I did a bit of looking around.

A new plant being built in Finland (which gets 27% of their power from nuclear plants) is projected to cost between 1.75 and 2.25 billion Euros. 2.25 billion Euros comes to just under 2.8 billion US dollars, or about 4 times the cost of the expansion at Palo Verde.

The reason they are doing this is because they can't build a new one. Government won't allow it. But they will allow expansion of the facility. I am glad that there are plans to start constructing a new one for use in 2010, but only one?

We only get around 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. Even with waste issues it is by far the least polluting option for electricity. New designs are Chernobyl proof. I cannot understand why we will construct new plants for North Korea but not for ourselves.

It is time to start catching up to (gak! I hate to say it) France in this department, as they get about 75% of their power from nuclear plants.

Not Afraid · 08-08-2005, 10:28 AM

Hahahaha. The French RULE!

There's nothing I love more than the absurdity of government decision making. It seems the our government is unable to take a look at the big picture and make good decisions accordingly. This is a perfect example, Leo. I worked for local government for 10 years and I can cite a million examples of a similar nature - though not quite as groosly stupid as this one.

The driving factor here - fear. Politicians fearing a backlash from their constituency and a public that has an uninformed fear of nuclear energy.

€uroMeinke · 08-08-2005, 07:07 PM

Having actually worked at a Nuc plant, I'm also an advocate for nuclear power. Unfortunately, it's unpopularity contributes to making it so costly. Instead of having a national reserve for storing high level waste, spent fuel is just being stockpiled at each site - transforming a safe solution into a more dangerous one.

Each energy source has a downside. I've been to "clean" coal burning plants, but even there the smell of coal dust permeates the air, solar cells manufacturing process creates plenty of carcinogens, and wind power is often dismissed as unsightly and a bane to migratory birds.

My personal preference is a diversity of energy sources to spread the risk of any real or imagined shortages - but nuclear could definately be a bigger part of the mix.

sleepyjeff · 08-08-2005, 09:07 PM

Next time one of those Asteriods come close to the Earth we should tie a line to it and connect that line to a generator.....then as the Asteriod pulls the line.....bam. Free elecricity(yes, I do have too much time on my hands

)

scaeagles · 08-08-2005, 09:45 PM

Um....ok, sleepy. Go back to sleep.

scaeagles · 08-08-2005, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Having actually worked at a Nuc plant

Exceptionally cool. Engineer?

€uroMeinke · 08-08-2005, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Exceptionally cool. Engineer?

LOL - nope, records and compliance. But it's nice to know me and Homer have something in common.

wendybeth · 08-08-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

LOL - nope, records and compliance. But it's nice to know me and Homer have something in common.

Besides beer and donuts?

scaeagles · 08-09-2005, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

records and compliance.

Ick. I am so freakin' sick of bureaucracy like that. I program stuff for government contractor, and since Enron, so much stuff has been passed to prevent fraud that I now spend around 40% of my time on bureaucratic record keeping. It's enough to make look for other employment (well, almost).

Not Afraid · 08-09-2005, 09:54 AM

Be careful. That's whaat pays the bills around here.

08-08-2005, 09:18 AM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Nuclear power and bureaucracy I'm a bit irked. We have the largest nuclear power plant in the US (used to be in the world, but I'm not sure about that anymore) on the outskirts of Phoenix - Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. They are about to undergo a 700 million dollar project to boost power output. I'm all for progress, right? But the projected boost of power output? 3%. I'm thinking this sounds a bit pricey. What does a new nuclear plant cost? So I did a bit of looking around. A new plant being built in Finland (which gets 27% of their power from nuclear plants) is projected to cost between 1.75 and 2.25 billion Euros. 2.25 billion Euros comes to just under 2.8 billion US dollars, or about 4 times the cost of the expansion at Palo Verde. The reason they are doing this is because they can't build a new one. Government won't allow it. But they will allow expansion of the facility. I am glad that there are plans to start constructing a new one for use in 2010, but only one? We only get around 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. Even with waste issues it is by far the least polluting option for electricity. New designs are Chernobyl proof. I cannot understand why we will construct new plants for North Korea but not for ourselves. It is time to start catching up to (gak! I hate to say it) France in this department, as they get about 75% of their power from nuclear plants.
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2005, 10:28 AM	#2
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	Hahahaha. The French RULE! There's nothing I love more than the absurdity of government decision making. It seems the our government is unable to take a look at the big picture and make good decisions accordingly. This is a perfect example, Leo. I worked for local government for 10 years and I can cite a million examples of a similar nature - though not quite as groosly stupid as this one. The driving factor here - fear. Politicians fearing a backlash from their constituency and a public that has an uninformed fear of nuclear energy.
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2005, 07:07 PM	#3
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	Having actually worked at a Nuc plant, I'm also an advocate for nuclear power. Unfortunately, it's unpopularity contributes to making it so costly. Instead of having a national reserve for storing high level waste, spent fuel is just being stockpiled at each site - transforming a safe solution into a more dangerous one. Each energy source has a downside. I've been to "clean" coal burning plants, but even there the smell of coal dust permeates the air, solar cells manufacturing process creates plenty of carcinogens, and wind power is often dismissed as unsightly and a bane to migratory birds. My personal preference is a diversity of energy sources to spread the risk of any real or imagined shortages - but nuclear could definately be a bigger part of the mix. __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2005, 09:07 PM	#4
sleepyjeff Go Hawks Go! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parkrose Posts: 2,632	Next time one of those Asteriods come close to the Earth we should tie a line to it and connect that line to a generator.....then as the Asteriod pulls the line.....bam. Free elecricity(yes, I do have too much time on my hands ) __________________ River Guardian-less
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2005, 09:45 PM	#5
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Um....ok, sleepy. Go back to sleep.
	Submit to Quotes

08-09-2005, 09:54 AM	#10
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	Be careful. That's whaat pays the bills around here.
	Submit to Quotes

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode