If you think wind and solar can sustain a baseload, have fun not having electricity. Me and the rest of the country will keep our lights and our nuclear units. I live less than 10 miles from Sequoyah and sleep like a baby at night.
The Navy has been safely running nukes for over 50 years and these same designs have been implemented for commercial nuclear power for over 30. There has never been a major accident from a US plant that has killed people. The odds of that happening are on the order of 1 in 10,000,000 in a lot of cases. The people in this area and the country support this technology and you won't be able to wipe the smiles off our face the day they connect Unit 1 to the grid.
@nrutledge01 You continue to miss the point with your continuous nuclear propaganda. Radiation is released from nuclear power plants, the fuels process does kill and accidents do occur. But yet, you and those like you in your support of nuclear power continue with the deceit. You do not present the risks, the hazards, the failures nor the truth. Deceit and propaganda in nuclear program management is not a desirable quality for those involved in nuclear materials and management,
Unless a bunch of nuclear workers are going swimming in the spent fuel pool every day and dying as a result of it (which isn't happening), this idea of "thousands of people dying" simply is not true.
@nrutledge01 Not my figures, Department of Energy and Department of Labor's figures. It is your comments which are not true. Do your research, it is the fuels process which is killing workers. The nuclear industry has not told the truth about nuclear power and neither do you.
Now, let's look at Chernobyl-4, the worst nuclear disaster at a commercial power plant (and that design is being phased out, the operators were wreckless, and that design isn't even allowed in the US). There were 4000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children that were attributed to the accident, of these cases, nine (9) total were fatal. There is a big difference in 9 versus several thousand like ndaboro is saying.
@nrutledge01 More biased propaganda on your part. What do they teach you in college these days, how to be a puppet of the nuclear industry instead of factual risks and science? There have been 4995 deaths from the workers at Chernobyl, over 600,000 are on the Chernobyl registry as exposed. There is more info from World Nuclear dot org. Please, stop with the patronizing deceit, it demonstrates the nuclear industry's efforts to deceive the public.
Ok, lets talk risks of nuclear. I'll start with a car. Can 1 car kill 500,000 people? Probably not. Can 500,000 cars? Yes. By the way, there are an average of 40,000 deaths associated with car crashes every year. So, with that rate in mind, there have been 500,000 people killed by cars since about mid 1998 (and I'd actually be willing to bet there was more, this is just going on averages). 12 minutes after I get finish posting this, another person will die in a car accident.
Check with people living in Athens , Al. See how many people are glowing. NONE.
I have worked at 26 different sites from New Hampshire to Southern California even across the big pond at Day-A-Bay in China.. they are the best way to keep your lights on , not to mention the jobs Bellafonte will bring to the Valley. Try actually going on the inside to see how things really work before you spout all these stats.
I live 22 miles from the Ferry and sleep good at night.
@fitter760 Learn how to spell Bellefonte, then come back for an intelligent reply. The TVA or any other power provider can keep the lights on with out radioactive atomic power. Nuclear power has sickened and killed thousands. Politicians and nuclear mouthpieces who claim nuclear power is clean, safe and inexpensive are short on veracity, lacking morals or ignorant of the facts, maybe all of the above.
Pleaze 4give mii 4 mississpelling. you win. I am stupid.you are smart. I not know nothing about generating power. hydro , fossil or otherr. Keep reading your books .
@fitter760 No fitter760 stupidity is not your problem, working and supporting a program that may kill you and has killed many is your problem. Another part of your problem is supporting a massive propaganda program that goes along with radioactive atomic energy. Facts at matrr dot org.
Actually I am not biased, describe yourself not me There is hydro power, biomass, combined cycle gas, a better way without the radioactive waste. You are a student, I have extensive military experiance, college degree and experiance and training related to nuclear reliability and security. The reason I will not support nuclear power is due to the untruthful presentations by corporate supporters of nuclear power. I have heard not one word of the true risks, you included.
Google "TVA board Bellefonte." There is a Chattanooga Times Free Press article titled "TVA to revive mothballed Bellefonte." This plant is coming. I strongly encourage anyone who is interested or concerned with this at all to crack open a physics book and learn how these plants work. I could go all day about how they work but I am a pro-nuke engineering student and am biased. The folks that make these videos could go on all day against them. But they are anti-nuke and are biased.
(And they still have not presented their education credentials regarding nuclear power). My point is: LEARN, READ, STUDY, ASK QUESTIONS. Find a local community college physics professor that is proficient in nuclear knowledge to give you the 100% unbiased truth about how these plants work before you judge them. I didn't exactly know what to think of them until I learned about them and now I love them. This is my plea for people to educate themselves before drawing conclusions. PLEASE.
Solar and wind do not have the reliability proven it takes to sustain a baseload. Like I said, at 2AM with calm winds. You have 0% output from both solar and wind. Unless Americans are willing to go without power for certain times of the day (which will not happen in all likelihood and shouldn't since it would destabilize certain critical computer systems), we are gonna have to figure out something other than coal to get the job done. Nuclear is online, safe, cheap, and reliable 24 hours a day.
@nrutledge01 The ideal is not nuclear. Your quote, nuclear is safe, cheap, and reliable all day, is not true, it is untruthful propaganda. Your comments on wind and solar are also untruthful. You may find the problem stated and solutions given at the mothers against tennessee river radiation website in the description of this anti nuclear power commercial.
@nrutledge01 Nuclear power is not safe cheap nor reliable. Cheap is not $8 billion for one plant; safe is not thousands sickened and dead by the nuclear fuel process; reliable-no, nuclear plants scram frequently due to system failures. Then there is the radioactive uranium waste, near 7 million pounds in the TVA region. Nuclear power plants turn local communities into radioactive waste dumps. There is a better way!
@nrutledge01 Nuclear power is not safe cheap nor reliable. Cheap is not $8 billion for one plant; safe is not thousands sickened and dead by the nuclear fuel process; reliable-no, nuclear plants scram frequently due to system failures. Then there is the radioactive uranium waste, near 7 million pounds in the TVA region. Nuclear power plants turn local communities into radioactive waste dumps. There is a better way!
@ndaboro Hydrogen is more volatile than nuclear is, so much so that it will react with itself. Renewables are absolutely something that the country should invest in. However, they cannot support the current and future power "baseload." The ideal mixture would be to make nuclear take the place of the fossil fleet and support ~50% of the country's power generation and have 30-40% come from renewables and have coal pick up the last ~20%.
Nuclear construction (extremely expensive), insurance costs, waste disposal and decommisioning costs are not figured into your figures nrutledge. When those costs are figured in you are looking at $1.83 per kw hr. Natural gas combined cycle, wind and solar are the safest and most economical. The best choices for moving us into a hydrogen economy for our future where the fuel cell is the "power king."
@ndaboro You want to talk money? The average cost of solar per kilowatt-hour is $0.38 according to greenecon(dot)net. The average cost of nuclear per kilowatt-hour according to world-nuclear(dot)org is $0.077. Again, Sequoyah has already paid for itself twice and is working on number 3. Cost estimates for the Kingston disaster are still unknown, and solar costs more to run than nuclear. Remember it's the radiation itself that causes problems, and coal simply releases more than the nukes.
@nrutledge01 True costs of all sources. 30.8 cents per kilowatt hour for solar; 8.3 cents per kilowatt hour for nuclear electricity; 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour for wind; 4.8 cents per kilowatt hour for energy produced by coal; 4.8 cents per kilowatt hour for natural gas; source U. of Chicago. Construction and insurance costs for nuclear is by far the most expensive.
Yes Bellefonte has cost money, but we cannot afford to go without it any longer and other plants like Sequoyah have paid for itself twice. Go to the DOE ETEC EIS site to learn the truth about radiation. Basically, if you live on the fence of a nuclear plant, you get less radiation than watching this video. Nuclear is safe and the wave of the future. Get the facts straight.
@nrutledge01 Your TV or computer does not release highly radioactive particles of Iodine, Cesium, Uranium and other radioactive elements including Tritium, a nuclear reactor does release these particles.The PARTICLES may be ingested by living organisms including humans to cause cancer. The nuclear fuels process is even deadlier.
@ndaboro These plants do NOT release harmful amounts of any of those particles. The amount, if any, is so tiny that most instrumentation cannot even detect it. I am going to assume that you live near this plant, you also live near Widows Creek. The simple fact is you get more nasty by products from that plant every year (greenhouse gases which a nuclear plant DOES NOT give off) and a larger dose of radiation (yes, fossil plants do put out radiation) than you do from a nuclear plant.
@nrutledge01 Wrong answer, all nuclear plants release dangerous radionuclides. Yes coal is a polluter, there is no bargain with coal or nuclear power production. Both are unsafe, both are not clean, nuclear power is extremly expensive. Since the year 2000 there have been 1200+ deaths and over 45,000 who are sick and dying from nuclear fuels processing.
@ndaboro Furthermore, you cannot compare the output of sources like wind, solar, and biofuels to that of a nuclear plant. the biggest site TVA has of these sources is Allen Methane near Memphis which puts out 5 MW of electrical power. A typical turbine in a nuclear plant puts out ~1000 MW of electrical power. How do you get power from wind and solar at 2AM with calm winds? 200 methane plants vs. 1 SAFE, RELIABLE nuclear unit? It's a no-brainer
@nrutledge01 Nuclear power is not safe nor reliable.
TVA has failed to update its hydroelectric fleet and its fossil fuel fleet. Reason, they have placed all their money into the nuclear basket. For this reason they have a massive debt load. Energy Efficiency, wind, solar and combined cycle natural gas is the answer at less than half the cost
If you think wind and solar can sustain a baseload, have fun not having electricity. Me and the rest of the country will keep our lights and our nuclear units. I live less than 10 miles from Sequoyah and sleep like a baby at night.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
@nrutledge01 We've already had this discussion, you are being repetitive.
ndaboro 1 year ago
The Navy has been safely running nukes for over 50 years and these same designs have been implemented for commercial nuclear power for over 30. There has never been a major accident from a US plant that has killed people. The odds of that happening are on the order of 1 in 10,000,000 in a lot of cases. The people in this area and the country support this technology and you won't be able to wipe the smiles off our face the day they connect Unit 1 to the grid.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
@nrutledge01 You continue to miss the point with your continuous nuclear propaganda. Radiation is released from nuclear power plants, the fuels process does kill and accidents do occur. But yet, you and those like you in your support of nuclear power continue with the deceit. You do not present the risks, the hazards, the failures nor the truth. Deceit and propaganda in nuclear program management is not a desirable quality for those involved in nuclear materials and management,
ndaboro 1 year ago
Unless a bunch of nuclear workers are going swimming in the spent fuel pool every day and dying as a result of it (which isn't happening), this idea of "thousands of people dying" simply is not true.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
@nrutledge01 Not my figures, Department of Energy and Department of Labor's figures. It is your comments which are not true. Do your research, it is the fuels process which is killing workers. The nuclear industry has not told the truth about nuclear power and neither do you.
ndaboro 1 year ago
Now, let's look at Chernobyl-4, the worst nuclear disaster at a commercial power plant (and that design is being phased out, the operators were wreckless, and that design isn't even allowed in the US). There were 4000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children that were attributed to the accident, of these cases, nine (9) total were fatal. There is a big difference in 9 versus several thousand like ndaboro is saying.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
@nrutledge01 More biased propaganda on your part. What do they teach you in college these days, how to be a puppet of the nuclear industry instead of factual risks and science? There have been 4995 deaths from the workers at Chernobyl, over 600,000 are on the Chernobyl registry as exposed. There is more info from World Nuclear dot org. Please, stop with the patronizing deceit, it demonstrates the nuclear industry's efforts to deceive the public.
ndaboro 1 year ago
Ok, lets talk risks of nuclear. I'll start with a car. Can 1 car kill 500,000 people? Probably not. Can 500,000 cars? Yes. By the way, there are an average of 40,000 deaths associated with car crashes every year. So, with that rate in mind, there have been 500,000 people killed by cars since about mid 1998 (and I'd actually be willing to bet there was more, this is just going on averages). 12 minutes after I get finish posting this, another person will die in a car accident.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
Check with people living in Athens , Al. See how many people are glowing. NONE.
I have worked at 26 different sites from New Hampshire to Southern California even across the big pond at Day-A-Bay in China.. they are the best way to keep your lights on , not to mention the jobs Bellafonte will bring to the Valley. Try actually going on the inside to see how things really work before you spout all these stats.
I live 22 miles from the Ferry and sleep good at night.
fitter760 1 year ago
@fitter760 Learn how to spell Bellefonte, then come back for an intelligent reply. The TVA or any other power provider can keep the lights on with out radioactive atomic power. Nuclear power has sickened and killed thousands. Politicians and nuclear mouthpieces who claim nuclear power is clean, safe and inexpensive are short on veracity, lacking morals or ignorant of the facts, maybe all of the above.
ndaboro 1 year ago
Pleaze 4give mii 4 mississpelling. you win. I am stupid.you are smart. I not know nothing about generating power. hydro , fossil or otherr. Keep reading your books .
Sorry I so stupid.
fitter760 1 year ago
@fitter760 No fitter760 stupidity is not your problem, working and supporting a program that may kill you and has killed many is your problem. Another part of your problem is supporting a massive propaganda program that goes along with radioactive atomic energy. Facts at matrr dot org.
ndaboro 1 year ago
Actually I am not biased, describe yourself not me There is hydro power, biomass, combined cycle gas, a better way without the radioactive waste. You are a student, I have extensive military experiance, college degree and experiance and training related to nuclear reliability and security. The reason I will not support nuclear power is due to the untruthful presentations by corporate supporters of nuclear power. I have heard not one word of the true risks, you included.
ndaboro 1 year ago
Google "TVA board Bellefonte." There is a Chattanooga Times Free Press article titled "TVA to revive mothballed Bellefonte." This plant is coming. I strongly encourage anyone who is interested or concerned with this at all to crack open a physics book and learn how these plants work. I could go all day about how they work but I am a pro-nuke engineering student and am biased. The folks that make these videos could go on all day against them. But they are anti-nuke and are biased.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
(And they still have not presented their education credentials regarding nuclear power). My point is: LEARN, READ, STUDY, ASK QUESTIONS. Find a local community college physics professor that is proficient in nuclear knowledge to give you the 100% unbiased truth about how these plants work before you judge them. I didn't exactly know what to think of them until I learned about them and now I love them. This is my plea for people to educate themselves before drawing conclusions. PLEASE.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
Solar and wind do not have the reliability proven it takes to sustain a baseload. Like I said, at 2AM with calm winds. You have 0% output from both solar and wind. Unless Americans are willing to go without power for certain times of the day (which will not happen in all likelihood and shouldn't since it would destabilize certain critical computer systems), we are gonna have to figure out something other than coal to get the job done. Nuclear is online, safe, cheap, and reliable 24 hours a day.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
@nrutledge01 The ideal is not nuclear. Your quote, nuclear is safe, cheap, and reliable all day, is not true, it is untruthful propaganda. Your comments on wind and solar are also untruthful. You may find the problem stated and solutions given at the mothers against tennessee river radiation website in the description of this anti nuclear power commercial.
ndaboro 1 year ago
@nrutledge01 Nuclear power is not safe cheap nor reliable. Cheap is not $8 billion for one plant; safe is not thousands sickened and dead by the nuclear fuel process; reliable-no, nuclear plants scram frequently due to system failures. Then there is the radioactive uranium waste, near 7 million pounds in the TVA region. Nuclear power plants turn local communities into radioactive waste dumps. There is a better way!
ndaboro 1 year ago
@nrutledge01 Nuclear power is not safe cheap nor reliable. Cheap is not $8 billion for one plant; safe is not thousands sickened and dead by the nuclear fuel process; reliable-no, nuclear plants scram frequently due to system failures. Then there is the radioactive uranium waste, near 7 million pounds in the TVA region. Nuclear power plants turn local communities into radioactive waste dumps. There is a better way!
ndaboro 1 year ago
@ndaboro Hydrogen is more volatile than nuclear is, so much so that it will react with itself. Renewables are absolutely something that the country should invest in. However, they cannot support the current and future power "baseload." The ideal mixture would be to make nuclear take the place of the fossil fleet and support ~50% of the country's power generation and have 30-40% come from renewables and have coal pick up the last ~20%.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
Nuclear construction (extremely expensive), insurance costs, waste disposal and decommisioning costs are not figured into your figures nrutledge. When those costs are figured in you are looking at $1.83 per kw hr. Natural gas combined cycle, wind and solar are the safest and most economical. The best choices for moving us into a hydrogen economy for our future where the fuel cell is the "power king."
ndaboro 1 year ago
@ndaboro You want to talk money? The average cost of solar per kilowatt-hour is $0.38 according to greenecon(dot)net. The average cost of nuclear per kilowatt-hour according to world-nuclear(dot)org is $0.077. Again, Sequoyah has already paid for itself twice and is working on number 3. Cost estimates for the Kingston disaster are still unknown, and solar costs more to run than nuclear. Remember it's the radiation itself that causes problems, and coal simply releases more than the nukes.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
@nrutledge01 True costs of all sources. 30.8 cents per kilowatt hour for solar; 8.3 cents per kilowatt hour for nuclear electricity; 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour for wind; 4.8 cents per kilowatt hour for energy produced by coal; 4.8 cents per kilowatt hour for natural gas; source U. of Chicago. Construction and insurance costs for nuclear is by far the most expensive.
ndaboro 1 year ago
Comment removed
nrutledge01 1 year ago
Yes Bellefonte has cost money, but we cannot afford to go without it any longer and other plants like Sequoyah have paid for itself twice. Go to the DOE ETEC EIS site to learn the truth about radiation. Basically, if you live on the fence of a nuclear plant, you get less radiation than watching this video. Nuclear is safe and the wave of the future. Get the facts straight.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
@nrutledge01 Your TV or computer does not release highly radioactive particles of Iodine, Cesium, Uranium and other radioactive elements including Tritium, a nuclear reactor does release these particles.The PARTICLES may be ingested by living organisms including humans to cause cancer. The nuclear fuels process is even deadlier.
ndaboro 1 year ago
@ndaboro These plants do NOT release harmful amounts of any of those particles. The amount, if any, is so tiny that most instrumentation cannot even detect it. I am going to assume that you live near this plant, you also live near Widows Creek. The simple fact is you get more nasty by products from that plant every year (greenhouse gases which a nuclear plant DOES NOT give off) and a larger dose of radiation (yes, fossil plants do put out radiation) than you do from a nuclear plant.
nrutledge01 1 year ago
@nrutledge01 Wrong answer, all nuclear plants release dangerous radionuclides. Yes coal is a polluter, there is no bargain with coal or nuclear power production. Both are unsafe, both are not clean, nuclear power is extremly expensive. Since the year 2000 there have been 1200+ deaths and over 45,000 who are sick and dying from nuclear fuels processing.
ndaboro 1 year ago
Comment removed
nrutledge01 1 year ago
@ndaboro Furthermore, you cannot compare the output of sources like wind, solar, and biofuels to that of a nuclear plant. the biggest site TVA has of these sources is Allen Methane near Memphis which puts out 5 MW of electrical power. A typical turbine in a nuclear plant puts out ~1000 MW of electrical power. How do you get power from wind and solar at 2AM with calm winds? 200 methane plants vs. 1 SAFE, RELIABLE nuclear unit? It's a no-brainer
nrutledge01 1 year ago
@nrutledge01 Nuclear power is not safe nor reliable.
TVA has failed to update its hydroelectric fleet and its fossil fuel fleet. Reason, they have placed all their money into the nuclear basket. For this reason they have a massive debt load. Energy Efficiency, wind, solar and combined cycle natural gas is the answer at less than half the cost
ndaboro 1 year ago
Comment removed
nrutledge01 1 year ago