Fresno Famous

The real problem with Nuclear Energy as a power source

I have no desire to go into the fineries of my background with powerplants, (that included hydro, coal, petro, Nat. Gas, (as well as some other alternates, including involvements with nukes.)

There are reasons why some forms of 'public energy,' are viable, and others not.

Everybody tends to promote the 'cost effeciveness' issue, and goes on about how 'cheap,' nukes are to pull power from.
(This happens to be somewhat true.)
When Nukes run well, and everything is fine, it's the wonder fuel...

Nuke Promoters tend to promote how the other forms of energy have such a heavy impact.

-They don't want wind-generated because it affects birds, is noisey, is visually cluttering, (yadda yadda,) and is greatly dependant upon wind, ---and with no wind, you have no generated power.

-Petro/coal/rubber/'trash to steam,' (etc.) power?
The emissions (even with serious scrubbers, to reduce them,) still put crud in the air... (so they're not such a hot idea.

-Hydro? Well, there's severe environmental impact, (water empoundment where there was a valley, the usual cast of natures critters getting displaced or interrupted, and the flow temps from the dams being different than if you had a 'wild water,' body...
(Besides that, when a dam fails, (such as one of the worst US disasters of it's type, the St. Francis, (downstate, the failure that ruined Mulholland btw, both psychologically and professionally,) is a California historic milestone...

Solar? I dunno, cloudy days? extremely high investment? vulnerability to the odd cold snap? (A friend of mine had her house shut down, in all sorts of ways a week or so ago, with the below freeze levels,,, she's back on propane for a while I think, (part of the system froze and broke...)

So folks compare the devils that they know (all these other forms of energy production,) -with another devil that looks so much cheaper, cleaner, and infinitely affordable.

They do not discuss the reality that, if any of these other forms of production take a dump, and things go wrong,
(even really wrong, I think St. Francis took out close to 600 people when it failed,)
--Even a well placed failure of these other systems, ---will not have the long range impact of a reactor failing.

They just don't talk about it, the same way that people don't talk about bad things that they don't want to face,
(appendicitis, the breaking of a limb, the onset of age related illnesses, cancer, car accidents that injure you, etc. etc.)

---Problem is, even THOSE catastrophe's can be treated and somewhat prepared for, ---and you live through them, or (worse case scenario,) you succumb to them.

When a nuke goes it's not a few hundred people who are affected.
It's thousands, and possibly millions, (depending upon they type of failure, -and where it's located.)
-Any nuke located near any sort of a metropolitan area, is a death sentence, (be is slow and agonizing, -or instantanious,) and is simply a matter of time in its occurance, -so long as it's active, and contains the fuels and contanimated by products.

Now, I'll let you in on a little something.
We do have nuclear technology all over the place in our residantial areas, and most folks don't even know.
Ever hear of an MRI?
That's not it's full baptism name...
It's not Magnetic Resonance Imaging,
It's actually Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
(They deliberately leave the Nuclear part off.)
-That is deliberate.
-That is called 'marketing.'
(They know that folks don't want anything 'nuclear,' right next to where they live, ever...-so that part of the name has been left off since the tech has been developed.)

---Does this mean that any MRI facility could be a threat?
---In fact, in a small way, it sort of could be, the tech involves radioactive gas, and said gas is delivered and stored in large containers onsite... (it's a little creepy to see cylindars that can take up a fair amount of room with 'radioactive' symbols and labels, but you sort of get used to it, and try not to think about it much.

--Nobody wants to think of the 'bad,' in that.
(There are also other forms of Imaging and treatment commonly done every hour in hospitals and outpatient facilities that involve radiation as well...
-The people who work in these environments have to constantly be checked, have to log in their exposure hours and dosages, and really have to protect themselves, ---because prolonged exposure to such things can and will kill you.
---All of that is just garden variety Medical Imaging.
It's Nuclear Medicine.
It is nuclear that, (per person, in small doses, and rare interractions,) -can be used to heal you...

Reactors?
Way different situation.
-if by nothing more than the sheer volume of the radiation involved, -as well as the exposure to such massive volumes
The involved fuel and byproducts of the process that won't just make you sick, but kill a ton of people, (...hopefully? all at once...)
-Because to die from the 'effects' of radiation poisoning is horrific and painful. (Sorry.)
---The reactor people will do anything to prevent talking about that.(Talk about marketing.)

They want to focus on Nothing ever going wrong, --and then when they talk about the possiblities of stuff going wrong, -how they have 'failsafe after failsafe.'
-But it's not perfect, and to have fully safe, you need 'perfect.'

It's kind of like being a motorcyclist...
You are riding on something that affords you no protection,
--and if something goes wrong, you probably will get hurt,
-and are likely to get killed if it involves other vehicles, (even other motorcycles.)
---But that's the risk and the understood world of riding a motorcycle, even offroad, -let alone on roads with other vehicles.

-Now, they're not going to sell any motorcycles if you talk about how easy it is to get killed on one, nor of the injuries and deaths by the thousands,) each year.
-You pitch economy, image, freedom, and 'fun.' (You don't talk about the other reality.)
-But, worse case on a bike? you screw up, and maybe you and a passenger buy it, -and the folks in a car or so... so the death toll is likely to be quite small, (maybe 4 or 5?)

When the nuke folks try to tell you how great the power is, and how safe the plants are, they are bullshitting, and pitching the same distorted view.
'Nothing ever goes wrong, it's extremely safe, -and it's the most cost effective.'
-They don't tell you that IF something goes wrong? This immed San Joaquin World is wasted, (including all people and things,) basically for ever.
It's a disaster that you simply do not come back from.
(I don't think that registers with folks.)

I lived around these things most of my life back east, (where there are higher densities of populations, --as well as constant problems with the tech. failing,
or human failings,
---we live with this knowledge.
-The only way that we seriously cope with it, is to pretend that everything is fine.
Most folks? Either don't want to know, or move.

-But all the time there are leaks of radioactive steam, problems with stuff escaping that shouldn't, and a lot of things that start with '.. a stuck valve or errant control monitor caused....'
-And we assume that, had anything gone really wrong?
We'd all have died by then,
-or they would have given us some sort of warning,,,
-but in states that have LOADS of highways and turnpikes designed to get people out of there in a hurry, (far more than Fresno.)
-We know that it would be mass pandimonium, and a lot of folks simply dying in their cars, looking to get out.
It's a very fatalistic view, whether you choose to hold it or not.
It simply is what it is.

The technology at this time simply cannot make nuclear power one hundred percent safe.
--'But nothing is a hundred percent!' -you say...
-and you point to the air and say that something has to be done immed.

--When things fail in the other techs, you have the immed. area affected, those people either killed, injured, or displaced, -but then the clean up, and the place basically reusable.
----If (for example) a dam were to go, -you may loose a few hundred or a few thousand people, (worse case scenario.)
-That would be horrible, and a true loss, ---but the deaths would be only those directly affected in the path of the flood... (after that? the clean up, rebuilding, and getting on with life.

-With a Nuke going, you don't have a 'limited group,' of people affected,
-you have everybody in the immed. area,
-(Then) Everybody in the surrounding area that gets radiated,
-(Then) Everybody who then has to deal with the atmosphere, (IE: Cloud,) of radiation spreading, hanging out, and wandering,
-and that thing will move, and not just blow out to some sterile vast nothingness...
It's going to hit other areas, (not just counties, but states,) as well.

-Even though Three Mile Island is out towards the middle of Pennsylvania?
-when that thing was starting to go, and we were considering a 'china syndrome,' or massive melt/failure and leak of the plant?

We knew that all states East, (NJ, NY, etc.) All of New England, All Mid Atlantic, Most of the MidWest, and a fair amount of the South were about to be affected... (They were watching this with great concern well up into Canada as well.)
---We just didn't know where the 'cloud,' was headed, after the initial devestation took place.
-The initial 'devestation,' by the way, was projected to affect areas larger than the state of Pennsylvania...
-Though I was younger at the time, my parents were seriously considering flying my siblings and me to Florida or California in some sort of 'hail mary,' pass, if this thing cut loose, ---and it nearly did.

I'd like to think that nukes were great, and were a viable energy source that was moderately safe...
I'd also like to believe that the tech. can handle the fuel source....
But it cannot.
I was in the industry, I lived in these areas, and know what I'm talking about.

Having done this, and lived near Forked River, Indian Point, (not far from TMI,) for all of my life?

-I can honestly tell you that anyone who willfully builds a plant in their state, is asking, not just for (minor, trouble and a headache:
(lower prop. values, increase in sickness, etc, and a ton of anxiety,)
----but the inevitable failure that will cause widespread sickness and death if/when the thing fails, or has problems.

--The one thing (as a final point,) that we DO have back east, (and other areas of the country have?)
are serious air currents that will take contaminated 'atmosphere,' out of the region...
We also have temp. changes that mean that the atmosphere will 'clean out,' much quicker.
---Something blows up or goes wrong back east???
You hope to god that it happens on an ice cold day, that it goes straight up, and then blows out to sea.... (You still will loose thousands if not millions, -but at least it will not be hanging around the area for too long...)

Fresno has the same air sitting here for months at a time.
If anything goes wrong?
Forget it.
-Everywhere outside of the SanJoaquin Valley will be grateful that the lethal situation will be contained HERE.

-Again, that is why we're so popular.
That is why we're being considered...
If and when this goes bad?
It will move slower, and be contained by the topography and atmospheric conditions (maybe giving upper and lower California more of a chance to run like hell.
-We take the hit.
-It's what I said before, This is not Love, Fresno, this is you being the one most cost effective to take the hit when things fail...

Nukes are perfect,
-but only in a perfect world.
And there is no such thing as a perfect world, ever.

If the realities and the risks (which are insanely huge,) are worth it, and you don't mind putting not only your own lives, but your kids, their kids,
-Pretty much anyone who will live here AFTER these things are built, -at risk?

Have at it.

Once it's built and done, it's built and done, there is no real turning back from it after that.

I would advise folks to really do some serious research over the past thirty years, in ANY area, (be it US or Abroad,) to see the impact of nukes on the health of the immed. communities.
(Don't even bother looking up real estate values and the like.)
-But realize this: For all the stuff that made it into the papers of the surrounding communities of the nukes, ---even more was NOT printed, (in terms of alerts, scares, public warnings, etc,,,) that are put out on the television and radio... ---And even THEN, there is a ton of stuff that happens, that is not discussed with the media at all.
This is not being alarmist, this is simply telling the truth of how business, and this type of industry works.

Energy sources - the good, the bad and the thrilling

Any energy plan should begin with conservation, since the cheapest, safest energy is that which isn't used. Then, an essential fact about electricity needs to be recognized - it's very hard (and expensive) to store. This reduces the value of intermittent power sources like solar cells and wind. They still have value - but not on a hot, windless night.

For a slightly more advanced look at nuclear power's good and bad, see http://RadDecision.blogspot.com for a novel on the topic by a longtime nuclear worker. "Rad Decision" is free online to readers - who seem to like it, judign from their homepage comments. It's also been endorsed by Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog and noted environmentalist. Also now available in paperback at online retailers.

What exactly is "nuclear power"?

is it some mysterious gizmo where electrons are gathered & turned into electricity or where radioactive elements bombard a panel & cause energy pulses?

Well, by googling "what is "nuclear power" ", I got this little bit of info, namely that "Nuclear power' is a really big radioactive nuclear powered "tea kettle", read below or go to link

The uranium bundle acts as an extremely high-energy source of heat. It heats the water and turns it to steam. The steam drives a steam turbine, which spins a generator to produce power. In some reactors, the steam from the reactor goes through a secondary, intermediate heat exchanger to convert another loop of water to steam, which drives the turbine. The advantage to this design is that the radioactive water/steam never contacts the turbine. Also, in some reactors, the coolant fluid in contact with the reactor core is gas (carbon dioxide) or liquid metal (sodium, potassium); these types of reactors allow the core to be operated at higher temperatures.

from: http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power2.htm

safer alternatives would, hopefully use something that Fresno is famous for 9 months out of the year, namely the sun

Solar thermal electric systems operating in the US today [Solar Parabolic Troughs] meet the needs of over 350,000 people (equal to the population of the city of Fresno, CA or Miami, FL) and displace the equivalent of 2.3 million barrels of oil annually.
Privacy | Company | Ordering | Dealers | Email Us
é Copyright Solar Development, Inc. 1998-2002 Florida

from: http://www.solardev.com/SEIA-makingelec.php

Solar lighting
Main articles: Daylighting and Light tube
Solar lighting or daylighting is the use of natural light to provide illumination. Daylighting offsets energy use in electric lighting systems and reduces the cooling load on HVAC systems (this assumes that daylighting is replacing incandescent lighting, which produces more heat than light). The use of natural light also offers physiological and psychological benefits, although this is difficult to quantify.
Daylighting features include building orientation, window orientation, exterior shading, sawtooth roofs, clerestory windows, light shelves, skylights and light tubes.[13] These features may be incorporated in existing structures but are most effective when integrated in a solar design package which accounts for factors such as glare, heat gain, heat loss and time-of-use. Architectural trends increasingly recognize daylighting as a cornerstone of sustainable design.
Daylight saving time (DST) can be seen as a method of utilising solar energy by matching available sunlight to the hours of the day in which it is most useful. DST energy savings have been estimated to reduce total electricity use in California by 0.5% (3400 MW•h) and peak electricity use by 3% (1000 MW).[14]

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power

Light tube with reflective material
Also known as a "tubular skylight", this is the oldest and most widespread type of light tube used for daylighting.
A round tube lined with highly reflective material leads the light rays through a building, starting from an entrance-point located on its roof or one of its outer walls. A light tube is not intended for imaging (in contrast to a periscope, for example), thus image distortions pose no problem.
The entrance point usually comprises a dome (cupula), or alternatively a diamond-shaped light collector, which has the function of collecting and reflecting as much sunlight as possible into the tube.
Light transmssion efficiency is greatest if the tube is short and straight. In longer, angled, or flexible tubes, part of the light intensity is lost. To minimize losses, a high reflectivity of the tube lining is crucial; manufacturers claim reflectivities of their materials, in the visible range, of up to 98 to almost 99.5 percent[1][2][3].

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_tube

Solar One, a 10-megawatt central receiver demonstration project, was first operated and established the feasibility of power tower systems. In 1988, the final year of operation, the system achieved an availability of 96 percent.

from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/history/timelines/solar.html