Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(26,695 posts)
16. Nope. Got 'em all right.
Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:21 PM
Feb 2013
Duke is not using MOX. You claim it is because it costs too much and I say it is because Duke thinks it is too dangerous.

And you're wrong... and I'm right. To be more specific... you claim that Duke has SAID that it's because it's too dangerous. Go ahead and try to back that up. Don't worry. I won't hold my breath.

Government has quite a pile of plutonium. Reactors create plutonium.

Something you apparently learned in this thread.

The only place that I know of that admits to using MOX is Tepco at #3.

I suspect you're correct... it is the only place that you know of. But in the real world dozens of reactors have been using it for years. Here's a tip for you - let this be you motto from now on: "Look it up before you make it up"

There may be others and if so, you can bet they are looking real close at what happened at the #3 explosion

Nope. Because (having science backgrounds that you lack), they knew already that MOX didn't have a thing to do with the #3 explosion. In fact... there really wasn't any MOX in spent fuel pool #3... they had only shifted to using it recently and it was substantially all inside the core.

Can you find a statement by Duke saying that MOX costs too much?

Their statement at the time:

In 1999, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a contract with Shaw AREVA MOX Services (MOX Services; formerly Duke COGEMA Stone & Webster, LLC) to purchase mixed-oxide fuel for use in the McGuire and Catawba nuclear reactors. Under this contract, beginning in 2007, MOX Services would fabricate batches of mixed-oxide fuel from stockpiles of plutonium derived from surplus weapons at a facility under construction at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River site in Aiken, South Carolina. Mixed oxide fuel is similar to conventional uranium fuel. Following review and approval by the NRC, four MOX fuel lead assemblies, fabricated in France, were irradiated for two fuel cycles (approximately three years) in Unit 1 of the Catawba Nuclear Station. In 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas and MOX Services engaged in discussions to renegotiate the terms of the contract prior to its expiration on December 1, 2008. The parties were unable to reach agreement and the contract automatically terminated on December 1, 2008. Duke Energy Carolinas has communicated to MOX Services that it continues to support the objectives of the surplus weapons disposition program and is interested in receiving a future proposal from MOX Services for the use of MOX fuel.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CFoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duke-energy.com%2Fpdfs%2FDukeEnergy10K.pdf&ei=_-ooUefLHo662gWhvoHYAw&usg=AFQjCNFG_WZl8WXs6mzoGrrRQpUwvyjDZA
looks as appetizing as the tanked water in LA hotels. ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #1
I understand that the taste was a bit "off". NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #3
Cherenkov blue nt Xipe Totec Feb 2013 #26
Cherenkov? I don't think so. PamW Feb 2013 #29
That would be true if the reactors were active and thus the highest source of radiation Xipe Totec Feb 2013 #30
Two years, right? RobertEarl Feb 2013 #2
Gundersen's theory was disproven as soon as we knew SFP3 held water. FBaggins Feb 2013 #4
So, under the bus with Gunderson is your point eh? Vinnie From Indy Feb 2013 #5
Under the bus? FBaggins Feb 2013 #7
Yes RobertEarl Feb 2013 #6
Sorry... you still haven't gotten any closer to knowing what you're talking about. FBaggins Feb 2013 #8
Duke paid attention to MOX RobertEarl Feb 2013 #9
None of that's true. FBaggins Feb 2013 #10
Yep, Plutonium all over. RobertEarl Feb 2013 #11
Duke wouldn't be processing their plutonium for them FBaggins Feb 2013 #13
You got one thing right. RobertEarl Feb 2013 #15
Nope. Got 'em all right. FBaggins Feb 2013 #16
Nothing about costs too much RobertEarl Feb 2013 #17
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! PamW Feb 2013 #19
I know. How dare i question the science!! RobertEarl Feb 2013 #22
You have a right to your own opinion.. PamW Feb 2013 #25
If you knew the history, you would know that's what "unable to reach agreement" meant. FBaggins Feb 2013 #21
Nothing about costs yet? RobertEarl Feb 2013 #23
Actually, there was another hydrogen explosion.. PamW Feb 2013 #27
FBaggins is correct!! PamW Feb 2013 #31
Gundersen is a FIRST CLASS IDIOT!!! PamW Feb 2013 #18
Arnie is one great guy RobertEarl Feb 2013 #20
Arnie is an IDIOT!!! PamW Feb 2013 #24
High radiation bars decommissioning of Fukushima plant kristopher Feb 2013 #12
Wrong thread FBaggins Feb 2013 #14
Uh-oh. I think I see a Despair Squid. n/t Ian David Feb 2013 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Clear view in unit 3's po...»Reply #16