Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Entergy (Nuclear Power Company) Caught Lying to Officials Under Oath; tritium LEAKS FOUND.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 11:40 PM
Original message
Entergy (Nuclear Power Company) Caught Lying to Officials Under Oath; tritium LEAKS FOUND.
Edited on Sat Jan-16-10 11:50 PM by garybeck
MONTPELIER A Vermont Yankee executive took the blame Friday for providing incorrect information about the power plants underground pipes, but that didnt ease the ire of state officials, lawmakers and others who say the misinformation was delivered several times with no attempts to correct it.

Weve concluded that statements I made to the Public Service Board were not correct, Jay Thayer, vice president for operations of Entergy Nuclear, said Friday.

Thayer testified in May under oath to the Public Service Board that he didnt think the plant had underground pipes carrying radioactive material. I can do some research on that and get back to you, but I dont believe there are active piping systems underground containing contaminated fluids today, he said.

Thayer said he never got back to the board with corrected information. Thats my fault and I regret it, he said.

The pipes existence came to light this week after Vermont Yankee reported them as the possible source of a leak of radioactive tritium at the plant.

State officials and legislators who are deciding whether the 38-year-old Vernon plant should be allowed to operate for another 20 years after its license expires in 2012 have blasted plant officials for providing incorrect information.

This mischaracterization of facts is disconcerting and frankly threatens the level of trust Vermonters can have in Entergy to provide accurate information about anything, said House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morristown.

Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, said lawmakers would reconvene a panel that studied the plants reliability with the expectation it would report back by Feb. 16. Thayer said Friday the company would cooperate with requests for further inspection of the plant from legislative leaders and Gov. Jim Douglas.

Although Thayer took the blame for his own testimony, Public Service Commissioner David OBrien said several Vermont Yankee representatives gave the same misinformation on several occasions. When the incorrect information appeared in the consultants report, Entergy officials made no attempt to correct it even as they went over the rest of the report in great detail, he said.

They went over every page with us, OBrien said.

Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear engineer who serves on the three-member oversight panel appointed to study the plants reliability, said he didnt buy Thayers explanation, either. These guys are engineers. They had to know, he said. How many people in their organization read our report? Our report said there were no pipes. They had plenty of time to correct the matter.

Vermont Yankee site Vice President Mike Colomb also indicated to the Public Service Board that the plant had no active pipes carrying radioactive material. Thayer contended that Colomb was addressing different pipes, but OBrien said thats not his interpretation.

Thayer said materials provided to consultants hired by the state contained the correct information in a 14-page list of pipes at the plant.

As Entergy scurried to explain the situation, a growing number of officials expressed concern about the misinformation. The states three-member congressional delegation asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an investigation. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency would consider the request.

In the Statehouse, even those who supported the plants continued operation were shaking their heads Friday, making it clear that the misinformation wasnt helping Vermont Yankees hopes of winning legislative approval to operate for another 20 years. Entergy is their own worst enemy, said Rep Kurt Wright, R-Burlington, a member of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. This has moved (the vote) from being in jeopardy to final jeopardy.

Central Vermont Public Service Corp., the states largest utility, has supported Vermont Yankees continued operation. Spokesman Steve Costello said Friday, We believe the revelations of the past few days raise questions that must be answered to the satisfaction of state and federal regulators.

Gundersen suggested why Entergy might want to mislead the state about the pipes existence. Discovery of leaked tritium at the Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant significantly escalated the cost of decommissioning that plant, he said.

The cost of eventual decommissioning for Vermont Yankee and whether the company has set aside enough money to cover it has been a sticking point for legislators.

link to article:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100116/NEW...

more on the tritium leak:
http://greenmountaindaily.com/diary/5701/new-tritium-le...

--------------

JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THE HUNDREDS OF REASONS TO SHUT DOWN VERMONT YANKEE!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. why would someone unrec this?
not that it really matters but I noticed this post had a rec just moments after I posted it and I came back 15 minutes later and now there are zero. can anyone explain why someone would unrec this unless they're a hack for the nuclear industry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. You answered the question.
Unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinistrous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. My theory is that it was probably "unrecced" by one of the juvenile
twits who continue to vent their poutrage over the existence of the "rec/Unrec" feature by blindly casting an Unrecommend on every post on the forum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. I posted about this in LBN on Friday
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 02:46 AM by bananas
The article was published Friday, my post was 10:15am Friday, but it got moved to the Vermont forum, where fewer people would see it:
"State rips Vermont Yankee"
That should have been within the 12-hour time limit, so I don't know why it was moved.

On Thursday, I posted an article in LBN about an anti-nuclear march, the article was published Thursday, but it was moved to the Vermont forum, where fewer people would see it:
"Anti-nuclear protesters reach capitol"
Don't know if that was within the 12-hour LBN limit or not, but they usually don't move something unless somebody alerts on the post.

Edit to add: It appears I'm one of the few people posting in the Vermont forum, even though I never post there!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Because it's really dumb?
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 02:53 AM by NNadir
Tritium concentrations in the atmosphere are easily measured.

There is NOT ONE anti-nuke on this website who recognizes that tritium concentrations in the atmosphere, unlike the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere about which anti-nukes couldn't care less, have been falling since 1963, dramatically.

Thus everyone who was born since 1963 has been living with more tritium than is on the planet now.

Interestingly, 1963 was about the time that nuclear power started to become a significant form of energy on the planet.

I explored this assinine bit of selective attention some years back:

Profile of Radioactive Substance Associated With Nuclear Power: Tritium.

It is easy to calculate that the number of deaths that may be attributed to tritium on the entire planet is somewhere in the neighborhood of between 10 and 20, many of them probably attributable to medical and scientific use of the isotope.

Generally, because anti-nukes know almost no science, they don't even recognize that the tritium burden - especially given the low energy output of tritium compared to K-40, is vastly lower than the burden from bananas.

The energy output of tritium, per decay, is 0.019 MeV, sort of trivial among radioisotopes. By contrast, the burden of K-40, a naturally occuring radioisotope that is unavoidable if one wishes to stay alive, is 1.505 MeV.

http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/nuc1.html

Note that there is NOT ONE anti-nuke anywhere who gives a rat's ass that nearly every coal plant on the entire planet kills more people that all the nuclear plants on the planet.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be vastly superior to all the stuff that anti-nukes don't care about. It needs to be vastly superior, which happily, it is.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thank you nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. No, it's NOT dumb, when a company LIES under oath.
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 10:21 AM by garybeck
If you can't see that lying under oath to the state legislature is wrong, then you need to have your head examined.

and if there's nothing wrong with leaking tritium, then why would they lie about it,

and you are not an expert on tritium. Arnie Gunderson is, and he disagrees with your "assessment" on the safety of tritium.



tritium is a serious radioactive isotope with a half-life of 12-years, meaning that half will be gone in 12 years and half in 12 more and half of that in 12 more years which means that the radiation will be around for 10-half-lives which means at least 120 years.

The problem with tritium is that it is chemically identical to water. This means that the tritium cannot be filtered out of the water like the other radioactive isotopes may be filtered from reactor water or other contaminated water.

Decommissioning Connecticut Yankee cost an additional $481 million dollars due to radioactive contamination of the soil and water from tritium and Strontium 90. As I have written previously, the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Fund is short hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, the current VY decommissioning analysis is a generic plan that is not site specific to VY and therefore very inexact in determining accurate costs.

Arnie Gunderson, nuclear energy expert who knows a lot more than NNadir.



Bottom line is, lying to the state legislature under oath is a serious thing. It is not "dumb."

I guess you think this is "dumb". But in fact, your comments only expose your a) bias and b) lack of knowledge in the subject.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. If it is a deliberate lie (your conclusion only)
perhaps it was because it posed no jeopardy to health, and anti-nuke hysterics might thwart renewal of Vermont Yankee's license, which would cause a serious strain on a state which derives almost half of its power from nuclear.

What do you propose replacing Vermont Yankee with? Coal? Oil?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. It's either a deliberate lie, or they're fucking incompetent.
Or both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
28. "These guys are engineers. They had to know,"
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 04:58 PM by garybeck
words from the expert, not me.

how far can you go to bend over backwards to make excuses for these people? if they lied deliberately they lied deliberately. it doesn't matter why. if you lie in a court of law, it is perjury. It doesn't matter why. I guess in your book, the truth doesn't matter as much as keeping an old failing nuclear power plant going.

and by the way we do not get "almost half" of our power from nuclear. try 35%. Calling 35% "almost half" is quite a stretch. Par for the course though, coming from you.

to answer your question, No, I do not want to replace vermont yankee with coal and oil. there have been several vast studies on exactly what we can and WILL replace vermont yankee's power with. here's one:

Repowering Vermont: Replacing Vermont Yankee for a Clean Energy Future
http://www.vpirg.org/sites/default/files/resources/2009...

have a nice day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Vermont's nuclear power mix was 42% in 2005 according to the DOE.
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 01:25 AM by wtmusic
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/sta...

If you want to say 42% isn't almost half, that's Okay. You can call it whatever you like.

I won't let you off the hook so easily, however, for posting a link to what Vermont is going to use for power in 2032, when you want to close Vermont Yankee today. Your neighbors are going to be pretty pissed at you when they find out they can't watch Monday Night Football for 22 years.

Not only is 15% solar a pipe dream, but you want to power 16% of Vermont burning wood?

There's a clean energy future alright. :rofl:

onedit: I've been looking and looking for where it says Thayer was "deliberately lying", but I can't find it in the article. Maybe you can point it out to me.

If you can't, would you then have been "mischaracterizing" or "deliberately lying"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. NO, you are WRONG.
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 04:05 PM by garybeck
15% solar by 2032 is not a pipe dream. That's 22 years away. and if you look at this chart:

you'll notice a modest buildup to the 15% which is only needed to account for the extra power demand from electric vehicles.

Regarding your comments about wood as an energy source, the correct term for this is biomass. Much of this is wood chips that is a waste product from other resources, not necessarily trees being cut to make power. And remember as far as Carbon goes, wood is considered carbon neutral because the tree absorbs carbon dioxide while it's growing.

as far as "delibarately lying goes," i'm not going to waste my time going back through all the threads to see who said what. but I think most people would agree, that if you are asked a question and you know the correct answer and you give a different answer, that is called "deliberately lying."

now for your complaint about the 42% nuclear. You are simply wrong on this.

your DOE figure of 42% nuclear is for electric GENERATION, not USE.

the difference is that Vermont Yankee EXPORTS a significant amount of power to other states.

furthermore, the two biggest utilities in Vermont have said they are not going to buy much power from Vermont Yankee even if they stay open.

The correct number for 2005, which I stated, is 36%, not 42% as you incorrectly stated. 36% is clearly not "almost half." please get your facts straight before you jump down my throat.

have a nice day.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. No, wood is not considered "carbon neutral"
because you are taking carbon which is locked inside trees now and spreading it into the atmosphere. The past is irrelevant; going forward it will raise the proportion of atmospheric carbon (you are planting new, smaller trees, which are sucking far less carbon from the air).

"Much of this is wood chips that is a waste product from other resources". WRONG - they will be cutting down forests. Your link:

"With forests covering 80% of Vermonts land area and growing every year, the state is ideally positioned to make forest biomass a significant and sustainable part of its long-term energy strategy."

And CO2 is the tip of the iceberg:

"Scientists have long known that wood smoke contains carbon monoxide and cancer-causing chemicals. But research shows that wood smoke's major ingredient tiny particles of soot and liquid pollution worsens heart disease and triggers asthma attacks."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-13-woodburn...

Also incorrect is your statement that "Vermont Yankee EXPORTS a significant amount of power to other states". Vermont may export power to other states, but it's all part of the grid - so you're exporting nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar as well. No difference in the percentage. And even if Vermont can get by without that source of reliable nuclear power - when you remove it, you remove the source of income. You expect residents to subsidize this loss through higher utility prices? Yep, your neighbors are going to LOVE you.

You can't even verify that Thayer "knew the correct answer" - another fabrication. I'm not asking you to "go back through all the threads" - I'm asking you to represent your source accurately and not make up shit.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-24-10 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. You are completely absolutely 100% incorrect (wrong).
Edited on Sun Jan-24-10 01:46 AM by garybeck
Now before I get to the real matter at hand, concerning whether or not Thayer "knew the correct answer," I am not fabricating anything. I am only quoting Arnie Gunderson, hired by the state government to help them evaluate and investigate Vermont Yankee, who said he "had to know." It's like if you ask your car mechanic whether or not your car has a muffler, and he replies he's not sure but he'll get back to you and then when he gets back to you he says there isn't one, and not only that he brings another one of his machanics with him and he also says your car has no muffler. The truth is, many nuclear plants across the country have had problems with these underground pipes leaking and it's absurd to think that they wouldn't even know if they had them or not. As Arnie Gundersaid said, "they had to know."

Now let's talk about your incorrect statement that Vermont gets 42% of its power from Vermont Yankee.

Look, my friend. I know this because I live in Vermont and I've been talking with people about this for years. Let me make it absolutely clear to you:

Vermont does NOT get 42% of its power from nuclear energy. Period.



No one, not even the proponents of nuclear powere here in Vermont think that. I know this because I've been present at multiple debates where people on both sides of the issue discuss this and everyone agrees, everyone knows, everyone realizes there is a difference between power generation and power use. Everyone except you I guess... But you are simply wrong.

Let me attempt explain it to you. There is a difference between energy produced and energy used. If you look it up on various DOE websites, you can see how much energy each state uses and how much it generates. These are two different numbers. They are calculated in different ways because they represent different things. Let me make it simpler for you because I guess you're not getting it. The amount of energy that a state USES is the amount of energy that the state USES.
The amount of energy that a state GENERATES is the amount of energy that the state GENERATES.

Maybe I need to define "uses" and "generates" for you.

generate:
verb (used with object) 1. to bring into existence; cause to be; produce.

use:
-verb to expend or consume in use: We have used the money provided.

can you see that these are two different words, or are you still not getting it?

Vermont GENERATES a certain amount of power.
Vermont USES a certain amount of power.

These are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

A certain percentage of the power that Vermont GENERATES is nuclear.
A certain percentage of the power that Vermont USES is nuclear.

These are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

You might think they are the same thing but you are wrong if you do.

The truth is that Vermont gets about 36% of the power is USES from Vermont Yankee.

It is INCORRECT and WRONG to say that Vermont gets 42% of its power from Vermont Yankee. Period! The bottom line is, if Vermont Yankee shuts down, as a state we have to replace 35% of our power demand, NOT 42%. Get it?

The difference between the two is the power that is EXPORTED. While you may think that there's just this nebulous "grid" out there and it doesn't make a difference, you are wrong. You are wrong because Vermont Yankee SELLS that power to power companies OUTSIDE OF OUR STATE, through specific CONTRACTS. They don't just feed power into the nebulous grid and hope someone uses it somewhere. The people in Vermont COULDN'T CARE LESS about the power that Vermont Yankee sells outside our state. We don't have to worry about that when we shut down the plant. We only have to replace 36% of our current usage, period. And it's already happening anyway. Last monght Vermont Yankee announced they will raise their rates by 40% if they stay open. CVPS and Green Mountain Power, the state's two largest utility companies, HAVE ALREADY stated that they are NOT going to buy significant power from Vermont Yankee because it's going to be too expensive even if they stay open. They already have a plan to get their power from somewhere else. So if you want to know how/where Vermont is going to replace the 36% (NOT 42%) of its power when Vermont Yankee closes in 2012, just ask the utility companies because they're going in that direction regardless of what happens.

Have a nice day.

PS. You're also wrong about wood. The carbon that is locked inside a tree is released into the atmosphere when it biodegrades, just as it is when it is burned. See post #33.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-24-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. If only using large, bold type made you right.
- Taking Arnie Gundersen's opinion and calling it truth does not make Thayer a liar.

- Your figure of 36% is old (2003), mine is newer (2005). Vermont gets 42% of its electricity from VY. Provide a link or don't waste my time.

- Here's your "nebulous" grid:

Vermont's Transmission Grid

"Vermont's power grid is operated by the Vermont Electric Power Company (VELCO). VELCO was organized in 1956 to develop an integrated transmission system to interconnect the numerous electric utilities and provide them with access to power from the St. Lawrence River project. Currently its transmission system consists of 534 miles of transmission lines, 25 substations, and a 200-megawatt back-to-back High Voltage Direct Current Converter. VELCO is a regulated utility, owned and controlled in various percentages by 14 of the state's utilities, with CVPS and Green Mountain Power (GMP) owning 86.3 percent. VELCO operates Vermont's bulk transmission system and represents the utilities in power pool matters with the New England Independent System Operator. VELCO also performs and directs planning, design, and construction on the Vermont bulk power transmission system as part of the regional grid."

http://publicservice.vermont.gov/electric/electric.html

Once electricity ends up in the grid there is no way to differentiate between "nuclear electricity" and "renewable electricity". Don't be obtuse.

VY's only contract is with the State of Vermont:

"Why are in-state sources important? They keep our electricity prices down by providing long-term contracts that benefit both parties. This is exactly what happened when Entergy bought Vermont Yankee in 2002, as the State of Vermont and the company agreed to a long-term contract establishing Vermont Yankee's current price of electricity at 3.95 cents per kilowatt hour. This below-market-price contract continues to benefit Vermonters at savings estimated by the Vermont Department of Public Service totaling $668 million over the long-term; which translates into real savings for our state's hard-working families."

http://www.safecleanreliable.com/04032008.htm

Burning wood adds CO2 to the atmosphere instantly, decomposition takes place over decades. By burning wood you are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now, then replanting and doing it again by the time the original wood would have decomposed. As well as removing full-growth trees which are reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide every minute of the day.

You may live there, you may have been talking with people for years blah blah blah. Provide links. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-24-10 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. *** DUMMY ***
wtmusic gets the *** DUMMY *** award!
:rofl:

Big Fucking Clue-By-Four: Entergy Lawyers Up, "Disappears" Chief Engineer from website

How do you spell "Cover-Your-Ass"?
Entergy spells it "Lawyer Up and Disappear the Chief Engineer" !!!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. So wtmusic hit the target alright ... the response is smilies, ad-homs and change of topic. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. You have to be kidding!
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 06:42 AM by kristopher
His insistence that wood isn't carbon neutral shows he doesn't understand the fundamentals of carbon cycles.
His rejection of the IPCC evidence shows he is immune to fact based arguments.
His claim regarding how much the nuclear power plant contributes to VT's power needs shows he doesn't understand the basics of grid management.
And his claim that the dude wasn't lying is absurd on its face.

In short, he is talking out his ass; which is situation normal. Driving people to the point of impatience doesn't win an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. OK, you made me waste another hour on this but here is the proof you are WRONG.
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/pub/other/utilityfacts...

this is from Vermont Department of Public Service. Ever heard of them?

look at figure 1.10 on page 9

or figure 1.6 on page 11

NOW do you see that you are WRONG?


or do I need to spell it out for you yet again?

look at the pie chart figure 1.10. Nuclear supplies 33% of Vermont's Electric Energy Supply.

then if pie charts are too complicated for you, try the table on figure 1.16 that shows nuclear supplied 2,036 out of 6,222 in 2007, that is 32%. Not 42% like you keep clinging too, and which, by the way is WRONG.

Now can I stop wasting my valuable time proving to you something that everyone involved in this already knows and agrees on?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. EIA Note 2 These biofuels contain "biogenic" carbon.
Edited on Sat Jan-23-10 08:56 PM by kristopher
2 These biofuels contain "biogenic" carbon. Under international greenhouse gas accounting methods developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, biogenic carbon is part of the natural carbon balance and it will not add to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.
3 Reporters may wish to use an emission factor of zero for wood, wood waste, and other biomass fuels in which the carbon is entirely biogenic.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html
Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program
Fuel and Energy Source Codes and Emission Coefficients

The supporters of nuclear energy have difficulty understanding what "tell the truth" actually means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-24-10 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. thanks for the info and link :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NobleCynic Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Your assessment is correct, but your evidence irrelevant
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 12:43 PM by NobleCynic
This post, in a nutshell, demonstrates exactly why you do such harm to the image of nuclear power on this site.

First off, you are correct in the assessment that tritium is statistically speaking no threat to human health. Nothing in your post demonstrates that in any way however. The logic in your post flows as follows:

A. Natural concentrations of Tritium have been falling.
B. Tritium causes no harm at naturally occurring levels in nature.
C. Potassium is more radioactive than Tritium.
D. Therefore Tritium in high concentrations such as a leak at a power plant are no threat.

Your conclusion is correct, but for reasons completely unrelated to ANY you posted. Try this instead:

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-shee... >

#

Humans receive approximately 82% of their annual radiation dose from natural background radiation, 15% from medical procedures (e.g., x-rays), and 3% from consumer products. Doses from tritium and nuclear power plant effluents are a negligible contribution to the background radiation to which people are normally exposed, and they account for less than 0.1% of the total background dose (NCRP, 1987).

As an example, assume that a residential drinking water well sample contains tritium at the level of 1,600 picocuries per liter (a comparable tritium level was identified in a drinking water well near the Braidwood Station nuclear facility). The radiation dose from drinking water at this level for a full year is characterized as follows (using EPA assumptions):

*at least ten thousand times lower than the dose from a medical procedure involving a full-body computed tomography (CT) scan (e.g., 3,000 to 10,000 mrem from a CT scan vs. 0.3 mrem from tritiated drinking water)
*one thousand times lower than the dose from natural background radiation (e.g., 300 mrem from natural background radiation vs. 0.3 mrem from tritiated water)
*one hundred times lower than the dose from either dental x-rays or natural radioactivity (potassium) in your body (e.g., 30 mrem from potassium vs. 0.3 mrem from tritiated water)
*ten times lower than a round-trip cross-country airplane flight (e.g., 3 mrem from New York to Los Angeles and back vs. 0.3 mrem from tritiated water)


The logic in a proper refutation is as follows:

A. Evidence in the link provided shows the Briadwood Station Nuclear Facility had a major tritium leak into the groundwater.
B. Drinking the contaminated water for a whole year would only cause 0.3 mrem of radiation.
C. For reference of scale, natural annual background radiation is 300 mrem of radiation, a CT scan is 3000 to 10000 mrem of radiation, and a cross country airplane flight is 3 mrem of radiation.
D. Therefore even heavy tritium contamination is statistically insignificant, and of no relevance to the state of affairs of human health.

See the difference? Stop pretending you actually know anything about science. Please. You regurgitate things you find on the web that nominally support your preconceived worldview. You happen to be correct in this instance, but only by pure chance.

Furthermore, there is still the concern regarding the nuclear power plant in question in the original post and its lies under oath about radiation leaks to the government. Even if the radiation in question is of no threat to human health and welfare, it is a major problem. From a legal standpoint, an ethical standpoint, and from the damage it causes to the image of nuclear power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You are awfully high on youself.
Your conclusion in D, which implies no level of tritium contamination could be dangerous to human health, in no way logically follows A,B, or C. "Proper refutation", my ass.

As is your conclusion that NNadir doesn't "know anything about science".

As is your conclusion that Thayer "lied" under oath. You won't find the word "lie" anywhere in the article - that is OP's rush to judgement. Or did you read the article? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. He was using weasel language, he was probably aware of it.
I'd be shocked if he wasn't aware of it. It probably won't lead to anything, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NobleCynic Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. NNadir does more to harm nuclear power than help
Every single one of his posts on the subject are downright offensive to anyone who disagrees with nuclear power, and many that support. I cringe every time I see read a post he has written, and I support nuclear power. There are plenty of people on DU who could be convinced of the merits of nuclear power. But not in such a manner.

And for the logic in NNadir's post... really? You're going to defend that? K...

As for my post, yes, there is probably a level of tritium that is dangerous to human health. I never said you could bathe in pure tritium and be peachy-keen afterward. I said the levels you are likely to encounter, even in a heavily contaminated area such as after a leak from a nuclear facility, are not likely to be dangerous to human health.

As to the lie under oath, lie by omission is a lie in the public's mind. Especially in such a foolish manner. The PR damage to nuclear power in Vermont is far worse after this blunder than it would have been if they had been upfront about the leak. And I imagine that quite a few of the public officials feel quite insulted afterward. It doesn't matter if the nuclear power company is in the right (the leak posing no threat to human health), this is a PR nightmare for them. People are downright irrational when confronted with anything relating to radiation. And if you ignore that irrationality, you get burned. Which is what looks like may happen to Entergy.

Keep in mind, this is all from someone who fully endorses the use of nuclear power to get us off coal as soon as possible. Entergy is hurting the future of nuclear power with such clumsy PR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. If you want to get off coal as soon as possible why would you support nuclear power?
The opportunity costs associated with nuclear power's expense, time to bring online and failure to bring online make it a poor choice to meet out climate change needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NobleCynic Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. Every means possible to get off coal as soon as possible
I favor nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, pretty much anything non-coal. Climate change is a big enough problem, we need to throw every option we have at it. Nuclear also has advantages in working along side wind or solar in smoothing out power flows.

As for nuclear's non-starts in recent years, the cause is more political in nature than a failure of the technology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Oh, I see; you don't understand basic economics...
Resources are not infinite.

In line with finite resources, it follows that when you spend money on a suboptimal solution, it is money NOT spent on a more effective solution.

Consequence: slower progress in achieving your goal.

Wishful thinking (infinite resources) doesn't count as an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NobleCynic Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. The economics of wind and solar both change without a backup
Nuclear has a place as a load balancer, it may be suboptimal as the sole solution, but solar and wind both have reasonably large variances in production. Other solutions for on call power production are fossil fuel intensive. And storing energy from peak production is problematic. Nuclear is a reliable technology for filling in the gaps.

As to the economics, China has 20 reactors under production as we speak. It seems, at least for the Chinese, the demand for energy is sufficient to meet the costs. It is only in the West that the cost of production for new nuclear plants is considered too high. Our political environment has skewed the basic economics of nuclear power. Moreover, the price of uranium is returning to its pre-bubble prices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Nuclear is a terrible solution as a load balancer.
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 05:04 PM by kristopher
It isn't geared for that use, and natural gas (which can be replaced by methane) is. In addition to the fact that natural gas is the least expensive type of generation out there(1), we *already* have a huge under-utilized amount of NG generating capacity. So we already have all the backup we need.

Pointing to China doesn't work for a number of reasons. First, their goals are different than ours and as a consequence they have and are devoting a much larger pool of resources to building energy infrastructure. Second, they've just revamped their policy related to how electricity is selected for use on the grid - the central government has MANDATED that renewable energy sources be used first, with fossil and nuclear alternatives being a second tier choice for grid operators. What that means is that people who invest private funds to build renewable generation will be first in line to sell their output. What THAT means in the long run is that there will be a shift away from central thermal generation to renewables.

Your claim that our political environment is the cause of high prices also doesn't stand scrutiny. It is, however, a popular myth of the right.

ETA: (1) By least expensive I mean least expensive to build.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. *Psst*
> natural gas (which can be replaced by methane)

Now what did you really mean to write? :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Derived from waste streams.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. He does not suffer fools gladly
nor many who are not fools, but keep repeating the same mantras about the evils of nuclear power despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Or keep insisting that there's another option remotely close to keeping the planet from turning into an unsurviveable hothouse in the next half-millenium. Patience wears thin.

"And if you ignore that irrationality, you get burned". True, it was a clumsy and stupid mistake, whether an honest one or not. But what's the best way to respond? I would like to see them go on the offensive with facts, not PR, about how truly insignificant this event was. Sometimes the best way to deal with people who are downright irrational is to show them they are being downright irrational, not attempt to placate them - and in doing so, give their fears a (false) basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. On the contrary - he LOVES fools!
Because only a fool could fall for his horseshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
5. This HAS to be gummint DIS-information. Nobody in the Newkular industry would lie to US.
Rec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
8. This disinformation has been coming out of the nuclear energy industry from the get go
nothing new that they would use a little ole lie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. yeah, but this is blatant and under oath.
I would suspect that it's specifically illegal (punishable by law) to lie under oath to the state legislature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Lets hope so
I got caught up in my disdain for nuclear power and missed that part, sorry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
31. How dangerous is this tritium compared to coal tar parking lot sealant?
Will this dangerous coal tar sealant increase the costs of decommissioning parking lots?

I'm not condoning the fog of misinformation from either side in the Vermont Yankee debate. I find the lack of transparency (on both sides...) very troubling, and very reminiscent of the sorts of debates that took place in the 'seventies and 'eighties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC