Nuclear Expert Warns Congress U.S. Power Plants Not Safe

[kristopher]

...he said, "In June 1998, a tornado disabled the normal power supply for the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio, just as the earthquake had done for Fukushima Daiichi."

"Outside air temperatures exceeding 90 degrees caused the backup power supply to overheat and fail, just as the tsunami had done at Fukushima Daiichi. The difference was that workers restored the normal power supply for Davis-Besse an hour before the backup power supply failed, while more extensive damage prevented workers at Fukushima Daiichi from restoring its normal power supply for nearly a week, days too late to prevent fuel damage," Lochbaum said.

In NRC terminology, a severe accident is one in which at least some of the fuel melts," said Lochbaum. "In testimony at Congressional hearings, NRC and nuclear industry representatives have claimed that the severe accident management guidelines (SAMG) developed in the wake of reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island would provide reliable protection against the problems faced at Fukushima Daiichi. They have not been telling the whole story."

"As newscaster Paul Harvey used to say, here's the rest of the story."

Lochbaum pointed to ...

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2011/2011-05-13-091.html

[LAGC]

1. More UCS anti-NRC scare-mongering propaganda?

Maybe if this "news" came from a less biased source, more people would take it seriously.

[kristopher]

3. UCS is an excellent source of UNbiased information.

The record is clear - the fission industry (source of your beliefs) is the source of false claims; they lie to promote fission, they lie about fission's critics and they lie about their renewable competition.


http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/ksf-2011-climate-change-econ-conflicts-interest-see.pdf

http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/final-see-2009-data-trimming-climate-nuclear-fulltext.pdf

[LAGC]

4. Do you deny that UCS has a clear and blatant anti-nuclear agenda?

They don't even try to hide it.

[kristopher]

6. I have a clear and blatant agenda to prevent arsenic in my water.

That doesn't mean I am BIASED against arsenic, nor does it mean I LIE like the fission industry does to promote my agenda.

[LAGC]

7. What about all the harmful effects of coal and natural gas pollution?

You never speak up against them, just nuclear. Why is that, kristopher, hmm?

Do you really think nuclear is worse than the practical alternatives?

[kristopher]

8. Nuclear and coal are two sides of the same coin.

Every penny spent on nuclear is money wasted in the fight against climate change. Trying to greenwash nuclear by portraying it falsely as needed to fight climate change is just that - greenwashing.

You will not find any environmental group that supports more spending on nuclear.

[LAGC]

9. Good thing we're Democrats here, and not Greens.

Someone's got to be practical about meeting our energy needs.

[kristopher]

10. There is nothing practical about fission - it is a corrupt boondoogle built on lies.

And if you think that the Dem party isn't "Green" you are in the wrong place.

[LAGC]

11. Most Democrats support nuclear power.

Green Party members, not so much.

[FBaggins]

12. I don't know about "most"... but it's certainly a sizable percentage

And a higher percentage of elected Democrats.

[LAGC]

13. My bad.

I should have specified elected Democrats, since they actually have to do the hard job of governing and have to be pragmatic and can't be all utopian all the time.

[kristopher]

14. Not even close. 75% of Dems oppose nuclear.

“Strong” opposition outstrips strong support, 47-20 percent. Opposition is up from 53 percent in a 2008 poll, and strong opposition is up even more, by 24 points.

This ABC News-Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone April 14-17, 2011, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points....

Still, there are differences among groups; opposition is higher among Democrats (75 percent, vs. 59 percent of Republicans and independents combined), women (73 percent, vs. 53 percent of men) and liberals (74 percent, vs. 60 percent of moderates and conservatives).

http://texasvox.org/2011/04/21/nuclear-power-poll-shows-a-spike-in-u-s-opposition-after-fukushima/

Any more bullpucky to sling?

[FBaggins]

15. In one particular poll? Big deal.

We both know (though you'll dodge it) that the number is pretty variable (and also depends a great deal on the question asked).

A year ago, a slim majority of Democrats supported it in a Gallup poll.

[kristopher]

22. 75% OF DEMOCRATS OPPOSE NUCLEAR FISSION

“Strong” opposition outstrips strong support, 47-20 percent. Opposition is up from 53 percent in a 2008 poll, and strong opposition is up even more, by 24 points.

This ABC News-Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone April 14-17, 2011, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points....

Still, there are differences among groups; opposition is higher among Democrats (75 percent, vs. 59 percent of Republicans and independents combined), women (73 percent, vs. 53 percent of men) and liberals (74 percent, vs. 60 percent of moderates and conservatives).

[Donnachaidh]

19. coal and natural gas are practical solutions?

Work for the Koch Brothers, eh? :rofl:

[Kolesar]

2. Davis Besse is in "relicensing hearings" now

:despair:

[AndyTiedye]

5. I Doubt That The Plant Operators are Worried About the Approval Process Very Much

[madokie]

16. All this time I was worried about using a plane to hit the reactor itself

when the real danger is from them hitting the support systems. thats what happened in Japan, only it was an earthquake and tsunami, the support systems went down and then all hell broke loose. Well that can be replicated at any one of our nuclear power plants and I would imagine a lot easier than anyone had thought of before

[Throckmorton]

18. This has been well understood by us in the industry

which is why I cringe when I hear the baloney about aircraft resistant containment domes.

Loss of service water from external events (take your pick) presents the most significant challenge when married to the Station Blackout Scenario.

The B.5.B contingencies, which are all secret btw, are suppose to address these concerns. But as with all contingency plans, they almost never survive first contact with the enemy.

[madokie]

21. Thank you

your confirmation of my fears has me scared shitless now.
all these years I've been worried for the wrong reason,

[Larry L. Burks]

17. Go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x294026

Then go here


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/05/no-nukes-no-problem-germanys-race-for-a-renewable-future


The part that I liked best was the part where it said....

“planned phase out of all nuclear power”

Works for me.




What did you think Obama was talking about when he said.

“The answer to American Energy needs is Green Energy Technology.....

Solar, Wind, and Hydro Electric Power Plants.”


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2067716,00.html#ixzz1L9UIzsMC

Need I say more?

[Donnachaidh]

20. so can Obama explain why he took such huge money from Nuclear proponents?

I'm really not trying to be snarky here, but many of Obama's speeches about what we *need* can be separated into 2008 candidate Obama, and post election, consigliere to the right Obama.

Excelon gave him boo-koo bucks. I really don't think he's going to push wind and solar over the nuclear people who contribute to his campaign.

:shrug: