Are we overly worried about Radiation?

Texas has the highest per capita use of electricity. Industries like refining and aluminum manufacturing in east Texas are big users. Air conditioning also accounts for a much higher energy use than most other states. The Texas grid is separated than other grids and it provides a good look at how energy is used. Texas does not export electricity except for emergencies in other grids. Mexico recently sold texas some power to end the rolling blackouts. I use south texas nuclear because it is one of the few new nuclear plants that is shovel ready and does not have many of the geographical problems other nuclear power plants have. NRG, a new jersey corporation is the main partner in the plant and expansion. The second biggest partner in the expansion is Tokyo Electric the owner of the Japanese nuclear plant in this discussion. NRG is quick to point out that Tokyo Electric will have nothing to do with operations or safety.

South Texas was originally planned for 4 nukes but only 4 were built due to costs over runs. It should not be too many megawatts in one spot and is well run, but I question whether we really need to subsidies nuclear. If the reactors do not get built more gas power plants will be built. Part of the problem in texas is most power is from gas which is subject to price swings. Nuclear and Wind are ways for companies to reduce this risk. The grid is being built out as fast as it can be for wind and wind now sits at about 8%. I expect wind to grow to 20% in the state by 2030. Wind is the pitch to create jobs in Texas.

Renewable will be 33% in austin by 2020 with 20% from the existing 2 reactors. Austin and San Antonio have said they do not want to be part off the nuclear expansion which is one reason the plan has financing problems. NRG keeps pitching Austin that they can close down coal completely by 2017 if they join the plan, but they can also do this by expanding gas. Current plan is for Austin keep coal going until around 2025 when the grid can handle enough wind.

 

The scale doesn't go past 7.

On a logarithmic scale, this 'upgrade' consumes most of the gap between what the Japanese government had been saying, and Chernobyl. This helps shed more light on the differing statements and evacuation radii expressed by the U.S. and Japanese governments.

I very much want to see some new designs built and put into operation, to replace aging plants of obsolete designs and to keep learning in order to improve future designs.

But '100 year' flood protection is not even close to good enough. That means a 40-60% chance of flood protection failure over the typical nuke operating life. (I'm guessing that cat 5 hurricanes and 100 year floods are not independent events in your area.) Put another way, we currently have about 100 operating nukes in the U.S. right now. If all of them were protected to just this level, we'd be experiencing an average of one nuke flood-failure per year. That is much too high.

Western commercial airliners have fatal crash rates, from all causes, far lower than that.

The other thing I don't like about 'xx-year' flood levels is that they are usually backwards-looking. The human tendency to 'develop' former water absorbing vegetation by covering them with water-shedding concrete, asphalt, and roofing material, has made a mockery of many flood risk maps.

 

sorry, sarcasm. I should have used a smiley.

Let me clarify. They say it can withstand a 41 foot storm surge and winds from a cat 5 huricane. It was built in an area where a huricane has not hit and is 10 miles inland. NRG also claims it was built to withstand much more than the 33 foot foot storm surge and earthquake fukushima experienced. It is also built at 29' which is above rhe 28' - 100 year flood plain. I assume they need to get workers in and out after the storm surge and that they assume the the water will fall bellow flood plain eventually. I live in austin where there is flooding not related to hurricanes.

I didn't mean to be misleading. Definitely and we have much more dangerous nuclear power plants not built to these earthquake and flooding standards.

I don't think really know the risks of cat V huricanes in the gulf. But South Texas power has the 4th and 6th youngest plant, and one extra redundant cooling systems. The cooling pumps and reactor are in steel reinforced concrete that can withstand high flowing water. I still don't think they should add 2 new reactors relying on government loans and government insurance.

 

i think austingreen is right. I used to read about nuclear power plants and sometimes discuss with my friends also. And there comes no end of that discussion but the important thing that i noticed is the same written above. And the latest tragedy or can say example of harm from nuclear reactor, we have seen in Japan.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY

 

nuclear is not cost effective
when calculating price for key they don't calculate the nuclear waste.
because they expect this to be reusable............buth that's not the case yet and if only a small part en during that time its stored in places not as strong as a reactor:...............

 

o and don't forget.. tax payers pay in the case of a accident like a meltdown.
no company will insure that

 

Interesting. Driving to Ukraine in my Prius soon. Will pack my geiger counter!