Fire breaks out at Perry Nuclear Power Plant--First Energy's other poorly managed nuke on Lake Erie

[Kolesar]

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/03/28/news/doc4bafff5e686d7142453513.txt
By Brandon C. Baker

A fire took place at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant about 5:45 p.m. Sunday and was finally extinguished by about 9:30 p.m., a FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. spokesperson said.

Spokesman Todd Schneider said the “small” fire took place in a lubrication system for one of the pumps that feeds water into the plant’s reactor. As a result, the company reduced power at the plant to about 70 percent. Schneider said oil coated insulation in the system, which caused smoldering and the fire to reignite “several times.”

“It is officially out,” he said after 10 p.m.

Two of FENOC’s internal brigade personnel experienced heat stress before being transported to TriPoint Medical Center in Concord Township, Schneider said. The employees are believed not be contaminated.

“Everything is under control,” Schneider said. “Our internal fire brigade responded, along with Perry, Madison and Painesville (fire departments).”

[Dead_Parrot]

1. Update: EVERYBODY IN OHIO IS DEAD!!

Oh, wait.

Sorry folks, I channeled Harvey Wasserman by mistake. Turns out it was a small oil fire.

[joshcryer]

2. I knew a damn nukenut would come to the defense of this travesty.

Peoples lives are at risk and nukenuts couldn't care less. They'd dance gleefully if another Chernobyl happened.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Tappity tappity tappity

[FedUpWithIt All]

33. I have family near there. I don't find this funny at all. n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

34. You want not funny?

Fossil fuel powerstations kill 1,900 people in Ohio every year. That's one every 4 and a half hours, or 2 people since the OP.

I'd also worry if I had family there. Just not for the same reasons.

[FedUpWithIt All]

35. Well you won't see me dancing over their potential graves as you have done previously.

I think the broader subject is most grave and not at all humorous.

[Dead_Parrot]

36. Yeah, people ignoring real, ongoing deaths pisses me off, too. nt

[FedUpWithIt All]

37. Well, i suppose you think you're being clever.

You assume incorrectly if you think i support a fossil fuel power system over nuclear. I support neither.

I responded to you because i find it reprehensible that you would make light of the deaths that have happened from previous nuclear disasters, when a frightening situation recently happened at a similar plant.

It shows a serious lack of broader thinking or sensitivity...

But seriously, if you must, dance on...:puke:


Have a great evening.

[Dead_Parrot]

38. Really?

Your silence is support enough.

I don't see any outrage from you over mining deaths
I don't see any outrage from you over the millions who dies every year from particulate pollution.
I don't see any outrage from you over the millions who are now suffering, and dying from, unusual drought.
I don't see any outrage from you over our dwindling capacity to produce food.
I don't see any outrage from you over overfishing.
I don't see any outrage from you over deforestation.
I don't see any outrage from you over the world's leaders failure to address these problems.

What I see is outrage over a fucking small lubricant fire.

[FedUpWithIt All]

41. My silence eh?

Would you like to know what i am doing with MY life?


We sold most of our possessions. We no longer keep any electronics besides the computers my children school on, one tv and dvd player for family movie time (no cable), one cell phone, one pair of hair clippers, two space heaters, one stove and one fridge. We moved ourselves and our 4 children into a small two bedroom apartment which has a water heater and overhead lights, which we do not use unless absolutely necessary. I wash our clothing in a bucket with a plunger and wring them in a 100 yr old wringer before i take them outside to line dry. We even use an old push sweeper instead of a vacuum. We have no microwave, straitening irons, coffee makers, toasters, console games, washer, dryer, dishwasher, blenders, food processors, crockpots...

We invested everything we have into a piece of land where we will live off grid once we have our home built.

Why? Because we ARE outraged. And we actually ARE doing something tangible about it. Try again.

[Dead_Parrot]

42. Very nice

Loose the TV, DVD, space heaters and hair clippers (seriously, fucking hair clippers!?) and you'll be almost as holy as me.

Meanwhile, try directing some of that anger at the fucking fossil fuels that have, since since the OP, killed four more Ohioans than than a small lube fire.

[madokie]

3. I beg to differ, It is never "under control"

Only fools advocate for the increase in the use of more nuclear power as it stands today. WASTE, where you gonna put it. Where are you going to move all the people who will be displaced when one of these things goes critical and blows its top. They're all getting old and accidents happen and brother when one of these do the accident thing shit happens in a big bad way. Look at Chernobyl and the surrounding area for a clue. Look at all the lies still being told about that one and TMI for a glimps into the way the industry will handle it when it does. Obfuscate and when they doesn't work then outright lie is what they do.

CO2 is killing us but the planet will and can bounce back from what we're doing there but with nuclear energy we're poisoning the world where some places will never for a long long time be safe.

[joshcryer]

5. "planet will and can bounce back from what we're doing" [with CO2 emissions]

The planet will one day die. Until that point there exist a human civilization of nearly 7 billion people who will, at the worst of CO2 emissions, ravage the planet until it would beg us to stop.

You think that CO2 emissions are recoverable? Heh, wait until a couple of billion people are battling it out for resources due to the effects of CO2 emissions.

No this is not an exaggeration, we're talking about global war, famine, mass migrations. Possibly even a nuclear exchange. It's not good.

[madokie]

8. So you want more nuke plants?

All that may happen but it won't be just all of a sudden we're at each others throats. My suspicion is that we've about reached the limit of the number of people on this world and that number will start declining in the not too distant future. CO2 is good for plant growth and it's been shown that they grow faster and as they use more and more co2 they emit more and more of what we need to live, oxygen. I'll reiterate what I said, only fools advocate for the increase in the use of nuclear power.

[Statistical]

9. Are you a climate changer denier? "CO2 is good for plant growth"

Rapid and unsustainable CO2 emissions are is killing the planet.

There is also the feedback cycle which means continued elevated CO2 level run the risk that we can not bring it back down for very long time. CO2 wamrs the planet, warmer planet releases CO2 from ocean, perfmafrost, soil which warms planet which releases ..... etc.

[madokie]

12. Actually test has shown an increase in plant growth rates in higher co2 concentrations

actually that is.

Am I a denier? now you make me laugh LOL

[Statistical]

15. You didn't answer the question.

Of course plants grow faster in CO2 rich enviroment.

look at plant life millions of years ago (when CO2 concentrations are higher).

However the sum effects of increased CO2 will be catastrophic for the planet (even if planets do grow faster).
Do you agree?

Simple Question.
Do you agree that CO2 increases are caused by man and will lead to climate change?
Do you also agree that change will be catastrophic to both mankind and other species on the planet?

[madokie]

17. You read what I wrote

reread for your ANSWER you so want. Oh the question about being a denier, you made me laugh then first time and you're making me laugh now.:rofl: what a tool

[Statistical]

19. The "CO2 is good for plants" is a common strawman used by deniers.

I guess we know where you stand.

No need to build nuclear plants, just burn coal & gas.... afterall "it is good for plants"!

[madokie]

23. Yep you are silly

you read what you want into what others say rather than what someone writes. How stupid is that? I ask?
Now go on your way and leave the yard work to me :hi: I can handle it.

[wtmusic]

43. Plant-killer!

"Our mission is to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2 and help prevent the inadvertent negative impact to human, plant and animal life if we reduce CO2."

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/73/MenuGroup/AboutUs.htm

[Statistical]

45. Holy Crap. Now I have seen it all. Maybe someone on this thread is a charter member. n/t

[madokie]

50. I'm thinking you have

your head square up your ass bigtime

[joshcryer]

29. anti-nukers are, I'm finding, "CO2 minimialists."

That is, they believe CO2 ain't so bad, and generally side with arguments that support CO2 increase.

[kristopher]

48. "Nukers" are, I'm finding, "lovers of nuclear war"

That is, they believe nuclear war isn't so bad and generally side with arguments that support nuclear weapons.

[joshcryer]

52. Cite? I can easily show posts by anti-nukers that try to minimize CO2.

Show me where an "nuker" wants nuclear war.

[kristopher]

53. Not only do they embrace nuclear war by promoting weapons proliferation technology but they like CO2

Nuclear power's primary support base is found in the energy security mindset - the "Drill baby drill" crowd Obama is getting ready to pander to yet again when he opens up offshore drilling.
Nuclear proponents generally support ALL energy options - including more coal plants.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[joshcryer]

55. Nonsense.

[FBaggins]

57. You have to udnerstand that they don't all live in the same reality.

There is a wonderful fantasy world where the only reason anyone has nuclear power (or nuclear weapons) is because we do. If we stopped building then (and, of course, destroyed the ones we have), the rest of the world would immediately follow suit and the threat of nuclear war would end. If we don't do so, then such wars are inevitable. In fact, you'll often catch them fudging emissions comparisons for nuclear power by throwing in the emissions from a couple nuclear wars.

Therefore, to support even nuclear power is to support nuclear war. In fact, since they are the inevitable result of such decisions, you must WANT that to happen. If you're opposed to such wars, you MUST oppose ANY use of nuclear power.

The thing is... these fantasy-dwellers are the ones you WANT to talk to. Because the alternative group KNOWS that the argument is full of cr@p... but makes it anyway because they can't come up with anything better.

"Unbalanced" being preferable to "dishonest" any day of the week. :)

[joshcryer]

30. I advocate immediate CO2 reduction via whatever means is necessary.

I comprehend that a warming planet is not good when you have an intelligent species that wants to survive, and that in the end it will be, overall, worse for the planet.

We're well in to a new phase of extinction, or did you miss that thread?

[bananas]

32. So you're in favor of nuclear war, too?

You said "via whatever means is necessary".
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x193139
"This magnitude of this cooling would bring about the coldest temperatures observed on the globe in over 1000 years"
"It is sobering to realize that the nuclear weapons used in the study represented only 0.3% of the world's total nuclear arsenal"

[joshcryer]

40. Nonsense.

But you knew that.

[FBaggins]

56. Dupe.

Deleted

[safeinOhio]

6. I look to the yeast model

put some yeast in the grape juice. they live so happy, not a care in the world. reproduce and shit and pee, life is good. as the sugar is used up they begin to drown in the shit and pee until they are all gone.
please slow down on the reproduction thing and clean up your shit and pee.

[Statistical]

7. NUCLEAR CASUALTIES!!!!!!! OH NOES

"Two of FENOC’s internal brigade personnel experienced heat stress"

Oh wait those would be heat casualties. Hopefully they make a full recovery unlike the employees of this conventional power plant.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61619Q20100207
"At least 5 dead in Connecticut gas plant blast"

Nuclear energy, safe, clean, and reliable.

[safeinOhio]

10. chernobyl,

three mile island?

[Statistical]

11. Come on really?

Chernobyl was a graphite moderated positive void reactor operated in the Soviet Union. Ingring the Soviet Union complete lack of regulation, inspections, or concern for safety positive void reactors are PROHIBITED in the United States (and almost all of the world). They are prohibited for the exact reason that caused Chernobyl.

Learn about the most basic level of science involved in nuclear reactors and get back to me. A least look of void coefficient of reactivity. That might help you understand how Chernobyl was different than every single reactor in the United States.


TMI? TMI was media hype. 30 years of studies have concluded not a SINGLE person has died from the accident at TMI. Also we learned a lot from TMI that improved the safety aspect of nuclear reactors even more.

[madokie]

13. Really

In the nuclear power industries funded studies that is

[Statistical]

14. nuclear funded univsersities? nuclear funded American Cancer Society? nuclear funded EPA?

anti-nukkers are a joke.

TMI is the most extensively studied accident in the history of the modern world.

You would have us believe that:
* EPA
* NRc
* Dozens of state agencies
* American Cancer Society
* Cancer Institute
* Dozens of universities

All of them are all "in on the conspiracy" a conspiracy which has lasted 30 years.


That somehow is more believable than the "shocking reality" that they hundreds of studies are right and TMI didn't kill anyone and there is no conspiracy?

Here is just one example of a followup study.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2997-three-mile-island-cancer-rates-normal.html

The study of over 23,000 people living within a five-mile radius of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant found "no consistent evidence that radioactivity released during the nuclear accident has had a significant impact on the overall mortality of these residents".

- University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health

To anyone with even the slightest scientific knowledge this makes perfect sense. 90% of the radiation released from TMI was in the form of noble gases. Gases which are lighter than air. When you release something lighter than air into the atmosphere where does it go?

[madokie]

16. As I've said so many times

the nuclear industry is not to be trusted in any way shape or form. They lie thats what they do. You want to believe them go for it, I choose to not.
And doubt seriously there is much truth in what you just typed there, how you like them apples? :hi:

[Statistical]

18. Once again avoided the question.

Having a skepticism of the industry is health and a good idea.
That applies to any industry.

Blindly disbelieving studies coming from numerous bodies unconnected to the industry over a 30 year period because you don't like the results well that isn't logic.

We are no longer talking about healthy skepticism we are talking about faith.
It is no more scientific than fundies saying evolution isn't true because the "Bible tells them so".

Nobody asked you to trust the nuclear industry. That is the mother of all straw men.

You are claiming every university study, govt study, NGO study (of which there are hundreds) over a 30 year period are all false, all fake, all part of some massive coverup that would now have to cover millions of people?

The amount of exposure to average resident within 10 miles of TMI was a chest x-ray. That number of fatalities is 0. There is a massive amount of scientific work done on the issue. You are just upset people didn't die at TMI. 50 million operating hours later nuclear has proven to be stubbornly safe. It simply won't kill anyone that anti-nukkers could spin all out of proportion.

It would reserve the trend if your increasingly unpopular religion if nuclear would just hurry up and kill some people.


If nuclear doesn't kill anyone in the next decade how low do you think opposistion to clean, reliable, emission free energy will go? 25%? 20%? 15%?

[madokie]

20. I do not avoid questions

if you can't comprehend what I said thats your, not my, problem.

[Statistical]

21. Oh I comprehend you religion just fine. I guess my faith is just lacking n/t

[madokie]

22. You sound stupid now

For your information I am a NON religious person and I do not believe that jebus is going to come down and take all you believers away into the heavens so why do you need to worry with all that waste of a gift god gave you for making your power while you were here on earth. Go howl at the moon for all I care because none of your argument is getting through. In other words I've been here before with this kind of bullshit and I'm sure I'll be here again.

Have a great day as I'm fixing to head out into the yard and plants some plants as I think our winter is over now. Time to clean the gutters, mend the fences and treat the deck among other things as spring has sprung.

[Statistical]

24. Not everyone finds religion in God.

While you may not be "religious person" you certainly do a lot of "faith based" thinking.
One would have to in order to ignore the mountain of evidence FROM NON INDUSTRY SOURCES about TMI.
You claim that TMI killed people is faith based.

Christians believe "Jebus coming down to take all you believers into heaven" in the absence of evidence.
You believe that TMI killed people in the absence of evidence.

That is FAITH. In fact that is the definition of faith.
Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Despite your obvious disdain for organized religion in the traditional sense you have been attracted to another unconventional source of religion. The church of the ebil reactor.

[madokie]

25. Good bye

[kristopher]

31. .

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[kristopher]

26. The nukenuts hate stories like this...

They hang their hat on the point that it didn't involve the nuclear materials directly, deriving from that the conclusion that "nuclear power" is safe.

However, the entire premise behind their claim that nuclear power is safe relies on the low statistical probability of a nuclear accident. In talking to the public they translate that low statistical probability into a de facto ZERO probability of a Chernobyl scale nuclear accident.

They do THAT because of the extreme consequences of a Chernobyl scale accident should it occur. Can you imagine what would happen if the Hudson Valley and NYC were in the area contaminated by such an event? The cost in lives would be staggering, and the financial costs would, quite literally, completely bankrupt the nation.

So they are desperate to maintain the illusion that their system has ZERO chance of a large scale failure. They spend tens of millions of dollars each year trying to convince the public that their system with ZERO chance of a large scale failure is PERFECT.

When an incident like this occurs; or when an incident like the hole in the head of the Davis Besse reactor is revealed; the proponents of the nuclear industry swarm like hornets to try and minimize the damage to the web of illusion they've been so busy spinning...

USC Davis Besse Reactor with a hole in its head
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/acfnx8tzc.pdf

[Statistical]

27. That is why we build containment structures AND don't build positive void reactors.

Even Canada was smart enough to not certify their new medical reactor when tests showed it exhibits positive void characteristics (which based on the design it shouldn't).

Positive void combined with no containment was an accident waiting to happen.

It isn't that those characteristic made an accident more likely it made any serious accident virtually impossible to recover from or mitigate the effects of.

Nobody (except you to create your own strawman) is saying reactors have a zero % chance of failure given infinite time.
Reactors will fail. Given enough time one eventually will fail.

The goal is:
a) to design reactor that fission STOPS (not increases) when coolant boils off. Western PWR/BWR can halt fission in seconds using combination of passive safety (negative void), neutron poisons, and control rods.
b) to design reactor than can contain radioactive release. Containment is designed to handle overpressure from steam in LOCA accident.


Someday will there be a LOCA (Loss of Cooling Accident) is the United States? 100% positive than given infitite time it will happen.
When that accident occurs (eventually) will it have a Chernobyl like effect? Simply not possible.

Reactor will stop because physics make it impossible to contine fission under those conditions.
Containment will contain radiation release. The reactor will be destroyed, the public relations fallout will be massive, but there will be no Chernobyl.

[kristopher]

28. See folks - "We are PERFECT" claims nuclear industry representative.

"Simply not possible."

Suspected N.J. al-Qaeda terrorist Sharif Mobley worked at nuclear power plants
Sunday, 14 March 2010 11:58

Friend says former classmate at Buena High School was a ‘normal, nice guy'
BY ALICIA CRUZ
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

An old high school friend of the South Jersey man arrested by Yemeni counter terrorism forces during an Al-Qaeda suspect roundup in Sa'naa, Yemen earlier this month has asked that we pray for the family of Sharif Mobley.

The man, who asked that he only be identified as "Chad" said that he attended high school with Mobley and was very close to him during their school days. Chad described Mobley as a "normal, nice guy" with whom he went to wrestling matches with. Chad said that Mobley moved to Yemen two years ago to learn Arabic and that he never heard Mobley recite any radical statements nor did he know of his former friend having any ties to extremist groups. He added that Mobley, who is the son of Somalian Muslim immigrants, was an average kid who liked girls and video games and never bothered anyone. He reportedly earned a black belt in karate.

"He was an overall nice person who would do anything for you."

Chad and Mobley attended Buena Regional High School together. When asked ...

USC Davis Besse Reactor with a hole in its head
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/acfnx8tzc.pdf

[NNadir]

39. Well, compared to lightweight paranoid uneducated bloggers, I would say that

there are very few people qualified to work in nuclear operations who aren't relatively perfect.

They're perfectly aware of how little nuclear critics know about nuclear technology or, for that matter, any technology.

[Kolesar]

44. My friends who worked at Perry nuke used to fake their training records.

Who wants to read a boring refresher manual anyway?

[kristopher]

47. There is no way to avoid such complacency in the human element.

You can fight against it, and when you succeed, the system works very well. But the law of averages demands that those training successes are ALWAYS offset by failures. We cannot engineer humans to be infallible.

[NNadir]

49. This evocation of "my friends" strikes me of a case of a chiropractor's assistant complaining

about "his friend" the neurosurgery OR tech having a drinking problem.

I'm sorry, but I am not about to dignify the destruction of earth's atmosphere because you have an anecdotal accout through a "friend."

100% of anti-nukism is scaremongering based on ignorance.

The fact is that decades of such scare mongering have not produced an observed death rate in this country despite all the picayune bullshit raised by people who don't know their asses from a mule's ass.

It would be really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really interesting if there was ONE anti-nuke gave a fuck about the observed deaths connected with the use by trained or untrained, regulated or unregulated dangerous fossil fuel use, which actually kills people day after day, year after year, decade after decade, but experience teaches me that that ISN'T going to happen.

Anti-nukes have their heads up their asses so far, even if they can't identify their asses, that they think their ignorance matters.

The millions of nuclear professionals around the world couldn't care less what the uneducated think, any more than there is one neurosurgeon who is going to go out of business because of what a chiropractor's assistant thinks.

[Kolesar]

51. Where in your crowing about "capacity factor" do you account for the Perry nuke shutdowns...

...due to mismanagement and incompetence? There have been plenty of them since this expensive plant opened. What was the capacity factor at Davis-Besse while First Energy lost the reactor lid and idled due to more nozzle cracks? About zero, I reckon

There are two Es in Besse.

[Statistical]

54. Yes capacity factor includes all outages both planned and unplanned.

It simply is total energy generated over a period of time (usually a year) divided by theoretical max energy (for same period of time).

So 1 GW reactor.
24 hours per day
365 days per year.
Theoretical max (100% capacity factor) would be 1 * 24 * 365 = 8760 GW or 8.76 billion kWh.

So no matter how no (or less) power is produced it is included in the stat. DOE simply adds up all the power delivered to the grid and divides it by the nameplate potential to get capacity factor.

Reactors operates at 100% load for months (even years at a time) but they need to ramp up and down slowly so that potential energy "lost" during ramp up and down is also included.

While some long outages do bring down capacity factor you also have plants which operates for over a year without a single second of downtime. Plants with more than one reactor usually stagger refueling/maintenance/inspection outage so the overall plant annual output remains steady.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/sequoyah.html

The 92% is the national average it doesn't mean every single plant will always be 92%.

[FBaggins]

46. Yeah... thank goodness there are never fires at coal or gas plants.

n/t