New York Bight - Wind Energy Areas at Sea

[Seabeau]

Originally Posted by silkie

Everything breaks sometime. Imagine the cost of a nuclear plant damaged by a natural event. The Japanese are still adding it up.

Fukashima, an antique(BWR) boiling water reactor was designed in the late 50's and early 60's. The latest nuke designs, such as the Westinghouse AP designs with their passive safety features are light years ahead in every aspect.

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by Seabeau

Fukashima, an antique(BWR) boiling water reactor was designed in the late 50's and early 60's. The latest nuke designs, such as the Westinghouse AP designs with their passive safety features are light years ahead in every aspect.

1)They never designed for the Tsunami, agreed the new designs have better basic safeties, but.
2) It's all a non-starter until there is a permanent repository for the high and mid level waste streams.
There is still a spot 3 miles, up river, from my old home, which will be off limits, because of the isotopes, for ~24,000 years.

[Seabeau]

Originally Posted by Midnight Son

1)They never designed for the Tsunami, agreed the new designs have better basic safeties, but.
2) It's all a non-starter until there is a permanent repository for the high and mid level waste streams.
There is still a spot 3 miles, up river, from my old home, which will be off limits, because of the isotopes, for ~24,000 years.

The US had a permanent repository until it was shut down by Presidential fiat. Now US nukes are storing high level materials on-site, using the proven French "Dry Cast System", Where in general, was your previous home, if I might ask?

[CaptNemoO2]

Originally Posted by Cadence

This whole thing seem totally academic until someone is willing to invest into it. ConEd, for example, is probably happy with there ancient infrastructure. As far as the cons go, I doubt many recreational boaters venture that far off shore and those that do are probably sport fisherman not 6 knot day sailors.

As I stated before, there is a plan in the works by NYS for a wind farm offshore as well, which is closer. The federal plan is adjacent to it. The NYS plan involves ConEd and LIPA. The location is around 12 miles (+/- a few) from shore, surrounded by the two of the three TSS's in the area. This was the area of concern that was discussed in the pdf I linked by the shipping companies. I, as well as many of the other day sailors in the area sail to that area all the time. That's our "tanker run", and we even have races there and back, which makes it interesting if the tanker chosen as the mark raises their anchor and gets underway. It's also a popular fishing spot, as there are several reefs, some accidental, some from acts of war, some planned. Your would see all sorts of boats out there fishing, including rented dories with a 5hp outboard. Thankfully though not too many of the latter as most of the marinas that rented those are now condos (which itself is unfortunate).

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Seabeau

I also believe that this data also shows that nuclear to be the least expensive low carbon pwr. source save for water power, per kwh.

Low cost maybe to the individual on their power bill. One needs to see what the tax ramifications are for depleted fuel disposal of maybe I should say storage.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seabeau

Fukashima, an antique(BWR) boiling water reactor was designed in the late 50's and early 60's. The latest nuke designs, such as the Westinghouse AP designs with their passive safety features are light years ahead in every aspect.

Indeed. The third generation nuclear plants are orders of magnitude safer than first gen plants like Fukushima.

HOWEVER, first generation nuclear plants are orders of magnitude safer than any other kind of energy. Coal kills more people every week (approximately) than nuclear power has ever killed in 70 years. It is extraordinarily safe and has always been. Two major accidents in 70 years, and those accidents with a lot of economic damage but comparatively little human damage. The only people killed at Fukushima were killed in the process of evacuation.

Originally Posted by Midnight Son

1)They never designed for the Tsunami, agreed the new designs have better basic safeties, but.
2) It's all a non-starter until there is a permanent repository for the high and mid level waste streams.
There is still a spot 3 miles, up river, from my old home, which will be off limits, because of the isotopes, for ~24,000 years.

The waste problem has been solved with the first permanent deep geological repository already completed in Finland and nearly ready to open for commercial operations, at a very acceptable cost (already paid for with a small tax on nuclear power, in Finland which has the lowest electrical rates in Europe). More are under construction in Sweden.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo...uel_repository.

The quantity of waste produced by nuclear power is very small compared to the amount of power generated; disposing of the waste is not a gigantic challenge, other than the politics of it. Compare to the problem of coal ash, which is produced in gigantic quantities and which is highly toxic and incidentally, also radioactive.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Low cost maybe to the individual on their power bill. One needs to see what the tax ramifications are for depleted fuel disposal of maybe I should say storage.

Waste disposal in deep geologic formations is very cheap compared to the amount of power produced. The Finnish one is already paid for out of a small tax on nuclear power which has been accumulated in a fund.

The economics of nuclear power depend entirely on the interest rate.

The capital cost per unit of generating capacity is much greater than for other types of power, but the fuel cost is vastly less. So the economics look good in low interest rate environments and bad in high interest rate environments. Nuclear power stopped being developed in the 70's and 80's NOT primarily because of political or regulatory problems, but because in that inflationary and high interest rate era, it become uneconomical.

The next generation of nuclear power plants, particularly the Small Modular Reactors, are designt to radically reduce construction time and reduce capital costs, but mass producing the modules in factories. This should change this equation for the better. But at the moment -- it's all in the interest rate.

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. The third generation nuclear plants are orders of magnitude safer than first gen plants like Fukushima.

HOWEVER, first generation nuclear plants are orders of magnitude safer than any other kind of energy. Coal kills more people every week (approximately) than nuclear power has ever killed in 70 years. It is extraordinarily safe and has always been. Two major accidents in 70 years, and those accidents with a lot of economic damage but comparatively little human damage. The only people killed at Fukushima were killed in the process of evacuation.



The waste problem has been solved with the first permanent deep geological repository already completed in Finland and nearly ready to open for commercial operations, at a very acceptable cost (already paid for with a small tax on nuclear power, in Finland which has the lowest electrical rates in Europe). More are under construction in Sweden.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo...uel_repository.

The quantity of waste produced by nuclear power is very small compared to the amount of power generated; disposing of the waste is not a gigantic challenge, other than the politics of it. Compare to the problem of coal ash, which is produced in gigantic quantities and which is highly toxic and incidentally, also radioactive.

I thought the Finish operation, was just for domestic use only.
Thank you.

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by Seabeau

The US had a permanent repository until it was shut down by Presidential fiat. Now US nukes are storing high level materials on-site, using the proven French "Dry Cast System", Where in general, was your previous home, if I might ask?

Ah, Yucca Mountain, no, it was scuttled by Nevadans, with the help of a Senator, as far as I can gather, a few on this site have told me so, in no uncertain terms, I might add.


As to where I lived, when I was a babe in arms in Alhambra California, grew up on the Winnipeg River, in Manitoba.

[Seabeau]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Low cost maybe to the individual on their power bill. One needs to see what the tax ramifications are for depleted fuel disposal of maybe I should say storage.

I believe that all US nuke plants now use the onsite, French "Dry Cast Storage System", for their spent fuel assemblies, because a previous American President closed our long term storage facility down. I believe there is still a lawsuit, filed by the Edison Institute, moving thru the Federal Court system, due to this event.

[Seabeau]

Originally Posted by Midnight Son

Ah, Yucca Mountain, no, it was scuttled by Nevadans, with the help of a Senator, as far as I can gather, a few on this site have told me so, in no uncertain terms, I might add.


As to where I lived, when I was a babe in arms in Alhambra California, grew up on the Winnipeg River, in Manitoba.

I believe Harry Reid, the senator you mentioned, gladly took the construction jobs provided by the excavation of the depository and then upon it's conclusion and with Obama's assistance shut Yucca Mtn. down. There is a lawsuit still in the mill over this issue.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Seabeau

... I believe there is still a lawsuit, filed by the Edison Institute, moving thru the Federal Court system, due to this event.

June 1, 2018:


US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Nevada’s Motion to Dismiss in Texas Case Involving Yucca Mountain
➥ https://ag.nv.gov/News/PR/2018/US_Fi...ucca_Mountain/

“... We hold that Texas’s claims do not satisfy the statutory requirements of timeliness or finality, and we therefore must dismiss them.”
➥ http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...-60191-CV0.pdf

Were you referring to this law suit, to try to get the Department of Energy to stop collecting fees, for a waste program now that a planned disposal site has been scrapped?
➥ https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/yucca-lawsuit/#gref

[Seabeau]

Originally Posted by GordMay

June 1, 2018:


US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Nevada’s Motion to Dismiss in Texas Case Involving Yucca Mountain
➥ https://ag.nv.gov/News/PR/2018/US_Fi...ucca_Mountain/

“... We hold that Texas’s claims do not satisfy the statutory requirements of timeliness or finality, and we therefore must dismiss them.”
➥ http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...-60191-CV0.pdf

Were you referring to this law suit, to try to get the Department of Energy to stop collecting fees, for a waste program now that a planned disposal site has been scrapped?
➥ https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/yucca-lawsuit/#gref

I believe there are hundreds of millions of dollars in electrical rate payers funds also involved and I thought that suit had been filed by the Edison Institute. The Yucca site, a large hole in the ground, can always be reopened.

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by Seabeau

I believe there are hundreds of millions of dollars in electrical rate payers funds also involved and I thought that suit had been filed by the Edison Institute. The Yucca site, a large hole in the ground, can always be reopened.

It can, but opening an old hole is really expensive.
I am retired from the mining industry, if it was not properly mothballed, it can cost the same amount to reopen, as it was to dig it in the first place.
Have a great day.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. The third generation nuclear plants are orders of magnitude safer than first gen plants like Fukushima.

HOWEVER, first generation nuclear plants are orders of magnitude safer than any other kind of energy. Coal kills more people every week (approximately) than nuclear power has ever killed in 70 years. It is extraordinarily safe and has always been. Two major accidents in 70 years, and those accidents with a lot of economic damage but comparatively little human damage. The only people killed at Fukushima were killed in the process of evacuation.



The waste problem has been solved with the first permanent deep geological repository already completed in Finland and nearly ready to open for commercial operations, at a very acceptable cost (already paid for with a small tax on nuclear power, in Finland which has the lowest electrical rates in Europe). More are under construction in Sweden.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo...uel_repository.

The quantity of waste produced by nuclear power is very small compared to the amount of power generated; disposing of the waste is not a gigantic challenge, other than the politics of it. Compare to the problem of coal ash, which is produced in gigantic quantities and which is highly toxic and incidentally, also radioactive.

Dockhead, You are speaking of Finland not the US with it's insatiable usage of power.
Include the cost of a possible disaster like the ones in Japan and the Ukraine. Three Mile Island was a near miss, I guess.
I wish I did see it as a long term solution to fossil fuels but feel it is swapping one evil for another as it pertains to the ecology.
I'm not a tree hugger but a concerned citizen of the Earth and what we may leave for future generations, at my age it doesn't make a damn difference to me.