  Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4541 Registered: 10-2003 |
Un-effing believable... From the company that almost lost Detroit [and Monroe, Toledo and our Canadian cousins in Essex County] come plans for yet another nuke. Here is a company that keeps piling up onsite nuclear waste with no real plan for its removal or disposition, gets a pass on any liability [like the rest of that poisonous industry - check your homeowners policy if you don't believe me] to cover its potential massive destruction capacity that it possesses as a terrorist target or, more likely as their history proves, sheer Homer Simpson incompetence. Painting my protest signs in the basement. Time to gear up for another fight to save Detroit. Not much in this article, surprise, surprise, but all anyone needs to know. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=20088021703 18 New nuclear plant planned near Fermi 2 MONROE -- DTE Energy Co. is continuing to plan for a new nuclear power plant near its existing Fermi 2 reactor. The Monroe Evening News reports DTE is encouraged by federal energy policy and believes electricity demand will grow. The company has budgeted $30 million for studying the feasibility of a new plant and the application process. | ||
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine Post Number: 423 Registered: 04-2004 |
Cool. | ||
Me3head Member Username: Me3head Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-2003 |
Nuclear is our only home of meeting energy demand in a post fossil fuel world. | ||
Hans57 Member Username: Hans57 Post Number: 267 Registered: 05-2006 |
I agree Me3. It's a "clean" way to wean ourselves from oil dependence. Initially clean, but then we have the depleted uranium or whatever element they use now to deal with, and of course the threat of melt down. Where's Gil Scott Heron, and what would Karen Silkwood say? | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 829 Registered: 08-2006 |
I agree I would much rather have a Nuclear plant than a Coal plant any day. I can see the thick dark clouds that the Saint Clair plants make not to mention the others in Canada along the St Clair river. Those plants ususally top the list of heaviest polluters in the state. Of course the nuclear waste is a difficult issue but one better than coal in my opinion. I would much rather look at cooling towers than coal stacks any day. | ||
Kova Member Username: Kova Post Number: 138 Registered: 12-2003 |
its funny, a couple of weeks ago there was a topic about this and i was going to mention that DTE has always been kicking around the Fermi 3 idea, (Last summer I was in on a few meetings). Looks like its finally going public | ||
Chow Member Username: Chow Post Number: 450 Registered: 10-2003 |
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Z7 9XDuEXRc | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4545 Registered: 10-2003 |
"I agree I would much rather have a Nuclear plant than a Coal plant any day. I can see the thick dark clouds that the Saint Clair..." Really? Would you also prefer an invisible radioactive Chernobyl cloud over a dark coal cloud? Radioactive is for ever. One bad coal cloud and you gag for a day or two, one radioactive cloud and you have to move away. Forever. If you and your children survive. Fortunately this isn't either or. Neither is also an option. | ||
Buddyinrichmond Member Username: Buddyinrichmond Post Number: 275 Registered: 02-2004 |
This reminds me of all the folks who said they would move to Canada if Bush won again. | ||
Drankin21 Member Username: Drankin21 Post Number: 177 Registered: 12-2003 |
This is not Chernobyl and there are MANY safeguards in place that make a meltdown on US soil virtually impossible. Three Mile Island was a perfect storm of coincidences that STILL did not result in a meltdown. I wouldn't call you a NIMBY Lowell since your opinion seems to be NOWHERE instead of NOT. If that's the case, how do we solve our energy crisis? More coal plants NOT in Michigan? More Saudi Oil? And don't start to talk about energy conservation, we need juice NOW. Not when wasteful Americans can learn how to turn the lights off or carpool. | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 1504 Registered: 11-2003 |
Solar? Thermal? Hydro? Wind? | ||
Jman Member Username: Jman Post Number: 139 Registered: 10-2006 |
All of the above. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 3528 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: I thought Michigan was losing population. Are we really hurting for more power plants? (Message edited by Pam on February 19, 2008) | ||
Rfban Member Username: Rfban Post Number: 257 Registered: 02-2004 |
Selling power Pam, selling power... | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 92 Registered: 11-2007 |
It is true that the nuclear industry has broad protection against liability, but I don't think that is why it is excluded in your homeowner's policy. Your insurance company doesn't want to insure the risk, just as they will not insure against flood or (without a rather expensive rider) earthquake. Maybe if the liability protection for the industry didn't exist, the insurers would feel that they could collect from them in case of an accident and would write policies, but I doubt it--too much risk that the utility in question would go bankrupt if there were a serious accident. I know that opinions on this differ, but as far as I can see coal is considerably worse overall for the environment than nuclear, so if those were the only two options I'd prefer nuclear. I would actually prefer neither. In the US the amount electricity that could be freed up by efficiency improvements is so huge that it is economically dubious to be building power plants at all, at least in regions that don't have soaring populations. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 581 Registered: 12-2006 |
East Detroit, Here are a few questions that I would ask about using those energies to power Michigan. 1. How effective would solar power be in one of the cloudiest states in the country? 2. Where is the nearest geo-thermal activity to Michigan that could be tapped for power purposes? 3. Where can we find untapped water sources with enough power to operate the turbines needed for hydro-electric power in Michigan? 4. Wind power, to me, is the only option I see that has a legitimate shot of successful implementation in Michigan without having to overcome some major hurdles. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 1521 Registered: 08-2007 |
We always seem to go for the known choice, ignoring all the barriers to it, rather than trying for something new. Yes, drill for oil here and ANWR, despite that being a temporary solution. Yes, more nukes, because we know how to build them. We don't know how to dispose of the waste though, and that is a huge problem we can't seem to solve. It's been 40 years, for crying out loud. What is wrong with tyring new things? Wind, solar, thermal, hydro are all good possibilities, and there are more. | ||
Rugbyman Member Username: Rugbyman Post Number: 241 Registered: 06-2005 |
No offense here, Lowell, but the Fermi 2 plant is, what, 25 years old? Wouldn't you rather have the old plant decommissioned and a new one built with the last 25 years of technological innovation built-in rather than rigged up a decade later? Renewables are the future, there's no arguing that. But trying to make up the 1100 megawatts the current plant puts out with only renewables would be ridiculous to build in a short timespan. Assuming a 1 MW turbine and a very optimistic 50% utilization, you'd need 2200 windmills. Making up the 400 MW between the current plant and the new plant alone would mean 800+ turbines. Do you really think that the folks up North wouldn't pull the NIMBY card for 2200 windmills? They're balking about 80 going up in the Thumb. If you're interested in paying 15 cents per kWh to pay for that rapid construction and the pay explosion for already nationally scarce turbine engineers, be my guest. In the meantime, I'll keep supporting the nuke plant until a complete renewable transformation is economically feasible. It's going to happen, just not overnight. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 252 Registered: 12-2007 |
Gazh...The french have developed a method of recycling spent nuclear rods for a second time through the fission process. When they are spent the second time, their radioactive yeild is significantly less than the first time through. Also...Lowell...life exists in Cherynoble, wildlife has returned with very minimal ill effects. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 1522 Registered: 08-2007 |
D_mcc, very interesting! We don't seem to be picking up on it, still trying to find a place to put the stuff. Once it is reused, is it still bad? Then what? | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 254 Registered: 12-2007 |
Its still bad...but I think the study cited a 50-80% drop in radiation after the second time through, with a 15-20% drop in energy produced. I'll look for the article and post it when I get a chance. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 5167 Registered: 10-2003 |
Shoot it into space. The private space industry is beginning to blossom, it'll give them another way to make money. | ||
Sirrealone Member Username: Sirrealone Post Number: 92 Registered: 01-2007 |
Outer space isn't a giant landfill. Plus there could be risks if something went wrong that the stuff would re-enter. I thought that a big facility was being built somewhere in Colorado or the like which would properly store these. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 7135 Registered: 02-2004 |
Just what we need. More nukes | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 5170 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Yucca Mountain? The residents of Nevada are thrilled with that idea. | ||
Ddmoore54 Member Username: Ddmoore54 Post Number: 342 Registered: 07-2004 |
Yucca Mountain in Nevada is what you are thinking of. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 3949 Registered: 10-2003 |
States that produce nuclear waste should have a way of disposing of their own waste WITHIN state borders. That's called taking responsibility for your own mess. We shouldn't expect to ship our radioactive ca-ca off to Nevada or another state (deserts are ecosystems too, not wastelands; and, think of the potential for accidents/sabotage if nuclear waste is shipped cross-country!). If you make a mess, clean it up yourself. Don't expect someone else to do it for you. Didn't we all learn that in kindergarten? And by the way, Yucca Mountain is NOT going to happen. Good. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 1524 Registered: 08-2007 |
Yucca Mountain is opposed by everyone who will be affected by it for the risk, the traffic, and more. Not to mention the risk of trucking the stuff from all over. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4546 Registered: 10-2003 |
Let's start with basics. Can anyone deny that there is a difference between the blowing up a fossil-fueled plant and a nuclear plant? Until alternate clean power solutions are perfected, which should be the goal, I see far few problems with building a gas / ethanol-fired plant or even some of the 'clean' coal solutions that are emerging. Not the best, but better than creating more nuclear waste that has no sure solution for protection against the elements, human error, or future 'dirty bombers' and more. The mess of fossil fuels can be cleaned up, nuclear wasted cannot be and is deadly for thousands of years. I hear all the protestations about how safe nuclear power 'now'is. But then, one day, after some gang has figured out some low tech box-cutters-combined-with-will ful-suicide tactic and Detroit becomes a desert, we will again have to listen to all the Monday morning quarterbacks blabber about how we knew what was possible all along and knew the undoable damage would be created. Rugbyman, as for comparing liabilities of nuclear with earthquakes and floods, you are missing my point and mixing apples and oranges. Nuclear is man-made by for-profit industrial corporations, the others are natural events. What other industry gets such a pass on liabilities? It is madness to go on creating tons of a deadly poison that will curse this planet for thousands of year while creating bombs in our backyards for temporary gain born of laziness. Finally, a truly concerted effort at energy conservation could remove damand for 1200 kilowatts. | ||
Me3head Member Username: Me3head Post Number: 21 Registered: 12-2003 |
I hate when people bring up Chernobyl. The failure mode of any reasonably designed civillian nuclear plant is to shut down. A loss of coolant at a US plant will cause the reaction to shut down. This was not the case at Chernobyl because of bad design / military intent. |
