If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Local)   Nuclear plant owner admits that they'd be in grievous danger if a tsunami snuck past New York City and traveled 25 miles inland, therefore we need solar power in a place where it rains 200 days a year and snows the other 165   (newyork.cbslocal.com) divider line 466
    More: Interesting, New York City, Governor Andrew Cuomo, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, nuclear accidents, solar energy, New York Harbor, spent fuel, economic cost  
•       •       •

9765 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2011 at 1:20 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



466 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-03-21 10:02:19 AM
Indian Point has always given me the heebie jeebies.

I get my power from wind, have to pay a little bit more but it helps me sleep nights.
 
2011-03-21 11:12:11 AM
Sunny as hell during those snow days though.
 
2011-03-21 11:37:36 AM
Read some of the comments from the article. Bunch of scared people and fear mongering. I wonder the anti nuke people think will happen if we decommissioned all of the nuclear plants in the U.S? There wouldn't enough power to power all of those fancy devices that most of them can't live without, either that or it will be too expensive for most people to have electricity.
 
2011-03-21 12:13:32 PM
Well, a 25 mile exclusion zone would pretty much be a bad thing, regardless of what caused it. That said, yeah, no chance of Japan's gig happening here.
 
2011-03-21 01:06:00 PM
From the looks of it, the Hudson River adjacent to Indian Point Energy Center isn't large enough to create a tidal wave large enough to be of any significant danger.

I'm curious if they will be replacing their containment vessels now that they've reached the 20 year mark. I'm also curious how difficult and costly it would be to add seismic dampeners to those vessels. I imagine that would eliminate much of the risk of being next to a major fault.
 
2011-03-21 01:22:48 PM
If we outlaw nuclear power plants, only outlaws will have nuclear power plants!
 
2011-03-21 01:24:34 PM

brap: I get my power from wind, have to pay a little bit more but it helps me sleep nights.


No you just pay extra. You have no idea if the power coming into your house came from a wind turbine or a nuclear reactor. It all gets mixed up, electric current being fungible and all.

And paying extra doesn't magically protect your from radiation from a nuclear reactor accident.

Magic thinking . . . magic thinking.
 
2011-03-21 01:25:06 PM
Were you not around when upstate got socked with an earthquake last summer, Mr. Cuomo?
 
2011-03-21 01:25:11 PM
What you need is to invest in hydro electric from Canada. Cheap, cheap, hydro electric.
 
2011-03-21 01:25:58 PM

Imperialism: If we outlaw nuclear power plants, only outlaws will have nuclear power plants!


And...this.
 
2011-03-21 01:26:16 PM
I live on the very South Shore of Long Island. It goes Atlantic Ocean, then the tiny barrier island where Jones Beach is, then the East Bay, and then my neighborhood.

In the unlikely event of a New York tsunami, I'd be farked.
 
2011-03-21 01:26:20 PM

Welfare Xmas: brap: I get my power from wind, have to pay a little bit more but it helps me sleep nights.

No you just pay extra. You have no idea if the power coming into your house came from a wind turbine or a nuclear reactor. It all gets mixed up, electric current being fungible and all.

And paying extra doesn't magically protect your from radiation from a nuclear reactor accident.

Magic thinking . . . magic thinking.



better response then what mine was going to be.
 
2011-03-21 01:26:33 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Well, a 25 mile exclusion zone would pretty much be a bad thing, regardless of what caused it. That said, yeah, no chance of Japan's gig happening here.


Yeah, all the US nuclear reactors are seismically reinforced to the levels that the Japanese did and not built on fault lines.

/Oh, wait...
 
2011-03-21 01:27:05 PM
24.media.tumblr.com

/About as intelligent as anything I expect to find on this thread, judging by subby's attitude
//Gotta nuke somethin'
 
2011-03-21 01:27:26 PM
Every house in the US should be plastered with PV panels. Start in the southwest and work up.
 
2011-03-21 01:27:38 PM

Welfare Xmas: No you just pay extra. You have no idea if the power coming into your house came from a wind turbine or a nuclear reactor. It all gets mixed up, electric current being fungible and all.

And paying extra doesn't magically protect your from radiation from a nuclear reactor accident.


That's true, but it does help prevent nuclear reactors.
 
2011-03-21 01:27:41 PM

missmarsha: Imperialism: If we outlaw nuclear power plants, only outlaws will have nuclear power plants!

And...this.


If lesbians are outlawed only outlaws will have lesbians.
 
2011-03-21 01:28:02 PM
I love how we have massive oil spills, mountain top clearing for coal, fracking poisoning ground water, etc etc and no one says a thing. But you get one nuclear incident and all the nutjobs come out trying to ban it.

Nuclear power is by far the safest and cleanest viable* energy source we currently have. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than fossil fuels.

*Renewable sources would be ideal, but solar, wind and tidal power aren't very viable at the moment without huge government subsidies
 
2011-03-21 01:29:04 PM
"Experts say Indian Point is about one mile from the intersection of two faults"


Why would you build it there?
 
2011-03-21 01:29:48 PM

brap: Indian Point has always given me the heebie jeebies.

I get my power from wind, have to pay a little bit more but it helps me sleep nights.


That's why I wear a tinfoil hat and consume the unborn spawn of small woodland creatures: It helps me sleep at night.

/Take your shamanistic voodoo talk somewhere else.
//They're after my delicious teeth!
 
2011-03-21 01:29:51 PM

BurnShrike: Nuclear power is by far the safest and cleanest viable*


In what way is it safer and cleaner than closed-loop geothermal?
 
2011-03-21 01:30:52 PM

rytheran: "Experts say Indian Point is about one mile from the intersection of two faults"

Why would you build it there?


Because it was cheap. The faults were probably discovered afterwards though.

Heck, the nuclear industry proposed a reactor for Bodega Bay -- which is right where the San Andreas meets the ocean.
 
2011-03-21 01:31:05 PM

BurnShrike: I love how we have massive oil spills, mountain top clearing for coal, fracking poisoning ground water, etc etc and no one says a thing. But you get one nuclear incident and all the nutjobs come out trying to ban it.

Nuclear power is by far the safest and cleanest viable* energy source we currently have. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than fossil fuels.

*Renewable sources would be ideal, but solar, wind and tidal power aren't very viable at the moment without huge government subsidies that currently go to the oil, coal, and nuclear industries.


FTFY
 
2011-03-21 01:31:09 PM
"I've had concern about Indian Point for a long time. As attorney general, I did a lot of work on Indian Point," he said. "My position was that it shouldn't be relicensed. My position was that it should be closed. I understand the power and the benefit; I also understand the risk, and this plant - in this proximity to New York City - was never a good risk."

Soooo, why is this? Is it because you know a single farking thing about science, or because you're a farking retard lawyer NIMBY?
 
2011-03-21 01:31:30 PM
Does anyone else think those pictures make it look kinda like a mosque?
 
2011-03-21 01:32:19 PM
Actually, solar power works quite well in the New York area. I'm currently speccing out a 50kw array for a new hotel in Riverhead, NY. It'll produce and average of 180 kWh a day, which works out to be ~66 MWh a year.

Not too shabby, for a rooftop array on a single hotel.
 
2011-03-21 01:32:34 PM

rytheran: "Experts say Indian Point is about one mile from the intersection of two faults"


Why would you build it there?


I'm all for nuclear power. Indian Point tends to fail a lot of security tests. It sucks.
 
2011-03-21 01:32:56 PM

Welfare Xmas: brap: I get my power from wind, have to pay a little bit more but it helps me sleep nights.

No you just pay extra. You have no idea if the power coming into your house came from a wind turbine or a nuclear reactor. It all gets mixed up, electric current being fungible and all.

And paying extra doesn't magically protect your from radiation from a nuclear reactor accident.

Magic thinking . . . magic thinking.


This.

People are depressingly stupid.

Which reminds me, I've got some natural spring water to sell you.
 
2011-03-21 01:33:04 PM

Barakku: "I've had concern about Indian Point for a long time. As attorney general, I did a lot of work on Indian Point," he said. "My position was that it shouldn't be relicensed. My position was that it should be closed. I understand the power and the benefit; I also understand the risk, and this plant - in this proximity to New York City - was never a good risk."

Soooo, why is this? Is it because you know a single farking thing about science, or because you're a farking retard lawyer NIMBY?


Yeah, he's a poopoo head! That plant will stay safe for another 20 years, no problem!

/Corrosion. Look into it.
 
2011-03-21 01:33:12 PM

Imperialism: If we outlaw nuclear power plants, only outlaws will have nuclear power plants!


Only outlaws have them now.
 
2011-03-21 01:33:34 PM

missmarsha: What you need is to invest in hydro electric from Canada. Cheap, cheap, hydro electric.


IIRC, NYC already gets something like 15%-20% of its power from the Robert Moses hydroelectric plant in Niagara Falls, NY.

The problems with that is you can't really increase the generating capacity there that much more, and the power has to travel over 400 miles to New York, which is not the most efficient way of doing things.
 
2011-03-21 01:33:55 PM
I got your "magic thinking" right here Grumpus

i253.photobucket.com
 
2011-03-21 01:33:56 PM
It's a good thing that photo voltaics don't need direct sunlight then subby.

When was the last time we had a solar power meltdown?

Or a wind power disaster?
 
2011-03-21 01:34:15 PM
More nukes, please.
 
2011-03-21 01:34:41 PM

sip111: This.

People are depressingly stupid.


How? He's avoiding sending his money to forms of energy he feels are less optimal.

The particular electrons he gets aren't important.
 
2011-03-21 01:34:54 PM
Ug, Science, Technology, Electricity bad...
 
mjg
2011-03-21 01:35:42 PM
Thank god Indian Point is not named Caucasian Point. We'd have to blame ourselves.
 
2011-03-21 01:35:44 PM

Doc Daneeka: IIRC, NYC already gets something like 15%-20% of its power from the Robert Moses hydroelectric plant in Niagara Falls, NY.

The problems with that is you can't really increase the generating capacity there that much more, and the power has to travel over 400 miles to New York, which is not the most efficient way of doing things.


According to the energy secretary Chu, US hydro power could be increased by 20% without building a single new dam.
 
2011-03-21 01:35:47 PM

radioman_: missmarsha: Imperialism: If we outlaw nuclear power plants, only outlaws will have nuclear power plants!

And...this.

If lesbians are outlawed only outlaws will have lesbians.


I like the cut of your jib.
 
2011-03-21 01:36:05 PM

bigdavediode: BurnShrike: Nuclear power is by far the safest and cleanest viable*

In what way is it safer and cleaner than closed-loop geothermal?


It's not. But geothermal isn't viable for much of the world. Iceland? Oh yeah. NYC? Not so much.
 
2011-03-21 01:36:26 PM

Doc Daneeka: missmarsha: What you need is to invest in hydro electric from Canada. Cheap, cheap, hydro electric.

IIRC, NYC already gets something like 15%-20% of its power from the Robert Moses hydroelectric plant in Niagara Falls, NY.

The problems with that is you can't really increase the generating capacity there that much more, and the power has to travel over 400 miles to New York, which is not the most efficient way of doing things.


Did hydro change back to "good" when I wasn't paying attention? I thought dams were currently considered evil due to fish migration problems, habitat destruction, changes in flow patterns, etc.
 
2011-03-21 01:37:09 PM

ongbok: Read some of the comments from the article. Bunch of scared people and fear mongering. I wonder the anti nuke people think will happen if we decommissioned all of the nuclear plants in the U.S? There wouldn't enough power to power all of those fancy devices that most of them can't live without, either that or it will be too expensive for most people to have electricity.


That's a small price to pay to avoid incredibly unlikely disasters caused by natural disasters. I mean, sure, an earthquake might kill 10,000, but if the nuclear plant might possibly slightly increase the cancer risk for those within a 5 mile radius due to the same earthquake, THAT'S the problem.

As I've said before, if you actually care about safety and earthquakes, don't build CITIES near fault lines. Hell, I say revoke those cities licenses; I understand the power and the benefit, I also understand the risk, and it is too high.
/People should also stop being old, they might die. It's dangerous
 
2011-03-21 01:37:12 PM

ChubbyTiger: bigdavediode: BurnShrike: Nuclear power is by far the safest and cleanest viable*

In what way is it safer and cleaner than closed-loop geothermal?

It's not. But geothermal isn't viable for much of the world. Iceland? Oh yeah. NYC? Not so much.


Really? About a third of the US, even under nuclear power plants, has free 200C water or higher less than 6km down.
 
2011-03-21 01:38:12 PM

Barakku: That's a small price to pay to avoid incredibly unlikely disasters caused by natural disasters. I mean, sure, an earthquake might kill 10,000, but if the nuclear plant might possibly slightly increase the cancer risk for those within a 5 mile radius due to the same earthquake, THAT'S the problem.


Don't forget the birth defects.
 
2011-03-21 01:38:24 PM

Gato Mono: It's a good thing that photo voltaics don't need direct sunlight then subby.


You lie! It's impossible to get a sunburn on a cloudy day.
 
2011-03-21 01:39:10 PM
"I say only if a tsunami could make its way...up New York Harbor and the Hudson River, somehow avoid New York City, and drench our plant," Jim Streets, director of communications at Entergy Nuclear Northeast, said. "It just doesn't seem very realistic to me."

And of course, an earthquake happening right under his reactor would have no affect whatsoever. I'm sure nothing at all was damaged in Japan up until the moment the water hit.
 
2011-03-21 01:39:17 PM

bigdavediode: Barakku: "I've had concern about Indian Point for a long time. As attorney general, I did a lot of work on Indian Point," he said. "My position was that it shouldn't be relicensed. My position was that it should be closed. I understand the power and the benefit; I also understand the risk, and this plant - in this proximity to New York City - was never a good risk."

Soooo, why is this? Is it because you know a single farking thing about science, or because you're a farking retard lawyer NIMBY?

Yeah, he's a poopoo head! That plant will stay safe for another 20 years, no problem!

/Corrosion. Look into it.


Did anyone say a single thing about corrosion? This is a knee-jerk response due to earthquakes, it's freely admitted in TFA. The actual safety review by people that know what the hell they're doing might find something, but this guy is just saying "hey, it's on a fault line, and I just heard that it's a good time to exploit earthquakes to advance my political agenda"
 
2011-03-21 01:39:41 PM

bigdavediode: Doc Daneeka: IIRC, NYC already gets something like 15%-20% of its power from the Robert Moses hydroelectric plant in Niagara Falls, NY.

The problems with that is you can't really increase the generating capacity there that much more, and the power has to travel over 400 miles to New York, which is not the most efficient way of doing things.

According to the energy secretary Chu, US hydro power could be increased by 20% without building a single new dam.


Let me put it this way:

The electricity generated from Niagara Falls could be increased, but is not going to because of tourism. As it is, most power is generated at night. Less water is diverted from the Falls during the day, when tourists are out.
 
2011-03-21 01:40:21 PM

Shaggy_C: Gato Mono: It's a good thing that photo voltaics don't need direct sunlight then subby.

You lie! It's impossible to get a sunburn on a cloudy day.


You hippy. There's also the problem that solar can't generate electricity at night. Except, of course, for solar thermal plants that actually generate electricity via molten sodium at night, but other than solar actually generating power at night, it can't generate power at night!
 
2011-03-21 01:40:54 PM
Also, if you guys are curious about a fairly straight forward way to estimate PV output for your area, you take the average, annual solar insolation (new window) for your region, multiply it by the KW size of your array (1000 watts = 1kw), and then multiply ~82% for energy conversion losses.

Example: NYC has an insolation of 4.08. You install a 5KW array (facing south).

4.08 x 5 x .82 = 16.7 kWh of average daily output.
 
Displayed 50 of 466 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report