You Can’t Close a Safe, Economical Nuclear Reactor

, director, Nuclear Safety Project | October 1, 2014, 3:04 pm EDT
Bookmark and Share

Senator David Vitter recently expressed his view that groups like the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and the Union of Concerned Scientists had teamed up with Senator Barbara Boxer to shut down the nation’s nuclear power plants one at a time. The senator cited last year’s closure of the remaining two reactors at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California and concerns raised about adequate earthquake protection for the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which has only two nuclear power reactors still operating in California, as evidence.

I have had the pleasure of working with the Sierra Club, FOE, and Senator Boxer’s staff, but not as part of some left-wing conspiracy seeking to shut down all the nation’s nuclear power plants.

But even if that were the goal, Senator Vitter and others need to realize that you can’t force a safe, economical nuclear power reactor to close.

Kewanee Nuclear Generating Station (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Kewanee Nuclear Generating Station (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

San Onofre’s two reactors constituted only half of the nuclear power reactors that permanently closed last year. The Kewaunee nuclear plant in Wisconsin and the Crystal River Unit 3 reactor in Florida formed the other half. No one contested or campaigned against the Kewaunee and Crystal River 3 nuclear plants. Yet both permanently closed last year. Kewaunee could not compete against electricity being generated by natural gas. Crystal River 3 could not afford to replace the concrete containment it had broken while trying to replace its worn-out steam generators.

San Onfroe’s woes certainly attracted considerable attention. Senator Boxer, Chair of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works subcommittee overseeing the NRC, queried the agency about the decision-making process that procured and installed steam generator replacements that literally broke in about a year. FOE petitioned the NRC to conduct a public hearing process for the replacement steam generators and any band-aid repairs proposed to them.

But Southern California Edison did not opt to permanently close the two reactors because Senator Boxer and/or FOE and/or others were picking on them—they could not make a business case for operating the reactors at reduced power with the flawed replacement steam generators or for replacing the replacement steam generators in order to operate again at full power.

San Onofre’s death was suicide more than homicide.

Vermont Yankee (Source: NRC)

Vermont Yankee (Source: NRC)

The Vermont Yankee (VY) nuclear plant will be permanently closing later this year. The State of Vermont and others contested the NRC’s relicensing the plant to operate the plant for 20 more years. And they lost this contest when NRC renewed the operating license a few days after the Fukushima disaster. After having won the battle, VY’s owner lost the war—the electricity produced by this nuclear reactor could not compete in an open marketplace with electricity from other sources. The owner chose to close the nuclear plant rather than operate it at a loss.

The bottom line is same as the top line: you can’t close a safe, economical nuclear reactor.

But apparently you can blame the closure of uneconomical reactors on left-wing conspiracies.

 

Posted in: Nuclear Power Safety Tags: , ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments


Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • RussellLowes

    Thanks for the article. I almost agree with this thesis that you can’t close a safe, economical nuclear reactor. However, many if not all of the nukes in the U.S. are not economical compared to energy efficiency. EE is the least cost option. If you truly consider the cost of storage of the eight waste steps for millions of years (mining waste, milling waste, waste from the conversion step, the enrichment step, reconversion step, fabrication step, spent fuel step and decommissioning step), then there are many more economical options that come into play.

    • Dr. A. Cannara

      Seems Russell has no knowledge of what the French ghave done for themselves and even Japan and Germany for years…
      http://tinyurl.com/kkmyhze (p7 & p21 on)

      http://tinyurl.com/mptejun (“France emits around 40 grams of CO2 per kwh. Germany, the US, Japan, and most other industrialized nations emit between 400 and 500 grams/kwh.”)

      But what do facts matter, eh Russell? Fox News has its echo chamber too.
      ;]
      PS, you & Vlady better not take any trips to France, if you don’t want to seem hypocritical in anti-nukeness! China, India and even Poland too!
      http://www.thenews.pl/1/12/Artykul/180679,Energy-giants-sign-nuclear-power-deal

      • igrandunifier

        (AP) 10/10/14 ‘French lawmakers have voted to make their country a little less heavily dependent on nuclear energy.
        The lower house of parliament adopted a measure Friday to reduce the share of nuclear energy in the electricity supply from 75 percent currently to 50 percent in 2025. The nuclear share in the United States, in comparison, is about 19 percent.’ Here Dr. A. U can n have only compared nuke power to coal in all your references here. It’s the renewable now Dr. Archaic!

        • igrandunifier

          ‘Nuclear Power is a dying business proposition.’ Jeremy Rifkin

          • Dr. A. Cannara
          • igrandunifier

            Jeremy Rifkin is both the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends (FOET), an international organization dealing with the global impacts of new technologies (www.foet.org, 2004). FOET, founded in 1977 is based in Washington, DC and fights it’s war on new technologies through litigation, public education and many organizations that have their roots in the environment (www.foet.org, 2004). Mr. Rifkin has written sixteen books, along with holding two degrees; one from the Wharton School of Economics at the University of Pennsylvania in economics and another from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in international affairs. He is also currently an advisor to Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, along with being a fellow at the Wharton School’s Executive Education Program since 1994. Through successful litigation and testimonies before numerous congressional committies, Rifkin has been extremely influential on public policy throughout the entire world (www.foet.org, 2004).

          • igrandunifier

            Give us some figures on the cost of building a nuke plant n how many of them r currently falling behind schedule, n how many buillions of dollars in cost over run, Dr. A Ho.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Finally, you got to this straw man, Iggy!

            Okm, the anti-nukes’ fave whipping boy is the Finnish plant, now $11B over its $4B budget. Each reactor costs $100M/year to operate — lots of good jobs, etc. When it starts in 2017, it’ll be generating >2GWe. At $0.10/kWHr, that output gains >$1.5B/year revenue.

            So, at a dime a kWHr, the Finns will have their plant paid for in a decade. If they get carbon credits, then sooner.

            If they displace German ‘renewables’, they pay the plant off in 3 years, even without carbon credits.

            In any case, after those payoffs, the plant runs for decades printing about 2000 Benjamins each hour.

            Thanks for letting others here see you’ve no argument, Iggy. And, that you know so little about nuclear power that you even signed a petition to shut San Onofre, which also was printing those Benjamins and preventing about 2 million homes worth of coal/gas-fired power — aw, but you don’t care about people downwind or living by gas lines, eh Iggy?

            ;]

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            As I said,I know Rifkin,. He’s no scientist or engineer, but check his org’s IRS F990s to see how much $ he takes out of contributions for his own “salary”.
            ;]

          • igrandunifier

            Proof what u say, Dr. A! Don’t go around slanting people w/o showing proof. I don’t buy that, n specially from u nukers.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            “slanting”? Careful,Iggy, you already had comments pulled because you resorted to nasty words.
            ;]

          • igrandunifier

            Of cause u n your nuker want to discredit Rifkin, because in his new book ‘The Third Industrial Revolution’ he talked indepthly on how sensless n aeconomical it is to use nuke power.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Right, Iggy, so Rifkin, a non-scientist, knows better than ordinatry scientists, engineers, Nobel folks, yadda, yadda, who don’t have 501c ‘non-pofits’ paying them ‘salaries’ from unwitting donors?

            Sure, Iggy. So we can ad Rifkin to those, like climate deniers, are happy to sacrifice both the environmental & economic futures of our citizens & descendants.
            ;]

  • RussellLowes

    . . .and then there is the issue of “safe.” I will give one example of how all of our nuclear plants are not safe, which I am pretty sure you will agree with. A well planned missile or airline attack hitting the generator building could torque the generator so badly that the coolant loops between the primary and secondary cooling systems could be severely damaged, causing meltdowns.

  • Dr. A. Cannara

    David, what a remarkably disingenuous piece, befitting your disingenuous “Fukushima” book, that ignored facts long known about F. Dai-Ichi, but wasn’t published until this year, perhaps hoping for some additional bad event there that could be hyped?

    So, again David, as a long-time UCS supporter (until your & Lyman’s absurd anti-nuke propaganda), let me remind you of the paper I handed you in SF at the Commonwealth Club, where you were selling your book. Remember, the root cause of F. Dai-Ichi wasn’t nuclear power?…
    http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311
    Remember the inconvenient truth of Onagawa?

    So, now to your fibbery about VT Yankee and “safe, economical nuclear” — did VTY ever get carbon credits, David? Did you bother to estimate how much $ VTY saved us all by displacing coal and its concomitant disease & deaths? Remember that EPA estimates >12,000 of us die each year from coal emissions alone?

    Want to include in VTY’s “economical” benefit how many coal deaths it displaced? An inconvenient truth, eh David? Maybe do it in general, so your readers could get why Ohio seems to care more than UCS about Americans’ health…

    “Davis-Besse nuclear power plant is operating again after undergoing a $600 million upgrade. FirstEnergy spent the last 3 months replacing the two original steam generators at the plant near Toledo.”
    http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/davis-besse-nuclear-power-plant-is-operating-again-after-undergoing-a-600-million-upgrade

    In case anyone wonders why UCS’ reputation has waned recently, pieces like Lochbaum’s, Lyman’s, etc. illustrate one reason. UCS now seems now to harbor ‘scientists’ about whom we should be concerned. And their odd anti-nuclear stances seem to have very personal roots in the industry that prevent them from being honest that nuclear power has been the safest form of power generation ever deployed (see graphic).

    A scientist must indeed separate personal bias from his/her statements. Lochbaum, Lyman, etc. seem unable to. Perhaps it’s the book sales?
    ;]


    Dr. A. Cannara
    650 400 3071

    • igrandunifier

      U r just another Nuke Numbed Nut, Dr…

      • Dr. A. Cannara

        ;] Gotta love uninformed opinions from folks lacking gumption to use a real name!
        ;]

        • igrandunifier

          Any one needs the Dr. title on his post likely carry the insecure-with-a-bullying mentality…I’ll be glad to debate on the stupity of utilizing nuke power to generate cosumers energy needs when u don’t even know how to put out any ‘runaway fire’, nor know how or where to dispose the spent fuel that will remain lethal to our environment for thousands n thouands of years. N the Industry find unscrupulous people like u who carries that ‘fancy Dr.’ title to continue to BS the mass of uninformed sheep. Where do the nuke industry get their audacity to promise the world ‘nuclear sfety’ when we all only know less than a 100 years of the tectonic plate or fault movements, n even less about the potential devastating magnitude of various natural disasters or terrorist acts?

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Didn’t mean to yank your chain, Igrand…

            But you do display ignorance of science and nuclear physics in particuilar.

            So, maybe you can study up and understand why folks like James Hansen, Ken Caldeira and so many other scientits & engineers over so many decades realize the unmatched value of nuclear power? Want to show all
            here you deserve a Dr. too?

            a) Your “spent fuel” is neither spent nor waste, as the French and others have long demonstrated — please don’t go to France, if you disagree — we’d not like to see you become a hypocrite. ;] http://tinyurl.com/kkmyhze (p7 & p21 on)

            b) 95% of what comes out of a reactor as old fuel is natural Uranium238 and fully recyclable into new fuel.

            c) About 1% is “reactor Plutonium” (unusable for weapons). Its decay rate is slow, which means it’s not particularly radioactive. France has about 110 tons of it, from decades of running clean nuclear power. Each ton fits in a box 16″ on a side. You want to try to make a bomb with it — go right ahead and try., Ig. ;]

            d) About 4% is fission products, which have decayed to normal elements, or are decaying in hundreds, not thousands, of years. A small amount is isotopes like Technetium, which lasts longer — it and others are used in medicine — again, don’t be a hypocrite Ig, refuse any medical tests/procedures involving isotopes from nukes! we’re counting on you. ;]

            e) Now for safety, even windmills kill more than all nuclear plants ever have…
            http://www.thoriumremix.com (2nd video graphic)
            http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/ or: http://tinyurl.com/kqce99w
            http://l.facebook.com/l/4AQFK5uhm/www.archipelagofiles.com/2014/03/this-photo-of-two-engineers-hugging.html

            I can’t watch that last one. So the inconvenient truths about nuclear safety are well reported…
            http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l (1998)
            http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2013/unisinf475.html
            http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-cost-of-energy
            http://www.wano.info//article.cfm?id=the-human-cost-of-energy
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=10.1289/ehp.1104294

            So,Igrand, your argumentation is like that of climate deniers — avoid facts. Good! I love the opportunities folks like you offer to get facts in front of others listening in.

            And here’s the final fact that’s very inconvenient for naive anti nukes…
            http://tinyurl.com/mptejun (“France emits around 40 grams of CO2 per kwh. Germany, the US, Japan, and most other industrialized nations emit between 400 and 500 grams/kwh.”)

            Darn those French, eh Igrandy?

            I’ve never met a wind supporter or anti-nuke who was a true environmentalist.
            ;]
            650 400 3071 (don’t be afraid to call 😉

          • igrandunifier

            U r most likely just another shill for the Nuke Industry. I’ve came across people like u on these nuke debate before. U shall b packing up n run from here.

            a) if the SP r recycleable there won’t be all the 400+ SP pools filled with SP problem world wide. NO ONE is recycling SP as of right now. it’s only a concept to be tried in the lab!

            b) Your kind like to used the word ‘natural’ to ease the lithal effects of ‘Uranium’. From the mining site to the reactor to SP, uranium is deadly. Just look at the high rate of uranium related sicknesses the miners contracted from mining.

            c),n d) have no baring what so ever on radionuclide released into the environment from run-away melted corium like what happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

            SAFETY? There r already 3 major NUKE accidents happened in the short 50-yeqr old NPPs era. U r those who have to stick to that less than 100 people died from the Chernobyl accident, and nobody died from the Fukushima Daiichi’s 3 corium meltdown. I believe the scientific studies that indicated close to 1 million people have dioed from various illnesses spiked after the accident due to radiation released from Chernobyl. And the 56-year old Plant Manager from Fukushima Daiichi who lead a team of worker into the damaged reactor area to try to put out a fire developed cancer within the first year n died two years later at the age of 58, of cancer! People like u would insist that there is no proof to his death is related tho the Daichii’s radiation. N with the current State Secrecy Law of Japan- a law passed to supress any nagative effect of the NPPs-you cannot even find out what happened to the health of the rest of the crew today that went into the reactor with the manager.
            It’s a general practice of the NUKE industry to conceal the nagative effect of the nuke power, supress info on any nagative development n/or lie to the public, or use evasive terms like ‘no immediate health effect’.

            U want to explain n defend the ‘must vented noble gases’ release to the environment on all NPPs? N the studies about the high canerous rate among people who live near a NPP, or HANFORD Washington?

            What about the 200+ USS Ronald Reagan sailors (n the numbers r in the increase) who went into Fukushima for humanitarian aid that have contracted various radiation related illnesses Who r suing TEPCo and the US government for placing them into highly radiation contaminated area?

            Nuke Power is not safe, clean, nor economical by all means;that’s been proovened with ample examples or stats.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            When in ignorance call people names like “shill”, eh “You Who Are Afraid To Use Your Name”?

            So, you truly don’t get what nuclear power is about, eh YWAATUYN? (shorter than your puffed-up moniker)

            If you really understood dangers of mining, you’d worry about all the coal, iron ore, limestone , rock & fossil fuels needed to make just one windmill — more than needed to make the largest nuclear reactor vessel. And, you’d be honest about the large amounts of radioactive wastes associated with rare-earth mining for the magnetic materials needed in each windmill.

            So overall, nuclear power remains the safest form of generation ever deployed. A very inconvenient truth for you, we know.

            Nice to see you found a new, sciency word: “corium”. You do know it’s not gaseous and not emitting particulates, right, YWAATUYN? So the problem you have is that you only have Chernobyl & Fukushima to hang your ignorance on — both of which were illegally built or managed by western world regulations.

            Now we have your “SP” whatever that is. If you mean used fuel, yes, there are hundreds of car-sized casks around the world, storing what is 95% recyclable, natural Uranium. No mining needed, YWAATUYN — oops? the pic is of our US storage at power plants. All that used fuel fits on part of a football field.

            And yes, the french have been recycling for decades , as other here chose to read. In fact, they did that for Japan, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, the UK…

            So all you do is underscore your willful ignorance of nuclear power and your desperate need to keep facts from others.

            But again, You must be far smarter and more knowledgeable, and more humanely concerned, than all sorts of folks, from Hansen to the Dalai Lama, eh whatever your name is that you lack gumption to use?…

            http://tinyurl.com/kn22qcn
            http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/more-views-on-nuclear-power-waste-safety-and-cost/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1
            http://tinyurl.com/82o6etd

            Keep it up. this is fun!

          • igrandunifier

            Dr. A, Shill is a state of mind set u r in now, no different than u considered my ignorance on science. This is just 1 of the many of your revelations through your writings indicating you don’t have the erudition of a Ph. D.

            Other indications of your phonies like other shills I’ve came across before:

            You cling on to your pro-nuke dialog like faith, stating how safe nuke power is but can’t show facts, nor did u respond or explain to my challenges to your points on:

            the USS Ronald Reagan sailors’ pending lawsuit against TEPCo and the US Navy, for there acute radiation exposure from the three exploded Fukushima Daiichi’s NPPs.

            b) the regularly must vent “noble gas” that’s been documented to have elevated cancerous, leukemia and other illnesses among residents living near nuclear power plants.

            c) can u respond to the following academic findings, Dr. A?:

            Expert: “There’s just very few of the birds left” in the high contamination from Fukushima plant, “things are not looking good”.

            Spider webs looked ‘strange’. Animals response to radiation over twice as bad as in Chernobyl that “Implies effects are stronger in Fukushima”

            Oct. 2013: Dr. Timothy Mousseau, a Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina shares with us the results of his research at Chernobyl and Fukushima, which shows significant increases in genetic damage, birth defects in animals and humans, increased tumor rates and developmental abnormalities, biodiversity in decline, local extinction of some species and transmission of mutations over generations. […] Dr. Mousseau’s research is critical and alarming […]

            American Genetic Association, Aug 14, 2014: [S]tudies are now beginning to reveal serious biological effects of the Fukushima radiation […] A series of articles summarizing these studies has now been published in the Journal of Heredity. These describe widespread impacts, ranging from population declines to genetic damage […] Common to all of the published studies is the hypothesis that chronic (low-dose) exposure to ionizing radiation results in genetic damage and increased mutation rates […] Hayashi et al. 2014 documented the effects of radiation on rice. After three days, a number of effects were observed

            Taira of Rykue University examined the response of the pale grass blue butterfly. They found size reduction, slowed growth, high mortality and morphological abnormality. A review of genetic and ecological studies for a range of other species revealed significant consequences of radiation. Population censuses of birds, butterflies, and cicadas at Fukushima showed major declines attributable to radiation exposure.

            N do you Dr. A. think these REALLY CONCERNED SCIENTISTS who testfied in the congressional hearings in the 50’s n 60’s about the nagative healtrh effects of nuclear power that eventually lead to the world wide Comprehensive atmospheric nuke testing bend r lying? Or DO U KNOW BETTER, Dr. A.
            ‘A’ what is your name?

          • igrandunifier

            ‘And yes, the french have been recycling for decades , as other here chose to read. In fact, they did that for Japan, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, the UK.’

            Show us publications of thr Franch’s been rcycling sp fuels for those countries, Dr/ A.!

          • igrandunifier

            I don’t favorite the coal miners’ plight over the uranium miners. Both r bad for the miners n both out-dated form of energy prducing enterprice need to be taken off the shell, as well as other fosil fuel like oil. But Nuclear is the most deadly of them all!

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            But see, Iggy, your naive bias forces more coal miners to work. If confused, feel free to call anytime!

            650 400 3071

          • Kirsten
          • igrandunifier

            This is not a total rcycling process. Planty of lethal sp fule left from the recycling process with no place to go. If the recycle is really successful in rid of the lethal radionuclides, there will be no sp fuel problems at the Fukushima site right now. Yet the Sp fuel pools at the Daiichi site remain to be one one the most critical elements of this decomissioning process, currently estimated to be a 40+ years n 500 billion $$$ of debacle! Not safe, not clean n not economical!

          • igrandunifier

            further more no literatures coming out of the pro-nuke organization is trust worthy. Such is the creditbility of the the Nuke industry has established among those who pay attention to the sneaky way of the industry’s been doing business. The predominate way of the industry to gain foot hold in our environment is to buy out the easily corruptable politiciansn n the heavy-weight investers.

          • igrandunifier

            Further more, if this recycle process has any meningful effect at all, we should have seen it or read it on a number of US n international mainstream media headlines. None of your above links, Kirsten, r of reputable source. Even Wikipedia could have easily been infiltrated by your intelligent nuke scientists-I can’t blame them 4 wanting to preserve their 6-figure-income of a livelyhood. Refer me to a few mainstream u-tube kind of broacating of France recycling other’s nuke shit then we’re talking. N i’d like to know what’s the cost n how did they transported all that sp fuel?????!!!!!

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            You really have no idea about nuclear science or engineering, eh Iggy! Do you not know what a power density of 3 billion watt-hours per pound of fuel means?

            It’s a million and a half times greater than coal, oil or gas. Do you know what a coal-ash pile looks like at a power plant and how many 100s of tons get added to it each day? Do you not know hoe many thousands of tons of CO2 each coal/gas/oil plant put into the air each day? Did you skip high school chemistry, Iggy?

            Do you not know that all the used fuel from a 1GWe reactor is 75 tons over 5 years? Do you not know what 95% of 75 tons of Uranium looks like, on a rail car — a single rail car every 5 years, from a reactor serving ~1 million homes with no emissions?

            See, Iggy, now all here realize you don’t understand nuclear power and yet were willing to sign a petition to close a clean power plant that produced ~2 million homes of clean power and created just 150 tons of used fuel each 5 years, whose content is >95% re-usable and valuable for more advanced reactors being developed around the world.

            So, again,, Iggy, what your naive biases don’t matter. You simply offer opportunities to bring facts to the others reading here — as does a good climate denier on Fox.
            ;]
            However, as well as endangering your fellow citizens via increased emissions from coal, and transport accidents from gas/oil, your misinformation endangers your fellow citizens’ jobs, education and their future economics — you have noc ontrol over other countries now advancing nuclear power quickly. Some of those countries intend to dominate the field worldwide.

            By thinking you should/can hold back US nuclear power, you do more than endanger our health, you endanger our economic standing in world markets and you reduce our ability to influence safety standards for nuclear in the world.

            Remember, Fukushima & Chernobyl demonstrate the importance of western nuclear-power regulation. You endanger the propagation of that, to the extent your naive ignorance propagates politically. Wouldn’t want anyone to be in your shoes with your misinformation, Iggy.

            Fortunately, the Chinese recognize both the need for vast nuclear-power increases and the need for adopting our safety standards via IAEA, WANO, etc. Maybe you should call Putin and ask him to either stop Russia’s intent to dominate world nuclear power, or at least work with western standards bodies?

            You might have to use your real name though, Iggy.

            ;]

            Attached is a pic of the ad used by the Oil Heat Institute to support naive protesters at Shoreham. Think about how much added coal was burned over 36 years to sicken & kill folks in that region because of those foolish protesters — sort of like San Onofre or Diablo protesters, eh, Iggy?

          • igrandunifier

            Still ttrying to compare your nuke energy to coal and fossil fuels. The thikness of your mantality shows that u r 2 old 2 learn about new n the up-n-coming technologies on energy production: they r called SOLAR , WIND , n WAVE if u haven’t yet heard, Dr. A.
            They r all clean, safe n extremely ecomomical when they reach the mass-consumption level. It won’ take 10s of billions of $ to build a wind or solar farm. No continuously venting of the poisoness ‘nobal gases’ into the enviroment at all. 1 day’s sunshine is enough for the entire world’s energy consumption for a year.

            Bringing Putin n China in on their choice of energy production show the caliber of your intelligence, n your ability on character judgement-which goes hand in hand on how u become a nuker.

            In time, there will be no room left to even mention nuke power, except talks on how foolish we were to be blindly n misleadingly led into the nuclear power generating era, n how many millions have died of effects from radiation spewed from NPPs.
            You nukers are the dying dinosaurs, falling by the wayside as we speak.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Right, Iggy, you’re the expert!
            ;]

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Oh Iggy, now we all know you’ve increased coal emissions more than most here, by signing the petition against San Onofre, so why not just bask in that glory?
            ;]

            And your ‘renewables’ ain’t doin’ too well for the $…
            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-08/efficiency-worth-more-than-renewables-at-310-billion-iea-says.html
            http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ffa462f2-4d4b-11e4-bf60-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl

            Keep it up, remember, I love the opportunities you give to get facts out for others to see.
            ;]

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            You again reveal you have no idea of nuclear chemistry or power, Iggy.

          • igrandunifier

            Your “statement shows both ignorance and the apparent desire to keep others ignorant. That’s neither honorable nor acceptable, given today’s problems ignorance & greed have creatd.’ Nice description of yourself n your industry’s general practice: full of lies n twisted facts.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Keep trying, Iggy!
            ;]

          • igrandunifier

            It’s u who is trying to insist that your propaganda r the trueth, just like the nuke industry’s been doing all these years-like-son-like father. Both coming from the same batch of rotten eggs. You still can’t understand the differentce of recycle n reprocess, n can’t accept the fact that France n the US have given up on the idea of recycle iradiated fuels.

          • igrandunifier

            “The Reality of Nuclear Decline is the Bitter Pill the Nuclear Pundits Won’t Swallow”
            By Linda Pentz Gunter
            October 6, 2014

            William F. Shugart II’s article (Why Doesn’t U.S. Recycle Nuclear Fuel? Forbes magazine, October 1) is uncannily similar to one that appeared recently in several newspapers under Paul Steinmeyer’s by-line.
            We see the same sanitized language. Irradiated fuel becomes “used fuel.”
            Reprocessing becomes “recycling.” Indeed, the word “recycling” appears 10 times in
            each of their articles. The nuclear industry public relations people must be well pleased
            with their pupils for using their talking points so assiduously.
            Shugart is wrong on so many points it’s astonishing that no fact checker at Forbes
            called him on any of it. Far from a “perception” that reprocessing is not cost-effective,
            the experience in France, which he also cites, has proven it to be so. The choice of
            reprocessing over on-site storage has cost French ratepayers $800 million more per
            year.
            Reprocessing has been soundly rejected in the U.S. for decades on economic grounds alone.
            Shugart dismisses the proliferation risks by omitting to point out that the French reprocessing program was initiated originally for the sole purpose of providing plutonium
            or its nuclear weapons program. Reprocessing still separates plutonium and that is why France has a staggering 85+ ton surplus of plutonium sitting at its La Hague reprocessing site in more 10,000 soda-sized canisters, ripe for sabotage. That’s a big “yes” for “proliferation problem” and a definite “no” for “recycling.”
            Even the French nuclear sector has abandoned the word “recycling” as disingenuous; they now more accurately say “recyclable.” That’s because they don’t — and can’t —
            recycle reprocessed fuel. Close to 95% of the uranium waste from reprocessing is stored at facilities in the south of France. Even the French government utility, EDF, admitted back in 2005 that it “does not value the uranium obtained from reprocessed
            burnt fuel, due to uncertainty over its future use.”
            A small portion of the reprocessed fuel (4%) is vitrified and stored at La Hague where it can never be used for anything. Only a tiny fraction of the plutonium extracted during
            reprocessing is fed back into 20 of France’s 58 reactors, in a fuel load that is 30% mixed oxide with an 8% plutonium content. Once fissioned, more plutonium is produced that
            cannot be reprocessed. There is no net reduction of plutonium.

            Even the World Nuclear Association estimates the portion of French electricity
            generated from reprocessed fuel at “about 17%.” This modest contribution has come at
            a high price.

            Reprocessing’s dirty little secret is never mentioned in Shugart’s whitewash. While
            reprocessing may reduce the amount of high-level radioactive waste, it increases the
            volume of radioactive waste. What happens to this waste? It is released into the
            environment. Liquid wastes discharged from La Hague are so radioactive they would
            violate the London dumping treaty if they were tossed into the sea in barrels instead of
            as effluent. At times, beaches and fishing grounds around La Hague have had to be
            closed to protect public health.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Good illustration of ignorance, Iggy (and Linda)! So, let’s see if we all understand the words “recycle” adn “energy”.

            a) Recycle means to re-use some or all of what resource one has. 95% of used fission fuel is not a source of energy for the reactor, but it is all recyclable into new fuel, which again will not enter into energy production — that’s the natural isotope U238.

            b) The only portion of nuclear ‘fuel’ that releases energy is the isotope U235, plus perhaps any small amount of POu239 made naturally from U236 as the reactor runs over the years. The energy-releasing isotopes are just 5% or less of the ‘fuel’

            So, the statement about only some “reactor Plutonium” re-entering the energy-production path and estimating the

            “portion of French electricity generated from reprocessed fuel at about 17%.”

            Is like saying your body wastes most of itself supporting a tiny, but very productive few pounds of brain.

            The statement shows both ignorance and the apparent desire to keep others ignorant. That’s neither honorable nor acceptable, given today’s problems ignorance & greed have creatd.

            So Iggy and Linda, why do you lie abvout where the clean energy from fission fuel comes from? Why do you lie about how much of “‘fuel’ is benign ‘matrix’ — U238, because it’s not making bombs?

            Whether the U market says use it again, or buy new and store the old, is irrelevant

            Perhaps you’d prefer we do what navies do and fuel reactors with 90+% U235, as for really good bombs?

            Aha, you each destroyed your own arguments with your own ignorance and disregard for others’ right to know facts. You both could be great climate deniers, even on Fox News!

            So here’s what the “great expense” for France has gained us all over several decades…

            http://tinyurl.com/mptejun (“France emits around 40 grams of CO2 per kwh. Germany, the US, Japan, and most other industrialized nations emit between 400 and 500 grams/kwh.”)

            Instead of pandering ignorance to others, Iggy & Linda, next time in France, go be adult and kiss a reactor.
            ;]
            The 4% being “vitrified” is where the energy came from, not the 95% plain old U238, which can be re-used over and over, as needed. Oops, that’s “recycling”, just as for beer cans.

            Remember E = m x c x c?

            ;]

          • igrandunifier

            Here u r. Making up lies on what I have not said a word of ‘”‘fuel’ is benign ‘matrix’ — U238, because it’s not making bombs?” n twisting facts about Co2 release, for we r comparing the Co2 release with renewables. N like so many of your staments they r speaking in circles to try to confuse your readers of your mute points: “Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima; this is not heading the right direction, how much further can this continue? Now we even have exploding kitty litter–nitric acid waste in organic rather than clay based litter creates nitrocellulose–just to show the country that invented this subject still trips up.”???? !!! All nuke plants r ‘…not heading the right direction…’!

          • igrandunifier

            it’s reprocessing not recycling, n not very successful even at that- 2 much mony 4 2 little returned…

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Since you haven’t bothered to study and haven’t the gumption to use a real name, why, Iggy, should anyone read your words?

          • igrandunifier

            U must b reading it! Do yourself n the world a favorite. Go hang up your Nuke Numbed Nut (NNN) mentality, n reemerge as a renewable energy promoter. Other wise go hang yoursef, for u as part of the Nuke industry have created a castastrophy that is of apocalyptic proportion!

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Biy your sure know how to find all the miscreants, Iggy! I know Mousseau’s work from years back and have discussed it with him. He has no verifiable results.

            And, as explained in the recycling” foolishness above, nuke plants aren’t bombs creating fallout. Eat a banana and you’ve ingested more radioactive material than the largest nuke plant can ever emit.

            But we all see facts just get you to find more garbage on the interwebs! Keep helping the combustion industry, Iggy!

            ;]

          • igrandunifier

            Here u go with your blaten lies that’s totally asinine, again: New York Times, May 5, 2014: Mousseau and colleagues have reported higher frequencies of tumors and physical abnormalities like deformed beaks and a decline in the populations of insects and spiders […] Abnormalities and other effects of radiation are seen at much lower radiation levels than in lab-based studies, he said. […] Dr. Mousseau has expanded his work to include similar studies in Japan — he’s made about 10 trips there. Already, he said, he is seeing some Chernobyl-like effects.
            New York Times Video, May 5, 2014 (at 2:00 in): — Dr. Tim Mousseau: “An overall decrease in the biodiversity on the order of 50% fewer species in the hotter areas. It occurred to us after visiting Fukushima last year that some of those spider webs looked a little strange and so we thought we would test that hypothesis.
            Watch the NY Times video here

          • igrandunifier

            U have no clude or totally goes ostrach on the effects of radiation.

          • igrandunifier

            U r the miscreant. France is not recycling iradiated fuels by any means. And the ‘radiation’ in the banmana that u NNN used ove n over to comare with fission by product of radiation totry to trick the non-informed is a shamelell scheme n a big lie. For they r 2 non-related entities Dr.! What is so thick about u. How many times IT’s WITH THE RENEWABLE ENERGY WE R FORGING AHEAD, NO NUKE n NO FOsil!

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Iggy, do you actually read what’s written? I said eating a banana causes you to ingest K40, who’s gamma & beta radiation is less than any radiation emitted by a nuke plant when running. NRC has specific rules. Your kidneys regulate K to about 170 grams throughout your body, and a small % of that is K40, so you actually irradiate yourself internally, 24/7, for life, with over 4000 beta/gamma emissions per second. Enjoy a banana or Brazil nut often — Potassium is essential!

            I didn’t say anything about the fission fuel or products inside the reactor, because their radiation cannot get out.

            And caps just mean someone has no argument. Here’s what the Uber ‘Renewable’ folks have discovered…

            Germany’s “don’t do as we did” example…
            http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ffa462f2-4d4b-11e4-bf60-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl
            http://www.finadvice.ch/files/germany_lessonslearned_final_071014.pdf
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10577513/Germany-is-a-cautionary-tale-of-how-energy-polices-can-harm-the-economy.html
            http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2013.pdf
            “Solar PV capacity GW 35.651′; …Capacity Factor 9.5%
            Wind capacity GW 32.513; …Capacity Factor 16.6%…
            Such low capacity factors…may actually push the energy return on invested (ERoEI) to below unity. In other words, more energy may be used to manufacture, install and maintain the units than they ever produce.”

            http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/456961/reality-check-germany-does-not-get-half-its-energy-solar
            http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/735216-on-the-road-to-green-energy-germany-detours-on-dirty-coal/
            http://www.dw.de/new-german-superminister-gabriel-defends-subsidies-cut-to-rein-in-renewables-costs/a-17395854
            http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e2U2cYcPro&feature=share (raise a stein & sing along!)

            Efficiency vs wind/solar ‘farms’…
            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-08/efficiency-worth-more-than-renewables-at-310-billion-iea-says.html

            Material pollution for wind generators…
            http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs
            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

            Grid instability/interventions…
            http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/instability-in-power-grid-comes-at-high-cost-for-german-industry-a-850419.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/08/wind-and-solar-power-destabilizing-the-german-grid/
            http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/TEAC6%20presentations/15%20Andrew_Dodson.pdf (A. Dodson)
            http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/instability-in-power-grid-comes-at-high-cost-for-german-industry-a-850419.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/08/wind-and-solar-power-destabilizing-the-german-grid/

            Increased emissions…
            “California (that’s you, Iggy), Germany, and Japan have one thing in common, increased carbon emissions for Earth Day. Within the past three years, each closed nuclear power plants and replaced the virtually emission free power source largely with coal and fossil fuels.”
            http://www.citylimits.org/conversations/250/nuclear-power-and-ny-s-future
            http://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/what-if-germany-had-not-shut-nuclear-power-plants/
            http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2014/01/16/germanys_plans_for_new_coal_plants_107463.html

            In contrast…
            “France emits around 40 grams of CO2 per kwh. Germany, the US, Japan, and most other industrialized nations emit between 400 and 500 grams/kwh.”
            http://tinyurl.com/mptejun

            So Iggy, the combustion folks love anti-nukes like you. Never met a wind/solar ‘farm’ supporter who was a true environmentalist.
            ;]
            The charts show how ‘German ‘renewables’ have raised their grid management costs without allowing Germany to meet its emissions pledges or desired grid stability, unlike the French.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            “indications of your phonies like other shills I’ve came across ” — do you have English problems as well as truth problems, Iggy?

            Maybe your “a) above was supposed to be the USS Reagan? If so, here are the facts you won’t like (done in a style you seem to like)… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw33AVqzQxA

            On your b) ‘the regularly must vent “noble gas” from every nuke plant that’s been
            documented to have elevated cancerous, leukemia and other illnesses
            among residents living near ‘ — guess you mean “they (nukes)”, so again you demonstrate no knowledge. The only gas allowed to be vented from a nuclear power plant is Tritium, which is heavy, heavy Hydrogen, as used in your watch & clock dials that glow in the dark — be careful, of them, Iggy! Since T only emits low energy electrons (beta), it can excite the phosphor paint to glow, but not even penetrate the dial cover. It also is lighter than air and heads for space. If it oxidizes,. it becomes a water molecule and blow away, or fall as snow or rain. In any case, it’s not a danger and disappears by half every 12 years. Not scary enough to use against nukes, Iggy?
            ;]
            The lie about leukemia was debunked long ago by the British Health Service… http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/

            Aw, but what does the Brit Health Service know, eh Iggy?
            ;]

            On your c) above, as I said, I’ve known Mousseau’s work for some years and have discussed it with him. He has an anti-nuclear agenda, and failed to show the bad effects he was hoping for, even at Chernobyl. I’ll happily send a copy of my review of his work there.

            For the Fukushima area, and birds, etc., again, he has an agenda where facts present problems for him. When a massive tsunami covers hundreds of sq km with silt and debris and all manner of garbage and chemicals, why would we expect birds to hang around? Given just the chemical spills associated with the tsunami’s vast reach, why wouldn’t we expect odd effects on life? Given the great loss of vegetation, why not expect loss/migration of life forms outbound?

            Your agenda is to do what climate deniers have always done — select misinformation that seems like facts to support your personal bias. That’s neither honorable nor, in court, legal — remember the oath we swear in giving testimony, Iggy? Maybe refresh your recollection of why it has 3 parts?
            ;]

            On your papers alleged to show Fuklushima effect, please provide links. Otherwise, they mean noting, like”after three days “a number of effects were observed” — what was seen, where, how…?

            Interesting you should quote Weinberg, misleadingly so, as is your penchant. I’m a member of the Weinberg Foundation, so let’s put our “truth boots” back on, Iggy. Weinberg was referring to bombs vs power — an inconvenient truth for you, Iggy. He was one of the original members of the Bureau of Atomic Scientists and signed the letter to Truman saying don’t drop the A-bombs. The Bureau also provided what Lochbaum & Lyman failed to do for Fukushima — honest explanation of the root cause.

            Weinberg also was co-inventor of the type of nuclear-power reactors we’ve been using since the 1950s. He was also the inventor of the Molten-Salt reactor in the 1960s, because he wanted a passively-safe, more power-efficient design.

            The MSR is one of the advanced-reactor designs supported by DoE. I and other members of the Weinberg Foundation, and other groups, support it as well. You might do well to study up, Iggy, since the Chinese, Canadians & others are rapidly advancing MSR designs to production. And, the MSR is one way to take all that used Uranium fuel, you call “waste” and provide hundreds of years of clean power from it. It’s also a good way to use Thorium and avoide almost all true waste. If you wish, you can start here: http://tinyurl.com/nu5o7k5

            Interesting that UCS chooses to call this blog “All Things Nuclear”, when it hasn’t even done an accurate job of assessing traditional reactor designs.

            Now to your odd comments about Pauling, Morgan, Sakarov… for what purpose? What do atomic bombs and their open-air testing have to do with nuclear power? This irrelevant dropping of names just shows your lack of honest argument. Neither I nor anyone I know has supported creation of fallout.

            That’s why both Fukushima & Chernobyl demonstrate the safety of western, regulated nuclear power — far safer than GM ignition locks or even windmills!…
            http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf
            http://tinyurl.com/kqce99w
            http://l.facebook.com/l/4AQFK5uhm/www.archipelagofiles.com/2014/03/this-photo-of-two-engineers-hugging.html

            So, Iggy, what fibbery will you propagate next? This is fun! It’s like the old days debating Lord Monckton, or Nicol, etc. with their carefully-contrived, but flimsy warming-denial arguments and refs.
            ;]
            PS, note the attached radiation-exposure charts, so you can avoid radioactive things like bananas, nuts, or breathing air!

          • igrandunifier

            It’s called attemp to REPROCESS not RECYCL Dr. Archic!

          • igrandunifier

            Here’s a fact of NO RECYCLE PROCESS OF URANIUM GOING ON ANYWHERE, NOT EVEN IN FRANCE! Another one of your pro-nuke, unscrupulous LIES:
            “The Reality of Nuclear Decline is the Bitter Pill the Nuclear Pundits Won’t Swallow. By Linda Pentz Gunter October 6, 2014
            William F. Shugart II’s article (Why Doesn’t U.S. Recycle Nuclear Fuel? Forbes magazine, October 1) It is uncannily similar to one that appeared recently in several newspapers under Paul Steinmeyer’s by-line.
            We see the same sanitized language. Irradiated fuel becomes “used fuel.”
            Reprocessing becomes “recycling.” Indeed, the word “recycling” appears 10 times in each of their articles. The nuclear industry public relations people must be well pleased
            with their pupils for using their talking points so assiduously.
            Shugart is wrong on so many points it’s astonishing that no fact checker at Forbes called him on any of it. Far from a “perception” that reprocessing is not cost-effective,
            the experience in France, which he also cites, has proven it to be so. The choice of reprocessing over on-site storage has cost French ratepayers $800 million more per
            year. Reprocessing has been soundly rejected in the U.S. for decades on economic grounds alone.
            Shugart dismisses the proliferation risks by omitting to point out that the French reprocessing program was initiated originally for the sole purpose of providing plutonium for its nuclear weapons program. Reprocessing still separates plutonium and that is why
            France has a staggering 85+ ton surplus of plutonium sitting at its La Hague reprocessing site in more 10,000 soda-sized canisters, ripe for sabotage. That’s a big yes” for “proliferation problem” and a definite “no” for “recycling.”
            Even the French nuclear sector has abandoned the word “recycling” as disingenuous;
            they now more accurately say “recyclable.” That’s because they don’t — and can’t —
            recycle reprocessed fuel. Close to 95% of the uranium waste from reprocessing is
            stored at facilities in the south of France. Even the French government utility, EDF,
            admitted back in 2005 that it “does not value the uranium obtained from reprocessed
            burnt fuel, due to uncertainty over its future use.”
            A small portion of the reprocessed fuel (4%) is vitrified and stored at La Hague where it can never be used for anything. Only a tiny fraction of the plutonium extracted during
            reprocessing is fed back into 20 of France’s 58 reactors, in a fuel load that is 30% mixed oxide with an 8% plutonium content. Once fissioned, more plutonium is produced that
            cannot be reprocessed. There is no net reduction of plutonium.
            Even the World Nuclear Association estimates the portion of French electricity generated from reprocessed fuel at “about 17%.” This modest contribution has come at
            a high price.

            Reprocessing’s dirty little secret is never mentioned in Shugart’s whitewash. While reprocessing may reduce the amount of high-level radioactive waste, it increases the volume of radioactive waste. What happens to this waste? It is released into the
            environment. Liquid wastes discharged from La Hague are so radioactive they would violate the London dumping treaty if they were tossed into the sea in barrels instead of as effluent. At times, beaches and fishing grounds around La Hague have had to beclosed to protect public health.

          • Guest

            I am certain now that U, Dr.A, R a Nuke Industry Shill hiding behind a self-proclaimed Dr. title. No Ph.D. educated person would so shamlessly n openly delt into a topic with so much unsbsteatiated n weak data.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            No one tosses waste into the sea, Iggy. and, again, how about reading up on facts, rather than just displaying ignorance? Hey, now I see why your phoney name starts “ig”!
            ;]
            Maybe tell this nice European lady you think she’s a liar about France… http://tinyurl.com/kkmyhze

            No guts no glory, Iggy.

          • igrandunifier

            u don’t have any facts, Dr. Shill, n u can’t tell if it’s stearing u at your face. All your links r the none-reputable, not-trustworthy Nuke-Numbed-nuts’ propaganda sites.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Unfortunately for you, Iggy, but fortunately for the world, you don’t know what you’re talking about!

            Ditto for your silliness on San Onofre, which means you love burning coal & gas and sickening or burning your fellow citizens.

            Good work, Iggy!
            ;]

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Too bad you can apparently only type and not study Iggy…

            Here, try again: http://tinyurl.com/kkmyhze

          • igrandunifier

            radiation network »
            TV: Huge increase in US Navy sailors suffering injury after Fukushima exposure — Gov’t reports show USS Reagan went directly into most intense area of plume just as radioactive releases hit peak — Over 20 trillion becquerels coming from plant every second — “We’re now beginning to see the real data” (VIDEO)
            Published: October 2nd, 2014 at 2:53 am ET
            By ENENews
            Email Article
            880 comments

            Interview with Charles Bonner, Esq., representing US Navy sailors exposed to Fukushima radioactive releases, Sept. 25, 2014: “These kinds of illnesses… are characteristic of people who’ve been exposed to radiation… We’ve seen them at Chernobyl, they are not difficult to prove… We know Tepco… misrepresented the levels of radiation these sailors were exposed to… The number is more than 110… we now have 225 injured sailors — 21, 22, 23, 25-year-olds. A population that you don’t usually find cancers such as leukemia, testicular cancers, uterine cancers, thyroid cancers. We also have cancers so rare only 0.001% of people have experienced it. Yet we know that radiation causes these kinds of cancers… Information that initially came out was totally incorrect… We’re now beginning to see the real data that’s revealing the exact kind of exposures — the kind of toxic soup — that these sailors were literally sailing through for days.

          • igrandunifier

            Any responds on this abut tha sailors? Or r we being ignorant?

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Ask their lawyers, Iggy. You got the inconvenient data above.

            Remember, Fukushima & Chernobyl demonstrate the safety of western, regulated nuclear power.

            We know how hard a fact that is for you, Iggy, especially when you’ve already helped increase coal & gas emissions here in CA because of nuclear ignorance. Combustion folks love you, Iggy.
            ;]

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            You really are a sucker for truthiness, eh Iggy? Did you ever see how the foam sailors were pushing around the Reagan’s deck was identified as “radioactive snow” by your anti-nuke fibbers? (it was soap bubbles).
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw33AVqzQxA

            By the way, you do recall that Fukushima Dai-Ichi actually demonstrates the safety of western nuclear power, right?
            http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311

            Keep it comin’ Iggy, it’s fun — just like the old days of knocking the straw men climate deniers like Monckton, Nicol, etc. used to push up. You really could get a gig on Fox News, Iggy!
            ;]
            Ok, just for fun, given that TEPCO had 17 reactors in the Sendai region, how come they could only get 3 to melt?

          • igrandunifier

            Not only it’s a nother non-reliable source of video it’s another of these callus pro-nuke comparisons of background radiation we had to face daily. The background radiation r mostly created from all the nuke n atomic weapons we tested back in the 50 n 60s. N I’m as certain to say many of today’s cancerous illnesses r most likely caused by these bacground radiation as u nuker would denied it.

          • igrandunifier

            Another one of your many mute points, ‘given that TEPCO had 17 reactors in the Sendai region, how come they could only get 3 to melt?’ If u haven’ caught on to TEPCo’s infamous chronic liyings n withholding facts from the public u r the biggest ignorant F S than I thought.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            The ignorance just flows on, eh Iggy? “The background radiation r mostly created from all the nuke n atomic weapons we tested back in the 50 n 60s.”

            Guess you can’t read documents or reports unless they come from goofballs, eh? Attached are some facts for others here, so cover your eyes, Iggy.
            ;]

          • igrandunifier

            Another twisted fact from u n your unscrupulous kind here. I never said ‘Hundreds of Servicemen Die”, but that hunndreds of sailor on the USS reagan were exposed to the high level of radiation from the 3 exploded NPPs’ with their runaway coriums of Daiichi. These sailor r showing acute sings of high radiation exposure illnesses n r now suing TEPCo n the US Government.
            Obviously either u don’t understand what it’s about or u r just going through your callus n slimy wording offs.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Everything is focused on you, eh Iggy? The point is, you’ve shown you haven’t enough science or engineering knowledge to distinguish anti-nuke propaganda from legitimate info.

            Yet, you’ll do things that help the combustion industry and hurt your fellow citizens. Sort of like the Lochbaum/Lyman book leaving out the root cause of Fuklushima Dai-Ichi, and the successes of Dai-Ini and Onagawa — an agenda to mislead?

            As Sam Clemens said: “A lie gets halfway ’round the world before the truth can get its boots on.” Lies now get all the way ’round, many times!

            You just don’t seem to like someone pulling truth boots on, eh Iggy?
            ;]

          • igrandunifier

            A very appropreate quote for your own medicine, ‘”A lie gets halfway ’round the world before the truth can get its boots on.”
            All nuclear power plants around the word r built from the lies n propaganda of the nuke industr coupled with the bribing of the politician who have no clude of the danger of fission n radiation before the trueth n the deadliness of the nuclear power were known to the caring ones, who have concens for the human kind. Unlike u nukers whoes only concerns r about promoting nuke tecnology n profits!

          • Dr. A. Cannara
  • vlady47

    Besides leaving toxic uranium mining Superfund sites dotting the earth’s landscape..Nuclear power plants are mansions without toilets….leaving a deadly toxic waste for the next 3000 generations. Nuclear energy ~ the true definition of insanity!
    http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/

  • Richard Solomon

    I am a Calif resident who was relieved when San Onofre shut down. More than 7 million people live within 100 miles of it! It was a rare but satisfying example of how scientists, so called ‘environmental groups,’ and local community people can actually have an impact on decision making.

    Now I wish the NRC would do its job more thoroughly and require that Diablo Canyon upgrade its safety measures and plans in the context of the fact that the earthquake fault nearby is larger and potentially more problematic than was first believed when the plant was built. Far fewer people live close to DC than to SO. But an ‘accident’ would certainly be no less traumatic for them as well!

  • dinkydave

    Dave Lochbaum, respect and follow you, read your recent book with interest. Now, must disagree with you and some other posters. No such thing as “safe power” through nuclear fission. Never has been, never will be. Public health studies increasingly show that little children near nuke plants have more leukemia than little children living farther. Since this is now beyond doubt, what else is being done to nuclear neighbors? The world nuclear industry is piling up wastes that will be dangerous for thousands of years. To my knowledge, no one has a good permanent solution to this problem. Just mentioning, all the injury and illness caused to uranium miners and their families through carelessness to safety and hygiene.

    Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima; this is not heading the right direction, how much further can this continue? Now we even have exploding kitty litter–nitric acid waste in organic rather than clay based litter creates nitrocellulose–just to show the country that invented this subject still trips up.

    If the debate is which kills more people, uranium or coal, the answer has to be the way being pointed by German voters and rate payers, “die Energiewende”, the energy turn around.

    • igrandunifier

      Dr. A just a nuke industry shill, not a Ph. D. 4 sure.

      • Dr. A. Cannara

        ;] Right, Iggy. Keep hiding your “grand” credentials!
        ;]

        • igrandunifier

          Most of you links are pro-nuke. So we can discount them. Scientific Am’s article on safty; n it shows Nuke is more deadly than wind n solar renewable. N for sure NPPs are way more costly to built, run or maintain… U r just a big fake! a typical Nuke Power industry employer who sees n feels mostly only $$$! scumb bag of the human kind!

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Ahhh, Iggy, you took the bait! Like aq good climate denier, you pick one thing that suits you and deny the rest that ruin your argument — good! So we see you think folks at the UN, etc. are fibbers, but an old Sci Am. article suits you, even though its stats were based on far less wind energy.

            Now that we’re getting better stats on wind dangers, the results aren’t good for your manipulative argument…

            http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf
            http://tinyurl.com/kqce99w
            http://l.facebook.com/l/4AQFK5uhm/www.archipelagofiles.com/2014/03/this-photo-of-two-engineers-hugging.html
            You may not want to watch that last one.

            But more recent & long-term stats tell it simply, in the pics…
            Keep it up Iggy. We’re all learning about your love for misinformation.
            ;]

          • igrandunifier

            Yah, better show them chats as blanks. U call those 2 charts information?!!! A 9th grade kid can come up with a better chart that with no creditable source of info, The second one is just an out right lies!. Show me data published by reputable medias, institutions or individuals!

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            Got you flustered,eh Iggy? That’s why the moderator had to remove your name calling above?
            ;]
            Here Iggy, calm down with the Dalai Lama…
            http://tinyurl.com/82o6etd

          • igrandunifier

            u forgot it was your senseless naming n blank links that they removed…

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            No, Iggy, it was your calling me an “as____le” — want to see the site’s email to me of your comment?

            You know, Iggy, honesty is indeed the best policy, always, and when you resort to name calling, you defeat all your arguments. That basic debating, remember?

            Has that, and hiding your name ever worked for you on blogs?
            ;]

          • igrandunifier

            U’ve fire 2 many blanks with your links, sending people on goose chase. U operate just like the nuke industry. Given out false info, blatenly denine n lie about facts, but can’t come up with much sustaining info to defend your crumbling industry.

          • igrandunifier

            Yah, start deleting your posts DR.A!. People r begining to realize your r a dead phony, n a NNN!

  • igrandunifier

    I happened to be one of the signature gatherer that helped with the shot down of San Onofre. It’s neither safe nor economical. It’s built near a number of SC faults, n never far from San Andre. It’s also right on the ocean front, vulnerable to tsunami waves just like Fukushima Daiichi. U want economical, go solar: it’s free after the insulation of hardware.

    • Dr. A. Cannara

      Good admission, Iggy, it means you don’t care that folks downwind of CA and 4 Corners coal plants are now breathing more emissions.

    • Dr. A. Cannara

      You don’t mind that you’ve added to coal & gas use & emissions that endanger others, eh Iggy? Got apologies written to them ready, Iggy?

      http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/10/19/californias-dirty-secret-the-five-coal-plants-supplying-our-electricity/

      “California, Germany, and Japan have one thing in common, increased carbon emissions for Earth Day. Within the past three years, each closed nuclear power plants and replaced the virtually emission free power source largely with coal and fossil fuels.”
      http://www.citylimits.org/conversations/250/nuclear-power-and-ny-s-future

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/10/02/are-california-carbon-goals-kaput/
      http://www.timescolonist.com/business/san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant-dismantling-will-cost-4-4-billion-take-20-years-1.1273679
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/dismantling-california-nuke-plant-will-cost-44b/2014/08/02/47c44970-1a62-11e4-88f7-96ed767bb747_story.html

      Maybe you’ll chip in to help pay both medical & electrical charge increases, eh Iggy? Or, maybe not.
      ;]

      • igrandunifier

        We’ar moving forward to renwables, n in self-sufficient residential solar powe, free from having to pay any utility company. You r still trying to hold onto your out-dated technology , like oil n coal.

      • igrandunifier

        US gov’t analysis says Fukushima is more serious than ‘China Syndrome’ — Destroyed reactors suffered worst type of containment failure (PHOTOS)
        Published: October 8th, 2014 at 8:35 am ET
        By ENENews
        Email Article
        194 comments

        US Department of Energy, September 2013 (emphasis added): A severe earthquake and tsunami… caused significant damages on the reactors in Fukushima… [including] containment damage… and intensive radioactivity release… This paper reviews and compares a typical BWR SPAR Level 2 model with [what] occurred in Fukushima Daiichi Units 1, 2, and 3. It shows that the SPAR Level 2 model… could very reasonably describe the accident progression for a real and complicated nuclear accident… SPAR Level 2 model predicts that the containment integrity of Daiichi Units 1, 2, and 3 would be compromised by overpressure failure prior to or at core damage, which would be further impaired by drywell shell melt-through after vessel failure… The fission product release categories of Daiichi Units 1 to 3 are all classified as large early release in SPAR model… This work was sponsored by the NRC…

        • igrandunifier

          ‘n Fukushima… [including] containment damage… and intensive radioactivity release’, n ‘The fission product release categories of Daiichi Units 1 to 3 ARE ALL Classified’! That’s the general shameless practice of your kind-Sick! Than say to the public “no immediate health thread’. Sure radiation related cancerous illness don’t show up till years later, n continue for generations.

  • Dr. A. Cannara

    Vlady, you do know where toilets divulge their contents, right?

    You do know that U mining is peanuts compared to what’s been mined for your iGadgest and computer, right?

    Here’s an example and you can Googgle China Rare-Earth mine waste (for windmills, iPhones…)… The Economist September 27th 2014, p38.

    UCS knows all about this, so you can ask them which produces more radioactive waste — the U mined/recycled for power or the rare earths needed for your techy gadgets, windmills, etc.

    Keep displaying lack of information, Vlady!
    ;]

  • igrandunifier

    None of u pro-nukers, the NNNs, will address the NPPs accidents in Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima Daiichi. U NNNs don’t see Daiichi NPPs debacle is a developing global catastrophy , when they r spilling 400+ tons of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean, n more into the atmosphere DAILY 24/7. Nor do u want to take on why the 220 + (more to come yet) USS Ronald Ragan sailors are filing sue against TEPCo n the US government for all kinds of radiation related illnesses after they exposed to the Daiichi’s heavy radiation from being near Fukushima doing humanitarian aid shortly after the 3 NPPs explosions in March 2011. And so far the US Gov. refused to acknowledge the sailors’ radiation exposure n r denying the sailors their medical treatments, just like the nuke industry would refute any health impact the NPP accidents have cost.