wapa should go nucl...
 
Notifications
Clear all

wapa should go nuclear

Page 2 / 2
 
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

Interesting article:

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/community-owned-energy.html

Could it be an alternative here?

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 4, 2013 6:21 pm
Lucy
 Lucy
(@Lucy)
Advanced Member

Sorry, but loucypher is right.

Although the cooling water, directly contained in the nuclear plant, is never released, the heat is transferred to an outside medium (usually water). In NJ we have the oldest operating nuclear plant in the country (Oyster Creek). The excess heat, from the reactor, is transferred to Barnegat Bay, thus warming the immediate area of the bay. In winter, should the plant shut down, thousands of fish die because of the sudden decrease in water temperature.

Hold on a minute all you scientists out there.

All new nuclear plants use cooling towers as the final heat sink now. No water is drawn from or directly discharged back into lakes, rivers or the ocean. The EPA long ago put a stop to direct discharge .... due to the reasons cited by FI.

That being said. A small modular reactor would be ideal. The Westinghouse SMR is rated at 200MWe and would sustain all of the USVI. Once the plant is built, the cost to generate electric is less than $0.05 per kWe. If they would add in the debt service for the plant construction, then that might go to $0.15 per kWe.

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/smr/index.htm

I made some informal inquiries with W-SMR Mgt. some months ago about them making a pitch to the Governor. However, their strategy is to build the first unit in Missouri at the Callaway site. That will not happen for several years though and we are currently behind the 8-Ball. So thinking of a near term fix from Westinghouse is out of the cards. But maybe one of the other companies that are developing SMRs could come to the rescue?

And YES, there is a BIG Concern to have WAPA take over operations of a Nuc. So, I have been promoting that the generation side get sold to a company like FPL or even a TVA, that has nuclear operations experience. WAPA maintains the the T&D part of the service.

And one final issue that I saw mentioned. That nasty Spent Fuel.

All plants have a spent fuel pool in containment. During refueling, some spent fuel is used to "balance" the addition of new fuel going into the reactor. The spent fuel is shuffled around for this purpose. However, once it is depleted and can no longer act as a moderator, the plant needs to do something with it. Our great government is all its wisdom, set up Yucca Mountain as the depository for SF and Million$ spent to develop the site, but no operations and closure due to politics.

So private industry and the plant owners were forced to do something on their own. And this a good example of "keep the government out of the way". It actually goes outside on a concrete pad and is stored in a natural ventilated (air cooled) canister to deplete away.

http://www.holtecinternational.com/divisions/dry-storage-and-transport-systems

Look up a nuclear plant on Google Maps and you might be able to see the canisters on the pad.

But the only near-term practical fix to put a "hold" on our electric costs might be new duel-fuel medium speed reciprocating (diesel) engine-generators. These could use fuel oil at first and then NG when an LNG infrastructure is constructed. I say this since no one at WAPA is talking about how they intend to comply with all the new EPA emission regulations that our current administration has just issued. It will cost dearly for the current WAPA equipment to be upgraded .... and we all know what that means. YIKES !!!

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 5, 2013 2:28 pm
Lucy
 Lucy
(@Lucy)
Advanced Member

Interesting article:

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/community-owned-energy.html

Could it be an alternative here?

Alana, this was proposed by Ben Walter a couple of years ago .... but I think it is stuck in Neutral.

http://empowervi.com/

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 5, 2013 2:35 pm
loucypher
(@loucypher)
Advanced Member

LF stated some bonehead goes around eating plutonium to demonstrate it's safety. If that's the case we could all eat it and glow in the dark thus saving a boat load just in lighting costs.

ReplyQuote
Posted : February 5, 2013 5:51 pm
AandA2VI
(@AandA2VI)
Trusted Member

So - I came across this today and it scared the crap out of me. It made me remember the conversation we had here about Nuclear power. There are many more people here that are much more informed about this than I am. Just curious is this the same type of nuclear that people are recommending to come to the VI. If so I am on the first plane out. This is NOT good no matter how you slice it. Personally I'd rather go back to the dark ages vs. this.

It seems that there are some issues with the map that is on the link not being correct. IDK what to believe. That is frustrating.

ReplyQuote
Posted : August 20, 2013 4:40 pm
ms411
(@ms411)
Expert

A&A, what did you come across? WAPA seems to Dave chosen less controversial methods based on recent articles in local newspapers.

ReplyQuote
Posted : August 20, 2013 11:23 pm
AandA2VI
(@AandA2VI)
Trusted Member

Lmao my bad! Forgot to ad the link. Duhhhh!

http://www.collapsingintoconsciousness.com/at-the-very-least-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-are-over/

Yea I saw that about Toshiba but don't know much about it as of yet. Hopefully it'll help the businesses with their crazy bills.

ReplyQuote
Posted : August 21, 2013 7:02 am
vicanuck
(@vicanuck)
Expert

Nuclear power is the only viable solution to fossil fuels in the long term. Some day future generations will wonder what all the fuss was about.

ReplyQuote
Posted : August 21, 2013 12:19 pm
stt007
(@stt007)
Advanced Member

Collapsing Into Unconsciousness......the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : August 21, 2013 12:45 pm
LiquidFluoride
(@LiquidFluoride)
Trusted Member

Lmao my bad! Forgot to ad the link. Duhhhh!

http://www.collapsingintoconsciousness.com/at-the-very-least-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-are-over/

Yea I saw that about Toshiba but don't know much about it as of yet. Hopefully it'll help the businesses with their crazy bills.

AandA2VI:

This is a very interesting topic, one that has MANY prejudiced ideas that need to be resolved.

First, notice how there are no actual measurements of radiation present, there are no links to studies that show any danger or back up the statements made; there are PLENTY of Logical Fallacy (mostly Appeal to Emotion) present in that article.

Radiation is a subject that has been taboo for many years due to the massive fear campaigns that have been leveraged against it; backed by little to no actual data.

I can VASTLY expand on this topic if desired, however the statements I made above will garnish one of three reactions (with the first two being most common)

1) Complete denial, even though the person will not check facts or look into the reality of the situation, they will KNOW that radiation is TERRIBLE for you at any level and that is that.

2) Apathy, why should this person care, it's not a big deal

and the rare

3) interest in learning on a topic that has little to no actual fact based coverage in over 70 years.

Fun fact: I am wearing a Uranium ore pendant (and have been for 7 months) that is more radio active than the levels out side the fukushima compound.

What if radiation (like everything else, including water) at certain levels is actually very healthy for you?

ReplyQuote
Posted : August 21, 2013 1:29 pm
divinggirl
(@divinggirl)
Trusted Member

I have recently seen many articles about the benefits of certain levels of radiation. I agree that it has been vilified over the years. Issues like 3 mile island and Fuk don't help. However, the technology for nuclear power has evolved since those plants were built. I still say a nuclear sub would be a great solution for us as it can just disconnect and go deep if a storm is coming. That is my very uninformed opinion!
To me it's like Marijuana - way too much negative hype without actual facts to support the base that is against it.

ReplyQuote
Posted : August 21, 2013 6:55 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

Yes, I can just see how well a nuclear reactor would be maintained and cared for in the USVI with the quality of present performance we all now experience with the utilities, schools, roads, etc.. HA!

I guess if we all glowed in the dark, who'd need any lights?

ReplyQuote
Posted : August 21, 2013 8:29 pm
watruw8ing4
(@watruw8ing4)
Trusted Member

I read the same info from a more objective source a few months back. But can't find it now. It had pretty much the same info as this article. Nuclear can be safe. But humans oversee it and run it. So I'm not very trusting when people say it's safe.

UCSUSA 2012 report.

I see problems locating a nuclear power plant in the VI. Earthquakes, for one. And no feasible evacuation plan. I live close enough to TMI that we get free "just in case" iodine tablets. We have warning systems - sirens, and an auto-dialer alert system. Schools and offices have evacuation procedures. I can't see the VI government in a position to have its act together if something goes wrong. And just where the heck would we evacuate to?

ReplyQuote
Posted : August 22, 2013 3:41 am
vicanuck
(@vicanuck)
Expert

Its highly unlikely that WAPA would run any nuclear facility if built in the VI. The plant would be run by the company that built it under contract to WAPA.

Its just like the water treatment plant at Anguilla. It was built by Viola Water North America and is managed by Viola Water people with local employees and will be for many years into the future.

ReplyQuote
Posted : August 22, 2013 12:14 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

Here's an interesting article on Toxic Water From Fukushima

http://www.care2.com/causes/yes-toxic-water-from-fukushima-spreads-to-the-pacific-ocean.html

With all the modern technology for non-polluting means of generating electricity, I do not see the need for nuclear reactors that are capable of producing such toxic results in the event of natural disasters or accidents, not to mention finding ways and places for storing toxic waste that has such longevity.

ReplyQuote
Posted : August 25, 2013 1:55 pm
stt007
(@stt007)
Advanced Member

How about 'non polluting means of generating electricity' are not cost effective and have never demonstrated delivery of power on a mass scale?

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : August 25, 2013 5:02 pm
Alana33
(@alana33)
Expert

Well, maybe we ought to find a way to do so before we pollute the planet so entirely that nothing can survive.
We are heading in that direction, now.

ReplyQuote
Posted : August 25, 2013 8:07 pm
Page 2 / 2
Close Menu