tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post2988441835911972791..comments2024-02-16T09:00:32.845-06:00Comments on FromDC2Iowa: Nuclear Power's FutureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-27498179673418443042011-03-19T14:04:37.581-05:002011-03-19T14:04:37.581-05:00Where did I just read - that out of 104 nuclear po...Where did I just read - that out of 104 nuclear power plants in the US, of those most likely to experience an earthquake, Duane Arnold is #26.<br /><br />?! I thought we'd be at least #102. All in all, perhaps a nuclear meltdown would kill of whatever must be growing in Cedar Rapids since The Flood, so there's that benefit to factor in. But still....hhartusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-51526628816383053212011-03-19T14:01:03.123-05:002011-03-19T14:01:03.123-05:00One aspect of nuclear power that Iowans should kee...One aspect of nuclear power that Iowans should keep in mind is that crops dusted with radioactive particles cannot be sold. For example assume that because of a some type of failure radioactive particles are released from a nuclear power plant and it is ordered that the crops within ten miles of the plant cannot be sold and must be disposed of in a safe manner.<br /><br />Assume corn is the crop an the average yield is 160 bu per acre with a value of $5.50 per bu. The value of 314 square miles (10 mile radius circle) of corn would be $177 million. <br /><br />If the radius is 40 miles the value of the crops would be $11.3 billion about the same value as a months production of energy by a 500 megawatt power plant operating at full power. <br /><br />If the radius of the area of lost production becomes several time larger than a 40 miles the value of the crops could exceed the value of the electricity produced by the plant.John Neffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-5760713458291917552011-03-18T16:27:24.226-05:002011-03-18T16:27:24.226-05:00Nuclear Power is much much much much safer than an...Nuclear Power is much much much much safer than any other practical (eg not wind or solar) method of generating electricity. What most people have yet to realize is that the media is blowing the similarities between U.S. reactors and those in Japan. The biggest difference is that in the U.S. we NEVER put 6 reactors in one place. When this is done you just end up with a problem waiting to happen. In addition a counter argument to the statement that Nuclear carries a lot more risks. In reality it doesn't carry as much more as you think. The problem is that when a nuclear plant has a problem they practically write KILLED BY A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT on the death certificate. But when someone dies from pollution from a fossil fuel plant they don't. Also look what it took to cause the problem in Japan a 9.0 EARTHQUAKE and MASSIVE tsunami. I doubt anything could stand up to that. Lastly look at how many Nuclear Power plants there are around the wold, how many accidents there have been and how long we have had the reactors. Chernobyl was a very badly designed reactor and should have never had been built. Newer reactors are incredibly safe. To verify my sincerity I can tell you that I live within 10 miles of a plant similar to the ones in Japan except for a few important facts. 1. It is not on a fault line. 2. It is not in danger of being hit by a tsunami 3. It has had some major safety upgrades and 4. There is a very clear and concise plan for evacuation should anything go wrong. So in closing don't write about Nuclear Power unless you know the science and engineering involved and also look at cold hard facts over the years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-39831545988058395922011-03-18T12:50:07.019-05:002011-03-18T12:50:07.019-05:00An American seismologist said the tsunami recurren...An American seismologist said the tsunami recurrence interval is so slight that basing seawall height on recent experience may leave one with a false sense of security, rather like sizing the Cedar River levees on the then-record 1929 flood. As the reactors shut down, and the backups worked in the face of a 9.0, I'm less worried about it than the backup power cutting off. It's a location problem, not a design problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com