"nuclear power plants are mostly cleaner and less polluting than their fossil fuel counterparts and despite near-miss incidents, no more dangerous than the acid rain and airborne particles that kill aquatic life and give children asthma"
One "near-miss incident" occurred just 30 miles from Toledo last year at the now shutdown Davis-Besse nuclear plant -- this "near-miss" nuclear disaster would have made Chernobyl seem like small potatoes. And that from the experts! Below a little more (but still not diverse) coverage than we got in Toledo from Cleveland's corporate newspaper (btw, Davis-Besse is actually in-between Toledo and Cleveland):
http://www.cleveland.com/davisbesse/
Ohio is now a nuclear free state and most of its residents want to keep it that way...but that is clearly not on the agenda for the Bush administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ohio is a battle ground...and disturbingly our local news sources are revealing just more evidence that the government (NRC) and the consolidated media are one and the same.
Diane
At 02:22 PM 2/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, what makes you ask about new generation nuclear plants
>anyway?
>
>Info I have should be findable from WSJ or NYT archives because I remember
>reading it when I had a WSJ subscription. Below is what I remember reading,
>not my personal comments about the various technical and regulatory issues
>involved.
>
>New generation nuclear power plants are supposed to be smaller than current
>models and put out on a more assembly line basis. I believe these would be
>new design uranium fueled plants with some enhanced saftey measures and
>proliferation resistance built in.
>
>Besides ramping up the manaufacturing speed, the smaller standardized designs
>are supposed to coexist with a streamlined regulatory approval regime. Think
>the "big box store" approach to nuclear power plant development with intended
>markets not only in the US but around the world.
>
>There would also be implied competition with other nuclear power plant
>exporters such as Russia. This would reflect comically on what assumptions
>can be made about the current nuclear power plant stock. Russia at present
>exports only the VVER design, modelled closely on a GE / Westinghouse model
>that is already considered relatively safe operationally as well as low risk
>for proliferation. That is arguing new designs are superior implicitly
>underscores legitimate concerns about existing infrastructure.
>
>For myself, with growing markets in underdeveloped countries, I would expect
>to hear arguments that energy demand will almost certainly outstrip available
>fossil fuel supply. That would suggest that increased nuclear power
>development is almost inevitable. Then the question becomes what
>international measures would be required to strengthen dialogue and controls
>about nuclear technology and waste management.
>
>As you might expect I do not think bombing Iraq and kowtowing to US World
>domination will enhance this regime, so I am strugglingt o think what
>measures would matter!
>
>DoreneC
>
>DoreneC