|
Newsletter
 You must be a registered userto receive our newsletter Register Now!
Subscriber Login
Welcome Anonymous
Site Navigation
Other Cool Sites
|
Motorcycle Blogs
| Main |
Duke Energy in the Scioto Valley? |
Thursday, June 18, 2009 (03:52:00) |
| |
Yes, that’s right. Tomorrow, Governor Ted Strickland will announce plans to turn part of the Department of Energy Reservation in Pike County into a nuclear power plant site. USEC, Inc, Ureva, and Duke Energy will team up to build the plant. Duke Energy will own and operate the plant providing power to people as far away as Cincinnati.
Here’s a collection of articles about the plant:I can hear you guys asking now, “Mike why do we care about this? Isn’t this a motorcycle magazine?”
Yes, it is. However, There are several reasons why this is of interest to us:- this plant will literally be in my backyard
- nuclear power burns less greenhouse gases
- it’s safer and exposes less of the general public to radiation than coal burning plants
As motorcyclists we need to champion the eco-friendly. Doing so only makes our way life harder to eradicate. Motorcycles are eco-friendly and getting rid of them, or making it less desirable to ride them with helmet mandates only destroys the environment. See my logic.
It’s also important because I said so! If you don’t like it then quit reading. If however, you do read, you may find some stuff pretty interesting and who knows, you might even learn a thing or two.
This plant will literally be in my backyard. I have no problem with it. Actually, I encourage it. Initially, this plant will bring 4,000 initial construction jobs and hundreds of high paying plant operator/support jobs to a severely depressed area. According to the Census Bureau, the median household income is just barely over ½ the national average and nearly 2.5 times the national average of families is below the poverty level. Your average entry level operator/technician earns 20% more than the national household median income. It doesn’t take someone with a degree in math to add this up.
This will be good for the local economy short and long term. I’m not holding my breathe, but we might actually get a Target in the Scioto Valley! One can only hope.
Say you want to, but I love Target. I don’t care if you big bad biker boys make fun of me or not. Yes Target may cost more, but you get a better overall shopping experience than say Wally World. Hmm, there may be another blog topic altogether!
“But Mike, aren’t you concerned with safety and greenhouse gases and radiation and terrorist attacks and (insert any one of the fear-mongering propaganda items the anti-nuke zealots are pushing on you)?”
No, I am not. This is really simple folks. Nuclear Power plants are safer, emit fewer greenhouse gases and radiation, and are more cost effective than coal plants.
Nuclear produces fewer greenhouse gases than coal. As a matter of fact nuclear power is classified as an emission-free power source. In 2008 nuclear accounted for 72% of the total US emission-free power production.
I knew that nuclear power produced fewer greenhouse gas emissions; however the radiation emission issue is something new to me. It had never occurred to me that coal plants could be emitting more radiation than a nuclear plant until a colleague mentioned it in passing.
Of course, I acted like I knew exactly what he was talking about. After the conversation, I immediately went to the interweb and did some research. What I found in a research paper by Alex Gabbard for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory published in 1993, titled Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger is astounding.
Coal is an ore. As with most ores, coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium. One the surface this isn’t bad. But when you burn the amounts of coal require to fire a 1000 MW coal powerplant, you are releasing up to 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. This is easily 100 times more than a comparable nuclear power plant and the release is more widespread as the ash falls to the ground over a large area.
Nuclear power is cheaper. Initial construction of a nuclear power plant is astronomical compared to a coal plant, but these costs are quickly absorbed and over the life of a plant make nuclear power more cost effective to produce. A study by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that from 1995 to 2008 total electricity production costs were on average $0.20/kWh cheaper than coal and almost a $1/kWh in 2008. Since 2000, the cost of nuclear energy has gone down $0.30/kWh.
The terrorist attack issue is simple as well. The likelihood that an attack on a nuclear power plant will generate any real devastation is extremely low as it is not explosive. Terrorists will get much more bang for their buck by attacking a power plant that utilizes combustible materials fire as a means for generating heat for the steam generators.
Fuel in power plants is fissile (meaning you will get a nuclear reaction) but not so fissile that we can’t control it. U-235 is the isotope of concern and is what is used in your run of the mill pressurized water reactor. It is enriched to a maximum of 10% in the United States. The U-235 in atomic warheads and bombs is enriched to 90%+. The enrichment leve just isn’t there. Also, Plutonium is the fuel of choice for weapons since the Cold War and not the fuel of choice for reactor power plants.
So, I say bring it! Nuclear power is as American as Harley-Davidson, Mom, and apple pie! This country needs nuclear power! |
|
Today's Big Story
Advertisement
Motorcycle Rider Survey
In today's tough economic climate, how many events will you attend this year?
|
