dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

The governor of CT practically ordered local nat gas companies to make it so that more people can have the resources which is 'cheaper' than the others and cleaner as well.
However, the same governor keeps rejecting proposals to open more pipelines to access more gas to keep up with the demand.
So when you tell more people to buy more of what you don't have …. What do you think will happen ??

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

Money. :( :-(

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

TrainNut is right -- money (and politics) is at the heart of our energy problem. The mix of coal, gas and nuclear as fuel choices for the electric grid should mean that these are back-ups to prevent fuel shortages at the electric generating plants. So far as I know not one generating plant has had to shut down because it ran low on fuel. The problem with the electric network is the transmission system, which breaks down when bad weather -- both hot and cold -- disrupts the high-tension lines, too often causing a cascading outage that spreads over several states. Just look at the outage that put hundreds of thousands of Easterners in the freezing dark this past week. Without electricity their heating systems don't work, so they're freezing because of the power outage, not because there is too little gas. But the electric companies don't have any way to significantly increase the capacity and reliability of their existing transmission system, and they're uncertain about assuming the cost of any new plants unless they can count on right-of-way easements for new transmission lines plus the rate increases to pay for them.

Back in the Eisenhower presidency the government conducted a big push promoting nuclear power as the replacement for "dirty" coal. General Electric (which had its former chairman in the White House as Secretary of Energy) makes nuclear generators and saw a terrific market opening. The utilities, however, were not enthusiastic, because they learned that the reactors had a huge waste disposal problem, for which they did not want to be responsible. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency reassured them that the federal government would handle that. So more than 100 nuclear plants were built, and within a few years after each went online they asked the feds to pick up the used highly radioactive rods and take them away. Only the feds had no place to put them and they still don't, so each of those nuclear plants has a large ultra-toxic radioactive dump next to its nuclear plant, and each of those is still growing. Then the Three-Mile Island plant blew up, resulting in the electric companies digging in their heels and saying that the feds should get their act together and find someplace to ship that stuff to, and they stopped building new nukes. After more than four decades the proposed nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada is not usable and Harry Reid (in the Senate) says he will block any attempt to inaugurate it. So I don't think we're going to see any new nuclear generating plants unless the government builds them, regardless of what the Republican right-wing thinks should be done.

As far as the coal situation goes, the pressure to ease restrictions on coal-fired emissions isn't coming from the homes of out-of-work miners, but rather from the walnut-wonderlands of Wall Street boardrooms. The underground coal mines are not the primary source of the huge amounts needed by the electric plants. For the past two decades or more the industry has been scalping the West Virginia and Kentucky mountains with strip-mining to reach coal deposits. The people living near them are really unhappy about that because their habitat is being destroyed. But the coal companies are notorious for ignoring public opinion. When coal miners strike -- as they frequently have -- they face brutal strikebreakers hired by Wall Street's mine owners (who live nowhere near the mines). The companies have "promised" to restore the landscape when the deposits are exhausted. Don't hold your breath.

So what about natural gas? The gas industry is basically an off-shoot of the oil industry, which Forbes neglects to mention. Most oil wells also emit natural gas, which for many years was regarded by the industry as a nuisance which they vented into the air or burned off. It's only since the end of WWII that gas pipelines began to spread out from the oil fields toward the rest of the country. The electric companies initially saw gas as competition and fought it with advertising and political pressure, and some utilities still object. The Forbes article ignores all those facts because the magazine has an agenda. Pipeline extensions still face resistance from fearful people, from other energy providers, and from property owners who feel their rights are being violated, especially with easements or eminent domain lawsuits. Do you want a high-pressure gas pipeline running through your property?

Anyway, the natural gas supplies are ample in normal weather conditions, and can be expanded much faster than the building of any new coal power plants with their necessary high tension distribution lines. The electric companies are not interested in the concept of smaller plants nearer to cities, even though that concept means less power bleed from too-long power lines. Almost 50 percent of the power is lost by bleeding before it reaches the user, especially in hot weather. When the hot weather causes air conditioning demand to overload electric lines, I don't hear Forbes crying for more power lines, because the electric companies will tell them to chill out.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Richard here is the kicker i think is funny. they placed part of the blame on farmers. using propane to run dryers for grain dryers, to safely store grain. problem is we had a dry fall and grain ripened ahead of schedule. so by this time there was very little drying grain. ain't that the sheets. lol

alby Loc: very eastern pa.

wait til they shut down power plants in 2015. where i work they are shutting down 12 of our 18 generators starting in may 2015. good luck with brownouts, we had 5% voltage reduction this year during the cold snap... had a hard time getting natural gas as home owners get it first ( higher prices). it will only get worse..... TMI did not "blow up". i had many coworkers go to the cleanup there. i got hired shortly after that or i would have went...

TimS Loc: GA

There is no, not has there ever been, a federal agency called the "Nuclear Regulatory Agrncy."

Google: Voglte 3 & 4
Google: V.C. Summer 2&3

4 new nuke plants currently under construction

The issue with construction halting in the late 70s to early 80s has NOTHING to do with spent fuel. It has EVERYTHING to do with regulatory uncertainty. TMI did not blow up - in terms of radiation consequences to the workers and public it was a no-never-mind. It was a financial disaster to the utility but that's all.

The Atomic Energy Commission never promised the govt would take spent fuel. Congress did that when they passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and started charging utilities for a repository that was supposed to be open around 1990. The govt has taken millions of dollars from each nuclear utility but has not built a repository because of POLITICAL issues - NOT scientific. Despite what Dingy Harry says, there are no technological or scientific issues with Yucca. The issues are all political and politically motivated.

Now, the current Nuclear Regulatory Commission has never made a promise that the govt would accept spent fuel. That's not the job of the NRC.

TimS Loc: GA

Oh, by the way, utilities are just fine taking care of the waste themselves in dry cask storage. It's safe and reliable and a hell of a lot cheaper than the govt's ass-dragging "solution" on yucca.

Muddyvalley Loc: McMinnville, Oregon

Tell that to the folks in Washington state. No container lasts forever, but radioactive waste comes close.
1000 gallons/year.
http://rt.com/usa/washington-radiation-leak-nuclear-635/

TimS Loc: GA

There is a BIG difference between DRY cask storage and a tank containing liquid rad waste. Just because they both contain radioactive material does not mean they are even REMOTELY similar.

Muddyvalley Loc: McMinnville, Oregon

They are very similar.
The operative sentence is:
" Currently there is no long term permanent storage facility"

This is also a temporary method of storage. They are very similar.

Dry cask storage is a method of storing high-level radioactive waste, such as spent nuclear fuel that has already been cooled in the spent fuel pool for at least one year and often as much as ten years.[1][2] Casks are typically steel cylinders that are either welded or bolted closed. The fuel rods inside are surrounded by inert gas. Ideally, the steel cylinder provides leak-tight containment of the spent fuel. Each cylinder is surrounded by additional steel, concrete, or other material to provide radiation shielding to workers and members of the public.
There are various dry storage cask system designs. With some designs, the steel cylinders containing the fuel are placed vertically in a concrete vault; other designs orient the cylinders horizontally.[3] The concrete vaults provide the radiation shielding. Other cask designs orient the steel cylinder vertically on a concrete pad at a dry cask storage site and use both metal and concrete outer cylinders for radiation shielding. Currently there is no long term permanent storage facility; dry cask storage is designed as an interim safer solution than spent fuel pool storage

TimS Loc: GA

They are NOT similar.

First, spent fuel must remain in the spent fuel pool for at least five years. I'm not quite sure where you got that one year minimum - perhaps that is other countries but not the USA.

Second, the spent fuel is dried and all moisture is removed from the cask. This is just one of the major differences. It is kind of hard for corrosion to take place in the absence of moisture. The liquid rad waste tanks you speak of contain LIQUID rad waste and are buried in wet dirt.

Third, the dry casks are not bolted. They are welded to form a permanent seal as opposed to a bolted connection. I'm not quite sure where you get your info from.

Perhaps you could explain how a dry cask is similar in any way to the leaking tanks at Hanford which were installed in haste to support the manhattan project not subject to regulatory review by an independant technical agency. Dry casks are reviewed by the NRC - regatory oversight in terms of manufacturing the casks, purchase by utilities, storage of the empty casks, installing assemblies, sealing, and storage of the full containers.

Muddyvalley Loc: McMinnville, Oregon

There is no long term safe storage for any form of radioactive waste, and that is a fact.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were such an expert in the industry. I'll bow out of this conversation, with the realization that I don't know enough about the subject to convince someone, that I really doubt would enjoy having such a safe storage facility built next door to his house. May you glow in peace! :-)

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

it may be safe in 3 trillion years maybe.

TimS Loc: GA

That is NOT a fact. Geologic repository is a very safe and effective way to store spent fuel for a long, long time.

I *am* an expert in the nuclear power area. It is kind of my job and my degree. (I am a nuclear engineer.)

Where I live is unsuitable for a long term geologic repository because of several factors not the least of which is average yearly rainfall and the water table. Yucca mountain is an excellent site. I would have no problems living in Las Vegas with a fully functioning repository not too far away. I wouldn't live right NEXT to yucca but only because it's in the middle of nowhere and I prefer to live next to shopping and entertainment.