Turkey Point (Florida) Nuclear Suspension

[Liberation Angel]

Source: World Nuclear News

Turkey Point nuclear suspension
14 January 2010
Florida Power and Light has suspended work on two new reactors at Turkey Point in an angry reaction to a decision by state regulators.

Two new reactors are now in serious doubt The company said it would immediately stop work on expanding the Turkey Point power plant, citing the "deteriorating regulatory and business environment" created by the Florida Public Service Commission. The nuclear project is one among $10 billion in investment that FPL said will now be cancelled.

PSC officials today rejected an FPL's request to increase the rates charged to consumers - the way FPL had hoped to finance the investments. The company's regulated base rate had not been reviewed since 1985, and although it has twice been allowed to begin collecting extra money to aid investment, a request to add a total of $1 billion to its income after 2011 was slashed by the PSC to just $75 million.

Read more: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Turkey_Point_nuclear_suspension_1410102.html

---

This article from a pro nuclear industry website is clearly biased.

But all i can say is that this is GREAT news!

Stopping rate hikes to pay for new dangerous nuclear plants is a GOOD thing.

Nukes are dangerous, cancer-causing monstrosities and the industry is greedy and ruthless.

[MARALE]

1. I disagree with that

I know that this is not very popular opinion here, but nuclear energy is not what it was back in the 70's. It is very safe and is a very low emission power alternative. Let's face it, people are not going to cut down on their power usage in the near future enough that windmills will be able to handle it soon. there is nothing else as clean that has been developed yet. With the regulations in place now, this is not a good thing that they are suspending this.

[Liberation Angel]

3. Nukes spew radiaton in regular operations

I lived in a nuclear community, worked in the industry briefly, worked on hearings in Congress and before the NRC.

There is NOTYHING clean about nuclear power plant operations which routinely emit radioactive waste and byproducts into the water and atmosphere at EVERY OPERATING COMMERCIAL NUKE PLANT!

Turkey Point, near Miami, and Indian Point, near NYC, are literally poisoning the populations of these cities with radiation downwind and downstream from them.

MANY will die of cancer and other diseases du to these plants.

And the industry knows this.

Government subsidies of the industry and rate hikes mean HUGE profits for nuke operators while citizens get sicker and sicker from the mutagenic and cancer-causing emissions.

[MARALE]

4. I know I am not an expert

But the radioactive waste is broken down and very cleanly disposed of. It will cause a lot LESS cancers than the pollution that is being emitted by coal plants today, by a lot! Europe, France in particular is building and planning to build a lot of nuclear plants and they have very strict regs on waste disposal and pollution.

I am an electrical engineer and do know the basic concept on how a nuclear plant works and have toured them. the safety precautions that they take are unbelievable. Very strict. I am not saying it is perfect, but is a much cleaner pollution wise than what we have today or what we have available right now.

[Liberation Angel]

7. Clearly

For anyone to say that radioactive waste is broken down and cleanly disposed of is about as ignorant of the facts as possible, sadly.

There is NO known way to safely break down or dispose of or even store waste which will remain deadly for 200,000 years.

I am not here to argue Coal is better but I wil say this: the effluents from nuclear plant operations mutate the dna of all living things exposed to it causing PERMANENT damage o the species - to all species,

when it does not kill the off or change them entirely.

It is like GMO food - only it is genetically modified people

genetically (mutated) modified us

geneticlly modified you and me.

So if you think THAT us safer I will only add this:

Coal pollutants may kill you. It may prevent you from procreating.

But it will not permanently alter your gene pool and all subsequent generations you produce.

Nukes are permanently mutating our gene pools by being absorbed into our sexual organs and ovaries and testes

mutating eggs and semen where it does not cause ovarian cancer or testicular cancer.

is that REALLY better?

[TheWraith]

16. Stop talking about things that you don't understand anything about.

"There is NO known way to safely break down or dispose of or even store waste which will remain deadly for 200,000 years."

Actually, it's very simple to store safely. It's even been "stored" by nature for longer than we've been walking upright. Do a Google search for the Oklo uranium reaction.

"I am not here to argue Coal is better"

That's exactly what you're doing. But you don't realize that coal fired plants release more radiation into the air in the form of thorium and uranium in the ash than would be legal for the worst nuclear reactor.

"but I wil say this: the effluents from nuclear plant operations mutate the dna of all living things exposed to it causing PERMANENT damage o the species - to all species,"

"Coal pollutants may kill you. It may prevent you from procreating.

But it will not permanently alter your gene pool and all subsequent generations you produce."

Um, no. You fail biology forever.

For starters, genetic mutations happen naturally on a regular basis, for utterly random reasons as well as environmental ones. The human genetic code is a fluid thing. To imagine radiation-created mutant humans is to have gotten your scientific education from bad horror movies.

Second, a genetic mutation in one person does not alter the entire human gene pool forever.

Third, coal pollutants are MORE likely to cause genetic mutation via heavy metal releases, mercury, etcetera than are nuclear plants.

Fourth, most genetic changes or damage are NOT true mutations and CANNOT be passed on, because they aren't true-breeding.

Fifth, you're more likely to sustain genetic damage from going out in the sun too long.

Sixth, please tell me who your high school biology teacher was so I can go smack them.

[TheWraith]

11. Actually, there's no scientific proof of anything you just said.

Radioactive releases of more than microscopic amounts are grounds for investigation by the government and shutdown of a plant. Hence, they have to be very very careful.

[Liberation Angel]

2. NY Reactor in NY Suburb Shut Down too --- DU arguments on nuke power

Rather than repost my arguments why the Nuclear Industry is a rabid insane killer (due to cancer, mutations, infant death, and foetal deaths) see this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7454666


Obama has a LOT of pressure from wall street promoters of the nuclear industry (death merchants) to include nukes as GREEN solution to our energy crisis.

The energy bill is pending and it behooves ALL DUers to inform themselves.

Do NOT buy the hype that nukes are safe and that it is a choice between COAL and NUKES to save the planet.

RENEWABLES are the only system I support completely for the long term.

Not coal.

Not nukes.

RENEWABLES, retrofitting, green design and green mandates for transportation, business, housing and industry and by 2050, if we commit to it and do not waste our tax and energy money on nukes and coal we CAN get to nearly 100% renewables with hydrogen, natural gas, wind and wave energy, and new technologies for the future.

BUT FIRST we have to cease wasting money on dead, deadly and dangerous technologies and the worst offenders, nuclear and coal.

[hayu_lol]

6. Nukes are the only way we have at this time...

to produce reasonably safe power. The advent of the 'plug in' cars will bring our total electrical production into question.

One of the so-called 'green' alternatives is 'clean' coal. It ain't anything of the kind.

The supposed renewables are not at a point where they can produce the amount of power we are using now and fail completely for our needs in the near future.

Hydrogen is a far off future possiblilty. Takes more power at this time to produce Hydrogen fuel than we can get power from it. Sorta a page out of the Ethanol myths.

Those violently against nukes, better do some studying and don't forget to see what damage has been done, is being done, and will be done by coal--'clean' or dirty.

Until we have fusion power, we will have to rely on fission power to supply world needs.

[Liberation Angel]

9. I worked in the industry and am a committed pacifist

so your jibes about "Those violently against nukes better do some studying..." is insulting and a weak argument.

There is NOTHING safe or clean about nuclear power energy generation which produces huge amounts of deadly waste and emissions which will remain in our environment for HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of YEARS and remain deadly.

Not only that but the spew from the plants "normal" operation is mutational and cancer-inducing and will KILL people, especiallu children and fetuses in pregnant women.

There is NO need for fission power EVER.

NO MORE NUKES!

[kristopher]

10. You are completely wrong.

Where in the world did you get such a cockeyed view of the viability of renewable energy sources?

Can show me a scientific analysis that says existing renewable energy technology cannot meet our needs right now?

Here is a highly regarded analysis out of the type I'm talking about. This is the abstract, but the article rates existing technologies in a number of areas like resources size, the ability to exploit the resource, and a wide range of environmental factors associated with scaling each technology up to replace fossil fuels. The author uses a defined sector - automobiles for personal transportation - as the target amount of energy needed. The results apply to the larger task of replacing coal and natural gas.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[TheWraith]

13. Simple logistics knocks you down.

Solar power to meet the US' energy needs would take up most of the state of Nevada. Wind would have turbines numbering around 1 million.

Speaking as somebody who actually understands the words used in that quote of yours, I can honestly say that sure, as long as you're dealing with numbers that you can make up yourself, it's easy to come to whatever conclusion you feel like. But when we're talking about real math of US electrical demand versus what kind of solar or wind infrastructure would be needed to accommodate it, then it becomes hard.

[kristopher]

14. Is that canard what you pass off as a real argument?

If they did, so what?

Are you claiming that there is a plan out there to meet all of our energy needs with solar so that your (false) claim about Nevada is relevant?

Or are you claiming that there is a plan out there to meet all of our energy needs with wind, so that your number of 1,000,000 turbines has relevancy?

There is no such plan. Instead the renewable grid will be a mix of wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, and wave/current/tidal energy sources.

We will maintain nuclear at its present level until the end of the transition when they too will be phased out.

I challenged the poster for a REAL analysis that says renewables can't do the job. Do you have such an analysis? I doubt it or you wouldn't be (once again) resorting to false arguments and misrepresentations to try and fool people.

[TheWraith]

18. I've done those analyses, and posted them here.

Including the logistical math for my accurate figure about the roughly 47,000 square miles of land that it would take to meet US energy demands via solar. You personally have kept ignoring them and acting like they're untrue even though when challenged to show where my math is wrong, you're unable. Because it's not. I don't think you REALLY want me digging around in the archives to show off your ignorance.

[kristopher]

20. Are we planning to meet all of our energy needs by solar?

No, we aren't. Please show me a science based, peer reviewed analysis that evaluates the options available to meet our energy security and carbon management needs. I'll be especially interested in one that shows the inability of renewables to do the job.

No such analysis exists.

[TxRider]

23. And how many

How many nuclear plants would we need at how man acres and billions in cost?

From my experience nuclear is by far the most expensive power. Haven't seen a nuke plant that hasn't costed several times it's stated cost to build and operate.

"A 1993 report by the DOE found that available domestic resources from solar represented 586,687 Quadrillion BTUs (Quads), out of a total of 667,597 Quads, with coal representing the second largest resource, a distant 38,147 Quads.<2> By comparison, the total annual energy consumption of the United States in 2007 was approximately 100 Quads,<3> less than 0.5% of that available from sunlight."

How about the simple logistics of building out thousands of nuclear reactors and time and cost it would take, mining facilities, processing facilities, waste disposal and security?

Seems to me the original post is all about it being too expensive to build the plant, and the power company cutting it's plans to build unless there is rate increase.

[wtmusic]

15. Amen. The co-founder of Greenpeace agrees with you.

"Nuclear power presents the ultimate catch-22 for environmentalists. It doesn't generate a lot of greenhouse gases, but it does produce long-lasting toxic waste."

"No one is more familiar with this tough trade-off than Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace International turned nuclear power booster. He left Greenpeace in the 1980s over ideological differences and now is the co-chairman, along with former EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman, of the Nuclear Energy Institute's new Clean and Safe Energy Coalition."

"Fossil fuels, nuclear power and hydroelectric power generate 99 percent of the electricity in the United States. Fossil fuels are dirty, and hydroelectric power is tapped out. That leaves nuclear power as a leading alternative. As electricity demand continues to increase, and with wind and solar technologies generating less than 1 percent of our country's electricity, some activists are turning to once anathema energy sources in the war on global warming."

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/moore_qa

[kristopher]

17. Still waiting for a valid scientific analysis that supports that tripe...

There is nothing from y'all but disinformation and false statements from hacks paid by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the propaganda arm of the Republican energy lobby.

[TheWraith]

19. Thank you for your strawman arguments. nt

[bananas]

22. He also doesn't believe humans or CO2 causes global warming

He has a greenwashing company Greenspirit, and is paid to do PR for the nuclear and other industries:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore_on_nuclear_power

While extolling the purported benefits of nuclear power as a solution to global warming, Moore has also ridiculed efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2005 Moore had attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal. "Expanding nuclear energy is one way that we can actually reliance on fossil fuels in a big way," said Moore, who also praised the United States for refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, calling the treaty "a colossal waste of time and money."<7>

During an April 2008 talk in Idaho, Moore said "there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power." <8>

In September 2008, Moore supported Environment Minister Sammy Wilson from Northern Ireland, after Wilson publicly questioned human contributions to global warming. Moore claimed that "there are a number of scientists from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who do not believe climate change is man-made 'but their views are ignored.'" Moore further alleged "a climate of fear in academia on climate change, with people afraid to speak out for fear of losing funding." <9> Moore also downplayed the role of carbon dioxide in driving global warming. "It has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels," he claimed.<10>

[Dr.Phool]

5. Florida utilities are guaranteed by law, an 11.5% return annually .

On top of that, they're allowing Progress Energy to bill customers to build 2 new nukes in Levy County, that they may not even break ground on. If they do, they won't start building it until at least 10 years down the road.

Our already outrageous electric rates were slapped with a 30% surcharge last year for pre-construction costs.

Excuse me, but aren't capital improvements and new construction the responsibility of the shareholders and bond issuers?

They've got a surprise coming soon.

[Liberation Angel]

8. There WERE deaths from Three Mile Island (link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7454666&mesg_id=7467404

[TheWraith]

12. That link is full of crap, since most of what it describes never happened.

You can't cover up shit like that. Do you seriously believe that every enthusiast with a Giger counter wasn't carefully watching their needle ready to go to the news media with anything that wasn't accounted for? Do you think that every peer reviewed scientific study has been fabricated? Your link is simply lies.

[madokie]

21. Prove thats wrong

I want to see the proof not read the bullshit from a pro nuke person. sorry. I've been hearing the half truths and out right lies and paying attention to them since PSO tried to site a nuke plant near here 40 years ago, they abandoned it, we won. Nuclear energy is not a clean source of energy by any stretch of anyone's imagination. Its a dead horse that we need to quit throwing time, money and effort towards.

Go to Fallujah and tell me that the waste is safe. I'm talking about the DU munitions used there during the bush/cheney war crime. Oh and they'll be tried for that before this is all said and done.

Our nuke plants are getting old and its only a matter of time until we have a serious problem due to one or more of them on our hands. Point me towards where I can see that there is a viable plan for the highly radioactive waste that we already have. Until then no NUKE's for you guys. You see I'm just as passionate about this as any of you are and I am not alone. that you can take to the bank.

[tialsedov]

26. You are really ignorant of all this.

"I want to see the proof not read the bullshit from a pro nuke person. sorry. I've been hearing the half truths and out right lies and paying attention to them since PSO tried to site a nuke plant near here 40 years ago, they abandoned it, we won. Nuclear energy is not a clean source of energy by any stretch of anyone's imagination. Its a dead horse that we need to quit throwing time, money and effort towards."

Gawwwd. So they built probably 4 coal plants instead. Well done. 30,000 deaths a year from coal, bozo, and NONE from nuclear.

"Go to Fallujah and tell me that the waste is safe. I'm talking about the DU munitions used there during the bush/cheney war crime. Oh and they'll be tried for that before this is all said and done."

What?!?!?! So now they tungsten which is MORE deadly that DU. but the PC anti-DU people won. Well done. DU, to the degree it's dangerous, is mostly chemically toxic. There are millions of tons siting around. If you don't like *using* DU then CHANGE the F'ing policy!

[kristopher]

28. How much new coal generation came online in 2008? 2009?

How about nuclear?

Wind?

Natural gas?

If you know those statistics then you KNOW they disprove your assertion. If you don't know those statistics, then what are you doing making the statement you did?

[madokie]

29. as told to me by an idiot

[NNadir]

24. It's especially good news since Florida will be the first state to submerge as a result of the blank

stupidity of the anti-nuke cults who oppose the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy, the one with the lowest external costs, and the best safety record among all exajoule scale energy.

Chalk it up as another victory for ignorance.

[Javaman]

25. Blah blah blah, what was that? Oh okay, it's you. LOL my bad...

keep grinding, it's really amusing. :)

[tialsedov]

27. Hey, NNader!

Got your back man (not that you need it).

Its seems there are an *unusual* number of religiously motivated anti-nuclear "I'd rather choke on coal under water" types here than on the DKos.

DW

[madokie]

30. sorry but you don't have anyones back