houstonartstudent Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 so my hometown's possibly getting a nuclear power plant to be built about 20 miles south of Victoria in Victoria county(approx. 120 miles from Houston)...I agree with city officials that it has a good possibility in helping the economy, and possibly education in Victoria. I also see the negatives with pollution, toxic waste, and the site being a target for terrorist attack...Although I'd be much more in favor of a power plant that had a focus on green/renewable resources, I don't think this is a possibility for Victoria, but I'm leaning a little more pro-nuclear because of the benefits already given....what are your opinions? Victoria Advocate Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 so my hometown's possibly getting a nuclear power plant to be built about 20 miles south of Victoria in Victoria county(approx. 120 miles from Houston)...I agree with city officials that it has a good possibility in helping the economy, and possibly education in Victoria. I also see the negatives with pollution, toxic waste, and the site being a target for terrorist attack...Although I'd be much more in favor of a power plant that had a focus on green/renewable resources, I don't think this is a possibility for Victoria, but I'm leaning a little more pro-nuclear because of the benefits already given....what are your opinions? Victoria Advocate ArticleI'm not sure what you mean by "toxic" waste. Nuclear plants don't produce toxic waste, they produce nuclear waste. And the waste that is produced is very small, especially compared to coal power plants which actually do product toxic waste. I'm sure some of the locals won't be happy with the thought of nuclear waste in trucks moving through their town, but that's only because they don't realize it happens all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've seen trucks hauling nuclear material cruising down I-10 and I-20 in Texas. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a "green/renewable" power plant. Nuclear is close to about as green as it gets for large power production. If you mean solar power, there's another massive toxic waste source (most people seem to think solar panels are made out of fairy dust and unicorn poop), and you don't get that much power. My personal preference is wind, but again, you don't get much power compared to a nuke plant.I think Victoria is a perfect place for a nuclear plant. The French have made reprocessing spent nuclear fuel almost into an art form, and Victoria being so close to the coast minimizes transport difficulties. It's my understanding that they do most of their transport by sea.I don't think the nuke plant would really be much of a terrorist target. if it was located in downtown Houston or someplace more populated, sure. But it's really far away. Three Mile Island was scary because of its proximity to Harrisburg and Philadelphia. With all the stretches of Gulf coast with little population density, Texas should have taken the lead on nuclear power production long ago and should be exporting energy across the continent. It isn't, but it should. The state could make a brazillian dollars and pump that money into education or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonartstudent Posted December 19, 2007 Author Share Posted December 19, 2007 great points and I appreciate the info I was confused or didn't know about...I truly hope the city residents, along with the already more-than-happy chamber of commerce open their arms up to Exelon and realize this could be a big boost for the quality of life in Victoria(if all goes well of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I've always thought nuclear energy was good. However, I don't want one in my backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 The proposed location isn't really in anyone's back yard. I've driven past the site on many occasions, going to Refugio to visit my grandparents when they were still alive. There's nothing there except ranch land and a few oil wells. Gven the tendency of folks down there to not sell land, Exelon must have offered a pretty good deal. Good place to put a nuke plant. Bee County would be good too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I think that a Nuclear plant would be an excellent way to help decrease our dependency on our oil based power. After doing quite a bit of research a number of years ago on this, the storage of the radioactive waste isn't really much of a problem (provided they actually approve of the storage facility at Yucca Mountain.I believe Coal or Nuclear is the way to go, and the reason why I also put coal into that category because the newer plants can make it very green and we have an abundance of coal in our nation. My only reservation I have about a nuclear facility is what will happen to the plant after it's declared obsolete. I have little information on how long a plant is designed to last, some way 40 years. One plant in England was decommissioned and it was stated that it will take a CENTURY to properly demolish and clean up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Isn't there an older/more detailed thread about this nuclear power plant in the "Going Up!" forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonartstudent Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 Isn't there an older/more detailed thread about this nuclear power plant in the "Going Up!" forum?not sure...sorry to the haif peeps but I hate the search function on here, can't ever find what I'm looking for...all I know is previously the chosen site and one in Matagorda county were up for the choosing, but the decision to build in Victoria County was announced on Monday or Tuesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 I think that a Nuclear plant would be an excellent way to help decrease our dependency on our oil based power. After doing quite a bit of research a number of years ago on this, the storage of the radioactive waste isn't really much of a problem (provided they actually approve of the storage facility at Yucca Mountain.I believe Coal or Nuclear is the way to go, and the reason why I also put coal into that category because the newer plants can make it very green and we have an abundance of coal in our nation. My only reservation I have about a nuclear facility is what will happen to the plant after it's declared obsolete. I have little information on how long a plant is designed to last, some way 40 years. One plant in England was decommissioned and it was stated that it will take a CENTURY to properly demolish and clean up.That's an interesting point I hadn't heard. I was always told that decommissioning a nuclear power plant is pretty easy because only a very small part of it is actually exposed to any radiation. Though I have heard of older reactors (breeders and industrial reactors and such) that will take years to clean up because they were built before people really understood this stuff.I know there's been a lot of talk about "clean coal" but most of what I've seen has been PR from the United Mine Workers and not any actual plants. In a past life I spent a lot of time in coal power plants and coal mines, and I think because of that I've never been able to wrap my brain around coal as a eco-friendly fuel. I hear there's going to be a revolutionary new super-duper-clean coal plant near the Illinois-Kentucky-Missouri border, but it will take years to build. Hopefully it will work out, because you're right -- we have a metric assload of coal available to us.Another interesting point about nukes -- A lot of people don't know that nuclear reactors can happen naturally in the environment. I read an article about one in Africa. There's probably a Wikipedia entry about it somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 Another interesting point about nukes -- A lot of people don't know that nuclear reactors can happen naturally in the environment. I read an article about one in Africa. There's probably a Wikipedia entry about it somewhere.The earth's core is nothing but a nuclear reactor. Same for the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 That's an interesting point I hadn't heard. I was always told that decommissioning a nuclear power plant is pretty easy because only a very small part of it is actually exposed to any radiation. Though I have heard of older reactors (breeders and industrial reactors and such) that will take years to clean up because they were built before people really understood this stuff.To be fair, this was an older facility, but I don't have the information, but I believe they were talking about the plant being 40 years old or so. But you bring in a good point, that perhaps the newer designs would help make cleanup much easier. Today's plants are designed to least 40 to 60 years. I know there's been a lot of talk about "clean coal" but most of what I've seen has been PR from the United Mine Workers and not any actual plants. In a past life I spent a lot of time in coal power plants and coal mines, and I think because of that I've never been able to wrap my brain around coal as a eco-friendly fuel. I hear there's going to be a revolutionary new super-duper-clean coal plant near the Illinois-Kentucky-Missouri border, but it will take years to build. Hopefully it will work out, because you're right -- we have a metric assload of coal available to us.I think it can be done, it just won't be cheap or easy. The biggest factor is that if the price of oil can be maintained at a higher rate to make such a plant cost effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennyc05 Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 so my hometown's possibly getting a nuclear power plant to be built about 20 miles south of Victoria in Victoria county(approx. 120 miles from Houston)...I agree with city officials that it has a good possibility in helping the economy, and possibly education in Victoria. I also see the negatives with pollution, toxic waste, and the site being a target for terrorist attack...Although I'd be much more in favor of a power plant that had a focus on green/renewable resources, I don't think this is a possibility for Victoria, but I'm leaning a little more pro-nuclear because of the benefits already given....what are your opinions? Victoria Advocate ArticleYour from Victoria huh im from Vanderbilt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwilson Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 The earth's core is nothing but a nuclear reactor. Same for the sun.You know it is funny that these are accepted as scientific fact when there are quite a few scientiests who believe differently. For example, many believe the sun to be electric rather than nuclear. It is an interesting thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 I'm splitting this thread because it's gone off-topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.