5 ms·

Do we really have to put these plants on critical natural resources? I realize the plant is already on Lake Michigan. For some reason it seems like there is ve

Do we really have to put these plants on critical natural resources? I realize the plant is already on Lake Michigan. For some reason it seems like there is very little middle ground between “Nuclear power is dangerous. We shouldn’t have any.” And “Nuclear power isn’t dangerous. It poses no threat.” Let’s hedge our bets here. This states governor is the one against Enbridge keeping a pipeline in Lake Michigan, citing environmental concerns despite no prior issues and a deal to sure-up the existing pipeline. In the case of the pipeline, there is no alternative to crossing Lake Michigan. Not so for a nuclear plant. Edit: point is being proven in the replies. Why so much hostility to safeguarding our environment against the worst case? Why not place it somewhere where an accident wouldn’t have such devastating consequences?

koolba 4y ago
> Do we really have to put these plants on critical natural resources? I realize the plant is already on Lake Michigan. You mean by the water? I’m hardly an expert on the subject, but pretty sure you need a large water source for a nuclear plant both for the turbines and excess cooling.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  It’s easiest to put it near the largest fresh water system in the world. It’s also easiest to use coal and oil. But are these the best options overall?
timerol 4y ago
What critical natural resource is the plant currently on? Are you suggesting that "the shoreline of Lake Michigan" is a bad place for a nuclear plant - an industrial facility that uses water, and where continuous supply of water is a mitigation to the most common failure modes? Let's hedge our bets here - by placing nuclear power plants near abundant sources of water, as the original builders of the Palisades nuclear plant did.
- p1mrx 4y ago
  For new reactors, we could put an abundant source of water inside the building, like NuScale is planning. There are also high temperature reactor designs that use air cooling.
- Retric 4y ago
  It is right next to the SHAWSA Water Filtration Plant which extracts water from Lake Michigan and couldn’t filter out any significant discharge. The need to place nuclear near significant sources of water doesn’t mean that every large body of water is a good location.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    Isn't it like 5 miles away? That's fairly close, but it also ends up involving quite a large volume of water.
    - Retric 4y ago
      There’s a reason nuclear exclusion zones end up so large, nuclear waste is hazardous in minute doses.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  > Are you suggesting that "the shoreline of Lake Michigan" is a bad place for a nuclear plant Yes, of course.
arcticbull 4y ago
> Let’s hedge our bets here. Bets are already hedged intrinsically. The data is clear, nuclear is the safest, cleanest, lowest-carbon and most reliable form of energy we have. [1] There's far worse than slighly warm clean water going into Lake Michigan. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  The bet is there won’t be an accident. Assuming there won’t be an accident is not hedging. In the event of an accident, the cost is massive. Why risk the largest fresh water system in the world?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - coryrc 4y ago
    What are you thinking will happen that will contaminate it?
  - whaleofatw2022 4y ago
    Fermi is along lake Erie anyway...
- rektide 4y ago
  I'm pro nuclear, but it's also the only power generation system we have where the risk remains long after the power is generated. Calling nuclear safe seems unfair, given many millenias of time it's byproducts will have to be dealt with across.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - genocidicbunny 4y ago
    I don't think that's really accurate. We can reprocess most nuclear waste into forms that are far less long-term radioactive, and a few hundred years is nothing considering the lasting effects of pollution from coal and gas, or how long it would take for all those decommissioned solar panels or wind turbines.
hedora 4y ago
They needed a water supply for cooling, and there aren’t many natural lakes in the midwest. Also, how bad would it actually be if the plant melted down into the lake? There would be a lot of dilution. The alternatives in that area included unfiltered trash burning plants back when the nuclear plant was installed. It’s not obvious whether the trash burning plant running for 30-50 years would be worse than a meltdown.
- vinay427 4y ago
  > They needed a water supply for cooling, and there aren’t many natural lakes in the midwest. Not contesting your actual point about situating the plant, but the midwest has more lakes than any other (similarly sized) region in the US, and particularly with the Great Lakes has access to the largest surface freshwater resource in the world. https://teddit.net/r/MapPorn/comments/gu3ve3/number_of_lakes_in_usa_by_state/ https://teddit.net/r/MapPorn/comments/gu3ve3/number_of_lakes...
maxerickson 4y ago
The pipeline could have gone around Lake Michigan through Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, before crossing back into Michigan and continuing into Canada (it crosses the Great Lakes again in Sarnia too). I think it makes sense to build the tunnel and continue operating the pipeline, but "no alternative" goes too far, you need to condition it somehow (like no profitable alternative or whatever).
hristov 4y ago
Nuclear power plants have to be next to a large body of water because they tend to overheat if something goes wrong. If they do overheat, they have to suck in large volumes of water very quickly to cool themselves down in order to avoid a runaway reaction. This of course adds another danger to nuclear plants -- flooding. Because the plant is next to a large body of water, there is always danger of the water going up and flooding the pumps, which usually break down and fail to pump water. Then ironically the plant will overheat for lack of cooling while being flooded. This is what happened to Fukushima. This is what would have happened in Missouri just several months after Fukushima, but we got lucky then -- the plant flooded and the pumps failed but by pure luck the plant was shut off for refueling when the flood happened. [1] Most people do not realize how close the USA was to having its own Fukushima. Anyways the point of this rant is that there really isn't much room for compromise. Nuclear power is just not safe, and it is really stupid in the presence of ever more affordable renewables. [1] https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0627/Missouri-River-soaks-Nebraska-nuclear-plant-but-it-s-no-Fukushima https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0627/Missouri-River-soaks...
- MichaelNolan 4y ago
  > Nuclear power plants have to be next to a large body of water With the one exception of Arizona’s Palo Verde generating station. It’s the US’s largest power plant (by actual production, not nameplate capacity) and it is the world’s only nuclear power station not located near a body of water. It’s right in the middle of the desert. It’s cooled by evaporating waste water from Phoenix. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generatin... 2. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-top-10.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
  - krasin 4y ago
    Thank you. This is amazing and should be replicated more.
- grogenaut 4y ago
  nit this was in nebraska ON the Missouri RIVER... not in the state of Missouri

koolba 4y ago

> Do we really have to put these plants on critical natural resources? I realize the plant is already on Lake Michigan. You mean by the water? I’m hardly an expert on the subject, but pretty sure you need a large water source for a nuclear plant both for the turbines and excess cooling.

nonethewiser 4y ago
It’s easiest to put it near the largest fresh water system in the world. It’s also easiest to use coal and oil. But are these the best options overall?

timerol 4y ago

What critical natural resource is the plant currently on? Are you suggesting that "the shoreline of Lake Michigan" is a bad place for a nuclear plant - an industrial facility that uses water, and where continuous supply of water is a mitigation to the most common failure modes? Let's hedge our bets here - by placing nuclear power plants near abundant sources of water, as the original builders of the Palisades nuclear plant did.

p1mrx 4y ago
For new reactors, we could put an abundant source of water inside the building, like NuScale is planning. There are also high temperature reactor designs that use air cooling.
Retric 4y ago
It is right next to the SHAWSA Water Filtration Plant which extracts water from Lake Michigan and couldn’t filter out any significant discharge. The need to place nuclear near significant sources of water doesn’t mean that every large body of water is a good location.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  Isn't it like 5 miles away? That's fairly close, but it also ends up involving quite a large volume of water.
  - Retric 4y ago
    There’s a reason nuclear exclusion zones end up so large, nuclear waste is hazardous in minute doses.
nonethewiser 4y ago
> Are you suggesting that "the shoreline of Lake Michigan" is a bad place for a nuclear plant Yes, of course.

arcticbull 4y ago

> Let’s hedge our bets here. Bets are already hedged intrinsically. The data is clear, nuclear is the safest, cleanest, lowest-carbon and most reliable form of energy we have. [1] There's far worse than slighly warm clean water going into Lake Michigan. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

nonethewiser 4y ago
The bet is there won’t be an accident. Assuming there won’t be an accident is not hedging. In the event of an accident, the cost is massive. Why risk the largest fresh water system in the world?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- coryrc 4y ago
  What are you thinking will happen that will contaminate it?
- whaleofatw2022 4y ago
  Fermi is along lake Erie anyway...
rektide 4y ago
I'm pro nuclear, but it's also the only power generation system we have where the risk remains long after the power is generated. Calling nuclear safe seems unfair, given many millenias of time it's byproducts will have to be dealt with across.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- genocidicbunny 4y ago
  I don't think that's really accurate. We can reprocess most nuclear waste into forms that are far less long-term radioactive, and a few hundred years is nothing considering the lasting effects of pollution from coal and gas, or how long it would take for all those decommissioned solar panels or wind turbines.

hedora 4y ago

They needed a water supply for cooling, and there aren’t many natural lakes in the midwest. Also, how bad would it actually be if the plant melted down into the lake? There would be a lot of dilution. The alternatives in that area included unfiltered trash burning plants back when the nuclear plant was installed. It’s not obvious whether the trash burning plant running for 30-50 years would be worse than a meltdown.

vinay427 4y ago
> They needed a water supply for cooling, and there aren’t many natural lakes in the midwest. Not contesting your actual point about situating the plant, but the midwest has more lakes than any other (similarly sized) region in the US, and particularly with the Great Lakes has access to the largest surface freshwater resource in the world. https://teddit.net/r/MapPorn/comments/gu3ve3/number_of_lakes_in_usa_by_state/ https://teddit.net/r/MapPorn/comments/gu3ve3/number_of_lakes...

maxerickson 4y ago

The pipeline could have gone around Lake Michigan through Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, before crossing back into Michigan and continuing into Canada (it crosses the Great Lakes again in Sarnia too). I think it makes sense to build the tunnel and continue operating the pipeline, but "no alternative" goes too far, you need to condition it somehow (like no profitable alternative or whatever).

hristov 4y ago

Nuclear power plants have to be next to a large body of water because they tend to overheat if something goes wrong. If they do overheat, they have to suck in large volumes of water very quickly to cool themselves down in order to avoid a runaway reaction. This of course adds another danger to nuclear plants -- flooding. Because the plant is next to a large body of water, there is always danger of the water going up and flooding the pumps, which usually break down and fail to pump water. Then ironically the plant will overheat for lack of cooling while being flooded. This is what happened to Fukushima. This is what would have happened in Missouri just several months after Fukushima, but we got lucky then -- the plant flooded and the pumps failed but by pure luck the plant was shut off for refueling when the flood happened. [1] Most people do not realize how close the USA was to having its own Fukushima. Anyways the point of this rant is that there really isn't much room for compromise. Nuclear power is just not safe, and it is really stupid in the presence of ever more affordable renewables. [1] https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0627/Missouri-River-soaks-Nebraska-nuclear-plant-but-it-s-no-Fukushima https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0627/Missouri-River-soaks...

MichaelNolan 4y ago
> Nuclear power plants have to be next to a large body of water With the one exception of Arizona’s Palo Verde generating station. It’s the US’s largest power plant (by actual production, not nameplate capacity) and it is the world’s only nuclear power station not located near a body of water. It’s right in the middle of the desert. It’s cooled by evaporating waste water from Phoenix. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generatin... 2. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-top-10.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
- krasin 4y ago
  Thank you. This is amazing and should be replicated more.
grogenaut 4y ago
nit this was in nebraska ON the Missouri RIVER... not in the state of Missouri