San Jose's School District Goes Solar: THIS is Municipal Innovation

Web Link

They could save a lot more by just putting a nuclear power plant in downtown San Jose.

Web Link

qq,

Web Link

caveat emptor!

Please Mike,

This is America. Do you really think we would buy some crappy 'Made in Japan' nuclear reactor? Hell no! We would get a nice, high quality, earthquake-proof, 'Made in China' reactor.

Get with the times.

qq

qq, A (Richter) 8.5 quake doesn't care where anything is made. Like Tony S. would say "it's physics, baby".

"A (Richter) 8.5 quake doesn't care where anything is made. Like Tony S. would say "it's physics, baby"."

Mike, Are you sure about that statement? Base islation methods have shown some pretty impressive results.

Web Link

A quote from the article:

"Isolation used in conventional nuclear plants greatly simplifies the expensive and time-consuming design and qualification of the equipment, piping, and supports for seismic loading. In addition, when seismic design criteria are increased due to the discovery of nearby faults, for example, the plant need not be redesigned; upgrading the isolation system is sufficient.

In an experimental program at EERC isolation bearings were designed, produced, and tested for two types of liquid metal reactor designs. The first, called PRISM, uses high-shape factor isolation bearings designed to provide horizontal isolation only. In the other design, SAFR, the reactor is supported on low-shape bearings that provide both horizontal and vertical isolation. The results of this test series extended the range of the isolator types with well-understood characteristics. "

I wouldn't suggest straddling the San Andreas falut with a major nuke, but right next to it would be OK.

Nuclear power is the only realistic source of energy (base load) going forward. Time to start building that infrastructure.

John, I'm well aware if the program at EERC; I'm also well aware of the subsoil stresses of a quake over 8.0. No matter what you do in a lab, there is nothing we know of that will guarantee that we wouldn't have a disaster.

I would rather not gamble, and risk the literal future of this region. What's the half life of nuclear fuel again? Imagine a serious leak after a quake, when emergency personnel are unable to contain it.

Figure out a way to come up with power alternatives, or conserve, or both. Nukes are not going to be built in California, not once the public gets wind of what the potentail for disaster is.

In any case, congratulations to Sann Jose for its innovative move; we need to see more of that kind of thinking throughout the Valley, and America.

"Figure out a way to come up with power alternatives, or conserve, or both. Nukes are not going to be built in California, not once the public gets wind of what the potentail for disaster is."

Mike, the only reliable base load sources of electricity are dammed rivers, fossil fuels or nuclear. Wind and solar are not base load producers. Fossil fuels have a heavy carbon footprint. We have already nearly maxed out our power productions from hydro in California, unless we want to build a bunch of new dams.

Conservation will not solve the problem, though it will help a little bit. The booming population of Calif. will demand nuclear, Mike. You cannot stop it, even with your scare tactics.

You choose:

Potential semi-permanent abandonment of California (for centuries) if nuke plant fries during an 8.0+ quake OR looking for other ways (some not yet discovered) to deal with energy shortages.

So who needs to get with the times?

Mike,

U.S. nuclear plants have proven to be quite safe. Containment buildings are designed to 'contain' the problem, as they did at Three Mile Island (unlike Chernobyl, which had no cantainment building). Modern designs are built to default to a safety condition (some older designs required active procedures to gain a safe condition). Base isolation is a significant safety improvement for seismically active areas.

The real threat to California is a shortage of clean power going forward. Your scare tactics will not stop it, because there IS no other answer, at this point. Fusion is still a long way off.

You might even want to check the reality of Chernobyl casualties against the predictions. Most of the Chrenobyl deaths were caused by mining the coal to replace the lost generating capability.

That's total BS, Walt! Did you hear that from Heil Hannity???

I was a student of energy production before Hannity was born. What is the death toll now? 38 or 39? where is the statistical verification of more cancers, more deaths from associated causes? Why are the bunnies hopping around the abandoned Chernobyl farms not growing wings?
Thank you, Gimme, for proving a little ignorance goes a long way.

Walter, stop confusing us with facts.

Chernobyl is a wildlife haven, and has been proposed as a national park.

Web Link

Chernobyl might also serve as a national repository for all the nuclear power plant radioactive waste in Russia. Imagine that, a national park on top, with flourishing wildlife, and nuclear wastes under the ground.

How long ago did Chernobyl happen? Not long enough to be able to gauge long-term damage at the micro-level (germ cell, etc.)

btw, "lige foes on", which maens that things can live right alongside nuclear contaminated plots.

Walt, here's a test. Would you move to a Chernobyl-like area in the US with your family - including grandchildren - following a nuclear accident? Just wondering.

No matter what any of you self appointed experts say, there is NO WAY that any nuke plant has ever been tested in Richter 8.0+ conditions.

Anyone wanting to make that gamble can sign up to live in the contaminated area, Put your money - and life - where your mouth is.

It's always amusing to see the armchair faux-heroes come out when we talk about nuke plants in California.

The community surrounding Three Mile Island is thriving, due to high wage jobs provided by the plant. If someone tried to shut down that plant, there would be protests by the parents with young kids, because Daddy might be out of a good job.

The closed off area around Chernobyl is about 30 km, hardly an entire state. If there had been a containment building, the closed area would be much smaller, perhaps nothing outside the containment building.

I would gladly live next to a nuclear power plant of modern design. My grandchildren might even get good jobs at the plant.

Scare mongering will not, in the end, overcome the need for nuclear power plants. Those who cannot think rationally will just need to move to another region.

I might want to check the background readings, but then, would you and your grandchildren live somewhere the background radiation was twice what it is here? Like Denver?
As for long term, as Walter Reuther used to say in the long term we are all dead.
There is no way our civilization can survive without plentiful affordable energy. You want to live where you have 2 hours of elecricity and water a day? That will kill you a damn sight quicker than radiation.

The problem of Energy in US is described in one example below:

"Shops in Stanford Mall are required to keep their doors open even when air-conditioners are operating"

Yoriko... you need to bike a lot more you are not saving enough !!

Bike Yoriko Bike, Good Biker..

Closing the doors would have no significant effect on A/C loads since a minimum percent of outside air always has to be brought in anyway, by code.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?