Figure 1. My new neighborhood nuclear plant? I have been spouting off on nuclear on substack since late last year. Maybe it's time to put up or shut up. I live in Skamania County in the Columbia River Gorge about an hour upriver from Portland. It's a big county in area, but the total population is only about 12,000. It is a logging area which has fallen on hard times due to federal timber regulation.
I love this! The only hair I would split regards LLY, which are not going to be evenly distributed among the exposed population. A fairer means of compensation might be a life insurance policy covering death due to a long list of all established radiation-related illnesses, and including a pre-death benefit option.
If the plant can't make a reasonable ROI, what's the point? This is why stuff won't get built. No private investor will put money into a project only to go to pay people, it's just not how capital works.
This is exactly what is needed in every city and county of the country. I love fossil fuels, but nuclear makes far more sense in almost any scenario. And this kind of thoughtful approach to implementing it should satisfy any reasonable person who doesn't belong to the Anti Human Flourishing Complex.
My backyard in the Arizona desert is even better, but my wife won't let me store uranium in our horse pasture. :>) Seriously though, the problem is not local approval. Plenty of communities like mine would understand the risks and benefits and go for it. The problem is at the state level, where the anti-nukers are now focusing their efforts. Why should the state care about these risks any more than the locals? This is nuts !!
Why 1GW?. Economic "plants" in Korea, Japan, UAE etc are 4 to 6 reactors. Up to 8 GW. It doesn't make econic sense to build just one reactor once you develop the site.
I may be splitting hairs but I think your probability of a harmful radiation release is too high. So far there have been three TMI or larger releases worldwide, including Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. The Chernobyl disaster was for a reactor type no longer built so should no longer be included. Using approximate numbers there are about 400 plants operating worldwide with a median age of around 38 years. Therefore, there have been two significant releases in 15,000 reactor years (400x38) but it is prudent to assume the next reactor year will have a release, so my estimate is one release in 5000 reactor years, or 0.2 in 1000. That is only 0.02 chances in 100 years.
Invoking your assumption of at least 90% of those releases being TMI-like with no detectable harm off site I would certainly be happy to live near nuclear power plants.
It's your backyard, but why would you require a local training program? The rest sounds unobjectionable.
I love this! The only hair I would split regards LLY, which are not going to be evenly distributed among the exposed population. A fairer means of compensation might be a life insurance policy covering death due to a long list of all established radiation-related illnesses, and including a pre-death benefit option.
If the plant can't make a reasonable ROI, what's the point? This is why stuff won't get built. No private investor will put money into a project only to go to pay people, it's just not how capital works.
This is exactly what is needed in every city and county of the country. I love fossil fuels, but nuclear makes far more sense in almost any scenario. And this kind of thoughtful approach to implementing it should satisfy any reasonable person who doesn't belong to the Anti Human Flourishing Complex.
My backyard in the Arizona desert is even better, but my wife won't let me store uranium in our horse pasture. :>) Seriously though, the problem is not local approval. Plenty of communities like mine would understand the risks and benefits and go for it. The problem is at the state level, where the anti-nukers are now focusing their efforts. Why should the state care about these risks any more than the locals? This is nuts !!
Why 1GW?. Economic "plants" in Korea, Japan, UAE etc are 4 to 6 reactors. Up to 8 GW. It doesn't make econic sense to build just one reactor once you develop the site.
I may be splitting hairs but I think your probability of a harmful radiation release is too high. So far there have been three TMI or larger releases worldwide, including Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. The Chernobyl disaster was for a reactor type no longer built so should no longer be included. Using approximate numbers there are about 400 plants operating worldwide with a median age of around 38 years. Therefore, there have been two significant releases in 15,000 reactor years (400x38) but it is prudent to assume the next reactor year will have a release, so my estimate is one release in 5000 reactor years, or 0.2 in 1000. That is only 0.02 chances in 100 years.
Invoking your assumption of at least 90% of those releases being TMI-like with no detectable harm off site I would certainly be happy to live near nuclear power plants.