Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

The original license for Unit 1 expired in 2014 and was extended to 2034
in 2001. The extension for Unit 2 is under review.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear.../statesar.html

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
newsey_e.88762$7f5.28081@okepread01...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote in
::

First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power
plant
built!

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years, unlike the Hoover
Dam which was built in the early '30s. (still operating after 70
years).


You're nuts.

I only had to look at the nearest nuke plants to prove that wrong.
Arkansas Nuclear One was built in 1974 and its license is good until
2034. That's 60 years of which they've already used 31. Unit Two was
activated in 1980, 25 years ago and it's license is good until 2018
that's 18 years.

This is also a good example of how regulation has killed the industry
two almost identical plants were built side by side. the one activated
under 1976 law has a 60 year license. The one activated in 1980 only
has a 38 year license. You can't tell me that they learned something
that would cause the reduction that was a real problem and not reduce
the length of the older license.

Unit
1

Unit 2

Owner:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Reactor Type:
Pressurized Water Reactor
Pressurized Water Reactor

Reactor Manufacturer:
Babcock and Wilcox
Combustion Engineering

Turbine Generator Manufacturer:
Westinghouse
General Electric

Architect/Engineer:
Bechtel Power
Bechtel Power

Commercial Operation Date:
December 1974
March 1980

Maximum Dependable Capacity:
836 MW
858 MW

License Expiration Date:
5/20/34
7/17/18

Well that makes me feel better. So let's ignore my statement about
regulation. It still proves the plants last longer than 25 years.



"sfb" wrote in message news:woy_e.6103$il4.2486@trnddc04...
The original license for Unit 1 expired in 2014 and was extended to 2034
in 2001. The extension for Unit 2 is under review.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear.../statesar.html

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
newsey_e.88762$7f5.28081@okepread01...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote in
::

First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power
plant
built!

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years, unlike the Hoover
Dam which was built in the early '30s. (still operating after 70
years).


You're nuts.

I only had to look at the nearest nuke plants to prove that wrong.
Arkansas Nuclear One was built in 1974 and its license is good until
2034. That's 60 years of which they've already used 31. Unit Two was
activated in 1980, 25 years ago and it's license is good until 2018
that's 18 years.

This is also a good example of how regulation has killed the industry two
almost identical plants were built side by side. the one activated under
1976 law has a 60 year license. The one activated in 1980 only has a 38
year license. You can't tell me that they learned something that would
cause the reduction that was a real problem and not reduce the length of
the older license.

Unit 1

Unit 2

Owner:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Reactor Type:
Pressurized Water Reactor
Pressurized Water Reactor

Reactor Manufacturer:
Babcock and Wilcox
Combustion Engineering

Turbine Generator Manufacturer:
Westinghouse
General Electric

Architect/Engineer:
Bechtel Power
Bechtel Power

Commercial Operation Date:
December 1974
March 1980

Maximum Dependable Capacity:
836 MW
858 MW

License Expiration Date:
5/20/34
7/17/18

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:46:36 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in tVy_e.89573$7f5.31631@okepread01::

It still proves the plants last longer than 25 years.

Here are two that have lasted only 20 years:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...sanonofre.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...l/external.pdf
Regulators view the requirements that utilities consider
externalities in their comparisons of all supply-side and
demand-side options as analogous to providing a level
playing field to both sources. Accordingly, the approach
to incorporating externalities within the IRP
process is grounded in the belief that power generation
imposes substantial environmental and societal burdens
that are not taken into account either in the traditional
least-cost planning and resource selection process or by
the prevailing regulatory controls. Another compelling
argument is the real possibility that environmental
controls will tend to become more stringent in the
future. Prudence, therefore, dictates that externality
considerations be taken into account at the time of
resource selection to avert the possibility of incurring
significant financial costs at a future date, given the 30-
or 40-year life span of power plants.


Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

That's a pure political problem. The solution has been at hand for decades.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...


Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .


Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:15:38 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in ::

That's a pure political problem. The solution has been at hand for decades.


To which solution do you refer?