[ RadSafe ] Nuclear Plants Cancelled? -was RE: US power reactor information

Maury maurysis at peoplepc.com
Fri Oct 21 14:36:21 CDT 2011

Hi Stu,
I think my first link includes closed plants. They are there,  but it is 
not a nice convenient tabulation.




On 10/21/2011 2:10 PM, Stewart Farber wrote:
> I recall the original question about reactors  included an interest in
> finding a list that included not just power plants that were operating or
> had been operating, but facilities that might have been proposed and then
> cancelled. If not,  I'd like to see the latter info. I'm trying to get a
> good list of the latter.
> It would be very useful to see what nuclear power plant projects were
> cancelled after initial licensing like Environmental Reports [ER back in the
> 1970s] and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report [PSAR] with some having gone
> ahead to site preparation,  and even construction before being cancelled.
> I'd like to see such a list since it would give an idea of some of the many
> financial, environmental, and strategic costs involved. I'm familiar with a
> few cancelled nuclear plants in and around New England, including:
> Charlestown, RI [Charleston 1 and 2 -each 1050 MW[e] proposed by New England
> Electric System -cancelled 1981;
> Greene County Nuclear Plant [ 1000 MW[e] proposed by New York Power
> Authority -Cancelled in 1979 - distinction of being the FIRST nuclear plant
> project cancelled after TMI];
> Seabrook II [ 1,050 MW[e] - cancelled 1984 after containment partially
> erected - See the rusting containment of Unit 2 before it was covered when
> FP&L purchased it:
> http://bruceatkinson.com/seabrookstation/images/overview_2.jpg
> How much up-front monies have been wasted by our society? How much was lost
> in integrated cost savings because today's nuclear plants are generating the
> least expensive power available today, even though the price of plant
> construction had been driven up because of delays in licensing caused by
> various anti-nuclear interests.
> How much air pollution, with consequent health and environmental costs,
> could have been avoided?>   For each nuclear plant cancelled and not
> operating for the past 25 years, in most cases a coal fired power plant has
> been built in its place to equal the nuclear generating capacity lost. It's
> been calculated that the operation of EACH 1000 MW[e] coal plant causes
> health impacts --about 100 premature deaths [emphysema, bronchitis, lung
> cancer, etc.] per year of operation due to fine particulates, and acid gases
> like sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, and releases of air toxics like
> mercury, that would not have occurred if these coal plants had been not
> built because a nuclear plant was meeting the electric demand?
> There are presently about 600 coal fired power plants in the US generating
> the power equivalent to that which would be produced by about 250  1,000
> MW[e] nuclear plants. See:
> <http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html>
> The operation of those 250 coal plants in the US cause about 24,000
> premature deaths in the US population each year based on calculations by the
> EPA that are orders of magnitude more certain that there being any health
> effects from 100 of today's nuclear plants in the US causing 150 person-Sv
> among the entire population.  During the past 30 years since the TMI
> accident, coal plants operating in place of nuclear plants have likely
> caused the premature deaths of at least 400,000 people.
> In contrast, NCRP Report 160 recently reported that the 100 nuclear plants
> in this country result in a total of  150 person-Sv per year.
> This nuclear fuel cycle for 100 nuclear plants in the US, in ["Person-Sv]
> summary compares to:
> --"Ubiquitous Background"- 933,000 [ 50%]
> --"Medical" - 899,000  [49%]
> -- Nuclear Power - 150
> So nuclear energy results in an average dose of  0.5 micro-Sv per capita =
> 0.005 mR  = 5 microR, or the radiation exposure a person receives in about 9
> minutes of "Ubiquitous Background".
> Scaremongering by clever, well spoken, but disingenuous anti-nuclear
> activists, and magic pill hucksters devoting their life to fight nuclear
> energy and radiation exposure based on poorly founded claims, does not
> change the above trivial measured and documented radiation dose from nuclear
> power.
> How much electricity will we not be able to generate and supply for electric
> vehicles at a reasonable price, assuming we  get a substantial number of
> electric vehicles requiring huge amounts of electricity in the next few
> decades? Without an adequate supply of electricity, when and where needed,
> it is likely that the growth of electric vehicles will be constrained and
> more oil will be imported. The strategic, and economic threats this poses to
> any nation finding itself importing more oil to support its domestic needs
> vs. generating its energy from nuclear sources is many, many, many orders of
> magnitude higher and more real that any theoretical risk based on LNT from
> trivial radiation exposures. The US will be paying the human and economic
> costs of Gulf War 1 [to protect Kuwait and oil supply routes] and  Gulf War
> II [arguably related to oil supply issues] for many decades. Not having
> domestic nuclear power generation has costs and impacts that dwarf any
> unscientific, fevered imaginings of scaremongering anti-nuclear activists.
> Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
> Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
> email: SAFarber at optonline.net
> 203-441-8433
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Maury
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 10:46 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List;
> bzibung at firstenergycorp.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] US power reactor information
> http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm
> http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/
> By clicking on either link above, you will find a list of US power
> reactors ..
> Best,
> Maury&Dog [MaurySiskel  maurysis at peoplepc.com]
> ================================
> On 10/20/2011 9:21 AM, bzibung at firstenergycorp.com wrote:
>> Attached is an interactive spreadsheet  available on the USNRC web page
>> that lists the power reactors and their date of initial operation plus
>> additional information.
>> (See attached file: US reactors.xls)
>> 20/11
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2092/4564 - Release Date: 10/20/11

More information about the RadSafe mailing list