Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ROCKLOBSTER
You'd be amazed at the number of power plants built on faults (North Anna in VA, for instance), or on an actively eroding coastline (Lusby, MD). There are others, and though people were told....they just don't listen.

That's where I discovered most 'hearings' are just a formality, the decision has been made and the hearing is just so they can say the hearing was xx hours long and yy people testified, and that they are going to do what they wanted to do anyway.

Most plants can be sited to avoid such hazards, it is just more expensive to do so.

61 posted on 09/01/2013 12:10:19 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: Smokin' Joe

Well, I think the siting has everything to do with the massive cooling needs, and lots of water. Often riverbeds contain fault lines. That’s why I was asking about direct radiation to electric conversion, and less heat.

I understand the US Navy has a pretty good record on nuclear safety. Don’t they have some older ships that are becoming obsolete?

I’ll bet a decommissioned carrier could power up a coastal city AND become a good self-sustaining tourist attraction.


63 posted on 09/01/2013 12:22:49 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves Month")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson