Wayne county officials hope to keep nuclear power plant open news fltimes.com electricity 220v

#####

Ginna went online in 1970 and is one of the oldest reactors in the united states. Built by Westinghouse, Ginna is a pressurized water reactor like the ill-fated Three Mile Island reactor that experienced a partial nuclear meltdown in 1979. Because of the age of Ginna and many of the reactors operating in the U.S., the nuclear industry is now plagued with serious age-related deterioration mechanisms due to the wear-and-tear of components and safety systems. According to a report by the Nuclear Information and Resource Services, “Chronic exposure to extreme radiation, heat, pressure, fatigue, and corrosive chemistry are combining to cause embrittlement of metal, cracking, and erosion of components integral to the protection of the public’s health and safety. As nuclear reactors get older, the chance of failure of this equipment only increases”. The NRC has issued numerous warnings about steam generator deterioration and described this scenario as "a loaded gun, an accident waiting to happen." Though the actual fission process does not release greenhouse gases, uranium mining and enrichment, the processing and storage of radioactive waste, and the building and decommissioning of nuclear plants does use huge amounts of fossil fuels, much more than for less complex forms of electricity production.

The slight increase in cost to consumers to keep Ginna open is nothing compared to what the cost could be if there were an accident at the nearly 50 year old plant. Rate payers need to check their homeowners policies which all state that in the event of a nuclear accident the utility companies are indemnified. The utility companies had refused to go into the nuclear business until the government passed the The Price Anderson Act in 1957, which leaves the consumer holding the bag. The Crac II report, based on 1982 population data and on 1982 dollars, was mandated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and carried out by the Sandia National Laboratories. It states that if there were a class 9 or worse case scenario meltdown at Ginna there would be 2,000 peak early fatalities, 28,000 peak early injuries, 14,000 cancer deaths and would cost taxpayers $63 billion dollars. (See www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/crac2.pdf). In addition taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear industry over the past 50 years have been huge in proportion to the value of energy produced.

It makes sense for Ginna, like all nuclear reactors, to be should be shut down now before we have another TMI, Chernobyl, or Fukushima. Nuclear Power will go down in history as a mistake as future generations will be burdened with minding its waste, in some cases, for the next 250,000 years.

NOTHING about Ginna is comparable to TMI, Chernobyl, or Fukushima. Three Mile Island was caused by a human over-ride of the fail-safe procedures that the plant was designed operate under. It also had a well constructed containment building that limited radiation release. The biggest issue for the employees and surrounding population today is exposure to natural radon in the home, not the facility. Chernobyl was severely mismanaged by the Soviet Union, poorly constructed (containment failed) etc. Fukushima met every spec it was designed for (including exceeding its earthquake ratings) its failure was there was no auxiliary power considered to support water flow thru the reactor after power was disabled due to the tidal-wave. (This could of been solved by simply putting a auxiliary generator on top of the containment building) This anomaly has been factored into safety procedures (in the extreme unlikely event that a tidal-wave would disable the Ginna reactor. Nuclear plants have been operating in the US since the 50’s, there have been no catastrophic nuclear accidents in civilian nuclear plants since inception. (and if the Obama Administration’s NRC thought that there was a remote chance of one, they would order the facility shut down.

"uranium mining and enrichment, the processing and storage of radioactive waste, and the building and decommissioning of nuclear plants does use huge amounts of fossil fuels," -This statement is almost meaningless. As it neglects to point out AS COMPARED TO WHAT??? Any (type) plant /building construction or deconstruction utilizes fossil fuel. (this would include your house) . This would be no different from constructing a natural gas power plant. In case you are intoxicated by the fallacy of solar power, it takes a min of 5 years for a Solar panel to generate the energy it took to manufacture it (not to mention its dirty manufacturing) should we abandon that program?? Also not mentioned is that Ginna releases NO green-house gasses (something that one would think would be precious to so-called environmentalists)

There is a small amount of nuclear waste generated by a facility like Ginna (as there are by hospitals and facilities like Kodak) again compared to what, it doesnt take up a lot of space and is arguably more friendly to the environment than coal or even natural Gas exhaust.

Prod- 250,000 years? Your house wont be here in 250K years, and I would expect just about every power plant/source around today to be decommissioned by then. Again there is no data that says Ginna "is a accident waiting to happen" The waste isnt stored on the beach. Most of these nuclear plants are on a waterway (they need water to run the steam turbines) Therefore you advocating that all nuclear power plants should be shut down by default. Id say you need to think this thru a little more. If i could choose to live next to a coal fired plant, or next to Ginna, Id choose Ginna. The surrounding air quality will be a hell of a lot cleaner, and I would have to hear the train that hauls carloads of coal to it at night. I cant believe the NRC would allow this facility to stay open (on the shore of one of the Great Lakes) if water contamination was imminent. We tolerate Solar Panel manufacture that requires acids and solvents (waste products that are dumped into injection wells), I can site numerous examples like this where the risk of damaging pollution is a hec of a lot worse than anything at risk with Ginna. Its difficult to take your comments seriously. …..