How many times do I have to tell you to read the article, I am growing weary of bringing it here to you every time you ask something it addressed.
And exactly why do you think a terrorist can do that to one of these reactors more easily than sabotaging a conventional reactor or a non-nuclear generator?
Because itās harder to defend many dispersed objects than fewer centralized ones.
Because all you do is recite the company line. Do you always believe the promises of these types of companies?
Yep. That is exactly what happened in Washington State when their ultra-cheap hydro power drove up demand, forcing the utility to build a nuclear plant to cover it. Lawsuits delayed the project and drove up costs so much that the utility had to greatly increase rates to cover those costs. The increased rates dramatically reduced consumption which in turn eliminated the supply/demand problem and the nuclear plant was abandoned. Washington rate payers are still paying for that.
What was the name of the project?
Have you ever heard the expression āNever keep your eggs in one basketā? It is orders of magnitude more difficult to coordinate an attack on multiple small targets than to strike one large one. The chances of successfuly takng out numerous small nuclear generators as opposed to one large one is very small. It is also easier to defend a small facility than a large one.
Who said anything about organizing a coordinated attack?
One attack the damages containment on a reactor is pretty serious.
You keep making comments about stability of the grid when I clearly stated thatās a secondary concern. The main concern is damaging containment of a nuclear reactor.
WNP-3 and WNP-5
I suppose you think these generators would just sit out in the open where anyone can walk up to them with a large bomb and crack them open like an egg.
The wiki article cites cost overruns during construction which prompted public opposition, given they were supposed to pay for these cost overruns.
The wiki does not say what causes these overruns and makes no mention of lawsuits as the cause. Do you have a source which provides this information?
Not easy to do, the reactor and containment for these are in a concrete vault, underground.
Gosh. Sounds cheap. Infiltration and explosives then.
No ā¦ nothing but my memory. I vividly remember that the delays that drove up the cost were caused by lawsuits and protests. Remember, most of this sorry episode took place during the mid to late 70s when there was double digit inflation, particularly with construction materials, labor and petroleum fuels. Any delay was catastrophic to budgets.
But weāre getting off topic. In fact, this entire nuclear power discussion is off topic.
Every source Iāve been looking through says the construction was just really badly mismanaged.
The proposed cost ballooned from $4 billion to $24 billion. No one mentions lawsuits and protestors causing much increase in price.
Iām not very sure about your vivid memory.
I really donāt care if you doubt me or not. Besides, as I said, it is completely off topic.
Meh. I find the idea of nuclear power to be quite relevant to the solution of global warming. The nuclear power company Zantax brings up appears very promising despite my probing, they clearly had solid answers for everything.
It sounds to me like you were trying to scapegoat environmentalists. A personās memory, especially from decades ago, can be very deceptive. Especially when there is a, letās say, motivation.
I also doubt itās a coincidence that youāve now decided this is off topic.
I was scapegoating environmentalists, because had they not fought the project, the delays would not have snowballed and costs soared due to inflation, resulting redesigns and construction contract renegotiations. That you donāt believe it doesnāt matter, particularly since those details have nothing to do with the thread topic.
Nuclear power itself, however, is on topic and so are the roadblocks that environmentalists throw up in front of it. Ironically, environmentalists organizations such as the Sierra Club back in the early '60s argued in favor of nuclear power over large hydro projects. But I doubt that you will believe that either, so lets just move on. Okay?
ā¦we think.
Not according to what I read. They planned five reactors. They chose different architecture firms, different designs (which required separate approvals from nuclear regulatory agencies), and a legion of separate contractors and suppliers that had poor communication between everyone involved.
No one anywhere says anything about protestors and lawsuits from environmentalists, including citations from the government report issued on the debacle.
Sounds like youāre searching for a scapegoat to me.
