Fermi 1 operated from 1957 to 1972. It had an accident in 1966 and was officially decommissioned in 1975. A 94 MW fast breeder reactor built in 1957 probably shouldn’t be held to the same standards as modern power generation reactors.
Fermi 2 was opened in 1988. It generates about 1000 MW. I checked capacity factors for a few years and most were in the 90’s although one year was 75%.
Again, Gonzo you’re just making shit up when it comes to nuclear power.
Everything is everybody’s fault. We should all kill ourselves.
No no, I don’t buy BP gas. I go to Chevron.
It’s got Techron!
So you are saying decommissioned is not closing ? What standards are you referring to? The plant had a meltdown and I an over reacting? Somebody is ignoring the facts. But it is not me.
I didn’t see BigT make any sustainability arguments. Surely sustainability of a resource is a tangential argument to environmental damage. For instance, the traditional medieval way of farming was sustainable, but if we all tried to live like that there would be more alteration of America’s environment due to having to transform more land into cropland.
And safely extracting oil is not sustainable but does not damage the environment per se. If the only environmental disasters in the history of America were the Valdez, the Gulf spill, and a couple land gushers here and there, I’d say we were doing pretty good all in all.
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO14.html Yes the same 3 mile island that released a storm of radiation and gave pockets of cancer to lots of people. Yep that is the one.
The future of world energy is in alternative energy sources. We have to put money in it and stress it.
There is much more in the works for energy in the future, more than solar and wind. The country that embraces the change and gets involved will have the technologies of the future and the jobs that go with it. However ,you can be damn sure if an American invents a great new technology, American corporations will outsource it.
They are building a wave energy device in the Detroit River. It was conceived of at U of M ,Ann Arbor.
The old technology of nuclear plants should be down played to actually lead us to the future. Nuke is the source of the past, the love of Luddites who don’t want to get to new technology.
You said it never reached full power and was closed many times.
The Wiki article says Fermi 1 never made full power again after the accident. After the accident is not never. Fast breeder reactors are used to make plutonium. I don’t care if it made full power or not, as long as it made plutonium so we could defeat your buddies, the Soviets.
It was bulit in 1957. The technology was new and not entirely understood. I’m sure there were many problems. In the early 70’s a few plants were shutdown because they didn’t meet the safety requirements that were newly developed.
It’s been almost 40 years, you could probably let it go.
What you are trying to do is conflate Fermi 1 with Fermi 2. This argument from ignorance is your standard tactic when discussing nuclear power.
Yes. But you could let a bunch of guys watch and power off their fapping. It’s the environmentally responsible thing to do.
We will probably never find an equivalent, cheap source of energy to replace the oil we currently use. All these alternative sources can help, but our society is going to have to change the way we’ve done things for the last several decades. We need more than just wind and other types of energy, we need to re-consider how we design our communities. Unfortunately, until the price of oil starts going up again and staying up, there is no incentive for anyone to seriously try to change things.
I’m with the OP and am actually puzzled people would disagree. To me, this is merely a case of the chickens coming home to roost and it’s kind of fun to watch particularly when a Republican leaning state is now criticizing the very policies they helped to enable.
I also think the people who say they have no complicity in this because they support regulation are fooling themselves. If people were given the choice between cheap oil with disasters similar to the Gulf occurring on a regular basis or expensive oil with no environmental degradation, most people would go for the cheap oil. The only people who might disagree are those whose businesses depended on clean water, wallets will always win out over oil-covered sea turtles.
The incentive is a new cheaper energy source that will displace oil. A lot of people are going solar, not because it is cheap and easy but because it is the right thing to do. For a many it is not just about money.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/selling_solar_t.php Here is how you stress solar with relatively low priced gas.
Ooh, you think an ecosystem’s destruction is “kind of fun to watch.” And you don’t care for people, either–especially if they live in a “Republican leaning state.” (There are plenty of Democrats living in those states, too.)
I’m a Yellow Dog Democrat Texan who hated Bush Jr when he was letting oil companies write their own rules in my state. And hated it even more when he & Puppetmaster Cheney took those policies nationwide. (Let me guess–you voted for Nader.)
Since 2005, when BP’s policies killed 15 people in Texas City (just down the Gulf Freeway from Houston), I’ve been following the company’s utterly fucked safety policies. Yes, the petrochemical business is dangerous & messy–but BP has been far worse than average for a long time. (While running those smarmy commercials with actors playing Soccer Moms, stammering out their thoughts on a green future.)
I commute via mass transit–in Houston. But the trains & buses do burn fuel. If it starts costing more, fares will go up; so it goes. And this PC runs on power that comes from* somewhere*. Unless you ride your bike everywhere & live off the grid, save your sanctimony.
Don’t you need Oil to make solarpanels???
Which means, that I can not use solar power either, right?
I’d wager that if we only used petrochemicals to make physical product rather than purely for energy, that we’d have enough oil for centuries to come, not to mention producing articifial oil. If you’re just talking about energy to make solar panels, of course we can use solar 
46% of US oil production becomes gasoline. When you factor in other fuel usage, it’s well over 75%.
Well, given that this thread is about: If you use Oil in any way, you are at fault for the BP accident… then well… do not use plastic either… or any other crap that we need Oil for…
Using a computer… well, then it’s your fault as well.
The statement in the OP is just plain ridicules.
Sign of the Apocalypse! I totally agree.
Who says the SDMB can’t bring people together?!?