Chris said:
Keith, this was not meant as a challenge, possibly more as a re-examination... a relook at the feasibility - and in this mindset asked for your thoughts. And I agree, the subject matter is probably exhausted but the coal fired plants on the agenda at the moment is to my mind an abomination... Who in their rights minds would build coal fired plants if they have no coal - and this is besides all the other issues.
After reading your comments, a few thoughts come to mind... I have seen 3 businesses maintain standards in the DR - and only 3 - so, I have the same reservations you have in terms of quality and sustainable, long-term effort here, especially mission critical effort.
The thing that made me ask yet again, is that we could easily slip into a mindset of -- this is the DR, and this will never work here --. I was fighting against my own mindset I guess.
Also, you talk about a sustainable model - I am truly not sure what that sustainable model could be - We've seen small models dotted here and there, but nothing really long term and sustainable for a country of our size. Wind generation is also greatly capital intensive and requires an expertise that we do not have here. Investment in infrastructure - this is a fact, no matter what the model is.
Cooling, I am not sure of cooling water temperatures required and do not know if our sea waters are too warm. I am only familiar with using ocean water to cool. I am not familar with other methods.
Inspectors - I believe nuclear power stations are subject to international inspections. So, no local 'buy-off' of inspectors.
Waste - it remains a problem. Yet, I think, if it is a question of choosing between coal fired power generation on the cards currently, and nuclear power generation, I lean towards the latter.
Do we have any experts on board that can give us an idea of input/investment costs of wind generation vs nuclear generation in relation to output?
Sorry Keith, again, not meant as a challenge...
No need to apologize, I did not take it personally, The opening of my last post was play acting.
The Environment Forum exists to discuss such issues. I personally am a little tired debating this issue, though, and would have perferred not to be dragged in on the very first post of the thread (LOL). This is probably the fourth or fifth time. But for all those who were not here for the earlier ones, I guess it is good to go through it once more....
You misunderstand what the IAEA inspections are about -- they are intended to detect diversion, not to check that the plant is in line with safey and environmental norms. So yes, checking on plant safety and environmental compliance would be in the hands of Dominican inspectors.
I am sure that some businesses can maintain their quality standards in the Dominican context, but we're talking a nuclear plant here. Different animal altogether from just about every other endeavor. One must maintain high standards consistently over a very long period of time -- the potential consequences for not doing so are quite grave.
And consider for a second the proposal to "give it to the French to manage": The DR will put its health, safety and energy future in the hands of French technicians and government for decades on end? And if they become dissatisfied with the French, who do they turn to?
The waste issue is not minor, and I cannot believe you are putting it on a par with air emissions from a coal-powered plant. People who have swallowed the industry's line that nuclear power is "clean" have never studied the waste issue. Nuclear power may have few air emissions, but it is hardly "clean" if you look at the whole picture.
You can put scrubbers and other end-of-pipe controls on a coal-powered plant that would reduce its impact to acceptable levels for far, far less money than you can manage the radioactive wastes generated by a nuclear power plant, Christa.
And just what are you going to do with those wastes? The DR does not even have a sanitary landfill yet for ordinary, non-toxic wastes, much less toxics and bio-infectious (although that doesn't stop these wastes from being tossed in open-air dumps, nor does an existing Dominican regulation on hazardous and radioactive wastes forbidding such actions). You honestly think the DR can build and manage,
FOR 100's OF YEARS, a safe, secure waste facility for radioactive wastes?
Can you even find a geologically stable place in the DR where the proximity of the water table did not pose a huge risk? I suspect not.
So what alternative? Export it? To where? What country legally accepts another's radioactive wastes these days? And even if one did, which countries are going to give permission for the ships carrying the wastes to transit through their waters? Do a google on the problems the Japanese have been having with this very issue in South America and the Caribbean....
The cooling water issue is an interesting one. I don't think any of the rivers in the DR would suffice. Can't really use Lago Enriquillo or Samana Bay without destroying a unique ecosystem. So put it on the coast? Where? What place would be close enough to the seawater, yet far enough from major population centers, yet is on a geologically stable area, yet is somewhere the plant could be kept secure?
And what would the thermal discharges do to the coral and aquatic life?
What would be the economic impact on surrounding tourism?
What about the contingency planning nuclear power plants need? The evacuation and containment plans for possible emergencies? Think about that in the Dominican context for a moment.
I really think the capital involved in building, maintaining and securing a nuclear plant can be better spent. I'm not an energy specialist, so I can't tell you what the best mix for the DR would be in order for it to have something approaching sustainability. Wind? Solar? Biomass? Biogas? WTE? Some combination of the above? I don't know. Has the DR even seriously studied its options, their EHS pluses and minues, their economic costs/benefits? I'm not sure, but I'll check.
I have to agree, I personally think coal-powered plants are a kinda nutso option, but then, this Administration seems to like nutso options (underground metro, the artificial island, etc.).... But playing the devil's advocate for a moment, what is it that makes you fear/dislike the coal option? The possible air emissions? If you think environmental controls and proper inspections can be done for nuclear, why not coal? The waste products? But if you are not that phased by radioactive wastes, why show combustion ashes worry you? The import dependency and cost? But wouldn't nuclear also mean dependency on uranium processing and waste management abroad, and dependency on expensive management and technical assistance contracts?
I think nuclear power in the DR would simply mean tons of money spent (and probably alot pocketed) (and where is such money to come from?) in the name of cutting air pollution and oil imports and in process creating a new series of environmental, health, safety, security problems and a new type of dependency on foreign goodwill.
My dos centavos.
Keith :glasses:
