Reminds me of the news a few years ago, of the Bushes buying a large swathe of land (atop an also-large aquifer) in Paraguay.
If I had their kind of money, I’d probably do the same.
I’m confused then, because the dam broke impacting Midland. Is the TRIGA reactor not in midland?
If the reactor they’re referencing is not in Midland, then is it actually in the flood zone? And if it’s not wtf are they talking about it?
Beyond Nuclear is making a Grand Canyon scale reach with their argument…
Do you know what her specific complaints are about Panama?
The DOW TRIGA reactor is in the building at 1602 Pershing St. Midland MI 48640.
The Midland Cogeneration Venture (the site of what was to be the Midland Nuclear Power Plant) is about a mile away, across the Tittabawassee River. They are both in Midland, and both sites had flooding (not the first time).
(Also, looks like the DOW TRIGA reactor wasn’t even operating at the time of the flood.)
She never lived in Panama, but according to her the only good thing is they use American currency.She was comparing Panama to Costa Rica, which probably had a lot to do with it!
The water level in the Great Lakes is rising due to Anthropogenic Climate Disruption and yet more than 60,000 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is stored on the shores of four of the five lakes in still-growing stockpiles. Some of it only a few meters from the shoreline. Nuclear scientists have been warning state and federal officials for decades but the amount just keeps growing. Yucca Mountain was supposed to be the cure but a) who wants the nation’s spent fuel in their neighborhood, NIMBY, and b) it means the transportation of tons and tons of waste on an aging, under-maintained rail system. The government is still giving the nuclear industry huge tax breaks to prop up an aging system with the money going to share holders, not system maintenance or plant shutdowns. In the end, the taxpayer are going to be stuck with the economic fallout while the poor will be ravaged by health problems. Make America Glow Again.
You are going under the assumption that any of these countries want you there. Best check on the long term visa requirements before making any plans and talk to people who are already on the ground. Don’t read things on Top 10 Places to Retire websites as they are bs written for the privileged. I can tell you that, unless you have a million dollars to invest, Thailand doesn’t want you. Also, living on modest means requires adjustments in your lifestyle (400 sq./ft apartment instead of 2,000sf house) and acceptance of the local way of doing things which can be frustrating as hell. If you want to live like an ugly American (live like a king) then stay where you are. It is called a “host” country and you need to be a gracious guest; keep your mouth shut and your head down. Also, you will lose any Medicare coverage you might be counting on in your elder years and health insurance for expats in through-the-roof expensive. Death is my health insurance. The good news is that the way things are going in the US you’ll be able to seek asylum status shortly.
It’s currently rising because of that. A few years ago it was falling because of that. What the disruption means is that there will be shorter cycles between highs and lows.
“and yet more than 60,000 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is stored on the shores of four of the five lakes”
More than 50,000 tons of which is on the Canadian side.
“Yucca Mountain was supposed to be the cure but a) who wants the nation’s spent fuel in their neighborhood,”
The idea is to move it away from neighborhoods. We’ve got some sparsely-populated land here in Texas which would be a better location than near major lakes or cities.
“and b) it means the transportation of tons and tons of waste on an aging, under-maintained rail system.”
We should improve our rail system anyway, but the transport cannisters should be able to withstand rail accidents. If the options are between moving it and not moving it, moving it trades a small short-term increase in risk for a large and sustained reduction in long-term risk.
“In the end, the taxpayer are going to be stuck with the economic fallout”
That’s one possibility. Another is that we might make the transition to a new kind of nuclear industry.
“while the poor will be ravaged by health problems.”
Fossil fuels are by far the dominant source of health problems from the energy sector. Old-tech nuclear, for all its problems, probably saved many hundreds of thousands of lives just by displacing coal. Better forms of nuclear could improve on that record, while also solving or reducing the main problems with old-tech nuclear.
Glad to see that when the nuclear waste pours into the lakes it will only affect the Canadian side.
Also glad that Texans will be happy to accept tons of nuclear waste into a wasteland that will remain so for thousands of years. Makes sense given the cancer rates among the poor in the Gulf and Galveston area, polluted by the oil and chemical industries for a century. What’s another disastrous ecological dump site or two among friends.
Who pays for the rail improvements since most rail is now privately owned? Do we nationalize the rail system or continue to give the private companies billions in subsidies like the current system?
The articles was not about a “new” kind of nuclear (a totally different debate) but about the residue of the old one that, despite billions in subsidies, continues to crumple and become more dangerous even without adding a pandemic or flooding.
“…probably saved many hundreds of thousands of lives just by displacing coal.” Apples and oranges. The health effects of fossil fuels are more immediate while the effects of nuclear power are so long term that they are easy to ignore. A spike in cancer rates from the 3-mile Island incident are just now begin to show a significant statistical jump but in human attention span years it was too long ago to make the news. The long term effects of thousands of tons of nuclear waste will not be know for decades and centuries.
Amazing how a dam fails, but the issue isn’t the failing infrastructure it’s the nuclear plant that’s not even a commercial generating facility.
Our rail infrastructure is failing, but according to you miraculously that’s also the fault of the nuclear industry somehow.
You require insane levels of security and risk mitigation, and the nuclear industry engineers solutions to meet your ridiculous parameters, but then magically that’s not good enough.
There are multiple ways to deal with nuclear waste, yet when presented to you as a solution you refuse it with little to zero evidence as why, and instead continue to complain that the nuclear industry has no solution.
That is ludicrous…
You were talking about Yucca Mtn. That’s got nothing to do with Canadian nuclear spent fuel. We can only deal with the stuff on our side. Even if we remove all of our spent fuel from the Great Lakes, that still leaves more than 80% of the fuel there.
“Also glad that Texans will be happy to accept tons of nuclear waste”
Rural Texans and Texans in the area are generally accepting of the idea. It will probably be less popular near downtown Austin.
"into a wasteland’
That’s a bit harsh. It is semi-arid desert sparsely populated with humans. But there is plenty of indigenous life there.
“that will remain so for thousands of years.”
If it remains basically as it is now for thousands of years, I would call that a good result. It probably won’t have anything to do with the spent fuel stored there for maybe a few centuries, though.
“Makes sense given the cancer rates among the poor in the Gulf and Galveston area, polluted by the oil and chemical industries for a century. What’s another disastrous ecological dump site or two among friends.”
The ecological impact of a small spent fuel repository would be trivial compared to the ecological impact of a sprawling solar farm.
“Who pays for the rail improvements since most rail is now privately owned? Do we nationalize the rail system or continue to give the private companies billions in subsidies like the current system?”
We have many options for how funding could be linked to performance, mandates, or targets. Do you have a problem with the public subsidies going to wind and solar, and to grid expansion and upgrades?
“The articles was not about a “new” kind of nuclear (a totally different debate) but about the residue of the old one”
It makes no sense to exclude likely future uses for spent fuel from considerations of the future of spent fuel–especially when you are talking about thousands of years into the future when reactors which could consume spent fuel are already in development.
“that, despite billions in subsidies, continues to crumple and become more dangerous”
Where is spent fuel crumpling? And spent fuel is by far at its most dangerous when it is fresh out of the reactor. Over time, it becomes less radioactive.
[“…probably saved many hundreds of thousands of lives just by displacing coal.”]
“Apples and oranges.”
I’m pretty sure we compare relative sickness and death rates all the time, without requiring that they be identical kinds of sickness and death.
“The health effects of fossil fuels are more immediate while the effects of nuclear power are so long term that they are easy to ignore.”
They would only be easy to ignore, or difficult to find, if their numbers were so small as to get lost in statistical noise. If the numbers were anything like the staggering death toll from coal, that would be very easy to see, so there is no way all nuclear power-related deaths come anywhere close to the numbers for coal. And the issue of immediate vs. delayed death comes up all the time in radiotherapy–where we have therapies that can save your life now, but which will also raise your risk of cancer years from now. If it’s a choice between immediate death and some chance of death far off in the future, I think most people would tend to prefer the latter.
“A spike in cancer rates from the 3-mile Island incident are just now begin to show a significant statistical jump”
Even assuming that’s from TMI (and forty years later seems pretty late for that) how many extra deaths from cancer does this jump represent? I bet it is still trivial compared to coal deaths.
“The long term effects of thousands of tons of nuclear waste will not be know for decades and centuries.”
What we don’t know is whether in the next few centuries a spent fuel depot could be hit by a meteorite, or bunker buster bomb, or some weapon that we haven’t invented yet, or which some artificial intelligence hasn’t invented yet, or which some space alien species hasn’t brought here yet, etc. But short of such a catastrophe or attack, we do know pretty well that the effects from spent fuel on the environment and the general public will be in the range of zero to something scarcely distinguishable from zero.
I planned maintenance for a nuclear facility in Illinois up until 2017. Since then they’ve cut maintenance outages on 30 year old units to an extremely irresponsible 2 weeks and joined Trump’s IP3 group to sell nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia.
These corporately maintained reactors are what will be counted on to fill gaps if/when renewables ever take hold. Good luck with that. Nuclear power has possibilities, but not when it’s being harnessed by such worn down systems.
Thanks for the advice. I am concerned with how US expats are viewed in countries due to our evil foreign policies. There are numerous videos on YouTube by US expats living in other countries and in the countries I mentioned they seem to be quite favorably impressed. I do understand that much research on visas, etc needs to be done before making such a big life change. Thanks again for your reply.