So what!? Coal sucks too. Stop arguing against a position no one has takenTrololzilla wrote: ↑Jun 25, 2023Not really, it just means safety regulations need to be enforced more stringently by the government/regulatory authorities and not be dictated by private operators. Despite the lack of safety regulations being adhered to, the fact that hardly any true long-term negative effects exist seems to be much more of a testament to the safety of nuclear power, as symphonic said.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jun 24, 2023Exactly. Companies cheap out on safety which is extremely frightening and dangerous in the context of nuclear power. The Fukushima example works against your position not for it.Trololzilla wrote: ↑Jun 24, 2023
And honestly, Fukushima was really a nothingburger. The only reason that plant even had issues after the earthquake was because the operating company cheaped out on the safety measures, including removing most of the seawall. It's why another NPP, much closer to the epicenter of the quake and whose operator didn't cheap out on safety, survived with hardly any damage, but of course no one ever hears about that.
Even Chernobyl, more or less the absolute worst-case scenario of nuclear power accidents (and with a crappy reactor design to boot), was entirely preventable and is still 1000x less deadly than coal power, per the WHO.
- 1,793
- 1,290
The position you seem to have taken is that nuclear is as bad as coal or just flat out inherently dangerous, both of which are entirely untrue.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jun 25, 2023So what!? Coal sucks too. Stop arguing against a position no one has takenTrololzilla wrote: ↑Jun 25, 2023Not really, it just means safety regulations need to be enforced more stringently by the government/regulatory authorities and not be dictated by private operators. Despite the lack of safety regulations being adhered to, the fact that hardly any true long-term negative effects exist seems to be much more of a testament to the safety of nuclear power, as symphonic said.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jun 24, 2023
Exactly. Companies cheap out on safety which is extremely frightening and dangerous in the context of nuclear power. The Fukushima example works against your position not for it.
Even Chernobyl, more or less the absolute worst-case scenario of nuclear power accidents (and with a crappy reactor design to boot), was entirely preventable and is still 1000x less deadly than coal power, per the WHO.
- 2,620
Is the Labadie coal plant still scheduled for decommission in 2025? Our air quality will noticeably improve when that happens, I am excited.
Meramec closed this past December, though it was a "peaker" plant and prior to its closure it was only generating 1/10th of the power it used to.
Next up is Rush Island in 2025. Labadie isn't scheduled for closure until the mid-2040s.
Next up is Rush Island in 2025. Labadie isn't scheduled for closure until the mid-2040s.
Was that announced recently? This article from 2021 says 2042.
EMissourian.com - Labadie plant to stay open as Ameren moves to close Rush Island plant sooner than originally planned
This one says two more are planned to shut down by 2030, but not which three.
StlToday - Ameren’s oldest, smallest coal plant set to retire — raising questions about its afterlife
In 2010, Abt Associates issued a study commissioned by the Clean Air Task Force figured there was about $1B of damage annually from death and disease attributable to fine particle pollution from the Labadie power station. I couldn't find newer info, and the link to CATF is broken.
https://www.gem.wiki/Labadie_power_stat ... er_station
Gross
Stl PR - Missouri regulators explicitly allow coal ash pollution at St. Louis-area power plant
EMissourian.com - Labadie plant to stay open as Ameren moves to close Rush Island plant sooner than originally planned
https://www.emissourian.com/local_news/ ... 96fd1.htmlAfter its Rush Island Energy Center was found to be in violation of federal clean air laws, energy company Ameren announced it is closing the coal power plant earlier than originally planned. Ameren’s Labadie Energy Center, however, is keeping its 2042 closure date.
This one says two more are planned to shut down by 2030, but not which three.
StlToday - Ameren’s oldest, smallest coal plant set to retire — raising questions about its afterlife
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... cc09c.htmlAmeren’s oldest and smallest coal-fired power plant will officially close Dec. 31, the first of the utility’s three coal-fired power plants planned to shutter by 2030. What the facility becomes next is undecided, but experts say its connection to the electric grid could give it a new life in renewable energy.
In 2010, Abt Associates issued a study commissioned by the Clean Air Task Force figured there was about $1B of damage annually from death and disease attributable to fine particle pollution from the Labadie power station. I couldn't find newer info, and the link to CATF is broken.
https://www.gem.wiki/Labadie_power_stat ... er_station
Gross
Stl PR - Missouri regulators explicitly allow coal ash pollution at St. Louis-area power plant
https://www.kcur.org/health/2022-01-16/ ... ower-plantIn response to a federal order from the Environmental Protection Agency, Ameren closed the two coal ash basins at Labadie in 2020 and covered them with high-density plastic, soil and turf. Labadie’s coal ash ponds contain about 15 million cubic yards of waste, according to estimates from the utility — the largest volume of Ameren’s four coal-fired power plants in Missouri.
I pulled it from memory, but yes it appears 2042 instead of “mid-2040s” like I said lol.
Looking at the satellite imagery, it appears a lot of the surrounding land at Meramec has already been remediated as well.
I haven’t heard anything about Sioux, but since Labadie is open until the 2040s and they plan on closing three of the four by 2030, it’s probability Sioux. Edit: Sioux appears to be targeted for closure in 2030. Judging by the satellite views up there, much of the old coal ash ponds and storage yards have already been remediated.
Looking at the satellite imagery, it appears a lot of the surrounding land at Meramec has already been remediated as well.
I haven’t heard anything about Sioux, but since Labadie is open until the 2040s and they plan on closing three of the four by 2030, it’s probability Sioux. Edit: Sioux appears to be targeted for closure in 2030. Judging by the satellite views up there, much of the old coal ash ponds and storage yards have already been remediated.
- 1,793
Whose posts are you reading!?Trololzilla wrote: ↑Jun 26, 2023The position you seem to have taken is that nuclear is as bad as coal or just flat out inherently dangerous, both of which are entirely untrue.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jun 25, 2023So what!? Coal sucks too. Stop arguing against a position no one has takenTrololzilla wrote: ↑Jun 25, 2023Not really, it just means safety regulations need to be enforced more stringently by the government/regulatory authorities and not be dictated by private operators. Despite the lack of safety regulations being adhered to, the fact that hardly any true long-term negative effects exist seems to be much more of a testament to the safety of nuclear power, as symphonic said.
Even Chernobyl, more or less the absolute worst-case scenario of nuclear power accidents (and with a crappy reactor design to boot), was entirely preventable and is still 1000x less deadly than coal power, per the WHO.
All I said is that a terrible nuclear disaster (Fukushima) does not support an argument on favor of Nuclear power.
- 1,290
But Fukushima wasn't a "terrible" disaster, though? The earthquake and tsunami, yes, but the damage to the NPP wasn't really a disaster in and of itself.
And I'll still maintain that if that is indeed one the worst case scenarios for nuclear power, it seems to actually favor its deployment given its overall minimal impact despite not having a full set of safety features.
And I'll still maintain that if that is indeed one the worst case scenarios for nuclear power, it seems to actually favor its deployment given its overall minimal impact despite not having a full set of safety features.
- 1,793
It seems terrible. Another huge piece of earth’s real estate is forever irradiated and unusable. And huge amounts of irradiated water continues to pollute the Pacific Ocean and local waterways in the area and the water treatment systems aren’t actually capable of totally irradiating the water it actually captures.
So tons of water is being irradiated and entering local and global ecosystems and the portions of that water that is being treated can’t be completely treated because we don’t have the tech remove lithium radionuclides.
But yeah, huge dub for Nuclear power.
So tons of water is being irradiated and entering local and global ecosystems and the portions of that water that is being treated can’t be completely treated because we don’t have the tech remove lithium radionuclides.
But yeah, huge dub for Nuclear power.
- 1,290
But radiation doesn't last forever. Most of the energy is gone within days or even hours for the most radioactive isotopes, and a few years or decades for the lesser isotopes. Honestly, the area could be resettled without much issue in terms of radiation exposure, as could much of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.
Even the "huge" amounts of water going into the ocean don't do much since there's no amount of water that humans could dump into any ocean to appreciably alter the concentration of any particulates in it, since anything added would become so diluted as to become indistinguishable from the background. Seawater is naturally pretty radioactive stuff by itself, so a bit of extra radioactive particles are either going to become so diluted in the water as to be undetectable or sink to the bottom of the ocean, never to be seen again. Also, water makes pretty effective radiation shielding, meaning ocean life tends to be much better protected against radiation than land life.
Hell, if the government would allow it, I would literally let an SMR be built in my yard, that's how much I trust nuclear energy.
Even the "huge" amounts of water going into the ocean don't do much since there's no amount of water that humans could dump into any ocean to appreciably alter the concentration of any particulates in it, since anything added would become so diluted as to become indistinguishable from the background. Seawater is naturally pretty radioactive stuff by itself, so a bit of extra radioactive particles are either going to become so diluted in the water as to be undetectable or sink to the bottom of the ocean, never to be seen again. Also, water makes pretty effective radiation shielding, meaning ocean life tends to be much better protected against radiation than land life.
Hell, if the government would allow it, I would literally let an SMR be built in my yard, that's how much I trust nuclear energy.
Good news. Can't reduce coal burning fast enough.
StlToday - Ameren can build 3 solar farms, Missouri regulators say
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/bus ... 06f84.html
StlToday - Ameren can build 3 solar farms, Missouri regulators say
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/bus ... 06f84.html
KSDK - Missouri's attorney general announced Wednesday his plan to shut down an 800-mile clean energy project. But, most property owners want it.
https://www.ksdk.com/article/tech/scien ... 2a1712203e
https://www.ksdk.com/article/tech/scien ... 2a1712203e
Ameren and US energy policy sure looks pathetic.
The New Yorker - 4.6 Billion Years On, the Sun Is Having a Moment
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-o ... g-a-moment
The New Yorker - 4.6 Billion Years On, the Sun Is Having a Moment
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-o ... g-a-moment
- 1,290
Would never have had to worry about any of this without all of the anti-Nuxxers fear mongering about nuclear power for the last half-century.
^Yup.
Momentum has finally shifted, and new plants are starting to be built again.
Momentum has finally shifted, and new plants are starting to be built again.
Yes, momentum has shifted but I tend to think the cost to build new plants became huge and took years if not a decade or more to build that utilities were more than glad to shift away because they couldn't come close to justifying the big upfront charge on their books & the regulators wouldn't allow to be passed onto the rate payers. To me the ever escalating upfront cost for a plant that wasn't coming online for a decade or moere was really the driver in why Nuclear power stalled in this country..Trololzilla wrote: ↑Jul 13, 2025Would never have had to worry about any of this without all of the anti-Nuxxers fear mongering about nuclear power for the last half-century.
However,It will be interesting to see how this plays out because a lot of govt dollars is also part of the momentum behind nuclear rebirth as well as technology has gotten to a point that much smaller reactors & much better reactors can be built..
In meantime, Solar becoming so inexpensive and can be in service so quick know that I doubt GOP killing the tax credit really changes anything for large scale utility. If anything, the utility companies probably happy that solar is still a good play for them while GOP harmed or significantly kills decentralized & homeowner roof top solar. So much for the little guy as everyone pretty much beholden to the corporate giant or utility company unless you have some cash and pick solar or new windows over the kitchen remodel.
Heaven forbid the Federal gov't trying to help people lower their utility bills. Promising that energy bills will be lowered by half in a year is enough.
KSDK - Missouri, and your bank account, is about to go nuclear
https://www.ksdk.com/article/money/econ ... 03a4711646
https://www.ksdk.com/article/money/econ ... 03a4711646
- 398
More examples of Missouri legislature overturning the vote of the people!!
StlToday - Kehoe, others voice urgent support for new nuclear power in Missouri
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/bus ... 1c4b6.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/bus ... 1c4b6.html
Tough to get excited about a new nuclear power plant in 2040 and costs $20B. Let's build $1B in solar wind and batteries every year. Close the Labadie plant asap.
Yep, that $20 billion will be paid by them well before any energy is delivered.quincunx wrote: ↑Jul 20, 2025Tough to get excited about a new nuclear power plant in 2040 and costs $20B. Let's build $1B in solar wind and batteries every year. Close the Labadie plant asap.
In the meantime, I understand Senator Hawley/GOP gang no trying harder then ever to kill the Grain Belt Express already approved and ready to start construction. Talk about another idiotic move almost solely based on appeasing someone who wants to be a King instead of intelligence. Grain Belt Express is a great opportunity to provide MO & its industrial base with cheap electrical northern plains wind power in matter of a few years. Could have been already being doing it if it wasn't for all the nonsense.
Keep buying expensive fossil fuel power sheeple.
Stl PR - Trump administration kills $5B loan for Grain Belt Express
https://www.stlpr.org/health-science-en ... lt-express
Stl PR - Trump administration kills $5B loan for Grain Belt Express
https://www.stlpr.org/health-science-en ... lt-express