From: United States
7 million for a study? where do i sign up? i will do it for 10%
Written by: RonEvane 
, 25 Jan 2013 8:58 AM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
This is beauty vs. beast project. Good for agriculture and electricity, but bad for the environment and its beauty. Tough call.
From: United States
that is why a cost benefit analysis is sorely needed in this case
From: Dominican Republic, calle A.Portes
well putting aside all the argee bargee ,the capital and other cities must have water and so there has to be ams and there has to be aqueducts and now it is up to the engineers to do the best job possible to minimise environmental problems and up to the government to relocate the unfortunate people . maybe even we will have good fortune and have the lake grow by itself as in Enriquillo
From: United States
argee bargee, Ricardolito? the Londoner in you is coming to the surface, my brother.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Dr. Dread,
I read your commentary above on the $7M tag for the study, which I would presume pertains to an environmental impact study. I've gone back over the story several times and cannot find any mention of it. Where did you find it? Was it from another source?
MJEV.
From: United States
here you go, Glomar
For the studies on the project "Expanding Haina River’s Water Collection" which would solve Greater Santo Domingo’s water supply problem for the next 20 years, the government allocated RD$300 million in the 2013 budget.
Written by: Cacique, 25 Jan 2013 11:11 AM
From: Dominican Republic
Jarabacoa sacred land of waters, great spirit in sky no let snakeye make wampum with mighty Yaque. How!
From: United States
something got it give
Written by: RonEvane , 25 Jan 2013 1:00 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Cacique, I like your environmental bent.
"Water is the driving force of all nature."
---Leonardo Davinci--
From: Dominican Republic, Dominican Republic
Sorry, double post...
From: Dominican Republic, Dominican Republic
Most civil discussion I've seen yet on DT, but then again Josean and some other flamers have not posted yet.
Written by: shimoy, 25 Jan 2013 1:33 PM
From: Jamaica
Even though I am an environmentalist, this case would call for destruction of a small part of the environment in order to secure human survival, so this time humans would have to obviously come first.
From: United States, NJ
A dam and no hydroelectric power is half done. One of the main purpose of collecting water is for irrigation and allow for the drop thru turbines to turn the generators. Watever you do with the water before or after it is collected is something else. I know the generators cost lots of money,but that is the initial cost ,since it will pay for itself been almost maintanance free and keeping in mind is the cheapest form of electricity.
Written by: Danilo, 25 Jan 2013 3:57 PM
From: Dominican Republic, www.DuckyDeals.com
Great news, I agree with Rancier, these could help out with our electricity problems, if there's enough water flow.
Written by: RonEvane , 25 Jan 2013 4:03 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
True enough, Mr. Thelmo. My only tiff with dams is the resulting permanent flooding of land which will destroy habitat of certain flora/fauna that can potentially be rare and vital to the ecological health of the site in question.
We need to consider the damage/benefit ratio and go from there. .. Of course, in DR no one gives a damn about species or any other critters that may be endemic only to this particular ecological niche...Tragic.!
From: United States, NJ
Correct you are Mr RonEvane.
I was refering to the post building of the dam,since it would be build any way and the same effect
it would have with generating plant as if it did not have it.
Thank you Danilo for seeing it my way.
Written by: rokete, 25 Jan 2013 7:48 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo
Careful here
The ecologic damage might out weigh the benefit.
However we do need electricity and water for survival and progress.
This thing about redirecting the Yaque del Norte may back fired, and cause more damage than good.
From: United States
says rokete
Written by: rokete, 25 Jan 2013 7:48 PM
From: United States
Careful here
The ecologic damage might out weigh the benefit.
However we do need electricity and water for survival and progress.
This thing about redirecting the Yaque del Norte may back fired, and cause more damage than good.
that is exactly why i said that a cost benefit analysis is a must.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
In a country where everything is conducted by fiat, studies or anything sensible really don't matter. Many sure look at projects of this type as the proverbial "end of the rainbow" and the pot of money that lies in the ground. This is sort of the promised land to them and greed would be certain to prevail over reason, your fellow men or the environment.
MJEV.
From: United States, NJ
All am saying is there is no purpose of building a dam and leaving out the 2nd major reason and as important as irrigation and for aqueduct by adding turbines to propulse the generators which is to supply the needed electric sector at (fuel free) for life. So it serves as A-an aqueduct providing the via ducts for those 10 kilometers are build to carry it into a purification plant to make it into potable water to serve the vecinity as well as big cities.B- irrigation C- Electricity.This is all fine providing the mining does not contaminate the water with all those acids polutants.
Written by: Atabey, 25 Jan 2013 10:24 PM
From: United States, NYC
MÁS DATOS SOBRE EL PROYECTO MADRIGAL
EL ORIGEN: El proyecto Madrigal, desde 1955 ha venido siendo planteado como solución al problema de desabastecimiento de agua de la capital, así como de San Cristóbal, Haina y Villa Altagracia.
Se recuerda, además, que en 1970 se firmó un contrato entre el gobierno dominicano, representado por el INDRHI, y un consorcio de firmas dominico-norteamericanas, encabezado por Boyle Engineering Corporation, para la ejecución de un plan maestro producto del análisis de todas las alternativas existentes para el abastecimiento de agua a la capital.
Este estudio terminó recomendando la implementación del proyecto Madrigal, de manera que entrara en operación a más tardar en 1978. Además, recomendó la creación de un organismo o empresa para asumir la operación del sistema de agua de Santo Domingo."
"un plan maestro producto del análisis de todas las alternativas existentes para el abastecimiento de agua a la capital."
Just get on with it.
Written by: rokete, 25 Jan 2013 10:41 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo
Atabey
Goog info.
Thank you.
Get it on with Madrigal !!!!
But what about the other one in Manabao.
Any info on that??
From: Cuba, La Havana, Que Viva La Revolucion
Fock That,
Just build 1 Nuke and power up the whole "DAMED" Island
Caso Cerado
Written by: RoyStone, 26 Jan 2013 8:05 AM
From: Australia
The problem is not insufficient water and electricity, but too many people in a tiny, poor country.
From: Dominican Republic, calle A.Portes
Glad you have woken up to that one ...I have been preaching that for more than7 years,,,you only have tolook up the net population figures over the past decade , If only we could find something to put in the water to reduce the testosterone
From: United States
or, Ricardolito, we can institute the Chinese rule; 1 child per family
Written by: RonEvane , 26 Jan 2013 11:27 AM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
...Or, the govt can mandate that sex education be a required subject in schools, beginning in the six grade.
Also, make available free contraceptives, abortions in the first trimester, and heavily advertise the tragedy of bringing up a child without the proper resources.
It all comes down to a concerted effort by govt and society. Free information, free contraception.
Written by: earthy, 26 Jan 2013 2:14 PM
From: United States, New Jersey
Just want to thank everyone, for a very positive discussion on the topic at hand.I really ready all opinions and not getting turned off with stupi BS ..Thanks agian, this is why I come here to learn from all of you.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@ElBuscoon,
"""Fock That,
Just build 1 Nuke and power up the whole "DAMED" Island
Caso Cerado"""
You simply cannot be serious about this suggestion.
DR is a bonafide 3rd world country which cannot even adequately maintain much less sophisticated components of infrastructure, or even design and build its own bridges and roads network and dams, etc.
A nuclear power station is really more appropriate for more advance 1st world countries, from both the economic and technical development standpoints.
For DR, extracting power from natural or renewable rexources is clearly a more appropriate approach, given technological and economic realities, and not mention our unwillingness to pay our bills.
MJEV.
Written by: rokete, 26 Jan 2013 4:23 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo
Building a Nuclear plant will solve the problem of electricity.
What we can do is outsource management of the plant to foreign corporation, or get a foreign government cooperation.
But, that wont solve the water problem. We still need the Dams even if we Nuke for electricity.
I believe both the nuclear plant and the dams are called for in DR, in order to solve these problems.
At least for the next 30 years.
Lets get it done
From: United States
rokete, are you serious? do you have a map of the caribbean handy? look for Puerto Rico. see where it is , in relation to the DR? do you seriously think that the USA would sit idly by, and allow a nuclear plant in the DR? sometimes i wonder how some people think, or if they think.
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 5:16 PM
From: United States, NYC
Guess which entity had an experimental Nuclear power plant in the Caribbean in the 1960s?
Answer: Puerto Rico
The government of PR tried to get Balaguer interested but his people said no to the purchase.
If the world were just, the French would build a nuclear power plant in northern Haiti that would solve the issue for many years, on both sides of the island. The world is not just.
The EPR is a third generation pressurized water reactor (PWR) design. It has been designed and developed mainly by Framatome (now Areva NP), Electricité de France (EDF) in France, and Siemens AG in Germany. This reactor design was called in Europe European Pressurized Reactor, and the internationalized name of this reactor is Evolutionary Power Reactor, but is now simply named EPR by Areva.
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 5:24 PM
From: United States, NYC
The main design objectives of the generation III EPR design are increased safety while providing enhanced economic competitiveness through improvements to previous PWR designs scaled up to an electrical power output of around 1650 MWe (net) with thermal power 4500 MWt. The reactor can use 5% enriched uranium oxide fuel, reprocessed uranium fuel and 100% mixed uranium plutonium oxide fuel. The EPR is the evolutionary descendant of the Framatome N4 and Siemens Power Generation Division KONVOI reactors.
The EPR design has several active and passive protection measures against accidents:
Four independent emergency cooling systems, providing the required cooling of the decay heat that continues for 1 to 3 years after the reactor's initial shutdown (i.e. 300% redundancy)
Leaktight containment around the reactor
An extra container and cooling area if a molten core manages to escape the reactor (see containment building)
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 5:26 PM
From: United States, NYC
Two-layer concrete wall with total thickness 2.6 meters, designed to withstand impact by aeroplanes and internal overpressure
The EPR has a design maximum core damage frequency of 6.1 × 10-7 per plant per year.
The Union of Concerned Scientists referred to the EPR (in Dec 2007) as the only new reactor design under consideration in the United States that "...appears to have the potential to be significantly safer and more secure against attack than today's reactors."
"PWR designs scaled up to an electrical power output of around 1650 MWe (net) with thermal power 4500 MWt."
That's some serious energy source.
From: United States
says Atabey
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 5:16 PM
From: United States, NYC
Guess which entity had an experimental Nuclear power plant in the Caribbean in the 1960s?
Answer: Puerto Rico
yes, Atabey, but PR is not DR. if there was to be a nuclear accident in PR, american authorities would be the ones dealing with the fallout. they would bring the latest technology to bear on the containment. the USA was never going to allow so many of its people to be exposed to the effects of a Chernobyl style meltdown so close to its territory. never happen.
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 5:40 PM
From: United States, NYC
Year
1984
Donor
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)
Recipient
Dominican Republic
FLOW TYPE
a_ no value
FINANCING AGENCY
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
Commitment Loan / Grant Amount
Original: 150,000,000 USD
Current: 150,000,000 USD
Constant: 381,227,077.45 USD
Disbursement Amount
Total Project Cost
Long Description
The Bank in 1984 approved a $150 million loan from the inter-regional to help build the 100,000 kilowatt Manabo Bejucal Tevara hydroelectric power complex. The project includes the 20,000.kilowatt Manabo Bejucal plant on the upper leaches of the Yaque del Norte River some 40 kilometers south of Santiago de los Caballeros and the 80,000-kilowatt Bejucal-Tavera project downstream; some 13 kilometers of 138-kilovolt transmission line to Iink the Manabao-Bejucal-Tavera system to the national transmission network, and a load dispatch center.
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 5:41 PM
From: United States, NYC
Methinks the winds go from east to west in that part of the Caribbean Dready. So if anyone was to be impacted it would be Haiti and Jamaica, Cuba, and Central America.
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 5:44 PM
From: United States, NYC
Daily News - Monday, 26 Feb 2001
Balaguer opposes Manabao dam
Former President Joaquin Balaguer requested that President Hipolito Mejia suspend the construction of the Manabao-Tavera-Bejucal hydroelectric complex. The former President feels that the dam would affect the main water sources of the country. In a written communication to President Mejia, the influential politician urged that the dam construction be suspended until its execution is studied further and alternatives found. The Manabao dam complex would be built at the top of the Cordillera Central where the Yuna, Nizao and Yaque del Norte rivers are born. Balaguer feels this project would affect the natural resources of the province of La Vega. He endorsed the construction of the Guaigui Dam in La Vega. The government recently announced this dam.
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 5:59 PM
From: United States, NYC
Plan de expansión EGEHID 2006-2012
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Frsta.pucmm.edu.do%2Fbiblioteca%2Fbvds%2Fpdfs%2FEGEHID-Plan%2520de%2520Expansion%25202006-2012.pdf&ei=m0wEUaKDEu3p0QHXj4DgAg&usg=AFQjCNGSLR_Ec-gy9BO7b6uARJaRIe2mNQ&sig2=sBnuVUqimXeqfFzBZRs91A&bvm=bv.41524429,d.dmQ&cad=rja
Dominican Republic seeks supervision to rehabilitate four dams
Fri, 19 Oct 2012
The Dominican Republic 's hydraulic resources institute invites expressions of interest to supervise the rehabilitation of storm-damaged infrastructure …
and more info.
hydroworld.com/articles/2006/10/dominican-generator-plans-include-762-mw-of-hydro.html
go to the links and check out the information.
From: United States
says Atabey
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 5:41 PM
From: United States, NYC
Methinks the winds go from east to west in that part of the Caribbean Dready. So if anyone was to be impacted it would be Haiti and Jamaica, Cuba, and Central America.
sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Atabey, but in the spring months, the winds can shift from north east trades to south east trades in the blink of an eye. know what that means? you guessed it. the Gulf Coast.
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 7:45 PM
From: United States, NYC
Puerto rico would not then be under threat. And that was your contention.
From: United States
not so fast, my friend. i have no idea where they would put it, but there are too many possibilities, such as ocean currents. i can assure you that any idea of a nuclear plant here is out of the question.
Written by: RoyStone, 26 Jan 2013 9:11 PM
From: Australia
Seriously, nuclear is the cheapest, safest and environmentally-responsible form of electricity generation available today. The Chernobyl incident is no more relevant than the Hindenburg disaster is to air travel.
From: United States
that is what they said before Chernobyl. i know it is very safe, but crap can go wrong, and when it does with nuclear plants, it could go real bad. 2 things, Roy. 1..earthquake zone. 2..think Japan, and earthquake.
Written by: RonEvane , 27 Jan 2013 10:10 AM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
If the Fukushima disaster is any indication of the future of nuclear energy,where 573 people died as a result, the prospects of a plant being built here, are slim to none.
In July 2011, Prime minister Naoto Kan said that "Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on nuclear energy" ... Saying that the Fukushima accident had demonstrated the dangers of the technology.
Aside from the >Billion cost in construction, and the finite Uranium needed from other unstable nations (notably in Africa), the dangers inherent in the running and maintenance, are prohibitively expensive and beyond the scope of Dominican know-how and regulatory expertise.
I wouldn't give a child a loaded gun to play with. Please, lets not even think about allowing Dominicans to mess with nukes.!
From: United States
Ron, there is not one word i can add to that.
Written by: Atabey, 27 Jan 2013 1:21 PM
From: United States, NYC
If the world were just, the French and the Europeans would build and maintain a nuclear power plant in northern Haiti that would solve the issue for many years, on both sides of the island. The world is not just.
"PWR designs scaled up to an electrical power output of around 1650 MWe (net) with thermal power 4500 MWt."
That's some serious energy source.
The world is not just.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Ron,
Very good commentary.
I don't understand why us Dominicans cannot accept fact that we are a 3rd world country, with poor education and a government and disposition that is simply ill-conducive to 1st world status-at least in next 50 years. I also don't suppose that electing govt's such as that of LF, with its inflated sense of reality and importance relative to its logical positon in the world, helps, either.
We really need to tone down our ambitions to be commensurate with our ability to fund them and sustain them and grow them, We simply cannot espouse the aspirations of countries such as Singapore and similar, when we simply do not comprehend the concept of self-sufficency. We continue to stand wiith our hands extended out in perpetuity, pleading to benvolent countries for help-for everything that a good gov't should be able to fund from within. That must stop; budgets must be arrested and controlled, for growth and national mobility to materialize.
MJEV.
From: United States
Glomar, i am going to be really simplistic, silly even, by giving you this anecdote. last Sunday was the football playoff championships, in both leagues. i turn my tv on at 2. 50pm, for the 3pm game, and the screen is black, and there is a big band across the screen saying NO HAY SENAL. just think what the repercussions would have been in the USA, for example. in our case..no hay, no hay. that is the difference between a first world country, and a third world country. the second thing is that the cable provider in the USA would have given me 3 months free service in order to compensate me for such an event. here, that would not even cross the cable folks' mind.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
Dr. Dread,
Regrettably, the concept of customer service is not well-develop in Dr; in fact, it may be non-existent. This likely the result of a system that relies on the gov't to provide everything, instead of believing in empowerment and relegating the gov't to concentrate on: national; education; health; foreign relations and promotion of trade and tourism.
I opine that it is absolutely essential to reduce the size of gov't in DR, and to shift many initiatives to the private sector. I would also like to see increased accountability and transparency. Moreover, we have to stop all of those silly decrees and assume a more parliamentary-like functioning gov't.
The judicial & military systems must be completely overhauled and the rule of law must prevail. Certainly, the dual justice system in place, one the rich and one for the poor , just contributes to engender explosive resentment which may one day explode and force necessary redressing of grievances.
MJEV.
Written by: RoyStone, 27 Jan 2013 6:17 PM
From: Australia
"that is what they said before Chernobyl. "
No the didn't, Dready
I've been there (within 50 km)
The Chernobyl reactor was obsolete technology even then, known to be unsafe and overdue to be decommissioned. They did the opposite. Under pressure to meet increasing demand, they cranked it up way beyond its design capacity.
The lesson is not the danger of nuclear power per se, but the danger of a regime that is not accountable and where safety standards are fudged - just like in another country we are familiar with? (it begins with the letter "D").
Written by: RoyStone, 27 Jan 2013 6:24 PM
From: Australia
Secondly, the extent of the disaster has been grossly exaggerated, firstly by the anti-Soviet lobby, and later by the anti-nuclear lobby, which includes much of the left. Actual fatalities from the explosion were only a handful, and now 1/4 of a century later, total fatalities are less than 60. Most of the children with thyroid cancer were successfully treated and remain healthy. So far, more people have died falling off roofs installing solar panels.
Written by: RoyStone, 27 Jan 2013 6:39 PM
From: Australia
"Fukushima disaster is any indication of the future of nuclear energy, where 573 people died as a result"
Really?
"A few of the plant's workers were severely injured or killed by the disaster conditions (drowning, falling equipment damage etc.) resulting from the earthquake. There were no immediate deaths due to direct radiation exposures, but at least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged from none to 100."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
More people died in buses when the tsunami hit!
Written by: RoyStone, 27 Jan 2013 6:48 PM
From: Australia
To put into perspective and context, in 1975 the Banqiao and Shimantan hydro-electric dam failures, caused by Typhoon Nina, killed 171,000 people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimantan_Dam
From: United States
Roy, i know that you are very learned regarding these matters. but you yourself said this
The lesson is not the danger of nuclear power per se, but the danger of a regime that is not accountable and where safety standards are fudged - just like in another country we are familiar with? (it begins with the letter "D").
would you like to live in the DR with one of those near where you have your home and family?
From: United States, NJ
Dr dread ;
I used to be a firm believer on atomic energy for electric power handled by experts,but you pointed out the fact DR is not ready for it and I agree with you .Also the fact of been an earthquake zone plus the cost being prohibitive. No one mentioned the fussion waste,and how to get rid of.
MJEv
You have said it all am in full agreement with you.
Ron:
I like that anegdote "i wouldn't give a child a loaded gun to play with"
Roy:
You have a good point also,remeber DR is not developed as Australia is ,thanks to the British.
I some time wonder what happened to Puerto Rico been under such industrial might asUSA,and yet does not compare to Australia in its development .Is it the education or the will to learn?
Written by: RoyStone, 27 Jan 2013 10:07 PM
From: Australia
RonEvane notes
"the finite Uranium needed from other unstable nations (notably in Africa), "
The biggest producer of Uranium is Australia. Next are Canada and Russia - all stable, technologically advanced nations. Australia is also the most stable seismologicaly and has huge uninhabited areas (including where the Uranium deposits are) ideal for processing and waste confinement. To maintain control of weapons-upgradable materials, and to ensure safe disposal, the fuel rods should be "rented" not sold to other countries.
Written by: RoyStone, 27 Jan 2013 10:16 PM
From: Australia
dreadlocks,
asks
"would you like to live in the DR with one of those near where you have your home and family?"
Absolutely not.
The same would apply to any power-station, downstream of any dam, or near any high-rise building, built or operated by Duminicans.
Perhaps an American owned and operated nuclear power plant in Puerto Rico and a cable under the Mona Passage would be a viable option?
Written by: RonEvane , 27 Jan 2013 11:01 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
"The biggest producer of Uranium is Australia. Next are Canada and Russia"
Absolutely true. But they're not in the habit of exporting their Uranium anywhere but to select, read: "technologically advanced nations". IE, the US and Brazil. They, understandably, maintain strict control of where it is and where it goes! (weapons of mass destruction, anyone?).
If ever Dumbminicans are crazy enough to build this disaster waiting to happen, They would have to get their radioactives from countries such as Angola, Mozambique and/or Congo.
One other option, as Atabey suggested, is to have the French build us one of their monstrosities..... As long as the depleted rods and contaminated materials are buried in the Australian outback.!
Written by: simondc3, 28 Jan 2013 12:05 PM
From: United States
Ron / Atabey,
Beware of what you wish for.
Don't even suggest France building a nuke plant in DR.
#1) The way the uneconomic / unsustainable way of life is tanking across much of Europe, France'll be more than willing and in a hurry to send us a few hundreds of their engineers for a 10-20yr stay (until things brigthen up in Europe). And when the brightening up doesn't pan out then they'll be ready to send a few hundred of their political theorists and Keynesian economists for a chance at some good ol' re-colonizing if proven it'd give them a couple decades more of maintaining their now failing paradigm.
#2) Nuclear-based power plants for large national grid usage is in decline everywhere given that, besides being very resource intensive to build/maintain (resources now in very obvious decline everywhere), they require social cohesion at the regional level, not just local DR level, which obviously is coming undone and will not get any better in the future...
From: United States
brilliant, simondc3...just brilliant!
Written by: simondc3, 28 Jan 2013 12:17 PM
From: United States
...as Haiti now deals with its overpopulation and resource scarcity by pushing as many Haitians to the DR. The same population and resource scarcity will start plaguing the DR within a generation.
The USofA (and anyone with a couple of neurons to rub together) sees the implications of this as writing on the wall and will not, willy-nilly, allow a nuclear power plant to be built in soon to be politically and socially unstable countries so close to their shore. And Dominicans specially should be more aware their little island straddles a tectonic fault line, that however small compared to Japan, has and will cause widespread damage, as well that's on the natural path of most seasonal hurricanes that cause much more damage than earthquakes.
And the weak spot of any nuclear power plant? Diesel generators whose tanks are not refilled due to floodings, roads washed away, earthquake damage, price of diesel and scarcity thereof as industrial society downscales.
Written by: RonEvane , 28 Jan 2013 1:55 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
"Don't even suggest France building a nuke plant in DR."
Simon. I'm not pro building any such thing! Au contraire, I'd rather have alternatives to petroleum be given serious thought by the govt and private enterprise.
As you said: "Nuclear-based power plants for large national grid usage is in decline everywhere". And I totally agree. I suspect nations are slowly realizing the futility of dealing with this very dangerous technology and the humongous cost of building and maintaining one.
I think the trend for more R&D in the field of solar, wind and biotechnology, is what will save our species from extinction...As we will eventually realize, Nukes, Coal, and other fossil fuels are what has made our continued survival a very tenuous one, indeed!
I don't share your pessimism. As we become more technologically advanced, the dire problem of overpopulation and food scarcity, becomes easier to manage, and ultimately, solvable.
I don't worry about our future. I welcome it!
Written by: rokete, 28 Jan 2013 5:52 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo
Germany would be the best possible country for the construction of a nuke in DR, and Siemens the company.
However even the German's are steering away from Nuclear energy.
Germany and Spain are betting on new solar-thermal power inventions.
That would be ideal for DR, and it is cost effective too.
One such power is .
The PS10 Solar Power Plant in Spain..
From: United States, NJ
rokete:
Germany and Spain are betting on new solar-thermal power invention.
I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket,What happens when there is not sunny day? or wind? I
would invest heavily in hydroelctric power with multiple functions; electricity. irrigation, aqueducts.
The last 3 would serve for life as long as the upper rivers flows into the dam and no drought Wind
and sun power would be complementary as well as natural gas. But definitely I would stay away
from atomic energy #1- unstable in an earthquake country,#2-prohibit cost #3-waste removal and
#4- high maintanance cost and knowlege ,DR does not have.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
The problem with hydro-electric power is that the dams more or less kill the rivers, affecting flora nad fauna and many surrounding communities. Here in the USA, many dams are being taken down, for those reasons.
Solar power is coming to DR and in force, for better or worse. I am privy to information that I cannot disclose, but believe me that solar power will be all over DR and soon.
DR should really take advantage of everything its resources and geographic location have to offer and develop a comprehensive and sensible plan founded on those resourses, and reduce its dependance on foreign gas and oil. I could forsee expanded use of solar, wind and wave energy as part of the strategy, supplemented with as little as possible fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy, however, not in the next 100 years-if not the balance of the millenium. It is neither affordable or practical for a nation of our economical and technological means.
MJEV.
From: United States
Glomar, based upon the capital expenditure needed to set up a nuclear power plant, i would say it is unaffordable here. let us not even factor in the operating costs. it is not doable.
Written by: RoyStone, 28 Jan 2013 7:51 PM
From: Australia
Nuclear power is unpopular for the same reasons as Jesus and Allah are popular - stupidity and ignorance. The reality is, it is the safest, cheapest and environmentally responsible form of energy.
consider the following:
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Written by: RoyStone, 28 Jan 2013 8:01 PM
From: Australia
By far the greatest cost component in nuclear power is compliance costs. The safety standards are far higher than for other forms of power generation, despite the fact that even when Chernobyl is included (which it shouldn't) is still less lethal.
Also it does not produce CO2 like coal. gas an oil, require flooding of huge areas (often forested mountainous areas) like hydro, use of agricultural land (otherwise used to grow food) like bio-fuel, is not effected by climate (or suffer the huge environmental footprint) as does solar and wind generation.
From: United States, NJ
Roy:
No doubt about your figures but look at the cost to build them as well as operating them and waste removal. The one in LI was build at a cost of US$5blns in 1990 and had a leak,almost had to close it down. They should not build such a monster near high populated areas.
Written by: RoyStone, 28 Jan 2013 8:13 PM
From: Australia
Agreed, Thelmo,
No power station, nuclear or thermal, should be built in a heavily-populated area. Likewise airports petrochemical plants, churches and mosques.
From: United States, NJ
Roy :
That was a good one ,How could Churches,Mosques,Synagogs affect heavily -populated area.?
I can see petrochemical plants as we have in NJ as well as the International air port right next to it
Written by: RonEvane , 28 Jan 2013 9:29 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Roy, while it’s true that nukes don’t inject CO2 into our atmosphere, in other ways, it pollutes big time!
One of the biggest headaches that add to the humongous cost of a plant is the unsolved dilemma of what to do with the radioactive wastes. This is a challenge that, as of yet, hasn’t found a simple solution.
People have resolved to bury it for the next thousand years in lead and concrete vessels inside a mountain, hoping it’s geologically stable and that containers won't leak.
When it’s all said and done, the real costs of such a lunacy are more than we could possibly calculate and a legacy of our stupidity that I wouldn’t want to leave my children to distress and agonize about.
FISSION is a failed technology. ..FUSION, however, is the great expectation of Humankind. One that’ll provide us with unlimited energy and solve ALL our worldly struggles… Just wait and see!
Written by: rokete, 28 Jan 2013 9:32 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo
Deport all those illegals, and AIDS infected, Haitians from Quisqueya !!!
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Roy,
Why is it that those who have the technology such as japan and Germany are desisting from it, while you continue to promote it incessantly? What matters even more here is the fact that both of those 1st world countries are both technological and economic powerhouses, meaning they have the capacity to design them, build them and maintain them. More importantly, both lack fossil fuel reserves of any kind, at least not in significant amounts, which would make nuclear energy even more attractive to them.
I am afraid I will have to side with proven wisdom on this one and accept fact that the obituary for nuclear energy has already been written. Personally, I lived through the Three Mile Island incident and wouldn't wish to go through that again, although my immediate area wasn't under imminent danger. Presently, I live 3.5 miles from the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, and can see the blue sirens from my house-much too close for comfort!
MJEV.
Written by: Atabey, 28 Jan 2013 11:13 PM
From: United States, NYC
The main design objectives of the generation III EPR design are increased safety while providing enhanced economic competitiveness through improvements to previous PWR designs scaled up to an electrical power output of around 1650 MWe (net) with thermal power 4500 MWt. The reactor can use 5% enriched uranium oxide fuel, reprocessed uranium fuel and 100% mixed uranium plutonium oxide fuel. The EPR is the evolutionary descendant of the Framatome N4 and Siemens Power Generation Division KONVOI reactors.
The EPR design has several active and passive protection measures against accidents:
Four independent emergency cooling systems, providing the required cooling of the decay heat that continues for 1 to 3 years after the reactor's initial shutdown (i.e. 300% redundancy)
Leaktight containment around the reactor
An extra container and cooling area if a molten core manages to escape the reactor (see containment building)
Roy,
You can't beat Nuclear
Written by: Atabey, 28 Jan 2013 11:16 PM
From: United States, NYC
And who ever said Dominicans and/or Haitians would have any real operational/management power IF THIS EVER HAPPENED?
I say it's a million to one shot that any Nuclear option ever gets built on the island. But if the world were just, this is how it would happen.
"PWR designs scaled up to an electrical power output of around 1650 MWe (net) with thermal power 4500 MWt. The reactor can use 5% enriched uranium oxide fuel, reprocessed uranium fuel and 100% mixed uranium plutonium oxide fuel."
That's some serious power output!
BUT,
The world is not just.
:)
Written by: rokete, 28 Jan 2013 11:30 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo
Atabey
Nuclear Energy would surely solve the electricity shortage in DR,
but after Fukushima's accident, it show's not to be the way to go.
We have tectonic faults, that in the even of a earthquake, can endanger us all with Nuclear Energy plants.
Written by: rokete, 28 Jan 2013 11:37 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo
I do agree that Nuclear energy, it is the only permanent solution to the electricity problem in DR.
Written by: RoyStone, 29 Jan 2013 12:10 AM
From: Australia
glomarexplorer,
asks
"Why is it that those who have the technology such as japan and Germany are desisting from it, ...?"
Good question.
In democracies, the most practical or logical does not always prevail. The arguments in favor of nuclear power are probably strongest for Australia, yet neither the government nor the opposition have the courage to promote it. Most humans are not driven by logic. If they were there would be no religions based on belief in an invisible, all-powerful man in the sky, or in life after death, and there would be no wars.
Written by: Atabey, 29 Jan 2013 12:18 AM
From: United States, NYC
Roy,
The French are known for their Nuclear expertise, too. And they haven't said Non to Nuclear energy.
"Light Water Reactors (power reactors moderated and cooled by water)
EPR
Areva NP (formerly Framatome ANP) has developed a large (4590 MWt, typically 1750 MWe gross and 1630 MWe net) European pressurised water reactor (EPR), which was confirmed in mid 1995 as the new standard design for France and received French design approval in 2004. It is a 4-loop design derived from the German Konvoi types with features from the French N4, and is expected to provide power about 10% cheaper than the N4. It will operate flexibly to follow loads, have fuel burn-up of 65 GWd/t and a high thermal efficiency, of 37%, and net efficiency of 36%. It is capable of using a full core load of MOX. Availability is expected to be 92% over a 60-year service life.
It has double containment with four separate, redundant active safety systems, and boasts a core catcher under the pressure
Written by: Atabey, 29 Jan 2013 12:20 AM
From: United States, NYC
It has double containment with four separate, redundant active safety systems, boasts a core catcher under the pressure vessel. The safety systems are physically separated through four ancillary buildings on the same concrete raft, two of them are aircraft crash protected. The primary diesel generators have fuel for 72 hours, the secondary back-up ones for 24 hours, and tertiary battery back-up lasts 12 hours. It is designed to withstand seismic ground acceleration of 600 Gal without safety impairment.
The first EPR unit is being built at Olkiluoto in Finland, the second at Flamanville in France, the third European one will be at Penly in France, and two further units are under construction at Taishan in China.
A US version, the US-EPR quoted as 1710 MWe gross and about 1580 MWe net, was submitted for US design certification in December 2007, and this is expected to be granted in mid 2014. The first unit (with 80% US content) was expected to be grid connected by 2020."
Written by: RoyStone, 29 Jan 2013 12:23 AM
From: Australia
Correct, Atabey,
The French have the most nuclear power plants, the cheapest electricity in Europe, and have not had one single fatality. Germany has the most wind turbines, the most expensive electricity, and expect the cost to rise exponentially.
Written by: RonEvane , 29 Jan 2013 2:28 AM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Atabey, you're giving us these fancy shmancy tech spiel, which I doubt even you can understand.
I have only ONE question for you, and given your apparent sabby on nukes...tell me:..
... How would you dispose of all the depleted rods and radioactive waste from your state-of-the-arts nuke plant?
Please, enlighten me in words that I can understand. Simple English will do.
Written by: RonEvane , 29 Jan 2013 2:38 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
It has been 12 hours and I haven't heard from you. You still thinking about it?
Does anyone else have an answer?..How about you, Roy?
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Roy et al,
This one is for you:
""TOKYO, Jan. 29 (Kyodo) — The Japanese government earmarked Tuesday 156.4 billion yen ($1.7 billion USD) for the industry ministry to accelerate efforts to scrap the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's stricken reactors and support companies seeking to export nuclear technologies in the initial draft budget for the next fiscal year."""
Source: Product Design & Development Magazine's Design Daily publication (29Jan13). DT wouldn't allow me to paste link!
There goes all of the projected savings over the life of this plant. Wonder where economic powerhouse DR would get that kind of money to build and decommission a nuclear power station. I do suppose that, all things considered, the benefit/cost equation for such and undertaking in DR would be upside-down.
MJEV.
Written by: RoyStone, 29 Jan 2013 7:13 PM
From: Australia
glomarexplorer,
I would not trust Duminicans to safely dispose of nuclear waste - they would just dump it into the rivers like they do everything else.
Written by: RoyStone, 29 Jan 2013 7:22 PM
From: Australia
RonEvane, maybe this will help?
Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product.
Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes.
Safe methods for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste are technically proven; the international consensus is that this should be geological disposal.
Written by: Atabey, 29 Jan 2013 7:24 PM
From: United States, NYC
Ron,
Sorry for the lateness, been busy and hadn't paid attention to this thread. So how would the rods and other materials be stored passed their usefulness? The USA has facilities, Yuca mountain, I believe, but others that could store these "hot" materials.
Now remember, I've stated that it's a million to one chance that this nuclear energy option would ever happen in Hispaniola. Perhaps, 100 million to one. :)
Written by: RoyStone, 29 Jan 2013 7:25 PM
From: Australia
For those interested in the facts and the science behind nuclear power (the vast minority) I strongly recommend reading:
world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
From: Dominican Republic, Dominican Republic
Two points:
1. The problem of power in the DR is not a lack of generating capacity. It is the dysfunctional system for administering the system.
No technology will solve the problem until the country can eliminate the widespread theft of electricity, eliminate the wasteful number of unnecessary political patronage jobs and contracts and end the huge government subsidies provided to keep the system from completely imploding.
Once those tasks are accomplished it will be possible to have a sustainable electric system that can build, maintain and pay for whatever power generating facilities are needed to meet the demand for reliable power.
2. As to what power sources should be considered, why mess around with nuclear when solar and wind and hydro are such natural -- and safe -- choices for a mountainous tropical island in the path of consistent tradewinds.
Written by: RoyStone, 29 Jan 2013 9:05 PM
From: Australia
Carpintero,
Point 1 - absolutely correct,
Point 2 - solar, wind and hydro power generation is neither natural nor safe. All have environmental impacts and much higher fatality rates than nuclear. Sure, sunlight, wind and rain occur naturally, as does coal, oil and uranium in the ground. It is the harnessing of energy that is problematic.
Written by: Atabey, 29 Jan 2013 9:09 PM
From: United States, NYC
Carpintero,
I agree with 1.
As for 2, DR will probably have to build its portfolio around those energy components as the Nuclear option will likely never happen. But that's not to say that this nuclear option would "solve" the issue for a good 60 years or so.
:)
From: United States
says RonEvane
Atabey, you're giving us these fancy shmancy tech spiel, which I doubt even you can understand.
I have only ONE question for you, and given your apparent sabby on nukes...tell me:..
his savvy on nukes? you really believes he knows anything about nukes. he understands two things, and two things only
1...Google
2...Copy and paste.
Written by: rokete, 29 Jan 2013 10:46 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo
Yes Atabey make your comments shorter and to the point
That's going to benefit us and you.
I am frying some tostones and don't want to read all of that.
No offence buddy
Written by: RonEvane , 29 Jan 2013 11:02 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
"For those interested in the facts and the science behind nuclear power (the vast minority)."
The "vast minority"? Is there a vast minority on anything? Shouldn't that read: the "vast majority"?
OK, whatever... Mr. Roy, clearly you're a die-hard proponent of nuclear insanity. You are telling us, ( and some of us have been to school, I'll have you know), that "Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes."
Right,!.. Tell us of any other "industrial wastes" that lasts thousands of years before it degrades into substances safe enough for humans to co-exist with and not be harmed by..OK? Go ahead.
Written by: RoyStone, 29 Jan 2013 11:16 PM
From: Australia
Ron,
was making the point that most people (dare I say including you) are not interested in the scientific realities of nuclear power generation. Did you read the article? If you dispute any on the points it makes, the onus is on you to prove otherwise with reliable sources.
I have some very high grade uranium ore (rich in U3O8) in my mineral collection. I am human and have co-existed with it for many years, and I still do not glow in the dark. I would feel safer living next to a proper nuclear-waste facility than anywhere in the Duminican Republic.
Written by: Atabey, 29 Jan 2013 11:36 PM
From: United States, NYC
"Light Water Reactors (power reactors moderated and cooled by water)
EPR
Areva NP (formerly Framatome ANP) has developed a large (4590 MWt, typically 1750 MWe gross and 1630 MWe net) European pressurised water reactor (EPR)"
"4590 MWt " Nuclear plant.==>37% of total DR electrical consumption (CIA) in 2008
Think that power might come in handy? How much does Haiti currently produce?
For Haiti 309,000 2010==> 14 times!
Of course you have the massive investment to consider. But as I've stated above, the World IS NOT JUST.
How's that for short.
Written by: RonEvane , 30 Jan 2013 12:03 AM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
"Did you read the article?"
No, I did not. But I will tomorrow. You'll have my rebuttal, then.... Or, I may totally agree with you, who knows!................................................................................................................................ Yeah, right!
Written by: RonEvane , 30 Jan 2013 12:05 AM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
"How's that for short. "
Not short enough!
Written by: RonEvane , 30 Jan 2013 6:09 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
"A pending question is whether wastes should be emplaced so that they are readily retrievable from repositories. There are sound reasons for keeping such options open – in particular, it is possible that future generations might consider the buried waste to be a valuable resource. On the other hand, permanent closure might increase long-term security of the facility. After being buried for about 1,000 years most of the radioactivity will have decayed. The amount of radioactivity then remaining would be similar to that of the naturally-occurring uranium ore from which it originated, though it would be more concentrated."
One thousand years, Mr. Roy? Need we discuss this further?...
Written by: rokete, 30 Jan 2013 6:35 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo
Atabey
Kudos to you Atabey it's an improvement.
Keep up the good work, and remember.
EXPEL THOSE ILLEGALS HAITIANS FROM QUISQUEYA !!!!!
Written by: RoyStone, 30 Jan 2013 6:45 PM
From: Australia
"One thousand years, Mr. Roy? Need we discuss this further?..."
Your point is?
What is the decay rate of, for example, Mercury?
That's right - it doesn't decay - it lasts forever. Not only that, unlike Uranium, it becomes more concentrated as it moves up the food chain. So are you calling for a total ban on the use of Mercury?
Written by: RonEvane , 30 Jan 2013 7:32 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
"So are you calling for a total ban on the use of Mercury?"
That's right, Mr. Roy! Other than thermometers, you tell me what it could possibly be good for?
How essential is it to the continued survival and prosperity of humankind?
Last I heard, it's a poison that must be contained or it'll kill and maim...Same as Nukes!
We need Mercury and Nukes like we need a pesky Dumbminican poster in DT!!...Eh?
Written by: RoyStone, 30 Jan 2013 8:15 PM
From: Australia
Ron,
You don't have any "silver" fillings?
Mercury amalgam fillings have been, and continue to be of enormous benefit to millions of people around the world. Perhaps you are part of the lunatic fringe calling for them to be banned too?
Written by: RonEvane , 31 Jan 2013 12:57 PM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland
"Perhaps you are part of the lunatic fringe calling for them to be banned too?"
Absolutely, Roy! .. What do you think made me a lunatic, in the first place. Eh?
It's a well-known fact that Mercury, in any form, can make you loco in the head.!
Had it not been for it, I would have carried through with my GRAND PLAN, and succeeded in saving the world. !
Today, I'll have to settle for just saving the DR.... Pity!
Written by: RoyStone, 31 Jan 2013 5:36 PM
From: Australia
Dam those fillings, Ron!
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Ron,
"""It's a well-known fact that Mercury, in any form, can make you loco in the head.!"""
I've witnessed ample daily proof of that fact almost daily-right here in this forum! In fact, a quick read of commentaries in this thread would definitely corroborate that notion.
MJEV.
Smaller
Bigger
Close Gallery
Facebook
Digg this
del.icio.us
Technorati
Yahoo
This is beauty vs. beast project. Good for agriculture and electricity, but bad for the environment and its beauty. Tough call.
@Dr. Dread,
I read your commentary above on the $7M tag for the study, which I would presume pertains to an environmental impact study. I've gone back over the story several times and cannot find any mention of it. Where did you find it? Was it from another source?
MJEV.
For the studies on the project "Expanding Haina River’s Water Collection" which would solve Greater Santo Domingo’s water supply problem for the next 20 years, the government allocated RD$300 million in the 2013 budget.
Cacique, I like your environmental bent.
"Water is the driving force of all nature."
---Leonardo Davinci--
True enough, Mr. Thelmo. My only tiff with dams is the resulting permanent flooding of land which will destroy habitat of certain flora/fauna that can potentially be rare and vital to the ecological health of the site in question.
We need to consider the damage/benefit ratio and go from there. .. Of course, in DR no one gives a damn about species or any other critters that may be endemic only to this particular ecological niche...Tragic.!
I was refering to the post building of the dam,since it would be build any way and the same effect
it would have with generating plant as if it did not have it.
Thank you Danilo for seeing it my way.
The ecologic damage might out weigh the benefit.
However we do need electricity and water for survival and progress.
This thing about redirecting the Yaque del Norte may back fired, and cause more damage than good.
Written by: rokete, 25 Jan 2013 7:48 PM
From: United States
Careful here
The ecologic damage might out weigh the benefit.
However we do need electricity and water for survival and progress.
This thing about redirecting the Yaque del Norte may back fired, and cause more damage than good.
that is exactly why i said that a cost benefit analysis is a must.
In a country where everything is conducted by fiat, studies or anything sensible really don't matter. Many sure look at projects of this type as the proverbial "end of the rainbow" and the pot of money that lies in the ground. This is sort of the promised land to them and greed would be certain to prevail over reason, your fellow men or the environment.
MJEV.
EL ORIGEN: El proyecto Madrigal, desde 1955 ha venido siendo planteado como solución al problema de desabastecimiento de agua de la capital, así como de San Cristóbal, Haina y Villa Altagracia.
Se recuerda, además, que en 1970 se firmó un contrato entre el gobierno dominicano, representado por el INDRHI, y un consorcio de firmas dominico-norteamericanas, encabezado por Boyle Engineering Corporation, para la ejecución de un plan maestro producto del análisis de todas las alternativas existentes para el abastecimiento de agua a la capital.
Este estudio terminó recomendando la implementación del proyecto Madrigal, de manera que entrara en operación a más tardar en 1978. Además, recomendó la creación de un organismo o empresa para asumir la operación del sistema de agua de Santo Domingo."
"un plan maestro producto del análisis de todas las alternativas existentes para el abastecimiento de agua a la capital."
Just get on with it.
Goog info.
Thank you.
Get it on with Madrigal !!!!
But what about the other one in Manabao.
Any info on that??
Fock That,
Just build 1 Nuke and power up the whole "DAMED" Island
Caso Cerado
...Or, the govt can mandate that sex education be a required subject in schools, beginning in the six grade.
Also, make available free contraceptives, abortions in the first trimester, and heavily advertise the tragedy of bringing up a child without the proper resources.
It all comes down to a concerted effort by govt and society. Free information, free contraception.
@ElBuscoon,
"""Fock That,
Just build 1 Nuke and power up the whole "DAMED" Island
Caso Cerado"""
You simply cannot be serious about this suggestion.
DR is a bonafide 3rd world country which cannot even adequately maintain much less sophisticated components of infrastructure, or even design and build its own bridges and roads network and dams, etc.
A nuclear power station is really more appropriate for more advance 1st world countries, from both the economic and technical development standpoints.
For DR, extracting power from natural or renewable rexources is clearly a more appropriate approach, given technological and economic realities, and not mention our unwillingness to pay our bills.
MJEV.
What we can do is outsource management of the plant to foreign corporation, or get a foreign government cooperation.
But, that wont solve the water problem. We still need the Dams even if we Nuke for electricity.
I believe both the nuclear plant and the dams are called for in DR, in order to solve these problems.
At least for the next 30 years.
Lets get it done
Answer: Puerto Rico
The government of PR tried to get Balaguer interested but his people said no to the purchase.
If the world were just, the French would build a nuclear power plant in northern Haiti that would solve the issue for many years, on both sides of the island. The world is not just.
The EPR is a third generation pressurized water reactor (PWR) design. It has been designed and developed mainly by Framatome (now Areva NP), Electricité de France (EDF) in France, and Siemens AG in Germany. This reactor design was called in Europe European Pressurized Reactor, and the internationalized name of this reactor is Evolutionary Power Reactor, but is now simply named EPR by Areva.
The EPR design has several active and passive protection measures against accidents:
Four independent emergency cooling systems, providing the required cooling of the decay heat that continues for 1 to 3 years after the reactor's initial shutdown (i.e. 300% redundancy)
Leaktight containment around the reactor
An extra container and cooling area if a molten core manages to escape the reactor (see containment building)
Two-layer concrete wall with total thickness 2.6 meters, designed to withstand impact by aeroplanes and internal overpressure
The EPR has a design maximum core damage frequency of 6.1 × 10-7 per plant per year.
The Union of Concerned Scientists referred to the EPR (in Dec 2007) as the only new reactor design under consideration in the United States that "...appears to have the potential to be significantly safer and more secure against attack than today's reactors."
"PWR designs scaled up to an electrical power output of around 1650 MWe (net) with thermal power 4500 MWt."
That's some serious energy source.
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 5:16 PM
From: United States, NYC
Guess which entity had an experimental Nuclear power plant in the Caribbean in the 1960s?
Answer: Puerto Rico
yes, Atabey, but PR is not DR. if there was to be a nuclear accident in PR, american authorities would be the ones dealing with the fallout. they would bring the latest technology to bear on the containment. the USA was never going to allow so many of its people to be exposed to the effects of a Chernobyl style meltdown so close to its territory. never happen.
1984
Donor
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)
Recipient
Dominican Republic
FLOW TYPE
a_ no value
FINANCING AGENCY
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
Commitment Loan / Grant Amount
Original: 150,000,000 USD
Current: 150,000,000 USD
Constant: 381,227,077.45 USD
Disbursement Amount
Total Project Cost
Long Description
The Bank in 1984 approved a $150 million loan from the inter-regional to help build the 100,000 kilowatt Manabo Bejucal Tevara hydroelectric power complex. The project includes the 20,000.kilowatt Manabo Bejucal plant on the upper leaches of the Yaque del Norte River some 40 kilometers south of Santiago de los Caballeros and the 80,000-kilowatt Bejucal-Tavera project downstream; some 13 kilometers of 138-kilovolt transmission line to Iink the Manabao-Bejucal-Tavera system to the national transmission network, and a load dispatch center.
Methinks the winds go from east to west in that part of the Caribbean Dready. So if anyone was to be impacted it would be Haiti and Jamaica, Cuba, and Central America.
Daily News - Monday, 26 Feb 2001
Balaguer opposes Manabao dam
Former President Joaquin Balaguer requested that President Hipolito Mejia suspend the construction of the Manabao-Tavera-Bejucal hydroelectric complex. The former President feels that the dam would affect the main water sources of the country. In a written communication to President Mejia, the influential politician urged that the dam construction be suspended until its execution is studied further and alternatives found. The Manabao dam complex would be built at the top of the Cordillera Central where the Yuna, Nizao and Yaque del Norte rivers are born. Balaguer feels this project would affect the natural resources of the province of La Vega. He endorsed the construction of the Guaigui Dam in La Vega. The government recently announced this dam.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Frsta.pucmm.edu.do%2Fbiblioteca%2Fbvds%2Fpdfs%2FEGEHID-Plan%2520de%2520Expansion%25202006-2012.pdf&ei=m0wEUaKDEu3p0QHXj4DgAg&usg=AFQjCNGSLR_Ec-gy9BO7b6uARJaRIe2mNQ&sig2=sBnuVUqimXeqfFzBZRs91A&bvm=bv.41524429,d.dmQ&cad=rja
Dominican Republic seeks supervision to rehabilitate four dams
Fri, 19 Oct 2012
The Dominican Republic 's hydraulic resources institute invites expressions of interest to supervise the rehabilitation of storm-damaged infrastructure …
and more info.
hydroworld.com/articles/2006/10/dominican-generator-plans-include-762-mw-of-hydro.html
go to the links and check out the information.
Written by: Atabey, 26 Jan 2013 5:41 PM
From: United States, NYC
Methinks the winds go from east to west in that part of the Caribbean Dready. So if anyone was to be impacted it would be Haiti and Jamaica, Cuba, and Central America.
sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Atabey, but in the spring months, the winds can shift from north east trades to south east trades in the blink of an eye. know what that means? you guessed it. the Gulf Coast.
If the Fukushima disaster is any indication of the future of nuclear energy,where 573 people died as a result, the prospects of a plant being built here, are slim to none.
In July 2011, Prime minister Naoto Kan said that "Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on nuclear energy" ... Saying that the Fukushima accident had demonstrated the dangers of the technology.
Aside from the >Billion cost in construction, and the finite Uranium needed from other unstable nations (notably in Africa), the dangers inherent in the running and maintenance, are prohibitively expensive and beyond the scope of Dominican know-how and regulatory expertise.
I wouldn't give a child a loaded gun to play with. Please, lets not even think about allowing Dominicans to mess with nukes.!
If the world were just, the French and the Europeans would build and maintain a nuclear power plant in northern Haiti that would solve the issue for many years, on both sides of the island. The world is not just.
"PWR designs scaled up to an electrical power output of around 1650 MWe (net) with thermal power 4500 MWt."
That's some serious energy source.
The world is not just.
@Ron,
Very good commentary.
I don't understand why us Dominicans cannot accept fact that we are a 3rd world country, with poor education and a government and disposition that is simply ill-conducive to 1st world status-at least in next 50 years. I also don't suppose that electing govt's such as that of LF, with its inflated sense of reality and importance relative to its logical positon in the world, helps, either.
We really need to tone down our ambitions to be commensurate with our ability to fund them and sustain them and grow them, We simply cannot espouse the aspirations of countries such as Singapore and similar, when we simply do not comprehend the concept of self-sufficency. We continue to stand wiith our hands extended out in perpetuity, pleading to benvolent countries for help-for everything that a good gov't should be able to fund from within. That must stop; budgets must be arrested and controlled, for growth and national mobility to materialize.
MJEV.
Dr. Dread,
Regrettably, the concept of customer service is not well-develop in Dr; in fact, it may be non-existent. This likely the result of a system that relies on the gov't to provide everything, instead of believing in empowerment and relegating the gov't to concentrate on: national; education; health; foreign relations and promotion of trade and tourism.
I opine that it is absolutely essential to reduce the size of gov't in DR, and to shift many initiatives to the private sector. I would also like to see increased accountability and transparency. Moreover, we have to stop all of those silly decrees and assume a more parliamentary-like functioning gov't.
The judicial & military systems must be completely overhauled and the rule of law must prevail. Certainly, the dual justice system in place, one the rich and one for the poor , just contributes to engender explosive resentment which may one day explode and force necessary redressing of grievances.
MJEV.
No the didn't, Dready
I've been there (within 50 km)
The Chernobyl reactor was obsolete technology even then, known to be unsafe and overdue to be decommissioned. They did the opposite. Under pressure to meet increasing demand, they cranked it up way beyond its design capacity.
The lesson is not the danger of nuclear power per se, but the danger of a regime that is not accountable and where safety standards are fudged - just like in another country we are familiar with? (it begins with the letter "D").
Really?
"A few of the plant's workers were severely injured or killed by the disaster conditions (drowning, falling equipment damage etc.) resulting from the earthquake. There were no immediate deaths due to direct radiation exposures, but at least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged from none to 100."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
More people died in buses when the tsunami hit!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimantan_Dam
The lesson is not the danger of nuclear power per se, but the danger of a regime that is not accountable and where safety standards are fudged - just like in another country we are familiar with? (it begins with the letter "D").
would you like to live in the DR with one of those near where you have your home and family?
I used to be a firm believer on atomic energy for electric power handled by experts,but you pointed out the fact DR is not ready for it and I agree with you .Also the fact of been an earthquake zone plus the cost being prohibitive. No one mentioned the fussion waste,and how to get rid of.
MJEv
You have said it all am in full agreement with you.
Ron:
I like that anegdote "i wouldn't give a child a loaded gun to play with"
Roy:
You have a good point also,remeber DR is not developed as Australia is ,thanks to the British.
I some time wonder what happened to Puerto Rico been under such industrial might asUSA,and yet does not compare to Australia in its development .Is it the education or the will to learn?
"the finite Uranium needed from other unstable nations (notably in Africa), "
The biggest producer of Uranium is Australia. Next are Canada and Russia - all stable, technologically advanced nations. Australia is also the most stable seismologicaly and has huge uninhabited areas (including where the Uranium deposits are) ideal for processing and waste confinement. To maintain control of weapons-upgradable materials, and to ensure safe disposal, the fuel rods should be "rented" not sold to other countries.
asks
"would you like to live in the DR with one of those near where you have your home and family?"
Absolutely not.
The same would apply to any power-station, downstream of any dam, or near any high-rise building, built or operated by Duminicans.
Perhaps an American owned and operated nuclear power plant in Puerto Rico and a cable under the Mona Passage would be a viable option?
"The biggest producer of Uranium is Australia. Next are Canada and Russia"
Absolutely true. But they're not in the habit of exporting their Uranium anywhere but to select, read: "technologically advanced nations". IE, the US and Brazil. They, understandably, maintain strict control of where it is and where it goes! (weapons of mass destruction, anyone?).
If ever Dumbminicans are crazy enough to build this disaster waiting to happen, They would have to get their radioactives from countries such as Angola, Mozambique and/or Congo.
One other option, as Atabey suggested, is to have the French build us one of their monstrosities..... As long as the depleted rods and contaminated materials are buried in the Australian outback.!
Beware of what you wish for.
Don't even suggest France building a nuke plant in DR.
#1) The way the uneconomic / unsustainable way of life is tanking across much of Europe, France'll be more than willing and in a hurry to send us a few hundreds of their engineers for a 10-20yr stay (until things brigthen up in Europe). And when the brightening up doesn't pan out then they'll be ready to send a few hundred of their political theorists and Keynesian economists for a chance at some good ol' re-colonizing if proven it'd give them a couple decades more of maintaining their now failing paradigm.
#2) Nuclear-based power plants for large national grid usage is in decline everywhere given that, besides being very resource intensive to build/maintain (resources now in very obvious decline everywhere), they require social cohesion at the regional level, not just local DR level, which obviously is coming undone and will not get any better in the future...
The USofA (and anyone with a couple of neurons to rub together) sees the implications of this as writing on the wall and will not, willy-nilly, allow a nuclear power plant to be built in soon to be politically and socially unstable countries so close to their shore. And Dominicans specially should be more aware their little island straddles a tectonic fault line, that however small compared to Japan, has and will cause widespread damage, as well that's on the natural path of most seasonal hurricanes that cause much more damage than earthquakes.
And the weak spot of any nuclear power plant? Diesel generators whose tanks are not refilled due to floodings, roads washed away, earthquake damage, price of diesel and scarcity thereof as industrial society downscales.
"Don't even suggest France building a nuke plant in DR."
Simon. I'm not pro building any such thing! Au contraire, I'd rather have alternatives to petroleum be given serious thought by the govt and private enterprise.
As you said: "Nuclear-based power plants for large national grid usage is in decline everywhere". And I totally agree. I suspect nations are slowly realizing the futility of dealing with this very dangerous technology and the humongous cost of building and maintaining one.
I think the trend for more R&D in the field of solar, wind and biotechnology, is what will save our species from extinction...As we will eventually realize, Nukes, Coal, and other fossil fuels are what has made our continued survival a very tenuous one, indeed!
I don't share your pessimism. As we become more technologically advanced, the dire problem of overpopulation and food scarcity, becomes easier to manage, and ultimately, solvable.
I don't worry about our future. I welcome it!
However even the German's are steering away from Nuclear energy.
Germany and Spain are betting on new solar-thermal power inventions.
That would be ideal for DR, and it is cost effective too.
One such power is .
The PS10 Solar Power Plant in Spain..
Germany and Spain are betting on new solar-thermal power invention.
I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket,What happens when there is not sunny day? or wind? I
would invest heavily in hydroelctric power with multiple functions; electricity. irrigation, aqueducts.
The last 3 would serve for life as long as the upper rivers flows into the dam and no drought Wind
and sun power would be complementary as well as natural gas. But definitely I would stay away
from atomic energy #1- unstable in an earthquake country,#2-prohibit cost #3-waste removal and
#4- high maintanance cost and knowlege ,DR does not have.
The problem with hydro-electric power is that the dams more or less kill the rivers, affecting flora nad fauna and many surrounding communities. Here in the USA, many dams are being taken down, for those reasons.
Solar power is coming to DR and in force, for better or worse. I am privy to information that I cannot disclose, but believe me that solar power will be all over DR and soon.
DR should really take advantage of everything its resources and geographic location have to offer and develop a comprehensive and sensible plan founded on those resourses, and reduce its dependance on foreign gas and oil. I could forsee expanded use of solar, wind and wave energy as part of the strategy, supplemented with as little as possible fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy, however, not in the next 100 years-if not the balance of the millenium. It is neither affordable or practical for a nation of our economical and technological means.
MJEV.
consider the following:
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Also it does not produce CO2 like coal. gas an oil, require flooding of huge areas (often forested mountainous areas) like hydro, use of agricultural land (otherwise used to grow food) like bio-fuel, is not effected by climate (or suffer the huge environmental footprint) as does solar and wind generation.
No doubt about your figures but look at the cost to build them as well as operating them and waste removal. The one in LI was build at a cost of US$5blns in 1990 and had a leak,almost had to close it down. They should not build such a monster near high populated areas.
No power station, nuclear or thermal, should be built in a heavily-populated area. Likewise airports petrochemical plants, churches and mosques.
That was a good one ,How could Churches,Mosques,Synagogs affect heavily -populated area.?
I can see petrochemical plants as we have in NJ as well as the International air port right next to it
Roy, while it’s true that nukes don’t inject CO2 into our atmosphere, in other ways, it pollutes big time!
One of the biggest headaches that add to the humongous cost of a plant is the unsolved dilemma of what to do with the radioactive wastes. This is a challenge that, as of yet, hasn’t found a simple solution.
People have resolved to bury it for the next thousand years in lead and concrete vessels inside a mountain, hoping it’s geologically stable and that containers won't leak.
When it’s all said and done, the real costs of such a lunacy are more than we could possibly calculate and a legacy of our stupidity that I wouldn’t want to leave my children to distress and agonize about.
FISSION is a failed technology. ..FUSION, however, is the great expectation of Humankind. One that’ll provide us with unlimited energy and solve ALL our worldly struggles… Just wait and see!
Deport all those illegals, and AIDS infected, Haitians from Quisqueya !!!
@Roy,
Why is it that those who have the technology such as japan and Germany are desisting from it, while you continue to promote it incessantly? What matters even more here is the fact that both of those 1st world countries are both technological and economic powerhouses, meaning they have the capacity to design them, build them and maintain them. More importantly, both lack fossil fuel reserves of any kind, at least not in significant amounts, which would make nuclear energy even more attractive to them.
I am afraid I will have to side with proven wisdom on this one and accept fact that the obituary for nuclear energy has already been written. Personally, I lived through the Three Mile Island incident and wouldn't wish to go through that again, although my immediate area wasn't under imminent danger. Presently, I live 3.5 miles from the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, and can see the blue sirens from my house-much too close for comfort!
MJEV.
The EPR design has several active and passive protection measures against accidents:
Four independent emergency cooling systems, providing the required cooling of the decay heat that continues for 1 to 3 years after the reactor's initial shutdown (i.e. 300% redundancy)
Leaktight containment around the reactor
An extra container and cooling area if a molten core manages to escape the reactor (see containment building)
Roy,
You can't beat Nuclear
And who ever said Dominicans and/or Haitians would have any real operational/management power IF THIS EVER HAPPENED?
I say it's a million to one shot that any Nuclear option ever gets built on the island. But if the world were just, this is how it would happen.
"PWR designs scaled up to an electrical power output of around 1650 MWe (net) with thermal power 4500 MWt. The reactor can use 5% enriched uranium oxide fuel, reprocessed uranium fuel and 100% mixed uranium plutonium oxide fuel."
That's some serious power output!
BUT,
The world is not just.
:)
Nuclear Energy would surely solve the electricity shortage in DR,
but after Fukushima's accident, it show's not to be the way to go.
We have tectonic faults, that in the even of a earthquake, can endanger us all with Nuclear Energy plants.
I do agree that Nuclear energy, it is the only permanent solution to the electricity problem in DR.
asks
"Why is it that those who have the technology such as japan and Germany are desisting from it, ...?"
Good question.
In democracies, the most practical or logical does not always prevail. The arguments in favor of nuclear power are probably strongest for Australia, yet neither the government nor the opposition have the courage to promote it. Most humans are not driven by logic. If they were there would be no religions based on belief in an invisible, all-powerful man in the sky, or in life after death, and there would be no wars.
The French are known for their Nuclear expertise, too. And they haven't said Non to Nuclear energy.
"Light Water Reactors (power reactors moderated and cooled by water)
EPR
Areva NP (formerly Framatome ANP) has developed a large (4590 MWt, typically 1750 MWe gross and 1630 MWe net) European pressurised water reactor (EPR), which was confirmed in mid 1995 as the new standard design for France and received French design approval in 2004. It is a 4-loop design derived from the German Konvoi types with features from the French N4, and is expected to provide power about 10% cheaper than the N4. It will operate flexibly to follow loads, have fuel burn-up of 65 GWd/t and a high thermal efficiency, of 37%, and net efficiency of 36%. It is capable of using a full core load of MOX. Availability is expected to be 92% over a 60-year service life.
It has double containment with four separate, redundant active safety systems, and boasts a core catcher under the pressure
The first EPR unit is being built at Olkiluoto in Finland, the second at Flamanville in France, the third European one will be at Penly in France, and two further units are under construction at Taishan in China.
A US version, the US-EPR quoted as 1710 MWe gross and about 1580 MWe net, was submitted for US design certification in December 2007, and this is expected to be granted in mid 2014. The first unit (with 80% US content) was expected to be grid connected by 2020."
The French have the most nuclear power plants, the cheapest electricity in Europe, and have not had one single fatality. Germany has the most wind turbines, the most expensive electricity, and expect the cost to rise exponentially.
Atabey, you're giving us these fancy shmancy tech spiel, which I doubt even you can understand.
I have only ONE question for you, and given your apparent sabby on nukes...tell me:..
... How would you dispose of all the depleted rods and radioactive waste from your state-of-the-arts nuke plant?
Please, enlighten me in words that I can understand. Simple English will do.
It has been 12 hours and I haven't heard from you. You still thinking about it?
Does anyone else have an answer?..How about you, Roy?
@Roy et al,
This one is for you:
""TOKYO, Jan. 29 (Kyodo) — The Japanese government earmarked Tuesday 156.4 billion yen ($1.7 billion USD) for the industry ministry to accelerate efforts to scrap the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's stricken reactors and support companies seeking to export nuclear technologies in the initial draft budget for the next fiscal year."""
Source: Product Design & Development Magazine's Design Daily publication (29Jan13). DT wouldn't allow me to paste link!
There goes all of the projected savings over the life of this plant. Wonder where economic powerhouse DR would get that kind of money to build and decommission a nuclear power station. I do suppose that, all things considered, the benefit/cost equation for such and undertaking in DR would be upside-down.
MJEV.
I would not trust Duminicans to safely dispose of nuclear waste - they would just dump it into the rivers like they do everything else.
Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product.
Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes.
Safe methods for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste are technically proven; the international consensus is that this should be geological disposal.
Sorry for the lateness, been busy and hadn't paid attention to this thread. So how would the rods and other materials be stored passed their usefulness? The USA has facilities, Yuca mountain, I believe, but others that could store these "hot" materials.
Now remember, I've stated that it's a million to one chance that this nuclear energy option would ever happen in Hispaniola. Perhaps, 100 million to one. :)
world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
1. The problem of power in the DR is not a lack of generating capacity. It is the dysfunctional system for administering the system.
No technology will solve the problem until the country can eliminate the widespread theft of electricity, eliminate the wasteful number of unnecessary political patronage jobs and contracts and end the huge government subsidies provided to keep the system from completely imploding.
Once those tasks are accomplished it will be possible to have a sustainable electric system that can build, maintain and pay for whatever power generating facilities are needed to meet the demand for reliable power.
2. As to what power sources should be considered, why mess around with nuclear when solar and wind and hydro are such natural -- and safe -- choices for a mountainous tropical island in the path of consistent tradewinds.
Point 1 - absolutely correct,
Point 2 - solar, wind and hydro power generation is neither natural nor safe. All have environmental impacts and much higher fatality rates than nuclear. Sure, sunlight, wind and rain occur naturally, as does coal, oil and uranium in the ground. It is the harnessing of energy that is problematic.
Carpintero,
I agree with 1.
As for 2, DR will probably have to build its portfolio around those energy components as the Nuclear option will likely never happen. But that's not to say that this nuclear option would "solve" the issue for a good 60 years or so.
:)
Atabey, you're giving us these fancy shmancy tech spiel, which I doubt even you can understand.
I have only ONE question for you, and given your apparent sabby on nukes...tell me:..
his savvy on nukes? you really believes he knows anything about nukes. he understands two things, and two things only
1...Google
2...Copy and paste.
Yes Atabey make your comments shorter and to the point
That's going to benefit us and you.
I am frying some tostones and don't want to read all of that.
No offence buddy
"For those interested in the facts and the science behind nuclear power (the vast minority)."
The "vast minority"? Is there a vast minority on anything? Shouldn't that read: the "vast majority"?
OK, whatever... Mr. Roy, clearly you're a die-hard proponent of nuclear insanity. You are telling us, ( and some of us have been to school, I'll have you know), that "Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes."
Right,!.. Tell us of any other "industrial wastes" that lasts thousands of years before it degrades into substances safe enough for humans to co-exist with and not be harmed by..OK? Go ahead.
was making the point that most people (dare I say including you) are not interested in the scientific realities of nuclear power generation. Did you read the article? If you dispute any on the points it makes, the onus is on you to prove otherwise with reliable sources.
I have some very high grade uranium ore (rich in U3O8) in my mineral collection. I am human and have co-existed with it for many years, and I still do not glow in the dark. I would feel safer living next to a proper nuclear-waste facility than anywhere in the Duminican Republic.
EPR
Areva NP (formerly Framatome ANP) has developed a large (4590 MWt, typically 1750 MWe gross and 1630 MWe net) European pressurised water reactor (EPR)"
"4590 MWt " Nuclear plant.==>37% of total DR electrical consumption (CIA) in 2008
Think that power might come in handy? How much does Haiti currently produce?
For Haiti 309,000 2010==> 14 times!
Of course you have the massive investment to consider. But as I've stated above, the World IS NOT JUST.
How's that for short.
"Did you read the article?"
No, I did not. But I will tomorrow. You'll have my rebuttal, then.... Or, I may totally agree with you, who knows!................................................................................................................................ Yeah, right!
"How's that for short. "
Not short enough!
"A pending question is whether wastes should be emplaced so that they are readily retrievable from repositories. There are sound reasons for keeping such options open – in particular, it is possible that future generations might consider the buried waste to be a valuable resource. On the other hand, permanent closure might increase long-term security of the facility. After being buried for about 1,000 years most of the radioactivity will have decayed. The amount of radioactivity then remaining would be similar to that of the naturally-occurring uranium ore from which it originated, though it would be more concentrated."
One thousand years, Mr. Roy? Need we discuss this further?...
Kudos to you Atabey it's an improvement.
Keep up the good work, and remember.
EXPEL THOSE ILLEGALS HAITIANS FROM QUISQUEYA !!!!!
Your point is?
What is the decay rate of, for example, Mercury?
That's right - it doesn't decay - it lasts forever. Not only that, unlike Uranium, it becomes more concentrated as it moves up the food chain. So are you calling for a total ban on the use of Mercury?
"So are you calling for a total ban on the use of Mercury?"
That's right, Mr. Roy! Other than thermometers, you tell me what it could possibly be good for?
How essential is it to the continued survival and prosperity of humankind?
Last I heard, it's a poison that must be contained or it'll kill and maim...Same as Nukes!
We need Mercury and Nukes like we need a pesky Dumbminican poster in DT!!...Eh?
You don't have any "silver" fillings?
Mercury amalgam fillings have been, and continue to be of enormous benefit to millions of people around the world. Perhaps you are part of the lunatic fringe calling for them to be banned too?
"Perhaps you are part of the lunatic fringe calling for them to be banned too?"
Absolutely, Roy! .. What do you think made me a lunatic, in the first place. Eh?
It's a well-known fact that Mercury, in any form, can make you loco in the head.!
Had it not been for it, I would have carried through with my GRAND PLAN, and succeeded in saving the world. !
Today, I'll have to settle for just saving the DR.... Pity!
@Ron,
"""It's a well-known fact that Mercury, in any form, can make you loco in the head.!"""
I've witnessed ample daily proof of that fact almost daily-right here in this forum! In fact, a quick read of commentaries in this thread would definitely corroborate that notion.
MJEV.