I am a nuts and bolts person. Global warming is not on my radar screen (too far off, I will be dead) except this morning. I looked at the map they printed in the Herald. It is to the right. Then I thought about the two new nuclear power plants FP&L is proposing at Turkey Point (which already has two). I said to myself, “Wait a minute. Something is not right here. The flooding they are expecting in the future (the orange area) is in the same area as the Turkey Point nuke site!” (I added the map of where Turkey Point is for our readers).Okay, here is the scenario. FP&L wants to start rock mining NOW thousands of acres to buildup 240 acres out there at Turkey Point to raise it to 20 feet above sea level. Now, if you believe in global warming, all the land around the plant will be underwater as it is low lying land (see and compare maps above). So to get to the plant in the future, you will have to take a boat? That doesn’t make sense.
This whole plan makes little economic sense even to me. My inclination is to say: find a site that is higher and you don’t have to do all that rock mining FP&L!! The other stupid thing is, the plan is for well into the future power needs not for the now (except the rock mining is in the now). So you would think that FP&L brass would be forward thinking enough to put 2 more nuclear reactors in a rock solid place not in an area surrounded by wetlands. Do you know what it will cost to raise that much land that high? A bundle, and for what, to create "Nuclear Island"? Bad choices, stock will plummet. Sell.
13 comments:
I cannot believe they would use a site so low in elevation. They must have a better piece of property somewhere. Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy land instead of filling it?
Call your county commissioner now: let him or her know that two new nuclear reactors in the path of sea level rise makes no sense at all.
The county commission will vote for what FPL wants, because they'll say that it is only a preliminary vote, and that what counts is not what they say, but what the state says, and what the Public Services Commission says.
All we're doing, the county commission will say, is just a small step allowing FPL to rock mine.
Well DON'T LET THEM DO IT. If the M-D County Commission has the guts to stop the rock mining from being allowed, this FPL plan can't move forward.
hmmm.
The plant is already there; what's at issue is adding to it. So the question really is twofold:
1. Is another plant needed?
2. If yes, should it be built next to the existing one?
No. 2 is easier, I think. It makes more sense to build another plant next to an existing site than make a mess somewhere else. Keep in mind it's much easier to clean up one radioactive site than two. As to the water level rising, well, that's going to happen anyway, and there's already a plant there, so from an efficiency standpoint it seems it would be cheaper to add to the existing site. Whether rock mining at the site to do this is a good idea is a second order technical question. (I'm assuming there are no groundwater issues there.)
Incidentally, it's not clear to me that it would be better to put the plant somewhere else (though I'd vote for an abandoned phosphate mine if it was feasible). The reason is that the further away the plant from the need, the more energy loss through the transmission lines. Plus there's the cost (and the appearance) of another set of gargantuan transmission towers. Ever notice the really big ones out past US 27?
I think #1 is the better question. If climate change continues to accelerate, the costs of living in south Florida will continue to escalate (storms, land loss, salt water intrusion, etc.). In addition as the winters get milder up north there's less of an incentive to move here. It's fairly likely that people will begin to leave at a faster pace than arrive, and as a result demand for electricity may stagnate, and thus there's no need for the plant at all. Ask to see the basis for the projected need, then decide whether that estimate makes sense. Perhaps they just want to sell excess power to someone else.
Maybe we should start building that seawall like NOW!!! Or else we will all drown!
interesting Sparky...
No. 2. Is it better to go by boat to two nuclear power plants or four nuclear power plants? Rock mining thousands of acres is a big concern as it is in the area of Biscayne National Park and it could accelerate salt water intrusion into the Biscayne Aquifer. Also, Biscayne Bay needs fresh water to replenish it. As you can see by the second photo, water can pretty much flow into the bay. If you put a 20 foot high wall of land in the way it can't.
I think your no. 1 is the most accurate. The projected need if no one can get insurance is nil. And it will be nice and warm in South Carolina so people will go there instead.
The Miami Herald opinion page on Sunday simultaneously called for FPL to expand and no rock mining.
S
I'm with sparky. If it's needed, build it there. No matter where you plan to build it, people will complain.
So the sea level will rise 1 foot in the next 100 years? It rose 1 foot over the past century, and the human race didn't dissapear.
Here's a company planning for future growth, and all you do is complain. But you also complain when adequate planning isn't done.
Well, which is it?
If you don't want additional sources of energy then I suggest all of you who are complaining go home immediately and rip out your airconditioners and electrical wiring and stop using it.
Exactly. I bet you wont.
Or maybe we can build a 1,000 acre wind farm in g.o.d.'s backyard.
Oops...too late...the CSX commuter line is already going there.
Not a Moderate:
you are always so amusing. Ha. Ha.
I am not downwind of the plant...you might be... google "downwinders"....Are you John Thrasher?
Moderate is confused, the latest concensus report and thereby very conservative estimate puts sea level rise at 1 meter, therefore approx 3 feet. Much different, and much worst. Why are we waiting to see what happens before we even start studying what we will have to do to keep the oceans at bay?
Our granchildren will hate us for what we are doing here: building a nuclear reactor knowing that it will be surrounded by rising sea levels. FPL executives, are you listening? So you'll So build your facility footprint up above sea level rise: who is going to pay to elevate the road infrastructure in order to service the plant?
You can't just build the plant high. You have to build the roads elevated all the way to where sea level won't rise, if you want to service the plant. Of course, we may all be dead by the time sea level rise makes our grandchildren hate us.
Even if FPL is willing to raise the roads to service the plant, 50 years from now, how far is FPL willing to go with its road elevation, given the topography of M-D? Because the only way to service the plant will be on a road elevated as high as Turkey Point.
There's a damn good chance in 50 years there won't be electric demand as high as FPL thinks it is going to be... what the State of Florida needs to do is wring every single watt of efficiency down the supply chain all the way to the consumer, now!
g.o.d....
Could you post a bigger pic of that map and overlay it with addresses? Is it just me or is everyone interested in where they are on that map. We use to have red and blue. Now we are orange. Didn't Oprah say that Orange was the new red?
By the way, it was 93 degrees in Maine at the seashore two days ago. Yikes.
unless you have some money to pay me to do it, no. Does it matter?
Post a Comment