Monty
Brilliant...and Canadian
- In the Parks
- No
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney may lose its right to build a nuclear power station
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Wait - we're talking a company that can't keep their website running more than a few hours per day - would you really trust them with nuclear power?
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
It has been established and pounded home a number of times that I am older then dirt. However, just to be part of this conversation, back when I was in High School, there was talk of how every home would eventually have it's own mini-nuclear reactor, black box, that powered everything in our houses, Lights, TV, AC , Heat and even powered our George Jetson flying car. I won't live to see it, but, if this country ever gets around to pulling its scared head out of its 19th century butt, we much just become progressive enough to do just that. I know I would if it were financially doable.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
I guess the Chinese would make them like many of out appliances. TV's, refrigerators, AC/heat units and washing machines. Reactors must be next.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
Wait, why would Disney world need nuclear power? I thought it ran on pixie dust. Now my day is ruined.
What could possibly go wrong?
Last edited:
Gives a whole new meaning to "Glow With The Show" ears...
From the NRC Backgrounder on the TMI incident: (emphasis mine)...
"The Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor, near Middletown, Pa., partially melted down on March 28, 1979. This was the most serious accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history, although its small radioactive releases had no detectable health effects on plant workers or the public. Its aftermath brought about sweeping changes involving emergency response planning, reactor operator training, human factors engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations. It also caused the NRC to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight. All of these changes significantly enhanced U.S. reactor safety. "
Paper straw fan
Well-Known Member
This is like saying people shouldn’t travel by airplane, and naming 3 crashes as the reason. Which, unfortunately is a lot of people’s mindset, and instead we’re left with archaic forms of energy (coal) which is basically like still traveling by horse.
NelsonRD
Well-Known Member
The plant design contained the radioactive cooling water. Also, the overheated core was also contained. There was no detectable levels of radiation measured, and no direct health effects related to this accident. Im wondering why you felt the need to correct my statement. The point is the same, US nuclear operation is safer than Chernobyl and Fukushima.
To those who think nuclear energy is bad because of China Syndrome, or nearby ionizing radiation (the kind that glows green in movies), or storage of nuclear wastes... I'm sorry to inform you that you're on the anti-science side of 'the debate.' It puts you squarely in the camp with global warming deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earthers.
You need to brush up on science facts and not the irrational claims of non-scientific websites.
Besides, safer technologies that produces less waste and are safer-to-operate are on the horizon. They use molten salts for cooling and thorium as the radioactive source. These are self cooling if the layers of fail-safes all fail.
The problem is that nuclear plant technology has barely advanced. The tech that was designed for nuclear submarines had plentiful water for cooling. Land-based plants have to pump water. The uranium-base tech was favored by governments for the nuclear bomb components they provided. If countries put the resources into it, the next generation much-safer plants could be perfected and thrive.
And WDW could build one.
You need to brush up on science facts and not the irrational claims of non-scientific websites.
Besides, safer technologies that produces less waste and are safer-to-operate are on the horizon. They use molten salts for cooling and thorium as the radioactive source. These are self cooling if the layers of fail-safes all fail.
The problem is that nuclear plant technology has barely advanced. The tech that was designed for nuclear submarines had plentiful water for cooling. Land-based plants have to pump water. The uranium-base tech was favored by governments for the nuclear bomb components they provided. If countries put the resources into it, the next generation much-safer plants could be perfected and thrive.
And WDW could build one.
"No radiation was released."
Correct, except for the 43,000 curies of radioactive krypton gas that were vented out of the reactor building.
I'm not anti-nuclear, but I am anti-sweeping-mistakes-under-the-rug.
I wonder how Disney would deal with guests if 43,000 curies of radioactive krypton gas were released from their hypothetical WDW nuclear plant.
Imagine the political cartoons showing Goofy at the control panel...
donsullivan
Premium Member
The much bigger issue in this article is not the nuclear power plant that would never be built anyway; it's the changes to the legislation demanded by the firefighters union. If this union continues their extremely aggressive and manipulative ways of 'negotiating' with the state legislature what they cannot get in normal contract negotiations, and these changes to the RCID law get instituted, it will open the door for countless other demands from other parties all around the state to demand changes for 'unfair' advantage Disney has on the property. Every few years here in Florida we get some wannabe politician looking to get some press who opens up the 'Disney should not have all this power' dialog and spins people and the media up. the minute there is precedent of taking some of that power away, I can assure you many, many people, organizations and companies will jump on it and want all kinds of power and control taken away from RCiD. That will absolutely not be a positive thing for RCID or Walt Disney World.
This legislative proposal is not about the authority to build a nuclear plant, which they were never going to do anyway; it's about removing powers to govern that RCID has at the demand of firefighters union. Adding the nuclear power plant part of this is a smoke screen so nobody sees what they are really trying to do.
This legislative proposal is not about the authority to build a nuclear plant, which they were never going to do anyway; it's about removing powers to govern that RCID has at the demand of firefighters union. Adding the nuclear power plant part of this is a smoke screen so nobody sees what they are really trying to do.
Last edited:
The Firefighters Union should not be lobbying to change the law which allowed Disney to setup the RCID. If it were not for The Walt Disney Company and the RCID. Orlando would still be a small town. It was WDW that started the huge growth, followed by SeaWorld and International Drive and finally Universal. The most important thing for the Florida Legislature to remember is that it all started with a Mouse named Mickey.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
Agree completely. Also, wind turbines have some environmental impacts as well (aside from the fact that they are hideously ugly). Solar panels do as well, especially if you are clearing vegetation/trees to put them in. Nothing is perfect but Nuclear (while expensive) doesn't emit CO2 and the radioactive waste can be safely stored.
A realistic goal for the US for energy production in 10-15 years would be something like 10% Solar, 6% hydroelectric, 25% wind, 30% nuclear, 29% oil/gas/coal.
Movielover
Well-Known Member
I take it that this was put into place for E.P.C.O.T. when it was actually a city?
