Disney may lose its right to build a nuclear power station

["El Gran Magnifico"]

I live about 20 miles from the Port St Lucie Plant. It is what it is. I grew up about 30 miles from Turkey Point.

My biggest fear (other than another Chernobyl or Fukushima) is it being targeted some whack or group of whacks. Which isn't really a fear because if that were to ever happen I wouldn't have enough time to even notice that it was.

That being said, for those factors, I wouldn't be thrilled to see one on property. The more interesting thing here for me is that state legislature is going to take something away from Disney.

 

[Lensman]

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.

I mostly agree, though I worry that two of the four Generation III AP1000 reactors planned to be built in the U.S. have been canceled due to cost overruns and becoming uneconomic (these are the two planned reactors in South Carolina). The other two in Georgia's Vogtle plant continue to see further delays and cost overruns, but construction has continued as of February 2019.

It's really the Generation IV designs that you mention that have the promise to transform the economic equation for nuclear power, but I'd be surprised if we see a commercial build before 2030 and more likely 2050. In either case it would probably be too late to help slow climate change enough. Still, the research is worth pursuing, especially since they have the potential to virtually eliminate issues like waste storage through closed-fuel cycles.

At any rate, Bloomberg New Energy Finance predicts that wind and solar will account for 48% of global electricity generation by 2050.


Being literal about the prospect of nuclear at WDW, it seems to be a poor engineering fit because nuclear provides a constant baseload. So for Disney, it would either have to be a super-small plant or Disney would have to sell power back to a utility. With their new PV farm, they're probably nearing the limit of what makes economic sense to generate onsite until solar + storage gets cheaper. And I discount the idea that they would build a low-utilization combined-cycle gas plant or a gas-fired peaker.

 

[King Panda 77]

I mostly agree, though I worry that two of the four Generation III AP1000 reactors planned to be built in the U.S. have been canceled due to cost overruns and becoming uneconomic (these are the two planned reactors in South Carolina). The other two in Georgia's Vogtle plant continue to see further delays and cost overruns, but construction has continued as of February 2019.

It's really the Generation IV designs that you mention that have the promise to transform the economic equation for nuclear power, but I'd be surprised if we see a commercial build before 2030 and more likely 2050. In either case it would probably be too late to help slow climate change enough. Still, the research is worth pursuing, especially since they have the potential to virtually eliminate issues like waste storage through closed-fuel cycles.

At any rate, Bloomberg New Energy Finance predicts that wind and solar will account for 48% of global electricity generation by 2050.


Being literal about the prospect of nuclear at WDW, it seems to be a poor engineering fit because nuclear provides a constant baseload. So for Disney, it would either have to be a super-small plant or Disney would have to sell power back to a utility. With their new PV farm, they're probably nearing the limit of what makes economic sense to generate onsite until solar + storage gets cheaper. And I discount the idea that they would build a low-utilization combined-cycle gas plant or a gas-fired peaker.

But climate change is Fake News ...

 

[PorterRedkey]

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.

The problem with nuclear power is that is safe until it is not. See 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the most recent meltdown in Japan for examples. When a meltdown occurs, people die, cancer rates spike, and the land becomes unusable. A little different than if a nasty, pollution-spewing, coal plant goes down.
And then there’s the nuclear waste...

Americans get a lot of power from nuclear power plants, so I am not against nuclear power as whole. It is just not the cure all that some people seem to think it is.

 

[GlacierGlacier]

The problem with nuclear power is that is safe until it is not. See 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the most recent meltdown in Japan for examples. When a meltdown occurs, people die, cancer rates spike, and the land becomes unusable. A little different than if a nasty, pollution-spewing, coal plant goes down.
And then there’s the nuclear waste...

Americans get a lot of power from nuclear power plants, so I am not against nuclear power as whole. It is just not the cure all that some people seem to think it is.

It becomes "Would you like a whole load of bad things at once on the miniscule rare chance that a modern facility goes totally kablooey or would you like a little bit of bad things seeping out constantly regardless of efficiency, construction, or operation."

 

[KYmickey]

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, take your pick.

Three Mile Island was a great example of how safe US nuclear plants really are. Everything that possibly could've gone wrong did yet nobody was killed or injured and only an insignificant amount of radiation leaked out of the reactor bldg. It should be used as a example of how safe US nuclear power really is.

 

[Alice a]

I mostly agree, though I worry that two of the four Generation III AP1000 reactors planned to be built in the U.S. have been canceled due to cost overruns and becoming uneconomic (these are the two planned reactors in South Carolina). The other two in Georgia's Vogtle plant continue to see further delays and cost overruns, but construction has continued as of February 2019.

It's really the Generation IV designs that you mention that have the promise to transform the economic equation for nuclear power, but I'd be surprised if we see a commercial build before 2030 and more likely 2050. In either case it would probably be too late to help slow climate change enough. Still, the research is worth pursuing, especially since they have the potential to virtually eliminate issues like waste storage through closed-fuel cycles.

At any rate, Bloomberg New Energy Finance predicts that wind and solar will account for 48% of global electricity generation by 2050.


Being literal about the prospect of nuclear at WDW, it seems to be a poor engineering fit because nuclear provides a constant baseload. So for Disney, it would either have to be a super-small plant or Disney would have to sell power back to a utility. With their new PV farm, they're probably nearing the limit of what makes economic sense to generate onsite until solar + storage gets cheaper. And I discount the idea that they would build a low-utilization combined-cycle gas plant or a gas-fired peaker.

As a SC resident whose electric bill skyrocketed as a result of these corruption-ridden disasters (until voters had to repeatedly sue our own legislature to freeze rates during the investigation) and will most likely suffer massive rate increases for decades to pay for the never-built plants, I'm leery of all the good press this style of plant has received.

Maybe in the hands of a private corporation, like TWDC, the inefficiencies and flagrant corruption that killed the SC plants could be avoided.

 

[Raineman]

Doesn’t anyone see the real answer here? A large arc reactor will negate the need for nuclear power. Arc reactor tech is the cleanest, most sustainable power source on the planet.

 

[erasure fan1]

Doesn’t anyone see the real answer here? A large arc reactor will negate the need for nuclear power. Arc reactor tech is the cleanest, most sustainable power source on the planet.

And I'm pretty sure Disney knows a guy who could hook them up. Genius!

 

[draybook]

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.

I dunno, looks pretty fun...

 

[larryz]

Doesn’t anyone see the real answer here? A large arc reactor will negate the need for nuclear power. Arc reactor tech is the cleanest, most sustainable power source on the planet.

Until the Chitauri show up and destroy half of New York trying to get Tony Stark.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

I wish upon a star they'd build a LFTR.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The problem with nuclear power is that is safe until it is not. See 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the most recent meltdown in Japan for examples. When a meltdown occurs, people die, cancer rates spike, and the land becomes unusable. A little different than if a nasty, pollution-spewing, coal plant goes down.
And then there’s the nuclear waste...

Americans get a lot of power from nuclear power plants, so I am not against nuclear power as whole. It is just not the cure all that some people seem to think it is.

Your correct all that damage comes if it were to melt down. The "nasty, pollution-spewing coal plants have no side affects when it goes down, it does all it's damage to people while it is operating "efficiently". People end up just as dead, except that it happens a lot more with the steady, daily pollution of the thing that we require above everything else and that is clean air.

We drive cars that kill thousands every single day and we don't really even think of the danger. I don't think there has been a single death in the states that could be directly connected to a Nuclear Power plant and radiation. The only thing that might be safer is solar power (even water power has been known to wipe out massive numbers when a dam has broken). Solar requires way to much expense to produce enough power to provide our needs without panels covering every square inch of the country. It's just that way to many have bought into the fear factor that all other power sources have used to scare us out of nuclear power. We are such suckers.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

I wonder how Disney would deal with guests if 43,000 curies of radioactive krypton gas were released from their hypothetical WDW nuclear plant.

If they didn't pay - then they wouldn't get to experience it. What do ya suppose that hard ticket will go for? "Tour the Power Plant with a Nuclear Imagineer"

 

[Disstevefan1]

Modern Nuke power is the cleanest and safest, just ask France. The article says Disney can lawfully build nuke power but they won't. Nuke power is just not PC in the USA, it makes folks scared too.

Let Disney put up more solar farms in FL, that's so PC and it makes folks feel good eventhough it's not a real solution.

There is no power supply problem in central Florida, any thought of alternative energy for Disney would be to lower costs for the shareholders.

 

[King Panda 77]

Modern Nuke power is the cleanest and safest, just ask France. The article says Disney can lawfully build nuke power but they won't. Nuke power is just not PC in the USA, it makes folks scared too.

Let Disney put up more solar farms in FL, that's so PC and it makes folks feel good eventhough it's not a real solution.

There is no power supply problem in central Florida, any thought of alternative energy for Disney would be to lower costs for the shareholders.

If it is so fantastic , why the long delays at Flamanville ?
Also as someone who remebers the Chernobyl incident and lives within "spitting distance" of said French nuclear station it is easy to understand why people are wary of Nuclear.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

If it is so fantastic , why the long delays at Flamanville ?
Also as someone who remebers the Chernobyl incident and lives within "spitting distance" of said French nuclear station it is easy to understand why people are wary of Nuclear.

Yep it's fantastic for some....until they start constructing one 50 or so miles from where someone lives. Then not so fantastic. I'm 20 miles from mine.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Yep it's fantastic for some....until they start constructing one 50 or so miles from where someone lives. Then not so fantastic. I'm 20 miles from mine.

I'm about 5 miles away from ours and guess what? I sleep well. It is so foolish to worry about things like that when there are a jillion things that can kill us just outside, and sometimes inside our homes and ourselves. Nuclear power has a dangerous side, but, your chances of getting killed crossing the street are probably higher then a melt down, unless it's one that Homer Simpson works at.

 

[rle4lunch]

This thread feels this close to being shut down.

Personally, I've always thought all the talking Disney characters were already part of some nuclear disaster. Why is it that some dogs can talk, but Pluto can't? Why is it normal to see Donald and Daisy sit down to eat a turkey dinner in a Christmas movie? How can cats have dogs as pets? Or mice for that matter...

Lol, I know, I'm overthinking it.

 

[Phil12]

Modern Nuke power is the cleanest and safest, just ask France. The article says Disney can lawfully build nuke power but they won't. Nuke power is just not PC in the USA, it makes folks scared too.

Let Disney put up more solar farms in FL, that's so PC and it makes folks feel good eventhough it's not a real solution.

There is no power supply problem in central Florida, any thought of alternative energy for Disney would be to lower costs for the shareholders.

After I asked France, I discovered that they are currently attempting to reduce their dependence on nuclear power and instead rely more on solar and wind power. 71% of their power supply comes from nuclear plants and they want to reduce that figure to 50%. I wonder why?