Let's go Turtling and Fishing: Oyster Creek nuclear power plant KILLS sea turtles and fish

[jpak]

http://www.environmentnewjersey.org/legislature/testimony/clean-water/clean-water/oyster-creeek-nuclear-generating-station39s-pollution-of-nearby-waterways

<snip>

Oyster Creek's once-through cooling system was designed in the 1960s. The system intakes water from Forked River to cool the reactor and the heated water, or thermal pollution, is then discharged into Oyster Creek. The plant intakes and discharges an enormous amount of water—over 1.4 billion gallons—on a daily basis. The water is taken in at a speed of 1-2,000 cubic feet per second, which is the force of a medium-sized river. The chlorine levels in the water are also 20 times the lethal level of many types of aquatic life.

Despite grates over the intakes, the water flushing creates a giant sucking action that brings with it an assortment of aquatic life. Some of this aquatic life is small, flows through the grate, and is killed in process of cooling the reactor. This lethal effect is called entrainment. Larger types of aquatic life, such as striped bass, white perch, and endangered sea turtles, get pinned on the grate and often die from, or are seriously injured by, the rush of oncoming water. This lethal effect is called impingement.

The plant has developed a record of killing threatened and endangered species, specifically sea turtles, over the last ten years. From 1992 to 2000, the plant recorded 17 captures of sea turtles and six sea turtle mortalities. Even though these figures are high, the problem could be much worse. A 2001 Nuclear Regulatory Commission report found discrepancies in the number of kills that Exelon reported to the NRC and the number in the archive, and concluded the "inconsistent and erratic availability of data on sea turtle captures at Oyster Creek underscores a wider unreliability of information supplied to the public."

In addition to daily impingement and entrainment, Oyster Creek's daily thermal pollution discharge often spreads a thermal plume over a distance of over four miles across the entire width of Barnegat Bay. The plume creates a "fry" zone for young larvae and spawn, and NRC studies indicate that the thermal plume has increased the population of tropical wood-boring species that serve as aquatic termites for boat bottoms and home found.

<more>

[Statistical]

1. "From 1992 to 2000, the plant recorded 17 captures of sea turtles and six sea turtle mortalities."

Kinda give you a sense of the reality vs. alarmist hype.

6 turtle fatalities OVER 8 years. That is less than 1 per year for 2 reactors combined output.

How many turles are killed by boating, fishing, other activities of man each year?

[madokie]

3. No that is telling you that they are lying

You honestly believe there have only been 6 turtles killed over eight years. That lie is so far out there that it has no meaning at all.

The whole thing with nuclear energy is they won't be honest about anything. OK, I'm sure you can find something that is reported truthfully but it is not the norm for the industry. If the industry have to resort to lying about most everything they do then why do we allow them to continue to be. For one thing who would be saddled with the cost of removing and safely disposing of them. You need to wake up is all I can say to you. :hi:

[zbdent]

4. I'll see your quote and raise you a qualifying quote from the article:

A 2001 Nuclear Regulatory Commission report found discrepancies in the number of kills that Exelon reported to the NRC and the number in the archive, and concluded the "inconsistent and erratic availability of data on sea turtle captures at Oyster Creek underscores a wider unreliability of information supplied to the public."

In other words ... they lied about the numbers ... if this was ONE case of scientists talking about the recorded temperatures of the globe, it would be touted as absolute proof that the numbers used were made up and global warming was pure for-profit bunk.

[madokie]

9. There is no one so blind as those who choose not to see

And I'm not talking about you, :hi:

[madokie]

2. But yet when I ask if nuclear power plants use more cooling water I'm told NO

This enormous amount of cooling water from nuclear plants is heating up the planet just as sure as the CO2 from combustion is, one is blocking the release of the heat, in essence trapping it, and the other is suppling much heat. The end result is much the same. Back in the day we used to place the concrete for floors where they would in-bed plastic pipe that they circulated warm water through to warm the home with. Same fucking thing here is happening with all this heat we're putting out whether it be from the exhaust of our automobile or the exhaust of our air conditioners or the heat captured by our huge expanses of asphalt. It's not only the CO2 that is causing the planet to warm it is also the waste heat we give off in living the life the way we do. Check out the temperature of the air from the air conditioners being expelled from a huge building sometime, heck even ones own home. We either adapt to the warming planet or we do something to create less of this heat whether it be by producing less trapping gases or less heat directly.

We have some fresh water lakes here where they use them as the heat sink for the power plants and in the winter you can see the water vapor given off like a normal cycle of summer to winter when the water changes temperature only this is waste heat produced by us being given up to the air 24/7/365.
Most times it matters not the source if the heat it matter that its warm.

[Statistical]

5. "This enormous amount of cooling water ...is heating up the planet just as sure as CO2"

I'll take "SCIENCE FAIL" for $1000 Alex.

Pure GHG denialist talk.

Really? You proclaim yourself as an expert (despite nothing you say is accurate) on the dangers of nuclear energy and your level of understanding of thermodynamics is so bad that you make a claim like that. Hell there are freeper creationist nutjobs with better science skills.

I mean really? If you can't figure out why heat released by all man-made activities (including nuclear power, heat engines (internal combustion), or any thermal power plant) is negligible compared to the effects of CO2 well here is a hint.....
take a look up into the sky at noon.

[madokie]

8. I don't come here proclaiming I'm an expert on anything

especially about nuclear power so you can fuck off on that one. Now if you can't see that the heat that is produced, and trapped due to the increase of co2, by our lifestyle you are simply blind

I'm simply telling you that the nuclear industry as a whole are not to be trusted, they lie and then they will tell another lie when the first one doesn't work.
Now go piss down someone elses leg dude

[Statistical]

10. Not blind. Just capable of understanding highschool level physics and the concept of magnitude.

Each year 3,850,000 EJ of the Suns energy hits the earth. Mankind's annual energy consumption is 487 EJ. Now that is all forms of energy; nuclear, fossil fuels, transportation, heating, campfires, everything. The thermal energy of sunlight striking the earth in an hour is more than the energy used by the entire planet in a year.

Everything mankind does in all forms requires 487 EJ on energy. Now not all of that is heat though. Say the average efficiency of the global energy system is 30%, that would be 70% waste heat. All man-made activity on the planet (of which nuclear is a fraction) produces about 340EJ of heat a year.

Lets look on a bigger scale. Estimate that energy output was grown geometrically since the dawn of recorded history. Lets model (just rough guess) that heat output has risen from ~0EJ in 1000 BC to 340 EJ today. That would put all heat output for last 3000 years at something in the magnitude of 200,000 EJ.

200,00 EJ is the is the equivalent of a mere 2 days of solar energy. All of recorded human history (everything from burning wood to the atomic bomb) is roughly equivalent to 2 days of sunlight.

The reason why CO2 is so dangerous is exactly because of the staggering (almost difficult to comprehend) amount of energy the sun transfers to the Earth continually. The greenhouse maintains a very careful balance. If GHG change that balance by even a tiny amount (0.01%) it will have massive implications. A 0.01% increase in amount of heat trapped is 3850 EJ of extra tapped energy (10x all heat produced by humans in all forms). So CO2 is far more deadly than waste heat. Doubling or triping waste heat wouldn't meaningfully increase global warming but changing the greenhouse even slightly will.

Of course someone living in a state with no nuclear reactors but the highest use of fossil fuels (staggering 92% of electricity produced by fossil fuels) would need to be to be in denial. Someone happy about the outcome of preventing construction of a reactor 20 years ago and then watching dozens of fossil fuel plants spring up to provide the energy demanded would need to lie to themselves. See if you can pretend waste heat from nuclear reactor is worse than lethal GHG from fossil fuels than you can pretend your state isn't way ahead of the curve when it comes to killing the planet.

If the worlds population had a CO2 intensity as high as OK the planet would have been dead decades ago. Thankfully the entire planet isn't as shortsighted and living in denial as OK.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

[madokie]

11. Have some kind of a day

peace :eyes:

[madokie]

17. How many times are you going to rewrite this post

dumbass anyway

[Statistical]

19. Facts bother you?

None of those facts are in dispute:

The earth does provide 3,850,000 EJ of thermal energy every year.
The annual global energy consumption is a mere 430 EJ.
There is no scientific basis that waste heat is warming the planet. Hell the fluctuations of suns output are more than +/- 430EJ a year.
There is scientific evidence that increasing GHG are killing the planet.

Oklahoma has no nuclear power plants (something you are very proud of) so it generates 92% of its electricity by fossil fuels which is far worse than the national average (69%).

[madokie]

32. I'm not going to bother with looking up the facts for you

Right now12.5% of my power comes from wind alone, soon to be 20%. Not sure what part comes from the hydro, and pumped storage that are within an hours drive from here. 5 lakes plus the pumped storage.

me thinks you are a typical pro nukie, you lie as joe would say, you lie.

[Statistical]

35. I already looked them up. 92% of electrcity in OK is from fossil fuels per US Department of Energy.

Here you go in case you misplaced it:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05ok.xls

[BigDog01]

18. Not quite true

Lying is against the law in the nuclear industry. I won't say that it hasn't happened, nor that it won't happen again. However, lying in the industry is punishable under both criminal and civil law.

Anti-nuclear activists and not under the same constraint. They can say whatever they want, whenever they want, with no fear of criminal penalties.

Check out some of Alec Baldwin's or Paul Gunter's statements. Blatantly false and generally misleading.

[BigDog01]

6. blah, blah, blah

Environment NJ is hardly an unbiased source. The organization
is strictly anti-nuclear and will say anything - no matter
whether it's true.

Referring to the so-called "fry-zone." Sheesh.
According to fisher-folks in the area, the best fishing in the
bay -- bar none -- is at the discharge canal. Big stripers,
smaller bait fish, crabs ... But ENJ ignores that to spread
yet another lie. 

The language of the anti-nuclear group's press release is
alarmist and misleading. Not written by a journalist, but
trumped up by someone schooled in fiction.

Go ahead and quote them some more. I need a laugh.

[jpak]

7. blah blah blah yourself

and deny deny deny

:rofl:

[BigDog01]

12. There you go again ...

You don't have an answer, so you wiggle, jiggle, and mouth rhetoric.

Go ahead. Make me laugh some more.

[jpak]

13. Ronald Reagan Sock Puppets are the CRAZIEST peoples

:rofl:

[BigDog01]

15. Still no real reply

Where's your science now? Still wiggling and jiggling, but it's you under pressure.

Come on. Drag out something other than that tired rofl emoticon. Give me a chuckle.

[madokie]

14. BTW

what incarnation is this one? 2nd, 3rd, how many has it been :rofl:

[jpak]

16. There IS such a thing as bad karma!

:rofl:

[BigDog01]

22. Yep

I believe in karma as well as the Wiccan guideline of times three. I look forward to it.

Go ahead. Make me laugh again.

[jpak]

30. Here's a joke for ya...

nuclear power

:rofl:

[BigDog01]

37. The joke's on you

and you're on your back with your feet kicking and wiggling.

*cute*

very cute.

[jpak]

39. I like April 19th - don't you?

:rofl:

[jpak]

33. I jiggle and wiggle like a teabag on a string and I'm an April 19th kind of guy

How 'bout you?

:rofl:

[jpak]

20. Discharge canal = chum pipe for the critters killed by the coolant system

duhhhhh

[BigDog01]

21. Interesting

While you're wrong -- it's clearly the slightly warmer water that attracts the fish -- I find it odd that you've agreed with me that the discharge canal has the best fishing in the bay, instead siding with your original article.

So ... you don't believe in what you post here? That's definitely worth a chuckle.

[jpak]

23. Interseting - that is where and why the fish kills occur at Deadly Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant

From the Jersey Coast Angler Association...

NJ DEP Fines Oyster Creek Power Plant For Fish Kill

http://www.jcaa.org/JCNL0301/FishKill.htm

Since I moved to Toms River in 1978, I have been concerned about the fish kill that results when Oyster Creek has a shut-down or releases hot water. When I became involved with JCAA one of my first actions was to complain to the NJ Division of Fish and Game and DEP about the fish kills at Oyster Creek. I always wondered why Oyster Creek would shut down in the winter when it would have the greatest impact on the fish. Is it coincidence that this is also the time of year when they get the least amount of money per kilowatt? On September 23 there was another fish kill at Oyster Creek, this one caused by a discharge of hot water. I made a direct complaint to DEP and the Division of Fish and Wildlife. I had little expectation that any action would be taken since previous commissioners and governors had done nothing. I had the same discussion two weeks ago with Marty McHugh, the incoming director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife, and was asked to be patient. Imagine my surprise! The release included below is the first of its kind. We should all express our appreciation to Commissioner Bradley Campbell for his action in this matter. We hope it is only the first of many responsible actions that DEP can take to protect our marine resources. We should also thank Governor McGreevey for his unwavering support on these issues.

<snip>

from the local newspaper...

02/131) TRENTON – New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell today announced that AmerGen Energy Company, owner of Oyster Creek Generating Station in Ocean County, was issued a fine in the amount of $190,000 for violating the Water Pollution Control Act. In addition, the state is seeking $182,912 in natural resource damages for the subsequent kill of more than 5,800 fish caused by the illegal plant operations.

“AmerGen’s serious permit violations caused significant damage to the area’s natural resources,” said DEP Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell. “The fines and damage assessment reflect a major loss of aquatic resources and AmerGens’s apparent disregard for the environmental consequences of their actions.”

The Oyster Creek Generating Station, a nuclear-powered energy plant, uses water from the South Branch of the Forked River to cool its reactor and then discharges the resulting thermal wastewater to a man-made canal that flows into Oyster Creek. The generating station discharges approximately 1.2 billion gallons of cooling and dilution water daily through two independent outfall structures. DEP regulates and sets temperature limits for the discharges to protect the marine life inhabiting the canal and Oyster Creek.

On September 23, 2002, AmerGen’s operators shut down the station’s dilution plant in order to perform scheduled maintenance work on a transformer. Under the facility’s DEP-issued permit, scheduled maintenance work – which may cause violations of thermal limitations – is prohibited during the months of June, July, August, and September.

<more>

Reagan sock puppets lose on the facts every time

every time

the end

on edit:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

[BigDog01]

24. Eight years?

You had to go back 8 years to find this? And once again, it points out your own contradiction: The Environment NJ article you started this off with describes it as a "fry zone," yet this article (from 8 years ago) clearly shows that it's teeming with life.

So which is it? Which one of your "facts" do you want to trot out for the people here?

Go ahead. Give me another chuckle.

[jpak]

27. NOAA begs to differ with your biased and uninformed assessment of Deadly Oyster Creek's imapct

on Barnegat Bay

http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/licensing/oclr09282006nmfsimpact.pdf

Deadly Oyster Creek has chronic day-to-day impacts on the Bay and periodic catastrophic impacts.

But in Reagan Sock Puppet Newspeak - it's all double-plus good.

not

:rofl:

[BigDog01]

36. Catastrophic?

*wow* Alarmists have an incredibly low bar for catastrophe. So, what would you term the recent mine disaster? Or Katrina? Or the earthquake?

Or perhaps you're actually a fish with thumbs. That would explain a lot.

Go ahead. I need another chuckle.

[jpak]

40. Massive fish kills = catastrophic effect

yup

:rofl:

[jpak]

25. Here's what NOAA said about Deadly Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant

http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/licensing/oclr09282006nmfsimpact.pdf

Tell us again how great this plant is for the Barnegat Bay Ecosystem

Reagan Sock Puppets lose every time

every time

the end

[BigDog01]

26. Deadly?

Oh, that's right. Alarmist language is the stock and trade of the anti-nuclear folks.

You really don't have an original thought.

Go ahead. I need another chuckle.

[jpak]

28. What part of fish kill and thermal shock kill don't you understand

apparently all of it

:rofl:

[BigDog01]

29. So ...

You're basing this on an 8-year-old newspaper story and a few thousand fish (out of the millions in the bay), and a NOAA report. (Presumably you've given up on the EnvironmentNJ drivel you brought out initially to attempt a biased point.)

Definitely clueless.

But certainly worth a chuckle.

[jpak]

31. And where is your *scientific* data on the beneficial (LOL) impact of Deadly Oyster Creek

nuclear plant on Barnegat Bay?

NOAA sez your wrong

Local fisherman say your wrong

Ronald Reagan was and is an asshole

so

there

:rofl:

[BigDog01]

34. Yet another baldfaced lie

Local fishermen daily line the bridge on Route 9 outside of Oyster Creek. Baldfaced lies on your part.

But when it comes to nuclear energy in general, I trust experts over the anti-nuclear alarmists:
Dr. Michael R. Fox - http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?a103cbfb-4aa2-47b5-974e-669722dce965
J.A. Halkema - author of Wind Energy: Facts and Fiction - http://www.countryguardian.net/halkema-windenergyfactfiction.pdf
Dr. Bernard Cohen - professor emeritus of physics and of environmental and occupational health at the University of Pittsburgh - http://www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/NuclearRiskInPerspective.pdf

Dr. Cohen, in particular, puts to bed your wacky lies.

Go ahead. I need another laugh.

[jpak]

38. The National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report disagrees with your Silly Reagan Sockpuppetry

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=313

It's long and technical and you probably won't understand a word of it - it's not the same lame pseudoscience bullshit you can download from Larouchian Horsehit Wacko websites!

:rofl: