Marble Hill

[michaelcook]

I visited the Marble Hill plant site in Indiana last year while it was in the midst of being demolished. Here are a few of the photographs:













There is also a brief article about it on my website at http://www.vanishingpoint.ca/marble-hill, though most of the information will be old hat to folks here.

[Pman52]

Thank you for sharing.  I like the first picture from inside one of the containments.  I recall reading about Marble Hill.  Unfortunate that it was never finished and commissioned.  Being an Indiana native, I kind of wish that we could have had the opportunity to say we had nuclear power in the Hoosier State.

Consider yourself lucky to be able to tour the site and see the huge amount of money that was spent to ultimately sit for years and slowly degrade. 

[Higgs]

I like that it still had its containment spray headers.

Thanks for sharing! Awesome pics!

[Higgs]

I read your article, and I admit that I went into it thinking "here we go, another anti-nuke going to try to spin this into something it isn't," and I was pleasantly surprised to find out that that wasn't the case at all. It was interesting and I appreciate your efforts. I do have a question about your goal (the part bolded in red);

"My visit to Marble Hill was the beginning of an ongoing project. Over the next few months, I hope to visit other casualties of the 1980s nuclear retrenchment, the forgotten wrecks scattered, hidden in cornfields and coniferous forests across the United States. It's a view of nuclear power that I think we need, a view with no overt political bias but one that I hope can inform and deepen the way we imagine this power source, and weigh and debate its future in our energy economy."

To what end? I mean, why do you think we need this view of cancelled projects and decaying sites? You say "deepen the way we imagine...," can you please elaborate? I am just trying to understand how looking at abandoned sites, other than very interesting pictures and stories, can be useful in the nuclear debate.

Thanks for your time and effort.

Justin

[Rennhack]

Please upload these in the photo gallery.

[michaelcook]

To what end? I mean, why do you think we need this view of cancelled projects and decaying sites? You say "deepen the way we imagine...," can you please elaborate? I am just trying to understand how looking at abandoned sites, other than very interesting pictures and stories, can be useful in the nuclear debate.

Justin, thanks for your thoughtful question.

In general, as a public, we are very poorly served by our utilities when it comes to being encouraged to relate to and become comfortable with the physical infrastructure that makes nearly everything in our lives possible. Power utilities are by no means the only culprits here, we've been intentionally discouraged from understanding how a variety of basic services actually work and the roles that they play in our lives and in the physical places that we live. But I think that electrical power generation is an especially important example---people are very interested and very opinionated about the politics of power, about the costs, about their own perceptions of environmental and economic risk. And when people are not given the opportunity to grip and place these systems into the context of their lives and the places they know and value, one of two things happen: either it leads to profound disinterest and to institutions and policy-making that are overly expert-driven, or it leads to badly informed, but staunchly defended popular opinion in lieu of the kind of pragmatic interest in the subject that might actually be a benefit to anyone.

Part of the reason that discussions about nuclear power often feel so intractable and unproductive is that they're forced into a bubble by the way we treat the subject generally. Nuclear power is so rarefied from everyday life that for someone who doesn't work in the field, it's impossible to become familiar with it as anything other than facts/'facts' in a book or on a website or in a campaigner's political material (whether for or against). The debates feel so useless, like a macro version of the sorts of talking-through debates that dominate here on the internet, precisely because most participants are involved without ever having been given the opportunity to actually relate these installations to their lives. We personalize the issues for all the wrong reasons, vehemence springing from total unfamiliarity rather than from something actually lived and experienced.

Geographically, these installations are usually "way off somewhere else." Even when we do get to see one from a moderate distance, or even live in close proximity to it, they remain these inscrutable assemblies of variously proportioned concrete and shed-steel shells, behind line after line of perimeter security.

We used to celebrate this stuff, and encourage public engagement with it. I'm not big on the sort of 1950s nuclear nostalgia that some people go for, but I get the sense that, despite all the childishly naive assumptions about what we could do with the technology, people also had a lot better grasp of what it was going to mean to them on a personal level, to their relationships and their jobs and to the places that mattered to them. Nuclear power existed for them on an imaginary level as more than just a bogeyman. In contrast, today we don't have any idea what nuclear power means to us, but we're damn sure we have an opinion on it.

Recently, I spent some time kicking through various write-ups people had done about their visits to nuclear power visitor centers. Where they are even still open post-9/11, the general expression is disappointment. The displays are often a let down, but even worse is the fact that there's no one around, no enthusiasm to engage the visitor and bring them into the exercise of nuclear power. People want opportunities to participate in this stuff. That's why the kind of schlocky educational programming like Cities of the Underworld and Dirty Jobs and Mega-Whatevers is so popular. We want the chance to be involved, and I would suggest that that isn't just a question of entertainment, it is something social and political---it's a response to the absence of opportunities to participate in the public life of these buildings and technologies and economic services.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to present what I'm doing as some kind of miraculous, game-changing thing. It's some art, and some writing. Hopefully it will mean something to some people, hopefully it will inspire better ideas in others and even in some of the institutions that I occasionally criticize. The way that all these unfinished sites got forgotten about is part and parcel of the same black boxing that keeps every active plant sealed and deleted from our imagination and our experience, only available to us when we worry about them as remote sources of uncertainty and fear. Marble Hill was a demolition site. But when I'm able to extend this work to other early 1980s cancelled sites, I'm looking forward to seeing what else I'm able to show and what else I'm able to provide to the viewer and the reader as tools for relating to the history of power development and to our contemporary circumstances. Security concerns being what they are, I don't get the sense that there's the same opportunity to make a contribution as an artist and an interpreter of our active nuclear infrastructure here in North America, so for now I'll have to settle for the dead and broken stuff.

I know that's long-winded. There isn't an easy answer. If what you're looking for is something to shift a technical debate, I have nothing to offer you. But so much of the debate takes place way off that grid, in places that scientific planning and energy economics only reach as strange, distorted, shadow things. As an outsider, I'm simply looking for ways to make those aspects of the public dialogue a little healthier, or to spur others into doing so.

[Pman52]

Recently, I spent some time kicking through various write-ups people had done about their visits to nuclear power visitor centers. Where they are even still open post-9/11, the general expression is disappointment. The displays are often a let down, but even worse is the fact that there's no one around, no enthusiasm to engage the visitor and bring them into the exercise of nuclear power. People want opportunities to participate in this stuff. That's why the kind of schlocky educational programming like Cities of the Underworld and Dirty Jobs and Mega-Whatevers is so popular. We want the chance to be involved, and I would suggest that that isn't just a question of entertainment, it is something social and political---it's a response to the absence of opportunities to participate in the public life of these buildings and technologies and economic services.

This is very true.  I've been to 3 operating plants in my time for interviews and had time to kill either before or after my scheduled date.  The visitor centers are, for the most part, dead.  There is usually only one attendant and at 2 plants I went to I wanted to see the exhibits; the attendant had to remember where the light switch was.  In other words, they are very rarely used.  I do know that some plants require you to pass through security prior to the visitors center, requiring a additional time and resources spent on dealing with "tourists" passing through the gate. 

Some plants have the policy that the centers are only to be used for field trips and scheduled visits from the local elementary school or middle school, mostly put into affect after 9/11. The exhibits that are contained in these centers are very technical and give the public opportunities to learn quite a bit about nuclear power.  It's no doubt that the utility paid a large amount of money for these resources and visitor centers.  It's just a shame that these centers are not being used more often to give a positive outlook on nuclear power.  It is true, and as delegates/supporters of the nuclear industry, we see it everyday.  People are scared of what they do not know or understand.  Nuclear fission is a complex process and power plants are very large machines that have a lot going on in the normal routines of putting electrons on the grid.  I think people are interested, but the lack of involvement or understanding is a barrier for most in seeing nuclear power in the light that it should be seen in.

I know its been said many times before, but we need nuclear experts that can work with the media and public and help people to understand what nuclear power is and how it effectively works.  People that are basically in public relations and are responsible for giving nuclear a positive outlook in the public eye.  Michael brings up some good points about involving the public in nuclear power.

[Roll Tide]

At the risk of ridicule, I think I recognize a few of these pics as screen shots on the Xbox 360 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I game. Especially #4 and #6...

[Marlin]

At least one abandoned plant was put to some use.

The Abyss used the largest underwater set to date, at more than 7.5 million gallons. It won an Oscar for best visual effects in 1990.


The containment tanks at the Cherokee Nuclear Power Plant were built in the mid-1970s by Duke Power, but never served their intended use. In January 1986, Earl Owensby, a film producer from North Carolina, bought the abandoned facility and converted the site into a movie studio.


After the production went above budget, the set was never dismantled and still rests in the abandoned and empty Cherokee plant. In fact, 20th Century Fox posted signs warning people not to take pictures because it still owns the copyright on the set. Visiting the set is illegal and considered trespassing. One person got fined $100 trying to enter the abandoned nuclear plant.

http://www.sciway.net/movies/sc-movie-abyss.html

[Higgs]

Justin, thanks for your thoughtful question.

In general, as a public, we are very poorly served by our utilities when it comes to being encouraged to relate to and become comfortable with the physical infrastructure that makes nearly everything in our lives possible. Power utilities are by no means the only culprits here, we've been intentionally discouraged from understanding how a variety of basic services actually work and the roles that they play in our lives and in the physical places that we live. But I think that electrical power generation is an especially important example---people are very interested and very opinionated about the politics of power, about the costs, about their own perceptions of environmental and economic risk. And when people are not given the opportunity to grip and place these systems into the context of their lives and the places they know and value, one of two things happen: either it leads to profound disinterest and to institutions and policy-making that are overly expert-driven, or it leads to badly informed, but staunchly defended popular opinion in lieu of the kind of pragmatic interest in the subject that might actually be a benefit to anyone.

I couldn't agree with this more. We, the nuclear industry, have done a piss poor job at educating the public. Usually, a plant will be involved somewhat on a local level, but outside of their immediate area..., nothing. I agree with you that when the public engages in the debate, they are whoafully uninformed and it can be especially frustrating when they've made up their mind based on a you tube video. For example, there is one anti- nuke on another site I frequent that right now, believes that Fort Calhoun is in full meltdown and releasing radiation to the public, because of a you tube video. When I try to correct and educate, I am met with belligerent resistance and branded and "insider" trying to protect my job. In that case, I apply Marlins rules.

Part of the reason that discussions about nuclear power often feel so intractable and unproductive is that they're forced into a bubble by the way we treat the subject generally. Nuclear power is so rarefied from everyday life that for someone who doesn't work in the field, it's impossible to become familiar with it as anything other than facts/'facts' in a book or on a website or in a campaigner's political material (whether for or against). The debates feel so useless, like a macro version of the sorts of talking-through debates that dominate here on the internet, precisely because most participants are involved without ever having been given the opportunity to actually relate these installations to their lives. We personalize the issues for all the wrong reasons, vehemence springing from total unfamiliarity rather than from something actually lived and experienced.

The "rarefied" nature of our business is exactly why I sometimes engage my friends and family into discussions about nuke power, to help weed out misconceptions and better help them understand what it is we really do, and how safe we really are. Hell, I've even recently posted a small video of a large break loss of coolant accident that I took in our simulator, on facebook, to give my friends a better idea of how things work. It was received rather well. Sometimes it's more difficult though, like when my mother texted me after Fukushima saying; "OMG! The news just said Beaver Valley is only protected up to a 6 something quake!" My response was "So?" She says "So what happens if you are hit with a 9.0?" I said "I will call you and tall you to head west." When I finally got to see her face to face, I took her the part of our Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) which documents how the site was selected, included 200 years of flooding and quake data. We spoke about the economic infeasibility of building every plant to withstand a 1 in a billion flood or quake. She appreciated it.

I've also dragged friends and family to the simulator and let them get "hands on" and see the safety systems in work in person. Much better than the disappointing tours you mentioned. They may have thought it was going to be boring at first, but they always left with a grin on their face and better understanding of how things work. It makes me proud to see them then engage in the debate with their new found knowledge and shoot down the logical fallacies many anti-nukes spew.

That is why I am more than happy to help educate people as much as possible, because with better understanding, the debate is more rational and on target and real progress can be made.


I also get where you are coming from, and I appreciate your perspective, and I love the art side of it. Please, keep bringing us these fantastic photos and if there is anything I can do to help you in your goal, please don't hesitate to ask.

Welcome to the site and I look forward to your future contributions!

Justin

[Gamecock]

I know its been said many times before, but we need nuclear experts that can work with the media and public and help people to understand what nuclear power is and how it effectively works.  People that are basically in public relations and are responsible for giving nuclear a positive outlook in the public eye.

Isn't this what NEI is supposed to be doing?

[Sun Dog]

Isn't this what NEI is supposed to be doing?

NEI's self-proclaimed objective is to promote nuclear energy through the formation of policies.  NEI does not claim to promote the cause through a PR campaign.

NEI's Mission: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national and global policy-making process.

NEI's objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world.


You can review the NEI Statement of Purpose from the NEI bylaws at:

http://www.nei.org/aboutnei/statementofpurpose/

[Fermi2]

Isn't this what NEI is supposed to be doing?

Nope

[Gamecock]

I know its been said many times before, but we need nuclear experts that can work with the media and public and help people to understand what nuclear power is and how it effectively works.  People that are basically in public relations and are responsible for giving nuclear a positive outlook in the public eye. 

If NEI doesn't do this, then perhaps someone should start doing this.  The key to the nuclear renaissance, IMHO, is educating the public.

Maybe when I retire....

[thenuttyneutron]

I couldn't agree with this more. We, the nuclear industry, have done a piss poor job at educating the public. Usually, a plant will be involved somewhat on a local level, but outside of their immediate area..., nothing. I agree with you that when the public engages in the debate, they are whoafully uninformed and it can be especially frustrating when they've made up their mind based on a you tube video. For example, there is one anti- nuke on another site I frequent that right now, believes that Fort Calhoun is in full meltdown and releasing radiation to the public, because of a you tube video. When I try to correct and educate, I am met with belligerent resistance and branded and "insider" trying to protect my job. In that case, I apply Marlins rules.

The "rarefied" nature of our business is exactly why I sometimes engage my friends and family into discussions about nuke power, to help weed out misconceptions and better help them understand what it is we really do, and how safe we really are. Hell, I've even recently posted a small video of a large break loss of coolant accident that I took in our simulator, on facebook, to give my friends a better idea of how things work. It was received rather well. Sometimes it's more difficult though, like when my mother texted me after Fukushima saying; "OMG! The news just said Beaver Valley is only protected up to a 6 something quake!" My response was "So?" She says "So what happens if you are hit with a 9.0?" I said "I will call you and tall you to head west." When I finally got to see her face to face, I took her the part of our Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) which documents how the site was selected, included 200 years of flooding and quake data. We spoke about the economic infeasibility of building every plant to withstand a 1 in a billion flood or quake. She appreciated it.

I've also dragged friends and family to the simulator and let them get "hands on" and see the safety systems in work in person. Much better than the disappointing tours you mentioned. They may have thought it was going to be boring at first, but they always left with a grin on their face and better understanding of how things work. It makes me proud to see them then engage in the debate with their new found knowledge and shoot down the logical fallacies many anti-nukes spew.

That is why I am more than happy to help educate people as much as possible, because with better understanding, the debate is more rational and on target and real progress can be made.


I also get where you are coming from, and I appreciate your perspective, and I love the art side of it. Please, keep bringing us these fantastic photos and if there is anything I can do to help you in your goal, please don't hesitate to ask.

Welcome to the site and I look forward to your future contributions!

Justin

The sad part is how joe public wants his light switch to work when ever it is flipped and only pay $0.06 per KW-hr.

[Laundry Man]

Don't forget Midland MI.
LM

[Contract SRO]

This is true but the property was later sold and Southern Company purchased it.  Later it joined Duke Energy in a joint venture to build a new nuclear plant on the site.  After Vogtle 3 & 4 became a reality Southern decided to concentrate it's efforts on Vogtle and sold it's share of the property to Duke who is planning to build an AP1000 on the site.

At least one abandoned plant was put to some use.

The Abyss used the largest underwater set to date, at more than 7.5 million gallons. It won an Oscar for best visual effects in 1990.


The containment tanks at the Cherokee Nuclear Power Plant were built in the mid-1970s by Duke Power, but never served their intended use. In January 1986, Earl Owensby, a film producer from North Carolina, bought the abandoned facility and converted the site into a movie studio.


After the production went above budget, the set was never dismantled and still rests in the abandoned and empty Cherokee plant. In fact, 20th Century Fox posted signs warning people not to take pictures because it still owns the copyright on the set. Visiting the set is illegal and considered trespassing. One person got fined $100 trying to enter the abandoned nuclear plant.

http://www.sciway.net/movies/sc-movie-abyss.html

[drayer54]

If NEI doesn't do this, then perhaps someone should start doing this.  The key to the nuclear renaissance, IMHO, is educating the public.

Maybe when I retire....

Coal has set itself up beautifully with several different lobbying agencies. Nobody seems to be bothered by the disgusting remains of the coal plants or the facts around them. People don't mind because it's cheap and the commercials have convinced people that it is clean....

Look at the patriotic marketing in the attached image. We have a kid with an American flag.... how could you not love coal after seeing that.
NEI isn't lobbying, they are simply putting up references for research projects.

Also, look at the second image... DR. COAL?! He is going to convince you that coal is good for your health. This is about as genius as the third attachment!

I want to see Gamecock holding a fuel pellet and saying they can pry it from his cold dead hands and then we can have Dave...ahem.. Dr. Dave come out and give the long term health benefits of living by a nuclear plant vice coal plant! I'm sure we can come up with some kids, hell I'm about to have one, and then we can make em all patriotic looking and what not with a big cooling tower in the backdrop.


Where's the lobbying!!!!! Lobbying could get people like Markey out of congress and make people view cancelling a nuclear plant like passing cap and trade in West Virginia....... just saying....



On the up and up:

The George W. Bush administration set aside $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. President Obama has proposed tripling the size of the program.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-28/nuclear-energy-institute-spent-545k-lobbying.html

[HydroDave63]

and then we can have Dave...ahem..

(wearing bib overalls) Yep, more people died in Ted Kennedy's car than Three Mile Island (spits some chew off camera) git er' done!  (with a rebel flag flying from the ERP tower)

[RAD-GHOST]

(wearing bib overalls)

I believe that is formal attire in the Duke system.....

Could be wrong....

RG!