Re: Nuclear Reactor Problems

In article
<1b1efd67-ea41-4c30-a16e-8cd6b725dfe1@u28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> Oh wait... these windmills are 'instant ON'....no cost for them to sit
> there other than the bleed to feed the creative funding packages.

And the solar farms, too...

<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/solar-showdown-weeds-vs-silicon/>

Dead technology...

On Aug 10, 7:02=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Han" wrote:
> > As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
> > than
> > all the people who have died from nuke accidents.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
> well as nukes?
>
> BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
> quickly as possible.
>
> Lew

They're still calling them fossil fuels? Dude, they found crude and
tars on Titan!
Heavy hydrocarbons do NOT have to be from a plant-like origin.
Methanes and its derivatives do NOT have to be plant/shit/flesh based.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:49:57 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Robatoy wrote:
>
>>
>> I am all for oversight. There's always a chance that a privately owned
>> utility will try shortcuts to improve their bottom line.
>> We have a good sized unit just 1.5 hrs up the lake from here (
>> http://www.brucepower.com/about-us/ ) and they are all over those
>> guys. The rest of the nukes are monitored by themselves, NOT a good
>> plan.

Remember that all the nuclear generating units insure the others. Any
accident costs for one unit come out of the pockets of the other
units. None of them wants to see the other guy falter.


>I've seen too much government oversight to put any faith in that approach!
>But - even a well run plant does not address the issues of accidents and
>waste disposal. Both of those offer a far more dismal future than the
>thought of depleting natural gas.

How many thousands of man-years of safe nuclear power have we had
already? Over three thousand. Actual accidents pale in comparison to
you guy's unsubstantiated fears. I lived about 20 miles directly
downwind of SONGS for 35 years and I don't glow in the dark, Mike.

France has shown us that we -don't- have to store everything and we
-can- reprocess spent fuel instead of storing it. It's time we came up
to speed. Our grid needs help NOW!

Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima have been illustrative of how we can
better build even safer units.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> Again, if it weren't for the alternative sources req'd to be around
>> because it isn't reliable, that would be basically true.
> ----------------------------
> You're hung up on wind being unreliable.
>
> There is more than one form of renewable energy.
>

Right. Wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, nuclear, etc.

Name ONE as versatile, economical, or available as petroleum. By every
objective standard, there is no current substitute for oil. Nor does anyone
claim there will be in the foreseeable future.

On Aug 11, 8:11=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard <[email protected]> wrote innews:ot6dnfgWNud38t7TnZ2dnUVZ_gW=
[email protected]:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >> "Han" wrote:
>
> >>> As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
> >>> than
> >>> all the people who have died from nuke accidents.
>
> >> ---------------------------------
> >> Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
> >> well as nukes?
>
> >> BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
> >> quickly as possible.
>
> >> Lew
>
> > And replace them with what, Lew?
> > Horses?
>
> Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse manure
> pollution in (at least) New York City.
>
> > There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and portability
> > as gasoline. =A0I would add that our problem is that we are 50 years la=
te
> > deciding to make internal combustion effecent and clean. =A0But we didn=
't
> > have the computer technology back then to do it.
>
> Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
> sources. =A0Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats are
> equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
> consumption. =A0I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
> manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
> demand. =A0For now, I think the only transportation that would be difficu=
lt
> to replace is jet planes.
>
LOL...Battery powered (heavy) planes...cool. So the runways need to be
15 miles, so what? There's always eminent domain.

On Jun 3, 4:03=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/3/2011 1:46 PM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
> > OK, I found the annual meeting minutes program I was looking for--
> ...
> > In there the current estimated construction costs are--
>
> > Coal $2500-$2600 /MWe
> > Nuke $5000-$5200 /MWe
> > Wind $2400-$2500 /MWe (including tax credits)
>
> > The kicker is that w/ wind we can only expect roughly 40% of that
> > installed capacity to be available (on annual capacity of 112 MWe
> > installed observed over nine years of actual production) so the actual
> > average installed cost is roughly 2.5X the above or $6000 /MWe-ongrid.
>
> ...
>
> BTW, just for comparison--for the time period the overall average
> capacity factor for Wolf Creek Nuclear Station was 87.1% w/ a peak
> annual capacity of 95.8% in '07; the _lowest_ being 81.5% in '05 owing
> to an extra week (roughly) longer outage duration costing roughly 2% on
> annual output.
>
> --

Can we zoom back and look at the big picture, rather than get buried
under copious amounts of detail?
When I played waterpolo, varsity level, we had a play called "******'s
Washup". I would make so much froth, that the refs could not see that
I was elbowing some poor opponent in the chops.
In politics it's called obfuscation.
Everybody is so busy looking at some tracks, going: Mmm doesn't look
like bear tracks, mmm doesn't look like moose tracks.... could it be
deer tracks??? then the train hits them.

YES, YES, YES, we KNOW about all the fog, we KNOW about the insane
amounts of details.
WHERE is the solution?
Too many engineers vying for perpetual employment by clouding issues
with bullshit details. I know. I was one.

Instead of pummeling each other with lofty 'educated' crap, why not
stop this bullshit train and look at what makes sense?

Goddammit!!!!!

On Jul 6, 12:54=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:


>
> Thanks to liberals and other unfounded fear mongers.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Way to go, guys!

O, forfuksakes. Fear has been used to control the masses for eons.
Hell, the whole 'Hell' idea was conjured up by some power-hungry
padres. "Keep them suckers in line by scaring them into believing a
BAD eternity awaits those who don't fall into line and contribute to
the coffers of the bishops." Jacq-O, the Right even manages to create
fears out of thin air, it is not an exclusive of libtards, but it is
manipulated skillfully by those who want control....like the parents
of yore telling their unruly children there's a boogie-man under the
bed.
Who do we get taxed to death? Because if we don't, THE I R S is
gonna ruin you!!! What if the whole country decided to tell the IRS to
go fuck themselves... just exactly how much power would they have? All
those mofo's have is what you give them. Fire the FED... they are NOT
elected and neither is the IRS... they're private companies behaving
badly.
And what if the whole country decided to try to go it without power
for a few days. Have a BBQ, take a walk, swim,...and turn everything
OFF.

>
> http://goo.gl/oqvr7shutting down wind farms?
>
Oh wait... these windmills are 'instant ON'....no cost for them to sit
there other than the bleed to feed the creative funding packages.

*feeling a little rebellious today*

On Jul 8, 10:46=A0am, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article
> <1b1efd67-ea41-4c30-a16e-8cd6b725d...@u28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Oh wait... these windmills are 'instant ON'....no cost for them to sit
> > there other than the bleed to feed the creative funding packages.
>
> And the solar farms, too...
>
> <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/solar-showdown-weeds-vs-silicon/>
>
> Dead technology...

I do think, however, that solar is usable on small-scale
installations, but as a major feed to the grid, not so much.
Wind? Same thing. Peak loads occur at 7 PM and 7 AM (give-or-take)
just when wind is low(er).

The black boxes have locating beacon transmitters in them and are designed
to be found easily.

------------

"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
I read this somewhere. Remember, the plane was buffeted by really bad
weather, the instruments gave conflicting readings, probably was near pitch
black. There was somewhere a preliminary reading of the black boxes that
were finally recovered. A miracle in itselfthat they were found, in the
middle of the ocean, no reliable position known until just about then.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Jun 24, 12:22=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> > > I've seen too much government oversight to put any faith in that
> > > approach! But - even a well run plant does not address the issues of
> > > accidents and waste disposal. =A0Both of those offer a far more disma=
l
> > > future than the thought of depleting natural gas.
>
> > Minor observation: We do not have a plan for nuclear waste removal beca=
use
> > we don't NEED a plan.
>
> > There are several thoughts on the matter: Encase the waste in molten gl=
ass
> > and dump the ingots in the middle of the Pacific, shoot the waste into =
the
> > sun via rocket ship, liquify and pump into a salt dome, etc.
>
> > The reason none of these has been adoped is that the need for a solutio=
n is
> > not critical.
>
> > The longer we postpone a decision, the greater the chance of a better
> > solution being found.
>
> > Personally, I'm in favor of stacking the stuff up on the U.S.-Mexican
> > border. It will make spotting illegals easier to spot in the dark.
>
> Actually the reason we don't have a plan is that Carter decreed that it
> be stored instead of recycled and no President since has grown a brain.

One didn't even have a brain to grow!

dpb wrote:

>
> Like any other waste, it's as "safe" as the processes and care taken
> with it. There are other industiral byproducts that are extremely
> toxic and dangerous and we deal with them routinely.

I'll give you that. The qualifier though is that nuclear waste ranks among
the highest of concern. It also has this nasty long life thing. This
thread has been populated with statements about how we are or will affect
generations to come - don't you think nuclear waste plays into that
statement?

>
> Nuclear byproducts issues are fundamentally no different in concept of
> how to handle them; only in the technical details of what is done.
>

Make yourself fell better by reducing very real problems to some sort of
academic statement. If it is so trivial, why has your industry and every
government that has put their hand to it, not come up with the trivial
solution? In concept - this stuff lasts a long time and has a greater
potential for mass effect than most other byproducts we deal with today.

> Weapons material has been being reprocessed for 60+ years; it's not a
> public issue simply because it is defense related and not a subject of
> political debate as is commercial nuclear power generation (at least
> in the US).

And your point is?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 6/1/2011 1:02 PM, chaniarts wrote:
> Han wrote:
>> dpb<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or
>>> in Germany. Baseload is still an issue.
>>
>> Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.
>
> but it's much windier elsewhere in europe than germany. without a
> european-wide energy producer, they're going to have to buy power from
> elsewhere. that elsewhere is going to have to use nuclear, so they're just
> exporting their problem to another country.

This whole is issue is purely political and based on neither science,
nor 40 years of statistical evidence with regard to the risk versus
reward of nuclear electrical generation.

I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily, simply as
a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it hate
the thought of a sucessful democracy ... it is exactly the same mindset
with regard to nuclear energy.

The absolutely stupidity exhibited by at least half of the shitheads
populating this planet is truly amazing ... may they get what they
deserve by dying in the dark.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>
> Wonder why this doesn't come as any surprise?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/64bgvt8
>
> Lew

Oh hell no... "we're safe - we have a great safety record..."

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:32:37 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>
>> Just lucky................................
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3n3qg7j
>>
>> Bring on the nukes.
>
>----------------------------
>The days of the nuclear industry's "Feet up, pat 'em on the po po"
>approach to dealing with the public are over.
>
>The industry has had 40+ years to develop a reliable and safe waste
>stream processing method and they are still at square one.

Thanks to liberals and other unfounded fear mongers.

Way to go, guys!


>Until the industry gets serious about solving this problem on a world
>wide basis, there will be no new nukes built, at least if I can help
>stop them.
>
>There are just too many other alternate renewable energy possibilities
>waiting to be developed including, but not limited to the next
>generation of batteries and photo cells..

So, what do you use to charge up those batteries on windless, cloudy
days, hmm? What are the comparative costs, downsides, efficiencies?

http://goo.gl/oqvr7 shutting down wind farms?


--
Just getting back after a farkin' virus ate my computer.
I'm still without any email or usenet archives. <sigh>

HeyBub wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>> I've seen too much government oversight to put any faith in that
>> approach! But - even a well run plant does not address the issues of
>> accidents and waste disposal. Both of those offer a far more dismal
>> future than the thought of depleting natural gas.
>
> Minor observation: We do not have a plan for nuclear waste removal
> because we don't NEED a plan.

Really? Are you living in the dark? Really?

>
> There are several thoughts on the matter: Encase the waste in molten
> glass and dump the ingots in the middle of the Pacific, shoot the
> waste into the sun via rocket ship, liquify and pump into a salt
> dome, etc.

You might want to spend a bit of time really reading on these ideas rather
than simply post that they exist. Oh yeah... and with respect to today...
just where are these ideas? Here - I'll tell you... they are sitting in
water tanks in communities near the reactors. The very notions you submit
above really dictate that you spend even a small amount of time with
google...

>
> The reason none of these has been adoped is that the need for a
> solution is not critical.
>

Bullshit. Please - investigate even a little bit before posting an opinion.
I won't pretend to be any sort of an expert, or even terribly informed on
these matters, but geeze - even the most uninformed person has seen these
ideas and the obvious errors in those lines of thinking.

> The longer we postpone a decision, the greater the chance of a better
> solution being found.
>

Great - let's make a decision to do something we don't understand, with no
solution to the small scale problem we already have with that idea, and just
bank on the hope that because we're committing to it, that we'll fix the
problem. I'll ask you the same question I've already asked - are you ready
for that storage to be 10 miles from your home?

> Personally, I'm in favor of stacking the stuff up on the U.S.-Mexican
> border. It will make spotting illegals easier to spot in the dark.

I knew if we kept this dialog up long enough, we'd hit the point where we
would be in violent agreement. You sir - are a man of great genius!

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

dpb wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>> Actually, the French could tell you why recycling is not the panacea
>> that those condeming the US position, are so fond of implying.
>
>
> Currently recycling of commercial nuclear fuel is a bum idea simply
> because the economics don't support it w/ a plentiful supply of virgin
> material (and espeically so as continue to blend down the former USSR
> and US stocks of HEU that has been and is being reclaimed from the
> arms treaties of the last decades. That being a 30:1 (roughly)
> expansion of material, even the relatively small amounts contained in
> a warhead as opposed to that in a reactor core load makes it go quite
> a long ways in minimizing the SWUs expense.
>
> Reprocessing will, in the end, become a viable alternative as supplies
> tighten up, just as alternative combustible fuels (ethanol and
> biodiesel for two) will continue to become more and more viable as
> the cost differential decreases and may _eventually_ even favor the
> biofuels.

In terms of shear quantity, I agree that reprocessing will contribute to a
net better condition, however reprocessing does not eliminate, or
significantly enough reduce the threat of nuclear byproducts to make it
insignificant. My point continues to be that nuclear waste is a very
significant issue and that it outweighs the concerns for alternative fuels
such as fossil fuels - for now.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Jun 3, 4:48=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/3/2011 3:29 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> ...
>
> > stop this bullshit train and look at what makes sense?
>
> ...
>
> Not sure what they're doing up north, Robatoy; what they're doing down
> here is making more bs rules and adding costs thereby.
>
> My task (and I've chosen to accept it) is to try to throw fact in front
> of the train and make as much effort as possible to keep power
> affordable for our members.
>
> I don't know of any way other than to try to counteract the agenda of
> the others than by refuting them, do you?
>
> (Or, maybe I'm totally misreading...I will kill this thread in my reader
> so I'm no longer tempted, though, at least until Lew goes off again... :)=
)
>

If your task is keeping costs down on distribution, then it doesn't
matter where the MWs come from.
If the decision to drain a lake through a turbine is 20 free MW's for
a year and then the damn thing goes dry, the lake that is, then cooler
heads must prevail. In that hypothetical scenario, you can't run lines
to a community with a guarantee to supply them.
So the supply has to have some robustness to it. Not only are we
talking about base-load, we are also looking at sustainability. The
steadiest, reliable base-load we have, here and below the border, is
nuclear. Fact.
So if we are going to blow a bezillion dollars on R&D, let it be to
perfect that source we have become to trust.
Nuclear is pretty darn green if managed and put in places where the
risk factors are extremely low.
Coal mines collapse, water runs out and artificial lakes causes all
kinds of eco-problems.

We have spent a gazillion dollars working on all facets of nuclear
power. THAT is money already invested. We have learned so much over
the last 80 years. Let us put that to good use and be more careful.

We can't afford NOT to go nuclear.

dpb wrote:

>
> That many other places are sited where they ought not to be or, in
> many instances that folks built residential areas around already
> existing industrial facilities doesn't change the fact that the
> juxtapostion of same is/was not wise. I'd presume that in siting any
> new facility one would take into account past experience in other
> areas as well.

Though I won't disagree with the basic reasoning of your statement, it just
does not wash in the real world. For a number of reasons which all made
sense at some point in time, reality prevailed and that juxtaposition did in
fact take place. While it might be nicer if it had not, there were
perfectly valid reasons why it did. Ya just can't escape that reality
simply based on an idealism - regarless of how attractive that idealism is.


>
>
> You've never met me... :) But, spent 30+ years in primarily
> commercial nuclear w/ design, construction and operation both in
> engineering and on site. Never was nervous going onsite and wouldn't
> be nervous about having a facility in the general area.
>

I wouldn't be fearful of entering a facility either. I do trust in the
controls for the most part, that are in place and in practice. My points
have not been about those, but about the inevitable accident that will occur
from uncontrolable factors such as geological disturbances,
weather/meterological events, and in this day and age - the mental
disturbances of groups of people.

As well, I've limited myself to only expressing concerns for the
accumulation of waste and the lack of any good way to address that problem.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On May 31, 10:08=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

> That is the stupidest use of natural gas that one can possibly make of
> it... :(
>
> And, they're trading near zero emissions and no C emissions for another
> increase in fossil. =A0What happened to reducing C footprint????
>
> All in all, I think they're making a kneejerk reaction in the totally
> wrong direction for the wrong reasons.
>


I agree 100%

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Engineering details that are being resolved.
>
> Nobody said it was going to be easy, but we're are gaining on it.
>
> Afterall, it took almost 10 years to get to the moon.
>
> If you look at the cost of ownership equation, wind power has a very
> high
> front end cost, but after that operating costs drops drastically.
>
> As every sailor knows, the wind is free, but putting it to use gets
> expensive.
>

But what are the consequences of interrupting surface wind flow? Will it
affect the weather? Crop pollination? A dog's sense of direction?

It's said that in some parts of Texas, one can't have more than one windmill
per acre or all the wind will get used up!

On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
> Richard<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "Han" wrote:
>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
>>>> than
>>>> all the people who have died from nuke accidents.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
>>> well as nukes?
>>>
>>> BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
>>> quickly as possible.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And replace them with what, Lew?
>> Horses?
>
> Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse manure
> pollution in (at least) New York City.
>
>> There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and portability
>> as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we are 50 years late
>> deciding to make internal combustion effecent and clean. But we didn't
>> have the computer technology back then to do it.
>
> Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
> sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats are
> equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
> consumption. I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
> manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
> demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would be difficult
> to replace is jet planes.
>
>
Actually, I think the biggest problem is shipping - freighters.
Dig into that some.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 23:42:24 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>
>> Wonder why this doesn't come as any surprise?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/64bgvt8
>>
>> Lew
>
>Oh hell no... "we're safe - we have a great safety record..."

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

<sigh>

Slaps on the hands and fines for
1) personnel who didn't update the phone numbers for safety personnel
and
2) personnel allowing training lapses
are in order.

And update those insecure buildings, guys, but don't scream.

P.S: They DO have a great safety record. More people dies of the top
ten everyday accidents each year than have -ever- died from non-bomb
nuclear accidents. You said you were pro nuclear energy, Mike, so
stop siding with the Chicken Littles, huh?

--
Learning to ignore things is one of the great paths to inner peace.
-- Robert J. Sawyer

dpb wrote:

>
>
> What _SPECIFIC_ risk are you talking about? What was the risk at
> Yucca Mtn that's so horrific (other than Harry losing his powerful
> position in NV and DC if he gets out of the way)???

Just the nature of the waste, and the fact that today, our storage strategy
relies on the hope that nothing will go wrong - no earthquakes, no outside
factors, that will disturb what is a fairly fragile storage strategy, and
that at some point we'll have a better plan.

>
> Carter killed reprocessing because he could not separate the weapons
> proliferation issue from that of commercial fuel reprocessing (that
> nasty bogey-man word "Plutonium" again). We see how well that worked;
> it stymied any further development on the technical front as nobody is
> going to invest in an area that is guaranteed to not even get
> considered owing to government decree and the areas of the world that
> were worried about as far as rogue weapons didn't care what the US
> did anyway and went on their way (N Korea, Iran, ...).

I get that part, and I've not disagreed with that point, but I can't lay it
all at the feet of the political decisions. Other countries have not been
as hogtied as the US, and have proceeded with reprocessing, but while their
waste issue are different (somewhat) than ours, they are also in some
respects, the same waste issues. So - the French (which I continue to rely
on for my examples, because I understand them to have committed more to
nuclear than anyone else), are wrestling with waste issues even today. So,
it appears that reprocessing, though offering a perfectly valid economical
benefit, still suffers the issue of what to do with the stuff.

>
>
> Meanwhile, owing to those decisions, spent fuel continues to simply
> accumulate at the reactor sites as there is no alternative allowed or
> allowable at present. The current situation is _all_, fundamentally,
> political in how we got to this quagmire because every alternative has
> been closed to date by intervention from DC.

Not so much, as I understand it. Again - France is still dealing with what
to do with their spent fuel.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

J. Clarke wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
...


>>The reason none of these has been adoped is that the need for a solution is
>>not critical.
>>
>>The longer we postpone a decision, the greater the chance of a better
>>solution being found.
>>
>>Personally, I'm in favor of stacking the stuff up on the U.S.-Mexican
>>border. It will make spotting illegals easier to spot in the dark.
>>
>
> Actually the reason we don't have a plan is that Carter decreed that it
> be stored instead of recycled and no President since has grown a brain.


...

And Harry Reid has played the populist position like a drum to retain
his power in NV...

And, actually, we _do_ need a solution...filling and interminable
expanding the spent fuel pools at the operating sites is _not_ a good
substitute for longterm storage in lieu of reprocessing.

--

Mike Marlow wrote:

> dpb wrote:
>
>
>>And, actually, we _do_ need a solution...filling and interminable
>>expanding the spent fuel pools at the operating sites is _not_ a good
>>substitute for longterm storage in lieu of reprocessing.
>>
>
> Reprocessing is better than what we have here now, but it is no long term
> solution. Not even a good short term solution. Nuclear waste is nuclear
> waste and it is not safe regardless of whether it is reprocessed or not.
> the complete issue needs address and to suggest that reprocessing is an
> end-all solution is nothing short of foolish.


Like any other waste, it's as "safe" as the processes and care taken
with it. There are other industiral byproducts that are extremely toxic
and dangerous and we deal with them routinely.

Nuclear byproducts issues are fundamentally no different in concept of
how to handle them; only in the technical details of what is done.

Weapons material has been being reprocessed for 60+ years; it's not a
public issue simply because it is defense related and not a subject of
political debate as is commercial nuclear power generation (at least in
the US).

--

Mike Marlow wrote:

...


> Actually, the French could tell you why recycling is not the panacea that
> those condeming the US position, are so fond of implying.


Currently recycling of commercial nuclear fuel is a bum idea simply
because the economics don't support it w/ a plentiful supply of virgin
material (and espeically so as continue to blend down the former USSR
and US stocks of HEU that has been and is being reclaimed from the arms
treaties of the last decades. That being a 30:1 (roughly) expansion of
material, even the relatively small amounts contained in a warhead as
opposed to that in a reactor core load makes it go quite a long ways in
minimizing the SWUs expense.

Reprocessing will, in the end, become a viable alternative as supplies
tighten up, just as alternative combustible fuels (ethanol and biodiesel
for two) will continue to become more and more viable as the cost
differential decreases and may _eventually_ even favor the biofuels.


--

Mike Marlow wrote:

...


> ...I'll ask you the same question I've already asked - are you ready
> for that storage to be 10 miles from your home?
...


Well, I'm not the "you" of the subthread but I'll make a response
anyway... :)

Ten miles? Depends on what's in that 10 mile zone. If it's a suitable
industrial location, sure.

Simply put, an industrial site of _any_ type doesn't belong in close
proimity to a residential areas simply from land use considerations.

I've worked long enough in the nuclear field to have no concerns
regarding the ability to handle the material safely.

--

J. Clarke wrote:

...


> If someone can find a way to make ethanol that does not involve growing
> crops on arable land perhaps. Right now with corn for ethanol competing
> with food crops the main effect of using ethanol is to run food prices
> through the roof.


Even the World Bank has now come to its senses and noted that the effect
of US corn ethanol on food prices is a very small fraction of the
overall rise...

Note that wheat and other feed grains are high as well and they're not
being used for ethanol. The ultimate root causes of food pricing is
_not_ the cost of the foodstuff at the farm; US farm percentages of the
total food dollar have dropped from 20+% 10 years ago to under 15% now.
The major costs are in the manufacturing and processing, and the
distribution and retailing sectors.

As a simple example, evean at $10/bu wheat, there's less than a quarter
of wheat involved in the pound loaf of bread.

--

Mike Marlow wrote:

> dpb wrote:
>
>
>>Like any other waste, it's as "safe" as the processes and care taken
>>with it. There are other industiral byproducts that are extremely
>>toxic and dangerous and we deal with them routinely.
>>
>
> I'll give you that. The qualifier though is that nuclear waste ranks among
> the highest of concern. It also has this nasty long life thing. This
> thread has been populated with statements about how we are or will affect
> generations to come - don't you think nuclear waste plays into that
> statement?


Many of those other industrial wastes are long-lived as well. Toxic
heavy metals are toxic heavy metals forever, for example, the don't even
have the benefit of the nuclear wast of transmuting to something else. :)

If folks weren't so paranoid, there's even a lot of useful stuff
(including heat) in the nuclear waste, but getting permitted to reclaim
any of it for medical or industrial isotopes, etc., is presently
verboten to even be discussed. That's political, not technical.

Besides, it is the lower specific-activity components that are the
long-lived isotopes so they have less of an actual level of emitted
radiation per unit volume than the shorter-lived isotopes. Decay heat
drops by 10X within the first week and continues at a fairly rapid rate
over the first several months. After a longer period, the need for
extremely high shielding and cooling has gone away and there's really
nothing terribly difficult at all in the storage issue other than the
will to actually let _something_ be done (other than the default current
position of ignoring it at the political level by leaving it at the
spent fuel pools).

>
>
>>Nuclear byproducts issues are fundamentally no different in concept of
>>how to handle them; only in the technical details of what is done.
>>
>>
>
> Make yourself fell better by reducing very real problems to some sort of
> academic statement. If it is so trivial, why has your industry and every
> government that has put their hand to it, not come up with the trivial
> solution? In concept - this stuff lasts a long time and has a greater
> potential for mass effect than most other byproducts we deal with today.


See above...it's political. No matter what is proposed, there's always
a Harry Reid and company to ride the populist wave for personal benefit.

As far as the "potential for mass effect", there's far more lethal doses
in a gm of the botulism toxin than the equivalent mass of Pu to use a
common bogey man.

>>Weapons material has been being reprocessed for 60+ years; it's not a
>>public issue simply because it is defense related and not a subject of
>>political debate as is commercial nuclear power generation (at least
>>in the US).
>>
>
> And your point is?


That given there's a will, the technology for handling it and processing
it w/o any great degree of problem was and has been taken care of for
quite a long time. There's no fundamental difference technically; it's
just that there's too much hoopla in the public sector so don't allow
anything to get done. Meanwhile, that something hasn't been done is
used by folks like you to bolster their argument it can't be done for
commercial fuel w/o any basis for that other than that; ignoring that it
hasn't been allowed as even an option for roughly 30 years now...

My chief complaint is can't have it both ways--since it is not allowed
to either reprocess and the government mandated they would handle the
storage problem (then didn't follow through), you can't then complain
that it is commercial nuclear's fault there isn't either reprocessing in
place or a long term storage or disposal facility operational at present.


--

Mike Marlow wrote:

> dpb wrote:
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>
>>>...I'll ask you the same question I've already asked - are you ready
>>>for that storage to be 10 miles from your home?
>>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>Well, I'm not the "you" of the subthread but I'll make a response
>>anyway... :)
>>
>>Ten miles? Depends on what's in that 10 mile zone. If it's a
>>suitable industrial location, sure.
>>
>
>>Simply put, an industrial site of _any_ type doesn't belong in close
>>proimity to a residential areas simply from land use considerations.
>>
>
> Oh come on... where do you live?


I've lived several places; I'm currently back home on the family farm in
SW KS...

That many other places are sited where they ought not to be or, in many
instances that folks built residential areas around already existing
industrial facilities doesn't change the fact that the juxtapostion of
same is/was not wise. I'd presume that in siting any new facility one
would take into account past experience in other areas as well.

>
>
>>I've worked long enough in the nuclear field to have no concerns
>>regarding the ability to handle the material safely.
>>
>
> Apparently not. You would be the first person I've ever met who claimed to
> be knowledgable in the industry and to at the same time, claim to hold no
> concerns.
>


You've never met me... :) But, spent 30+ years in primarily commercial
nuclear w/ design, construction and operation both in engineering and on
site. Never was nervous going onsite and wouldn't be nervous about
having a facility in the general area.

==

J. Clarke wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>
>>>If someone can find a way to make ethanol that does not involve growing
>>>crops on arable land perhaps. Right now with corn for ethanol competing
>>>with food crops the main effect of using ethanol is to run food prices
>>>through the roof.
>>>
>>
>>Even the World Bank has now come to its senses and noted that the effect
>>of US corn ethanol on food prices is a very small fraction of the
>>overall rise...
>>
>
> Funny how the corn farmers are claiming that removing the subsidy for
> ethanol refining is going to cut their prices in half then.


It'll not happen;

>
>
>>Note that wheat and other feed grains are high as well and they're not
>>being used for ethanol.
>>
>
> Yep. Because they are being produced in less volume because farmers are
> growing field corn to make ethanol. It's called supply and demand. A
> farmer has x acres and wants to maximize his profit, so he grows corn
> for ethanol instead of wheat for bread and pasta and flour and whatnot.


Look at planted/harvested acre reports from USDA and you'll not see a
such a major shift as you seem to think (that bogeyman of the shift of
crop practices drastically wasn't ever true and the realization that it
wasn't is a significant factor in the World Bank realization that their
previous models/assessments weren't correct).

Wheat harvest volume is down some this year but that's owing to so much
of the wheat belt being in severe drought--we were glad to have 10-15 bu
yields on some; heard on farm radio yesterday that OK state yield is
roughly 40% off from drought. KS was estimating 20% but I think unless
central/eastern part of state (which is always wetter even though
they're dry for them) it will have tough time making that based on
yields seeing here.

But, much ground simply isn't suitable for corn owing either to the
ground itself or more frequently, lack of sufficient water. All the
supposition of growing corn specifically won't make it happen; the
producer does look at what gives him the best chance at the best margins
of course but that includes the fact that corn is extremely high-input
(in girlfriends one would say high maintenance :) ) and just doesn't
have a good risk:benefit ratio.

Also counteracting the lack of acreage in alternate crops is that the
CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) funded acreage target has been
reduced from over 36 million A to about 31M A since the inception of the
'08 farm bill. There's another 5M A that has or will be coming out and
none of that will be irrigated which means virtually none will be going
into corn in the areas that have large quantities of CRP (as in full
quarters or sections as opposed to 20-30A patches).


>
>> The ultimate root causes of food pricing is
>>_not_ the cost of the foodstuff at the farm; US farm percentages of the
>>total food dollar have dropped from 20+% 10 years ago to under 15% now.
>> The major costs are in the manufacturing and processing, and the
>>distribution and retailing sectors.
>>
>
> Yep, you go on believing what the ethanol lobby wants you to believe.


It's factual...look at USDA statistics on farm income.

>
>
>>As a simple example, evean at $10/bu wheat, there's less than a quarter
>>of wheat involved in the pound loaf of bread.
>>
>
> So how many cents worth of wheat are involved in the pound box of
> macaroni? You're picking one of the most highly processed foods as your
> example.


Highly processed????? Grind wheat for flour, add a little yeast, water
and salt and bake. It's pretty low on the processing scale in the
overall scheme. But the point is, it isn't the material cost of the raw
ingredients that is driving the cost; virtually all the margin is going
to the non-farm producers.

As pasta, it's about the same...except it's duram wheat instead of hard
winter wheat.


>
> Sorry, but even if all the cropland in the world was used to produce
> ethanol the amount produced would be a drop in the bucket to the overall
> demand. So why do it other than to be politically correct?
...


Why not...as another poster is wont to say of alternative electric
energy generation--it will take a veritable plethora of sources. :)

Tax credits are being debated again even as we speak--don't know what
direction will end up taking; I suspect it will be retained in some form
to continue toward the deployment of infrastructure. Eventually, of
course, the production will shift in the majority away from grain
feedstocks to other biomass but meanhwhile it isn't causing human food
shortages and it does have some benefit to farm economies that otherwise
have been stagnant or declining. Of course, the city folk want cheap
food and don't really give much of a hoot about whether a farmer can
make any ROI on a very large capital and personal labor investment; they
would prefer he not, in fact.

As with most other economic issues, it all depends on who has the skin
in the game...with a combine at > $300K and $4 diesel and $1000/T N, $2
corn won't cut it no matter where it is supposed to go.

--

Larry W wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
> <...snipped...>
>
>>Personally, I'm in favor of stacking the stuff up on the U.S.-Mexican
>>border. It will make spotting illegals easier to spot in the dark.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Actually, stacking it up is not a really good idea. During the Manhattan
> project, the Oak Ridge team, mostly chemists and engineers, worked on
> enriching & isolating the fissionable U235 isotope from the much
> more prevalant U238. They were not aware of the reasons for doing
> this (classified) and most did not have an understanding of the critcal
> mass concept. Fortunately, one of the physicists at Los Alamos realized
> the danger after seeing a photograph of the stack.
>
> The USSR had a number of nuclear accidents in the late 50s at what is
> now called Mayak. It's been theorized some of these resulted from
> accidental criticality incidents.
...


Commercial reactor _new_ fuel won't reach criticality in an open stack
w/o moderator, what more spent fuel...

I spent almost 30 years in Oak Ridge and am aware (I am almost certain)
of all the criticality or near=criticality incidents there since the
inception as things of intense scrutiny and rehash for lessons learned,
etc. I have never heard of such an incident as you describe; please
provide some details so can dig into this...

--

Mike Marlow wrote:

...


> I wouldn't be fearful of entering a facility either. I do trust in the
> controls for the most part, that are in place and in practice. My points
> have not been about those, but about the inevitable accident that will occur
> from uncontrolable factors such as geological disturbances,
> weather/meterological events, and in this day and age - the mental
> disturbances of groups of people.


Well, any of those can happen whether you're onsite or not...so, you
might as well accept the risk. After all, if you drive to work in the
morning, your likelihood of severe trauma from an accident is _far_
higher than that you'll be injured by a commercial reactor or its
byproducts.

>
> As well, I've limited myself to only expressing concerns for the
> accumulation of waste and the lack of any good way to address that problem.


Again, while conveniently hiding behind the facade that it's a problem
when the real problem is that there's no legal way to do anything about
any of it in the US owing to political constraints as opposed to
anything technical.

Similarly w/ the argument about siting--if you're comfortable with
existing industrial siting that wasn't the smartest then there's no
objective basis to object regarding any other. In the overall actual
risk, the conventional plants have very good odds of being far more
likely to be a real problem than the nuclear plant or waste storage
facility.

It's paranoia, pure and simple....

--

Mike Marlow wrote:

> dpb wrote:
>
>
>>Again, while conveniently hiding behind the facade that it's a problem
>>when the real problem is that there's no legal way to do anything
>>about any of it in the US owing to political constraints as opposed to
>>anything technical.
>>
>>
>
> Not hiding. Have not heard anything from the nuclear industry that
> genuinely mitigates the risk. Reprocessing does not, though it does change
> the risk. It's not purely political - though I will agree and give you that
> the politics behind it are a significant factor.


...


What _SPECIFIC_ risk are you talking about? What was the risk at Yucca
Mtn that's so horrific (other than Harry losing his powerful position in
NV and DC if he gets out of the way)???

Carter killed reprocessing because he could not separate the weapons
proliferation issue from that of commercial fuel reprocessing (that
nasty bogey-man word "Plutonium" again). We see how well that worked;
it stymied any further development on the technical front as nobody is
going to invest in an area that is guaranteed to not even get considered
owing to government decree and the areas of the world that were worried
about as far as rogue weapons didn't care what the US did anyway and
went on their way (N Korea, Iran, ...).


Meanwhile, owing to those decisions, spent fuel continues to simply
accumulate at the reactor sites as there is no alternative allowed or
allowable at present. The current situation is _all_, fundamentally,
political in how we got to this quagmire because every alternative has
been closed to date by intervention from DC.

--

J. Clarke wrote:

...


> Yep, you go on believing what the ethanol lobby wants you to believe.
...


While you regurgitate the campaign propoganda of the combined Food
Institute, Grocery Manufacturers Association, etc., etc., who are all
the upper level distributors and manufacturers who are _already_
pocketing 85% of the food dollar (and wanting continued cheap inputs so
can increase margins even more)...

No thanks, I'll stick w/ what I can glean from the USDA statistics and
the bunch that are on my side including Farm Bureau, etc., as being at
least able to see the producer side.

You ain't see'd nuthin' yet if the present EPA and the Army Corps get
their way on both the energy and the food fronts, though, if you think
prices are high now, just watch what happens when those initiatives take
hold if they do. And, at the moment, it ain't lookin' good for the home
team. :(

--

Larry W wrote:

...


> I admit that I made that statement from memory of Richard Rhodes book ...


I've skimmed it; don't own it. It's massive enough it may take some
digging to find the anecdote... :) Don't recall if it's indexed well
enough to help or not.

The only case even remotely close at Y-12 I can think of I just don't
think had any connection to NM having pointed out the operation as
troublesome. May have to be careful about how much I say on some of
these; some amazingly enough have details that are (or at least were
when I left OR around 2000 and DOE and the Q behind) still classified
owing to specifics of some of the materials involved (in the separation
process end, not the nuclear material itself) and at least last review
we did for DOE on operations that looked at some of these there had been
no partial declassification on any of the reports--if there was anything
in the report that was classified, the whole document was classified and
a derivative classifier would have to judge what could be released;
the user of the information isn't allowed to decide that just because
they know something else isn't classified per se if it's in the
classified report it can't be released simply on that knowledge. For
one thing, there are combinations of information that are both
unclassified yet the two in proximity to each other can create a
derivative work that may be classified because w/o that direct
connection that the two pieces of information are somehow useful
together isn't obvious. The rules are arcane and full of such
stuf....well, I digress (nothing unusual... :) )

You've definitely whetted my curiosity, though...

--

Mike Marlow wrote:

> dpb wrote:
>
>
>>
>>What _SPECIFIC_ risk are you talking about? What was the risk at
>>Yucca Mtn that's so horrific (other than Harry losing his powerful
>>position in NV and DC if he gets out of the way)???
>>
>
> Just the nature of the waste, and the fact that today, our storage strategy
> relies on the hope that nothing will go wrong - no earthquakes, no outside
> factors, that will disturb what is a fairly fragile storage strategy, and
> that at some point we'll have a better plan.
>
>
>>Carter killed reprocessing because he could not separate the weapons
>>proliferation issue from that of commercial fuel reprocessing (that
>>nasty bogey-man word "Plutonium" again). We see how well that worked;
>>it stymied any further development on the technical front as nobody is
>>going to invest in an area that is guaranteed to not even get
>>considered owing to government decree and the areas of the world that
>>were worried about as far as rogue weapons didn't care what the US
>>did anyway and went on their way (N Korea, Iran, ...).
>>
>
> I get that part, and I've not disagreed with that point, but I can't lay it
> all at the feet of the political decisions. Other countries have not been
> as hogtied as the US, and have proceeded with reprocessing, but while their
> waste issue are different (somewhat) than ours, they are also in some
> respects, the same waste issues. So - the French (which I continue to rely
> on for my examples, because I understand them to have committed more to
> nuclear than anyone else), are wrestling with waste issues even today. So,
> it appears that reprocessing, though offering a perfectly valid economical
> benefit, still suffers the issue of what to do with the stuff.
>
>
>>
>>Meanwhile, owing to those decisions, spent fuel continues to simply
>>accumulate at the reactor sites as there is no alternative allowed or
>>allowable at present. The current situation is _all_, fundamentally,
>>political in how we got to this quagmire because every alternative has
>>been closed to date by intervention from DC.
>>
>
> Not so much, as I understand it. Again - France is still dealing with what
> to do with their spent fuel.
...


Essentially for the same reasons we are...it doesn't matter what is the
proposed solution, there's some wacko group dreaming up some scenario
that has a one in a billion chance of coming true and that's the end of
that.

There is inherent risk in _anything_ and the likelihood of serious
injury or death from many other industrial wastes is far higher than
that for the disposal scenarios proposed; it's that the clamor for
infinitely safe is apparently demanded for this particular process
whereas as you've noted previously, really dumb things have been done in
the past on siting other industrial processes/facilities and you seem to
be ok w/ continuing down the same road there. Why the double standard???

Yucca Mtn was only "fragile" because of the mandate that it be
"monitored retrievable" storage....that meant all kinds of stuff to do
that. It surely would have been much better for all sorts of reasons
than just letting spent assemblies continue to sit in spent fuel pools.

I contend it is still essentially all political (and that is driven by
the special interest groups of all ilks that have banded together as
being anti-nuke for all sorts of underlying reasons from perceived risk
as you to environmental to simply anti-technology/development) here and
throughout the rest of the (more or less) democratic world.

BTW, I was reminded from another story last night of a feature of Carter
I had forgotten...it was he who got us going on corn ethanol because of
his misguided boycott on exporting grain to the Russians over the
Olympics and that was his answer to the resultant crash in the domestic
grain markets from having killed the markets. It's taken almost 30 yrs
to recover viable markets internal and external from that disaster and
the current administration is almost as hostile to ag in holding up
current approval of trade treaties that have been on hold since they
took office. Meanwhile, altho we're losing out every year in those
markets and will have tough road to recovery when they finally do get
approved (assuming will, eventually) ag is one of the few positive trade
balance areas in the US economy and they're doing about everything can
to stifle it and make us less competitive worldwide. Hard to figure
what goes on in their heads... :(

--

dpb wrote:

> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> dpb wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What _SPECIFIC_ risk are you talking about? What was the risk at
>>> Yucca Mtn that's so horrific (other than Harry losing his powerful
>>> position in NV and DC if he gets out of the way)???
>>>
>>
>> Just the nature of the waste, and the fact that today, our storage
>> strategy relies on the hope that nothing will go wrong - no
>> earthquakes, no outside factors, that will disturb what is a fairly
>> fragile storage strategy, and that at some point we'll have a better
>> plan.
...


Speaking of which, all of the above "relies on" are bogus even for the
spent fuel pools.

Certainly any repository site or other alternative has included design
basis earthquake, outside threaths, etc., etc, etc., ...

It's simply nonsense to say that...hell, the damn transport casks have
even been tested w/ full-scale train collisions w/ no harmful releases
and that _still_ doesn't satisfy the critics...there's nothing that
would ever satisfy the critics because they don't have any intent of
being satisfied; adequate safeguards aren't their objective, total
shutdown is the goal.

--

Mike Marlow wrote:

> dpb wrote:
>
>
> Sorry - hit Send too soon...
>
>
>>I contend it is still essentially all political (and that is driven by
>>the special interest groups of all ilks that have banded together as
>>being anti-nuke for all sorts of underlying reasons from perceived
>>risk as you to environmental to simply anti-technology/development)
>>here and throughout the rest of the (more or less) democratic world.
>>
>>
>
> Perceived risks? Come on - how can a guy that lived his career in the
> nuclear industry not admit the very real risks? Your credibility is quickly
> waining when you make such statements. Your very own industry experts do
> not diminish those risks in the same manner you try to.


I don't minimize risk; what I have noted is that it doesn't seem that
threre is any satisfying a large number of critics no matter what is
done...the shipping cask testing is just one example. A definitive test
that will survive a catastrophic accident and still shipping was one of
the "insurmountable difficulties" raised.

There are some considered critics, granted, but the position I
characterize w/ Harry Reid and the populist politics seems to me to be
the controlling factor in setting public policy rather than actual
cost:benefit risk analysis.

There has been one really severe nuclear accident in the world in the
history of nuclear power; Chernobyl and that it was so significant a
result owed to the design and primarily that the USSR built reactors w/o
any primary containment whatsoever. Because of that, it has no bearing
on any other facility presently operating.

In the US, TMI caused no discernible injuries and was the instigator for
major revisions in design modifications and upgrades to the current
generation of facilities.

The Fukushima incident has, afaict, had no personal injuries offsite and
no deaths although some onsite exposures (which, it appears, for the
most part could have largely been avoided). As for the tsunami, indeed
it appears the design basis event was under-estimated for the site; that
issue is being addressed all over the world already even in places that
have no chance of ever seing tsunamis for alternative scenarios. There
will undoubtedly be new procedures and safeguards placed on whichever
facilities are in the region you're near. Note, however, that even w/
the severity of the earthquake in Japan, the physical integrity of the
plants was not compromised other than by the loss of cooling owing to
the tsunami, not the tremor.

Overall, compared to any other major technology in widespread use, the
actual number of deaths and injuries from commercial nuclear power
accidents continues to leave it w/ far and away the best safety record
of any. That there will continue to be improvements and modifications
is certainly true and reasoned input is always useful but expecting
there to never be any conceivable incident is also unrealistic.

My contention remains that nuclear-related perceived risk is ranked far
higher than the realities of the actual happenings. Surely it is
unfortunate that any of these have occurred but then again, there could
be another large airliner be lost tomorrow over the South Atlantic w/
multi-hundred passengers to an apparent severe thunderstorm and yet
virtually nobody would choose to not get on _their_ flight the next day
following despite that event. OTOH, there's already movement to close
nuclear facilities in places that have no chances of tsunamis by
reacting to Japan; it makes no comparative sense whatever.

--

Battery recycling and reprocessing has started. How efficient it is I do not
know.

------------------
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
So when you mention battery technology being so far along, do you
consider the down side that it is a nasty business to be disposing of
the spent batteries? Typically the battery cars life cycle from
beginning to end today use more energy and pollute more during the
manufacturing, consumer operation, and disposal process than the Hummer.

The electrics look good if you only consider the consumer benefit. They
are not any better for the environment during manufacture and disposal.

"whit3rd" wrote:

> In many areas, fly ash isn't 'dumped', but becomes a component
> of cement mix (where it doesn't hurt the final product, and
> is a benefit to the cement plant because they don't have to
> pay to get this part of their raw material shipped in).
> Cinderblock used to be a way to recycle clinker from ironworks...
------------------------------------------
A rather small percentage of the total generated fly ash gets reused
as a raw material for other products such as cement as you suggest;
however, tremendous amounts are shipped to open pit storage
facilities.

Since fly ash contains carcinogens known to cause cancer, disposing of
it in such a careless manner (open pit) is not indicative of good
corporate citizenship, IMHO.

Man has been mucking up the planet with his waste probably for as long
as he has been standing upright.

The present energy industry is simply the latest form of it's
manifestation.

Lew

Looks like Germany is taking the lead.

http://tinyurl.com/3pcx2jh


Lew

"HeyBub" wrote:

> So what is Germany to use to power electrical generation plants?
>
> I know! Oil and natural gas!
>
> There goes the demand curve - and the price.
-----------------------------------
"Han" wrote:

> Germany is actually pretty big on renewables. Often wind. It was
> stated
> that the "emergency" shutdown of some 7 big nuclear plants hadn't
> caused
> any problems with electricity supply, so they thought they could
> handle the
> mothballing of the remaining plants fairly easily.
>
> Of course the customer will pay for any costs ...

---------------------------------

> Now Han, ya gotta cut the stupid some slack, for they know not what
> they are spouting off about.

As far as Germany being able to produce renewable energy at a
competitive price, they already do it.

Much of it using equipment built by an in-house outfit by the name of
Siemens.


Lew

"J. Clarke" wrote:

> Looks like the Germans are going back to coal. No doubt they'll
> come up
> with some overengineerd baroque monstrosity intended to be "clean".
---------------------------------
Probably be a good idea to have your eyes checked along with learning
how to understand what you think you read.
---------------------------------

"The plan calls for more investment in natural gas plants as a backup
to prevent blackouts, the chancellor said."

Lew

"dpb" wrote:

> A) yes, B) not so much...it's pretty heavily subsidized.
---------------------------------
When the renewable energy business starts getting subsidized at the
same level the oil & coal businesses already receive, get back to me.
-------------------------------------
> They (Siemens) also have a facility in KS building for the US market
> (also quite heavily subsidized).
------------------------------------
Glad to see you gained some jobs in KS.
------------------------------------

> Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or
> in Germany. Baseload is still an issue.
-------------------------------
You are quick nto point out the wind doesn't blow 100% of the time.

So what?

Renewable energy includes lots of sources other than wind.

Thermal/solar, geo-thermal, solar/electric, tidal, etc, come to mind.

The Germans seem to addressed the base load issue.

"The plan calls for more investment in natural gas plants as a backup
to prevent blackouts, the chancellor said."

Lew

dpb wrote:

> Like last couple of days--we had 18 hours of 30+ mph sustained wind
> w/
> 50-60 mph gusts until roughly 8 PM last night. Within an hour
> sustained
> winds dropped to under 10 and stayed there until just within the
> last
> hour or so today they've come back up to near 20 after being 15 or
> under
> the last 24. Of course, of the previous 12 hours prior to the time
> that
> they exceed 30 mph at roughly 1 PM, roughly 9 hrs were under 10 mph
> while the minimum generation level is 9 mph. That's hardly a
> consistent
> fuel source even if it is cheap. :)
-------------------------------------
First thing a sailor learns is how to productively deal with winds
that vary widely.

"Reef early" is something the prudent sailor learns early, if he is
going to survive.

Same principle applies to windmills.

Design for 100% output from 10MPH-20MPH wind velocities.

From 20MPH and up, start feathering the blades.

Good grief, it's not the end of the world.

It is very old technology.

Lew

"dpb" wrote:
> Take that baseload away from the nukes where's in coming from?
------------------------------------
Go back and read the article, your answer is in there.

As far as nuclear power is concerned, except for the navy, nuclear
power is a dead issue, IMHO.

GE had the smarts to walk away in the early 1970's.

Westinghouse stayed in the nuclear business for a while.

Where are they today?

The industry has had almost 50 years to reliably solve it's safety
issues and has failed miserably.

The world is quickly becoming fed up with the nuclear industry's bull
shit.

It's time to move on.

Lew

"Han" wrote:

> When Holland runs out, the Germans are going to be totally dependent
> on
> Russian gas. Doesn't sound really smart, but they'll know better
> ...

--------------------------------
Think methane, there is an almost an unlimited supply of poop.

Lots of waste treatment facilities are using captured methane to run
Co-Gen facilities.

There is a project under construction by the State of Ohio at the
Wooster Ag station to build a plant to process cattle waste and
generate electric power to run the rest of the facilities which
encompass several square miles.

Lew

"dpb" wrote:

> That would, indeed, be very old technology and would reduce the 40%
> installed annual average capacity factor to something under 20% just
> raising the cost/MWe _another_ factor of 2X (which is already 2X
> that of conventional generation for us and 3X that of our nuclear)
---------------------------------
Sounds like my design parameters are a tad conservative.

People have been known to say my stuff is built like a brick out
house.

Guess they were right.

Lew

"dpb" wrote:

> OK, here we are... :)
>
> Heavily involved w/ our local REC. We buy some wind power owing to
> the legislative mandate and the public relations end of it. It
> costs us 2X the cost of our conventional coal generation and almost
> 3X that from our share of Wolf Creek Nuclear.
-------------------------------------
Annualized, what kind of money are we talking about?
----------------------------------

> Well, as long as the tax incentives are in place and the legislative
> mandates that make the expense pay, I suppose they will be. In the
> long run it's not clear that forcing up utility rates for everybody
> else for the benefit of a few hundred jobs and lucky landowners is
> an overall paying proposition but I guess we'll see how it plays out
> over time.
----------------------------
Sounds like a plan.

> That is the stupidest use of natural gas that one can possibly make
> of it... :(
-------------------------
You are entitled to your opinion.

The operative phrase is "Back up" not "Primary".
--------------------------------
>
> And, they're trading near zero emissions and no C emissions for
> another increase in fossil. What happened to reducing C
> footprint????
-------------------------------
Look at the annualized total footprint and get back to me.
--------------------------------

> All in all, I think they're making a kneejerk reaction in the
> totally wrong direction for the wrong reasons.
---------------------------------
Tell that to the Japanese.

Lew

On 6/1/2011 12:50 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 6/1/2011 1:02 PM, chaniarts wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>> dpb<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or
>>>> in Germany. Baseload is still an issue.
>>>
>>> Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.
>>
>> but it's much windier elsewhere in europe than germany. without a
>> european-wide energy producer, they're going to have to buy power from
>> elsewhere. that elsewhere is going to have to use nuclear, so they're
>> just
>> exporting their problem to another country.
>
> This whole is issue is purely political and based on neither science,
> nor 40 years of statistical evidence with regard to the risk versus
> reward of nuclear electrical generation.
>
> I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily, simply as
> a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it hate
> the thought of a sucessful democracy ... it is exactly the same mindset
> with regard to nuclear energy.

In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a single
instance of a successful democracy?

I'm curious.
In the last 50 years, how much electrical energy has been produced,
worldwide, by plants powered by (a) coal, (b) other fossil fuels, (c)
nuclear energy, and (d) all other energy sources combined?
During the same 50 years, how many people have been killed, and how many
injured, as the result of the use of (a) coal, (b) other fossil fuels,
(c) nuclear energy, and (d) all other energy sources combined?
The mortality/injury rates should include the processes of extracting
the energy source and transporting it to point-of-use.
I don't know, but I rather suspect that the death/injury rate per
megawatt for nuclear power is lower than the other categories.

On 5/31/11 10:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> GE had the smarts to walk away in the early 1970's.

Not quite. Alive and well here in Wilmington, NC. Half my neighbors work
there, and I have done some work in their fuel rod production as well.

I asked:
Annualized, what kind of money are we talking about?
----------------------------------
"dpb" wrote:

> 20% mandate will raise wholesale rates by roughly
> (0.8*1)+(0.2)[(0.7*2) + (0.3*3)] = 1.26 --> 26%
-------------------------------------
Interestingn gibberish but it doesn't answer the question.
----------------------------------


>>> That is the stupidest use of natural gas that one can possibly
>>> make
>>> of it... :(
>> -------------------------
>> You are entitled to your opinion.
>
> Indeed. Wasting dwindling gas supplies for central station power
> generation is just innately stupid.
--------------------------------------
> "Wasting dwindling gas supplies...."

I take it you don't accept all that oil industry propaganda about our
proven natural gas reserves.

Lew

"dpb" wrote:

> I guess I have to allow as there is at least one possibly worse use
> of n-gas--one could flare it
----------------------------------
Are you talking about a refinery or a landfill flare?


Lew

"dpb" wrote:

> I looked at the wind data for the nine years I had previously
> correlated to the output of the Gray County wind farm. I have only
> daily averages (24-hr sustained wind speed averages) and a maximum
> sustained daily wind speed on hand; going to the finer resolution
> would require downloading more data than I care to deal with on a
> dialup link.
>
> If one were to feather so that no extra energy were extracted above
> 10 mph, 97% of the days over those 9 years you would be leaving
> something on the table for at least a portion of those days.
>
> At 20 mph, the ratio is lower, of course, but my guess of 2 probably
> wasn't too terribly far off. The 9-yr average for that threshold is
> right at 60%.
>
> While they do feather the turbines (and shutdown speed is something
> around 55 mph iirc, I've not been able to find a specific criterion
> documented on whether that is sustained or measured gust or for what
> length of time to require shut down nor what time/threshold releases
> the rotor again), they are more sophisticated than to simply feather
> the blades at constant power at some relatively low windspeed.
> That's another aspect I've not seen the full details on that I'd
> like to know more about but as previously noted, there's an almost
> perfect 1:1 correlation w/ wind speed and generated output over
> these nine years so it's clear they extract more energy w/ more
> energy input (as one would expect and again demonstrating that the
> low average output isn't one of simply not operating at capacity as
> then the output would be essentially independent of the wind speed).
>
> It's unfortunate that there isn't a way to generate the maximum or a
> desired setpoint and have the output match that like a conventional
> generation device; that then would be the cat's meow, I'd agree.
> But w/ the fickle fuel source it requires a redundant generation
> source (or sources if those are also not highly reliable) and the
> fixed capital expense of those facilities means the real cost of the
> "free" fuel is actually quite high. And, of course, since all of
> these other sources are low density fuels, the capital cost for them
> per MWe is also pretty high.
---------------------------------
Engineering details that are being resolved.

Nobody said it was going to be easy, but we're are gaining on it.

Afterall, it took almost 10 years to get to the moon.

If you look at the cost of ownership equation, wind power has a very
high
front end cost, but after that operating costs drops drastically.

As every sailor knows, the wind is free, but putting it to use gets
expensive.

Lew

"Larry W" wrote:

> The oil industry has had 100 years and actually has failed
> miserably. Coal
> has had at least 200 and as for safety, really needs no comment.
> Nuclear
> power has had an extremely safe history, relative to fossil fuel,
> with
> far fewer deaths, illness, and environmental impact. Think of all
> the
> people who would be healthier or alive today, and the land and
> enviromment that would not have been ruined for future generations,
> if
> the USA produced electricity from nuclear power in the same
> proportion
> that, say, France does.
------------------------------------
You help to make the case for renewable energy sources.

Lew

"dpb" wrote:

> That's news to them and Hitachi, I'm sure...
-----------------------------
GE got out of the new reactor business in the 1970s, while I was
employed by them; however, they remain active in the renewal parts
business to support the units they had sold.
----------------------------------

>> Westinghouse stayed in the nuclear business for a while.
>
> Indeed they did...
>
>> Where are they today?
>
> Same place they've always been, Westinghouse Energy Center,
> Monroeville, PA (amongst a zillion other facilities worldwide)
--------------------------
Is there anything else remaining of "Circle W" as a business after the
nuke business?
------------------------------------

> At present there are 20 applications for 24 units submitted and
> docketed for licensing before the US NRC.
>
> Of these 6 are GE/Hitachi ABWR or ESBWR, 12 are W AP1000 and the
> remaining 6 are Areva EPR designs.
>
> B&W has just recently formed a new NPGD headquartered in Charlotte,
> NC
----------------------------------
They will never get off the ground.

Lew

"Jeff Waldyke"wrote:
> Not quite. Alive and well here in Wilmington, NC. Half my neighbors
> work there, and I have done some work in their fuel rod production
> as well.
--------------------------------
See previous post.

Lew

"chaniarts" wrote:

> but it's much windier elsewhere in europe than germany. without a
> european-wide energy producer, they're going to have to buy power
> from elsewhere. that elsewhere is going to have to use nuclear, so
> they're just exporting their problem to another country.
----------------------------------
HUH!

If the krauts can make enough money selling power to the rest of
Europe, they will probably be happy to oblige.

Lew




Lew

On 6/1/2011 4:46 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 6/1/2011 4:17 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 6/1/2011 12:50 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>> I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily, simply as
>>> a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it hate
>>> the thought of a sucessful democracy ... it is exactly the same mindset
>>> with regard to nuclear energy.
>>
>> In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a single
>> instance of a successful democracy?
>
> If you equate success with longevity, the jury is still out. (and this
> one won't last much longer at the current rate)
>
I think you miss my point. To the best of my knowledge the last
democracy was in ancient Athens, and lasted only a relatively short
time. Although people in the USA sometimes say we live in a democracy,
that is not true and has never been true. I'm not aware of a single
modern nation whose government is a democracy. Can you point to any
presently existing democracy? Is there one? If so, where?

On 6/1/2011 11:43 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> If you look at the cost of ownership equation, wind power has a very
> high front end cost, but after that operating costs drops drastically.
>

There aren't enough locations with reliable wind sources to make wind
power a viable option for ore than a small fraction of existing energy
needs.

> As every sailor knows, the wind is free, but putting it to use gets
> expensive.
>
Wind power is actually solar power, one or two steps removed. If money
isn't a major consideration, solar heat is more viable. The sun shines
everywhere. Build a massive solar heat powered steam turbine generator.
Give it enough excess capacity to convert water to hydrogen during the
day. Store the hydrogen and burn it when the sun isn't shining. Repeat
as needed.

On 6/2/2011 5:59 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 6/2/2011 2:30 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 6/1/2011 4:46 PM, Swingman wrote:
>
>
>>>>> I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily,
>>>>> simply as
>>>>> a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it
>>>>> hate
>>>>> the thought of a successful democracy ... it is exactly the same
>>>>> mindset
>>>>> with regard to nuclear energy.
>>>>
>>>> In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a single
>>>> instance of a successful democracy?
>>>
>>> If you equate success with longevity, the jury is still out. (and this
>>> one won't last much longer at the current rate)
>>>
>> I think you miss my point.
>
> Nope, you missed mine and took off down a rabbit trail ...
>

Then let's go back to your original point. You referred to people who
"hate the thought of a successful democracy." A true democracy (as
distinguished from a representative government" is a government where
the people rule directly by majority vote. There is no form of
government that has more potential for tyrannical rule over a minority
population. Count me in as one who hates such a prospect. Fortunately,
there is no true democracy in existence today. I much prefer the form
of representative republican government established by the U.S.
Constitution. I'll take that over democracy any day.

Your original point then compared people who hate the thought of
democracy to those who hate the thought of nuclear energy. I disagree.
Those who hate the thought of nuclear energy are frightened by
something they don't understand. Those who hate the thought of a true
democracy are frightened by something they understand perfectly well.
The two groups do not have the same mindset at all.

"Just Wondering" wrote:

> There aren't enough locations with reliable wind sources to make
> wind power a viable option for ore than a small fraction of existing
> energy needs.
---------------------------------
HUH!

Might want to go back and check your sources again.
-----------------------------------
> Wind power is actually solar power, one or two steps removed. If
> money isn't a major consideration, solar heat is more viable.
---------------------------------
HUH!

Might want to go back and check your sources again.

Morris has a pretty decent package for solar heating and money is
almost always an issue.
----------------------------------
> The sun shines everywhere. Build a massive solar heat powered steam
> turbine generator. Give it enough excess capacity to convert water
> to hydrogen during the day. Store the hydrogen and burn it when the
> sun isn't shining. Repeat as needed.
-----------------------------------
Replace the hydrogen with solar heated water and you have a unit being
permitted for construction here in SoCal.

Lew

> I asked:
> Annualized, what kind of money are we talking about?
> ----------------------------------
"dpb" wrote:

> Of course it answers the question. 25% higher cost for purchased
> power translates to at least that on the retail side. What's your
> current bill; raise it by one-fourth.
--------------------------
Actual $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
----------------------------
>> I take it you don't accept all that oil industry propaganda about
>> our
>> proven natural gas reserves.
>
> Not really, no, I don't. All I have to do is watch the rate at
> which severance tax paid by producers to State decreases from year
> to year despite increasing wellhead prices.
>
> There is still gas but it is far more valuable in the long run for
> chemical feedstock and other uses instead of wasting it for central
> station generation while have other fuels far more suited for the
> purpose that aren't so much suited for the other.
--------------------------------
Yep, renewable energy gets the job done, IF we develop it.

BTW, natural gas doesn't get the job done, but it can serve as an
intermediate fuel to transition away from fossil based fuels.

Think Pickens calls it a "Bridge".

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:

>The more I read, search and talk to my small circle of friends at OPG
(Ontario Power Generation) the more pro nuclear I get. My two oldest
daughters and their husbands all work in either Pickering or
Darlington nuclear power stations. One of them works in the legal
department and pushes 'safety papers'. Another is so green in life-
style, he pisses me off. But all are educated and informed. No knee-
jerk responses from any of them. Japan was a combination of flukes
that all added up to an accident of major proportions.
In no way did that incident reflect on the concept and sense of
nuclear power. That particular event should be no more than a lesson
to be more careful where we build those units.
------------------------------
The basic problem with nuclear s human.

People make mistakes.

Nuclear mistakes will happen.

The price to clean them up are simply more than any sane person is
willing to spend.

Lew

"dpb" wrote:

> If you're trying to impugn that the size of the utility service is
> small that it doesn't really matter, purchased power in 2010 for the
> distributing co-op organization just about $92.8M; our share is
> roughly $3M. So, if that goes up 25%, it's equivalent of an
> additional tax of some 3/4 of a million dollars or about $23M for
> the the combined co-ops that cover roughly half of the state
> (geographically).
------------------------------
Actually I was only trying to understand the scope.

$750K is a sixeable nut where ever you are but it still pales when
compared to the oil industry subsidy that is North of $24 BILLION with
a "B".

The $24 Billion subsidy is one of the primary reasons for a renewable
energy subsidy you want to keep bringing to the table.

What does the average retail customer pay for power ($/KWH) on an
annual basis including the 25% increase?

I see rates that vary from $0.10/KWH to as much as $0.17/KWH depending
on various subsidies, off peak deals, etc, around the country.

BTW, other than power, what else did your $750K buy or better yet the
$3M your REC group kicked in?.

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:
> Instead of pummeling each other with lofty 'educated' crap, why not
stop this bullshit train and look at what makes sense?

Goddammit!!!!!
------------------------------------
That's already been done.

Renewable energy is the only viable option.

One thing is sure, it will require multiple types of renewable to get
the job done.

Forget fossil fuels in the long term.

The global warming issues have already eliminated coal and oil as long
term fuel sources.

If you can get a commercial insurance carrier to underwrite the next
nuke you want to bring on line, get back to me, otherwise it is a dead
issue.

The oil and coal lobbies have very deep pockets and it is proving to
be a hell of a battle; however, in the end, they will lose configured
as they are now.

Lew

"dpb" wrote:

>
> That was our expense for the power we distributed for 2010; nothing
> else. We're distribution, not generation; that's the bill to the
> generation bunch.
---------------------------------
So what did the $3M buy?

Somebody made money from the deal.

Who?

Lew

"dpb" wrote:


> OK, so first you compare the full nationwide petroleumto a single,
> relatively small group of rural electric co-ops on a one-to-one
> basis of absolute dollars...
------------------------------
That was your statement, you claim to be subsidizing the renewable
energy business.
--------------------------------

> Then, you claim that the oil depletion allowance (the bulk of the
> "subsidy" folks are ranting about these days) somehow has something
> central to do w/ central station coal and nuclear generation
> rates.(1)
----------------------------------
No, but nice try.
--------------------------------

> Lastly, the subsidies for green energy have virtually nothing to do
> w/ the comparative balance between oil and gas but almost everything
> to do w/ a mostly political agenda couched in "save the planet"
> terms.
-------------------------------
You are entitled to your misguided opinion.
-------------------------------

>> What does the average retail customer pay for power ($/KWH) on an
>> annual basis including the 25% increase?
> > I see rates that vary from $0.10/KWH to as much as $0.17/KWH ...
------------------------
> Despite the combined efforts of the cooperating co-ops that form the
> pool of which we are one of 29 local RECs to acquire cost-effective
> generation our retail rates are still towards the upper end of the
> range you have outlined above. This is primarily owing to the fact
> we are very rural and therefore the transmission costs are quite
> high owing to the large number of miles of line we have installed
> and maintain. Rather than an urban utility of many
> loads(meters)/mile, we measure in miles/meter.
-----------------------------------
Since you didn't directly answer the question, will assume your retail
price is around $0.15/KWH.

The latest data I found for the average retail price of a KWH for the
state of Kansas was $0.0956/KWH for Nov 2009.

Sounds like somebody in Kansas is getting a hell of deal.

Might want to check it out.
------------------------------------

> Depletion, like depreciation, allows for the recovery of
> capital investment over time. Percentage depletion is used
> for most mineral resources including oil and natural gas. It
> is a tax deduction calculated by applying the allowable
> percentage to the gross income from a property.
----------------------------------
Like a lot of the tax code, the depreciation allowance has outlived
it's usefulness.

I remember when oil was less than $10/bbl and gasoline was $0.15/Gal
and the depreciation allowance was 27% and the senators from OK were
going to make sure it stayed that way to insure future exploration.

Today, oil is North of $100/bbl and gas in my neighborhood just
dropped to $3.81/gal.

Hardly sounds like an industry that needs gov't help.

Time to invest in the next generation of energy which at this point in
time does not include nuclear.

Lew

"dpb" wrote:

> Again, if it weren't for the alternative sources req'd to be around
> because it isn't reliable, that would be basically true.
----------------------------
You're hung up on wind being unreliable.

There is more than one form of renewable energy.

Lew

Looks like they are going to need north of 80,000 pairs of lead pants
for the folks who have been forced to evacuate who lived within 10
miles of the triple reactor melt down in Japan.

How about some more nukes?

Lead pants can be a growth industry.

Lew

Where there is smoke...................

http://tinyurl.com/6l6lzn2










"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Looks like they are going to need north of 80,000 pairs of lead
> pants for the folks who have been forced to evacuate who lived
> within 10 miles of the triple reactor melt down in Japan.
>
> How about some more nukes?
>
> Lead pants can be a growth industry.
>
> Lew
>
>

Just lucky................................

http://tinyurl.com/3n3qg7j

Bring on the nukes.


Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

> Just lucky................................
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3n3qg7j
>
> Bring on the nukes.

----------------------------
The days of the nuclear industry's "Feet up, pat 'em on the po po"
approach to dealing with the public are over.

The industry has had 40+ years to develop a reliable and safe waste
stream processing method and they are still at square one.

Until the industry gets serious about solving this problem on a world
wide basis, there will be no new nukes built, at least if I can help
stop them.

There are just too many other alternate renewable energy possibilities
waiting to be developed including, but not limited to the next
generation of batteries and photo cells..

Lew

Germany does the deed.

http://tinyurl.com/3do64xf


Lew

"Swingman" wrote:

> Politics, not science.

Obviously.

Politics is the vehicle of change.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

Wonder why this doesn't come as any surprise?

http://tinyurl.com/64bgvt8

Lew

Bottom line with nuke plants:

One design or operational (1) screw up is three (3) too many.

The risks are simply too large at this point in time.

Lew

"Han" wrote:

> As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
> than
> all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew

Somebody wrote:

> "Alternative energy sources" can do no more than nibble at the
> margins. All those you mention make up less than 5% of our energy
> needs.
--------------------------------------
California is all ready approaching 20% of it's electrical energy
requirements from renewable sources and is expecting to reach 35%
within 10 years.

What is so funny about that is that today Texas produces more wind
power than California.

More research is needed, but we are gaining on it.

Lew

The following is an interview with Mark Ruffalo that appeared in the
Huffington post today.

As they say, "If the foo s__ts, wear it,"

Lew

---------------------------------------

Mark Ruffalo Speaks Out For Tar Sands Action

Activist and actor Mark Ruffalo has joined the fight against the
Keystone XL pipeline, a pipeline from the tar sands in Canada to
refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

In the video, Ruffalo says, “I’ve seen the kind of damage that
out-of-control energy development can do to water and to communities
near my own home, where fracking for natural gas is causing widespread
pollution ... All these problems are connected — we need to get off
fossil fuels.”

In a past interview with The Huffington Post, he said, "Either we're
going to go with some grace into green energy, or we're gonna go
kicking and screaming, but we're going by God. The world is already
leaving us behind. We're being left behind. America. Because the gas
and oil industry has a strangle hold on us. And our politicians."

On 8/11/2011 6:52 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
>> Richard<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> "Han" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
>>>>> than
>>>>> all the people who have died from nuke accidents.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>> Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
>>>> well as nukes?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
>>>> quickly as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And replace them with what, Lew?
>>> Horses?
>>
>> Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse manure
>> pollution in (at least) New York City.
>>
>>> There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and portability
>>> as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we are 50 years late
>>> deciding to make internal combustion effecent and clean. But we didn't
>>> have the computer technology back then to do it.
>>
>> Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
>> sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats are
>> equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
>> consumption.
>
> So when you mention battery technology being so far along, do you
> consider the down side that it is a nasty business to be disposing of
> the spent batteries? Typically the battery cars life cycle from
> beginning to end today use more energy and pollute more during the
> manufacturing, consumer operation, and disposal process than the Hummer.
>
> The electrics look good if you only consider the consumer benefit. They
> are not any better for the environment during manufacture and disposal.
>

Q. What happens when you battery runs down?
A. You have to recharge it.
Q. Where does the electricity come from to recharge it?
A. Mostly from power plants using coal, oil, and gas.

For most practical purposes, electrical energy is fossil fuel energy,
just one step removed.