Searching \ for '[OT] Just wondering..' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=just+wondering
Search entire site for: 'Just wondering..'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Just wondering..'
2008\02\25@094417 by David VanHorn

picon face
Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?

It would seem to afford pretty good security for very little
additional investment, and I'm also wondering why we don't have the
military running them.

If we followed the French model, and built one design instead of
designing each one differently, then we could gain significant
advantages.
If the military runs them, then we can be assured that the sensitive
bits are in safe hands through the whole process.

In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a fairly small
problem, and one that's pretty well understood.


Alternatively, we can continue buying foreign oil and fueling the
problems over there, or burning natural gas and coal which both
release significant pollutants and radioactives into the air, as well
as whatever CO2  burden is associated.

2008\02\25@112618 by Walter Banks

picon face
> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?

It has to do with separating the military from civilian security.
Unlike many countries the US civilian security is the responsibility
of civilian authorities under civialian control. The military  is supposed
to be used for  internal security on very rare ocassions.

Since the 1950's nuclear power has been very safe (with a couple
exceptions) and secure.

There is also the possibility of alternative approaches to nuclear
power from many of the reactors engineered 30 - 50 years ago.

There are some Canadian artic towns have small 150-300 Kw reactors
for power that  require service a couple times a year. Many of these
have been running for 30 years or so.

Waste is a problem that is solvable.

w..



David VanHorn wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\02\25@115045 by David VanHorn

picon face
> It has to do with separating the military from civilian security.
> Unlike many countries the US civilian security is the responsibility
> of civilian authorities under civialian control. The military  is supposed
> to be used for  internal security on very rare ocassions.

Well, they already secure nuclear weapons and military reactors.
And you have the advantage of a large facility with lots of handy
security people who would have a very direct interest in maintaining
that security.

> Since the 1950's nuclear power has been very safe (with a couple exceptions) and secure.

True

> There is also the possibility of alternative approaches to nuclear
> power from many of the reactors engineered 30 - 50 years ago.

Also true.

> There are some Canadian artic towns have small 150-300 Kw reactors
> for power that  require service a couple times a year. Many of these
> have been running for 30 years or so.

How do they work?

> Waste is a problem that is solvable.

Yup.

It's long since apparent that we can't keep going on with "burning
stuff we found in the ground" as our major energy source.

2008\02\25@122922 by Brian Kraut

flavicon
face
I also suspect that one missile to the power plant rendering a complete
military base unusable for a long, long time would be an issue.

Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
http://www.engalt.com

{Original Message removed}

2008\02\25@123434 by Walter Banks

picon face


David VanHorn wrote:

> > There are some Canadian artic towns have small 150-300 Kw reactors
> > for power that  require service a couple times a year. Many of these
> > have been running for 30 years or so.
>
> How do they work?

Look for slowpoke reactors on the web.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOWPOKE_reactor
is a reasonably accurate link for a overview of the
technology.

Walter..


2008\02\25@124432 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:43:42AM -0500, David VanHorn wrote:
> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?

It's possible that the two sites may not match up very well.

> It would seem to afford pretty good security for very little
> additional investment, and I'm also wondering why we don't have the
> military running them.

I think that it's a perception that security the biggest issue.

> If we followed the French model, and built one design instead of
> designing each one differently, then we could gain significant
> advantages.

That's probably the biggest issue. The cost overruns that occur is due to a
lack of standardization and oversight decisions being made after the plant
construction has already started. If a plant can be preapproved before
construction and be virtually guaranteed not to have additional requirements
imposed once construction is started, then the costs go down significantly.

> If the military runs them, then we can be assured that the sensitive
> bits are in safe hands through the whole process.

Typical fissionable material can only be used to make dirty bombs anyway.
You really need pure plutonium to make a decent nuclear weapon.

> In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a fairly small
> problem, and one that's pretty well understood.

But the perception unfortunately runs counter to that. How can we change
that perception?

> Alternatively, we can continue buying foreign oil and fueling the
> problems over there, or burning natural gas and coal which both
> release significant pollutants and radioactives into the air, as well
> as whatever CO2  burden is associated.

Good synopsis.

BAJ

2008\02\25@133822 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> > In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a
> fairly small
> > problem, and one that's pretty well understood.
>
> But the perception unfortunately runs counter to that. How
> can we change that perception?

How can I change yours?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\25@151705 by James Newton

face picon face
Sounds like a brilliant idea to me... If the American Sheeple can pull their
heads out of big oils ass and Baaaaaaa for it...

Just out of curiousity, and sort of playing devils advocate here, has anyone
got figures for a reasonable cost of building a nuke power plant and how
much electricity it would produce? I want to compare that with the number of
distributed PV systems that would pay for.

Yes, I understand the power goes off at night with PV but it would be
interesting to get an idea of the relative costs and capacities.

Also, how much of a different in demand is there from day to night? I assume
the demand really comes down after 10pm, but I think it might be pretty low
after 6pm except for hot summer days.

E.g. Build 1 nuke and 1 nukes WORTH of PV systems rather than 2 nukes. Add
light rail, bring back the mom and pop corner stores in walk-able
neighborhoods and then tell the Saudis where to stick it.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\02\25@160120 by David VanHorn

picon face
> E.g. Build 1 nuke and 1 nukes WORTH of PV systems rather than 2 nukes. Add
> light rail, bring back the mom and pop corner stores in walk-able
> neighborhoods and then tell the Saudis where to stick it.

I like it.  :)

2008\02\25@163707 by Walter Banks

picon face
Funny  I was thinking about the distribution issues driving to work this morning.
(I was driving to about the time I used to go to bed)
I saw two very bright UV end of the spectrum flashes about a minute apart each
that lasted 4 or 5 seconds and the lights went out in the houses I could see. The
Flashes were separated by couple miles on the horizon. The second was
about 2 miles ahead of me beside the road I was on.

There was a transformer the size of a small house that blew up. It was beside
the road I was first there (I have some pictures of the resulting fire if anyone
is interested)  Several points, the transformer is less than a Km from
a small wind farm with a 2.3 Mw and two 1.8 Mw wind turbines. The
wind turbines require grid power to sync with or they too go down.
Their props were feathered. The transformer fire took power down for
8800 customers. Local power has merits.

The real issue for transportation is portable energy storage. Oil has a lot
of stored energy. 15 pounds of the stuff will move a ton on the road 60 miles.

10 m2 of solar (order of magnitude ) will power a typical household. r
I suspect that infrastructure costs of distribution may pass local power
production costs at the community or individual level at some point.


rant off

w..



James Newton wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2008\02\25@172859 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 25, 2008, at 12:17 PM, James Newton wrote:

> how much of a different in demand is there from day to night? I assume
> the demand really comes down after 10pm, but I think it might be  
> pretty low
> after 6pm except for hot summer days.

You know, in large parts of the country it doesn't GET that much  
cooler after the sun goes down the way it does near the pacific  
ocean...  You'd think cooling expense would go down anyway due to  
lack of radiant energy, but I'm not so sure.

So...  How much penetration does PV as currently implemented (using  
the grid as backup and/or battery) have to make before the resulting  
skew between day and night consumption (or rainy vs sunny days)  
starts making for inefficient power plants?

BillW

2008\02\25@184328 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Just out of curiousity, and sort of playing devils
> advocate here, has anyone
> got figures for a reasonable cost of building a nuke power
> plant and how
> much electricity it would produce? I want to compare that
> with the number of
> distributed PV systems that would pay for.

Across the lifetime of the station and including
construction , safety inspections, compliance costs,
operating, decommissioning, returning the site to
green-field condition, waste disposal and transport,
treatment and storage of waste as requisite a nuclear plant
costs well under 10c/kWh all up. Just ask any nuclear plant
salesman.

If you ask many other people the answer may be different.

:-)




           Russell

2008\02\25@184331 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Typical fissionable material can only be used to make
> dirty bombs anyway.
> You really need pure plutonium to make a decent nuclear
> weapon.

Or U235.
You can go all the way to H Bombs on that if you must.

Interestingly, the largest yield US Nuclear weapon ever,
produced more 'output' from its fission component than its
fusion. And the design of the largest ever Soviet device
(which was rather larger than the largest US one)
purposefully halved its potential output in order to very
very greatly reduce its fallout. None of which will make
jinx (or me) happy.

if you want to make your own H Bomb you could look here

   http://www.illtel.denver.co.us/texts/make.an.Hbomb

don't expect it to help too too much, but it's interesting.

>> In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a
>> fairly small
>> problem, and one that's pretty well understood.

Some people think so.
Largely they are the people who have waste which needs
disposing of or who approve of the people who have waste to
dispose of.

Good for many a long winter's evening by the (radiation
emitting coal) fire.


       R

2008\02\25@192811 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 01:28:14PM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
> > > In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a
> > fairly small
> > > problem, and one that's pretty well understood.
> >
> > But the perception unfortunately runs counter to that. How
> > can we change that perception?
>
> How can I change yours?

Give a rational technical (not political or emotional) argument about the
risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste in geologically stable rock.

Studies for Yucca Mountain in the US have risk estimates for 1 million
years. The overall risk to human populations have been shown to be no more
than background radiation. But because everyone has "not in my backyard"
syndrome, that site may never take in the waste it was designed to handle.

Give me a sensible, data based counter argument, and then I may consider
changing my perception.

BAJ

2008\02\25@204236 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Byron Jeff wrote:

{Quote hidden}

ok ok you sold me... you can have my nuclear waste to dispose of :-)

Regards
Sergio

2008\02\25@204935 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Apptech wrote:

{Quote hidden}

There you go getting the numbers wrong again. It's actually -$100/kWh, you
forgot to take into account the plutonium produced and its value :-)

Regards
Sergio

2008\02\26@024914 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> > How can I change yours?
>
> Give a rational technical (not political or emotional)
> argument about the risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste
> in geologically stable rock.

Give me a good argument and I'll change mine :)

Actually not 'a' good argument, but good arguments to refute all my
doubts at fears.

A problem with the 'geological stable' idea is the same as with stocks:
results from the past are no guarantee for the future. When you see a
coin turn heads up four times in a row I guess you will bet your life
that it will be heads the fifth time, no?

And another problem is that it geological stability is not enough. How
about political/sociological stability? I am not sure the USA will be a
peace-loving country (or even *one * country at all) in a few hundered
years.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\26@042834 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> a nuclear plant
>> costs well under 10c/kWh all up. Just ask any nuclear
>> plant
>> salesman.

> There you go getting the numbers wrong again. It's
> actually -$100/kWh, you
> forgot to take into account the plutonium produced and its
> value :-)

No. Not at all.
-$100 is well under $10c.

And that's just the sort of thing that a nuclear plant
salesman will tell you.
And no, I didn't forget about the Plutonium :-).


       R

2008\02\26@125247 by James Newton

face picon face
Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally occurring veins
of radioactive ore being exposed by some natural or unnatural upheaval and
that same sort of exposure happening to spent fuel rods.

Shit happens. At least with Yukka Mt. we will know were it is and can react
if there does happen to be a problem in the future. Mother nature could
belch up a load of yellow cake in Utah or Arizona tomorrow and no one would
even know it was dangerous. (where is your radiation detector?)
http://www.mesauranium.com/s/Home.asp

We mine the ore out of the ground, refine it, use it, and then stress
ourselves to death about putting it back? How exactly are we worse off than
we were before we dug it up and purified it? Why not just dilute the heck
out of it and spray it into the air? Or dump it in the ocean? Or, here is a
radical idea, put it back where we got it from in the first place?

My guess is that more people die from air pollution due to coal fired
electrical generation plants every year than would die from radiation
poisoning if we just chopped the fuel rods up really fine and fed it to the
population along with the Mercury and PCB's in their fish sticks.

And yes, I'm being purposely shocking and "over the top" but I'm hoping it
makes the point: Radiation is but one of many hazards that we all live with.
We have cut ourselves off from an alternative source of electricity that
might well be much less hazardous in the long run because of an unjustified
fear of that one type of hazard.

We need perspective: Look at how many people have died (or will die) due to
our dependence on fossile fuels then compare that to the actual number of
people who died (or will die) from Chernobyl.

I live and work downwind from an active nuke power plant. Odds are, I will
die of a heart attack, cancer, stroke or auto accident.
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg How much could another nuke
plant reduce my odds of lung cancer?

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\02\26@133939 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally
> occurring veins of radioactive ore being exposed by some
> natural or unnatural upheaval and that same sort of exposure
> happening to spent fuel rods.

The amount of radiation?

The presence of substances that are not (or not in such amounta) present
in natural ores?

> Shit happens. At least with Yukka Mt. we will know were it is

A (maybe minor) problem is the word 'we'. How long will *you* live to
make sure nothing happens to the stuff? A few hundered years ago your
nation did not even exist as anyhthing resembling the current USA.

> Why not just dilute the heck out of it and spray
> it into the air? Or dump it in the ocean? Or, here is a
> radical idea, put it back where we got it from in the first place?

Would be OK with me *if it was the same stuff*.

> And yes, I'm being purposely shocking and "over the top" but

Shocking a Dutch? You must be kidding :)

> I'm hoping it makes the point: Radiation is but one of many
> hazards that we all live with.

I could maybe halfway agree if
- you would confine the radiation to your own homegrounds
- you would confine the radiation (and pollution, etc) to your own
generation

> We have cut ourselves off from
> an alternative source of electricity that might well be much
> less hazardous in the long run because of an unjustified fear
> of that one type of hazard.

I am no proponent of most alternatives. Using less energy (and less
other 'consumables') is my preferred alternative. As far as I am
concerned the oil price can't go high enough.

> How much could another nuke plant reduce my odds of lung cancer?

I agree most anti-nuclear types concentrate too much on the reactors. It
is the waste-processing and waste-storage facilities that pose the real
thread. I don't know about USA equivalents, but you could for instance
read up on sellafield/windscale.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\26@134625 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
James Newton wrote:

> We need perspective: Look at how many people have died (or will die) due to
> our dependence on fossile fuels then compare that to the actual number of
> people who died (or will die) from Chernobyl.

I love this one!
I agree completely.


--
Ciao, Dario

2008\02\26@140231 by David VanHorn

picon face
> A (maybe minor) problem is the word 'we'. How long will *you* live to
> make sure nothing happens to the stuff? A few hundered years ago your
> nation did not even exist as anyhthing resembling the current USA.

Subject of the book "Deep Time", an interesting read.

2008\02\26@140519 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 19:46 +0100, Dario Greggio wrote:
> James Newton wrote:
>
> > We need perspective: Look at how many people have died (or will die) due to
> > our dependence on fossile fuels then compare that to the actual number of
> > people who died (or will die) from Chernobyl.
>
> I love this one!
> I agree completely.

Unfortunately this sort of "odd things to be concerned about" happens
with humanity over and over again.

People are terrified of dying on their next flight, yet driving to the
bank in your car is many times more dangerous.

People are obsessed with the possibility that their cell phone is
emitting RF, yet have no problem using their cordless phones and think
nothing of standing in front of their microwave ovens while it's pumping
1kW of RF into your food.

There are many more examples, but I don't think I should bore people any
further...

As I often say: people, in general, are dumb, or at the very least,
uninformed, and disturbingly aren't bothered by the fact they are
uninformed.

TTYL

2008\02\26@141624 by David VanHorn

picon face
> People are obsessed with the possibility that their cell phone is
> emitting RF, yet have no problem using their cordless phones and think
> nothing of standing in front of their microwave ovens while it's pumping
> 1kW of RF into your food.

But worried about the magnetic field from their electric blanket.

2008\02\26@142026 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>  > People are obsessed with the possibility that their cell phone is
>>  emitting RF, yet have no problem using their cordless phones and think
>>  nothing of standing in front of their microwave ovens while it's pumping
>>  1kW of RF into your food.
>
>But worried about the magnetic field from their electric blanket.

And convinced that magnetic bracelets can cure arthritis, as well as
soften water and improve gas mileage.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\02\26@144101 by David VanHorn

picon face
> And convinced that magnetic bracelets can cure arthritis, as well as
> soften water and improve gas mileage.

Right, as long as you don't put the magnets on the "wrong way".

:)

2008\02\26@154444 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
James Newton wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2008\02\26@160653 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face

On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:48 AM, wouter van ooijen wrote:

>> How can I change yours?
>
> Give a rational technical (not political or emotional)
> argument about the risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste
> in geologically stable rock.

Give me a good argument and I'll change mine :)

Actually not 'a' good argument, but good arguments to refute all my
doubts at fears.

A problem with the 'geological stable' idea is the same as with stocks:
results from the past are no guarantee for the future. When you see a
coin turn heads up four times in a row I guess you will bet your life
that it will be heads the fifth time, no?

And another problem is that it geological stability is not enough. How
about political/sociological stability? I am not sure the USA will be a
peace-loving country (or even *one * country at all) in a few hundered
years.

Wouter van Ooijen


Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now. #2 You bet your life every  
day that the area you live in is geologically stable.  You bet the  
neighbor is not going to go "postal".  If you drive, you bet the  
driver next to you will not die in their sleep in the next 10  
seconds.  The only difference with nuke stuff is that glimmering  
boogie men rise out of abandoned caves, turn your family into ketchup  
slobbering vampires and make geiger counters vibrate off the table.

CC

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\26@161958 by David VanHorn

picon face
> Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now. #2 You bet your life every
> day that the area you live in is geologically stable.  You bet the
> neighbor is not going to go "postal".  If you drive, you bet the
> driver next to you will not die in their sleep in the next 10
> seconds.  The only difference with nuke stuff is that glimmering
> boogie men rise out of abandoned caves, turn your family into ketchup
> slobbering vampires and make geiger counters vibrate off the table.

And Hot Frogs on the Loose!

http://www.frogsonice.com/froggy/songs/hot-frogs.shtml

A favorite singer of mine.

2008\02\26@162414 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, James Newton wrote:

{Quote hidden}

If you really stop and think about it, the reason people don't want
nuclear power plants has nothing to do with the danger of radition. It's
to do with trust. We don't trust the people in charge to do the right
thing by US.

We don't trust them to put OUR interests before THEIR own prockets, we
don't trust them to be competent at their own jobs and we certainly don't
trust them to keep us safe.

Regards
Sergio

2008\02\26@164638 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
[now on a much lower level of seriousness]

> Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now.

I agree, but that's beside this discussion.

>#2 You bet your life every  
> day that the area you live in is geologically stable.

True, but that's my life and my bet. I dpo't want *you* to bet with my
life, much less with my ofspring's life.

> You bet the neighbor is not going to go "postal".

No problem, they don't have guns :)

BTW: I am reading the novel, but I enjoy it less than the Tiffany
series.

> If you drive, you bet the driver next to you will not die
> in their sleep in the next 10 seconds.

I think that scentence needs rewording.

> The only difference with nuke stuff is that glimmering  
> boogie men rise out of abandoned caves, turn your family into
> ketchup slobbering vampires and make geiger counters vibrate off the
table.

Is this the piclist or Pratchett?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\26@180154 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:06:25PM -0500, Cedric Chang wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:48 AM, wouter van ooijen wrote:
> >
> > >> How can I change yours?
> > >
> > > Give a rational technical (not political or emotional)
> > > argument about the risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste
> > > in geologically stable rock.
> >
> > Give me a good argument and I'll change mine :)
> >
> > Actually not 'a' good argument, but good arguments to refute all my
> > doubts at fears.
> >
> > A problem with the 'geological stable' idea is the same as with stocks:
> > results from the past are no guarantee for the future. When you see a
> > coin turn heads up four times in a row I guess you will bet your life
> > that it will be heads the fifth time, no?
>

But rock formation stability is not stocks nor coin flips. The first is often
controlled by peoples emotions while the second are independantly random
events. When an area is nowhere near a fault line and the research shows
that it hasn't changed in 2 million years, there's no obvious reason to
think that conditions would change anytime soon.


> >
> > And another problem is that it geological stability is not enough. How
> > about political/sociological stability? I am not sure the USA will be a
> > peace-loving country (or even *one * country at all) in a few hundered
> > years.

The point is Wouter that radioactive material is on the surface. Anyone
with the inclination can mine it, refine it, and use it for nefarious
purposes. The whole point of Yucca Mountain is to bury the waste (which
because of reprocessing isn't suitable for weaponry anyway) deep enough
that it would be very difficult for anyone to access, even if they had a
desire to do so.

>
>
> Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now. #2 You bet your life every
> day that the area you live in is geologically stable.  You bet the
> neighbor is not going to go "postal".  If you drive, you bet the
> driver next to you will not die in their sleep in the next 10
> seconds.  The only difference with nuke stuff is that glimmering
> boogie men rise out of abandoned caves, turn your family into ketchup
> slobbering vampires and make geiger counters vibrate off the table.

Funny, but very true. There are many more risky behaviours that ordinary
folks engage in on a dialy basis. It's the same type of fear that many
people have of flying though from a safety standpoint it is unmatched in
the transportation industry. They happily hop into their cars when cars
cause 90+% of the travel fatalities per year.

Yucca Mountain is designed to add no more than 15 milliRems per year
exposure to the surrounding population for the first 10,000 years of use
according to http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/yucca/about.html and a dose of 350
milliRems per year for up to 1,000,000 years.

It's all about relative risk. If we wanted absolute risk freedom, then
there isn't one single place in the universe that you can free safe.

BAJ

2008\02\26@181025 by Eoin Ross

flavicon
face
Not where I commute in the US Wouter !! :D

How the heck people don't see a big SUV with its headlights on beside them - I don't know. I was going to get a motorbike and reduce my carbon footprint... but these morons make it more life threatening than sensible!

Back on topic...

I'm don't know what capacity the US has for renewable, storable generation (About the only type I know of is hydroelectric - maybe geothermal) ...
but to me it just plain makes sense to use all the renewables you can - wind, etc and only use the fossil fuel when necessary.

I can see this working in NZ due to smaller population, good geothermal and hydroelectric resources, and a decent amount of wind.

When we get down to it though - for every $1 spent on efficiency, you save about $4-5 in generation costs from all the information I've read.

Eoin.

(Trying to scrape enough money/time together to put in solar collectors on my house)

>>> spam_OUTwouterTakeThisOuTspamvoti.nl 26 Feb 08 16:46:29 >>>
[now on a much lower level of seriousness]<snip>

> If you drive, you bet the driver next to you will not die
> in their sleep in the next 10 seconds.

I think that scentence needs rewording.

<snip>

Wouter van Ooijen


2008\02\26@183418 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> But rock formation stability is not stocks nor coin flips.
> The first is often
> controlled by peoples emotions while the second are
> independantly random
> events. When an area is nowhere near a fault line and the
> research shows
> that it hasn't changed in 2 million years, there's no
> obvious reason to
> think that conditions would change anytime soon.

Murphy does not do "obvious reason" well.


> that it would be very difficult for anyone to access, even
> if they had a
> desire to do so.

Person. Desire.
Mechanisms need not (and probably wont) be directly people
related. Which is not to conjure random bogey men but to
note probability.

> Funny, but very true. There are many more risky behaviours
> that ordinary
> folks engage in on a dialy basis. It's the same type of
> fear that many
> people have of flying though from a safety standpoint it
> is unmatched in
> the transportation industry. They happily hop into their
> cars when cars
> cause 90+% of the travel fatalities per year.

I am uncomfortable at a gut level with the 'flying is the
safest trip you can take' arguments.

At a minimum I think that trip distance is a poor metric.
I'm not even too happy with trip time.
I'd begin to think we were all eating apples if you talked
about fatalities per journey. That should compare favourably
enough with car travel, I'd hope. No?

I'm a resigned & realistic but happy enough flyer. I place
my life in the hands of people who are well paid and well
trained and who should be competent, but whose peers have
time after time after time demonstrated the ability to kill
people in the most stupid and thoughtless ways imaginable.

I stood in the connecting link to my last internal flight in
China on a cold morning after snow had been cleared from the
taxiways and carefully examined the wing that i could see
for ice. If I'd seen any I'd not have flown. Trouble due to
this is rare, but it happens.


       Russell




2008\02\26@190203 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:46 AM, wouter van ooijen <.....wouterKILLspamspam@spam@voti.nl> wrote:
> [now on a much lower level of seriousness]

But very well said.
>  > Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now.
>
> I agree, but that's beside this discussion.

It is hard to define what is peace loving. Some say that
war is a way to get peace. But anyway, this is beside the
discussion.

> >#2 You bet your life every
> > day that the area you live in is geologically stable.
>
> True, but that's my life and my bet. I dpo't want *you* to bet with my
> life, much less with my ofspring's life.

Well said.

> > You bet the neighbor is not going to go "postal".
>
> No problem, they don't have guns :)

And that is a big difference. That is one of the things in US
I will never understand.

Xiaofan

2008\02\26@231945 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

You bet my my life with your supposedly better energy sources which I  
say are inferior and more life threatening.  No emotions, just  
measurements. Your emotions versus my facts. You conjure bogeymen and  
I suffer for it. You bet my life by procreating.  More rats on the  
ship mean it is more likely to sink ( Julian Simon not-
withstanding ). I don't have an investment in nukes, or solar or coal  
or oil ( to name a few ).  I just look at the statistics and place my  
bet.  Someone who insists that a geo-stable area will explode  
tomorrow has no use for science.  I put my chips on the table based  
on science.  And by "science" , I do mean peer reviewed science ;  
free of pressure from jingo movies by Algore.  I don't think it makes  
sense to "just do something" if I don't have enough facts.  In the  
case of energy, I feel that there are plenty of facts.

> Well said.
>
>>> You bet the neighbor is not going to go "postal".
>>
>> No problem, they don't have guns :)

"Postal " has nothing to do with guns.  Guns are conveniences,  
nothing more.  "Postals" can kill with cars, bats, clubs, knives,  
taxes, jingoism, etc.
>
> And that is a big difference. That is one of the things in US
> I will never understand.

Not a big difference internally. Guns are used to kill very few  
people in the U.S.  More die in auto wrecks and medically shorten  
lives due to misapplied use of stolen funds.  Externally, U.S.  
imperialism wracks up big numbers via guns, sanctions, and real big  
guns ( bombs, etc. )  I personally used to like guns, used to like  
shooting at cans and squirrels.  I lost interest but I am happy to  
live in a neighborhood where I know the people who live to the north  
of me are "packing".  I know where to go if someone goes "postal" and  
attacks me.  I go north.
>
> Xiaofan
> --

2008\02\26@232630 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face

>
>> If you drive, you bet the driver next to you will not die
>> in their sleep in the next 10 seconds.
>
> I think that scentence needs rewording.
>
I am open to editing.... what do you suggest ?
"if you drive"   I wanted to qualify that you are not likely to die  
on the highway if you don't drive or ride.
" you are ..... next 10 seconds"  I was thinking back to my  
grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep,
not like the 40 screaming passengers he was driving a bus for.

>
> Wouter van Ooijen
>
>
> --

2008\02\26@232912 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face


Is this the piclist or Pratchett?
Who is Prachett ?
cc

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\26@233333 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

You don't have to trust them.  Just look at the aggregate statistics  
which including megalomaniacs and incompetents ( including  
Chernobyl ) and you will know how to roll the dice.
cc

> Regards
> Sergio
> --
>
>
>

2008\02\26@233435 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 2:19 PM, David VanHorn wrote:
>
>> Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now. #2 You bet your life every
>> day that the area you live in is geologically stable.  You bet the
>> neighbor is not going to go "postal".  If you drive, you bet the
>> driver next to you will not die in their sleep in the next 10
>> seconds.  The only difference with nuke stuff is that glimmering
>> boogie men rise out of abandoned caves, turn your family into ketchup
>> slobbering vampires and make geiger counters vibrate off the table.
>
> And Hot Frogs on the Loose!
>
> http://www.frogsonice.com/froggy/songs/hot-frogs.shtml
>
> A favorite singer of mine.

Yezzzzzzz my precious


2008\02\26@234343 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face

On Feb 26, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Bob Axtell wrote:

James Newton wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Are you suggesting that paypal will cease to exist ?
>
> 3. At least 4 major US cities will be destroyed by nuclear explosions,
> killing millions of people.
deliberate or accidental nookies ?
>
> 4. Except for a few electric vehicles, automobiles will be powered by
> coal gas  (carbon monoxide),
> as coal will emerge as the energy source of choice. Oil will  
> completely
> go away as a source of fuel
> (but will be used as lubricants).
how about flour dust injected into an engine and ignited ?  Flour  
power ?
>
> 5. Despite its obvious advantages, nuclear generation of electricity
> will NOT return to common usage
> because the power plants cannot be protected from terrorists.
Well, of course they can't be protected since apparently the  
terrorists are running them now.  As far as I know , the new power  
plant designs can take a direct hit from a 727 ( showing my age ), a  
hacker or a U.S. satellite and not go critical.  Or did you mean  
dispersing the radioactive materials ?   True, true but there are  
easier ways to be a successful and happy terrorist than bothering  
with nook plant.
>
> --Bob Axtell
>
>

2008\02\26@234552 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:41 PM, David VanHorn wrote:
>
>> And convinced that magnetic bracelets can cure arthritis, as well as
>> soften water and improve gas mileage.
>
> Right, as long as you don't put the magnets on the "wrong way".
>
> :)
Yah,  magnetic nose cartilidgiditis is a terrible way to die
--

2008\02\27@011107 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> and think
>> nothing of standing in front of their microwave ovens
>> while it's pumping
>> 1kW of RF into your food.

> But worried about the magnetic field from their electric
> blanket.

I'm far more worried about the field from an electric
blanket. As I don't own one the worry level is not large.
With a microwave oven I know where the fields is, about how
strong it is and how to limit its coupling to my person.
(No. the door doesn't 'leak' RF appreciably.

With the blanket I know two of the above things. Limiting
its coupling can only be done by not having it live when in
bed. An easy option. The coupling when  working is
substantial even at 50 Hz. Whether this matters is unknown.
There are many peer reviewed papers on both sides of the EM
fields argument.

Interesting experiment.

- Have somebody lie in a bed with an electric blanket
operating.
- Stand by the bed.
- Softly run the back of your hand over the back of their
hand.
- Also try light touch of fingertips on skin.

The substantial  capacitive coupling will cause a rough
grating fiel  with rubbing - essentially a small "shock".
Which may or may not have any importance.


       Russell


2008\02\27@015513 by Roger, in Bangkok

face
flavicon
face
Yep, treat me like that and you can rest assured I will be shocked!!!
Sorry, open doors just seem to cry out to me:-))

On 2/27/08, Apptech <.....apptechKILLspamspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\02\27@022212 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> Who is Prachett ?
> cc

(if you quote, please remove my signature, this looked as if I was then
one asking!)

A very good UK SF/F author. I am reading "going postal" now. Green jelly
monsters with hughe teeth are turn up regulraly in his novels, often to
be smacked on the head with a frying pan.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\27@022214 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> > If you drive, you bet the driver next to you will not die
> > in their sleep in the next 10 seconds.
>
> I think that scentence needs rewording.

I meant: if they already sleep behind the wheel, dying would not add
much to your problem.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\27@072344 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Cedric Chang wrote:

> No emotions, just measurements. Your emotions versus my facts.

Actually, no. Not "just measurements" and very little fact. Most of what
you have are predictions. So far we don't have /any/ experience with long
term storage of anything. Heck, we already /know/ that most things we
create don't last longer than a few years. How many here have seriously
(professionally) designed something to last a century? I don't see any
hands. Nothing to take measurements off. Just predictions, and there's
plenty of precedence that we /won't/ be able to avoid many of the tempting
shortcuts that may make the difference between stuff going haywire after
we're dead and going haywire a few generations later.

I'm not saying that I know whether one or the other is more dangerous. But
you say you do, and that what you say is based on facts. I just don't see
the facts WRT long term.

Gerhard

2008\02\27@081020 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> So far we don't have /any/ experience with long
> term storage of anything.

But, to agree with you, in case it's not evident :-),
examination of things that are very old shows how very very
very hard the battle is.

> Heck, we already /know/ that most things we
> create don't last longer than a few years. How many here
> have seriously
> (professionally) designed something to last a century? I
> don't see any
> hands.

Nor I.
BUT I have looked at what it takes, and also looked at aged
things with the specific aim of seeing what we are up
against.
Gravestones make interesting indicators of what weather can
do.
Many newer ones are 'gone" in under 50 years or even much
under.
At 100 years the best are getting tired.
At 200 years the best are marginal.
At 300-400 years you are stuggling to find anything
readable.
On 700+ year old buildings inscriptions may not be totally
gone but are largely so.
On some 2000 year old buildings you can see the inscriptions
passingly well. That usually tells you something about the
people in between - not the original designers.

Lest you think that we with our so vastly better technology
can do oh so vastly better, work out how much larger
oh-so-vast needs to be to do things well enough.


> ... plenty of precedence that we /won't/ be able to avoid
> many of the tempting
> shortcuts that may make the difference between stuff going
> haywire after
> we're dead and going haywire a few generations later.

You set the goalposts far too high.
When people fake welding inspection certificates for valves
in nuclear power plant cooling systems. And when the systems
in place, or not in place make it possible to do so, then
the odds of the barrels all even getting to the repository
intact are only so so.

> I'm not saying that I know whether one or the other is
> more dangerous. But
> you say you do, and that what you say is based on facts. I
> just don't see
> the facts WRT long term.

Long ago people vitirifed nuclear waste in "barrels".
Routine measurements subsequently showed that radiation
levels at the surface were far higher than they were
expected to be.
Investigation showed that there were 'bugs' (microbes
whatever) living in the waste and happily mining it and
bringing whatever to the surface. And they probably had
really interesting children to boot!

Murphy spits on your best precautions.
What can go wrong will go wrong.
What can't go wrong will go wrong anyway.

Certainty that we have done enough or can do enough is
always fatal, for almost all values of always, given enough
time. And time is something we have more than an average
amount of in this case.

This is not to say that we may as well all give up trying
and huddle in the corner inspecting the pattern onm the
wallpaper. But it should always be kept open as an
attractive fallback option :-).

An engineer needs to KNOW that for large and complex
projects it is almost impossible to design the overall
project and not have it go through a vast number of
revisions throughout its construction and operating life.
The trouble here is that for most of the operating life "we"
won't be around to provide corrective feedback. "But what"
you may ask "can go wrong with a passive store in a
geologically sound location far below the ground?". The
answer is "I don't know and you don't know BUT the answer is
'we don't know' and not 'nothing'".
Sound alarmist and excessively cautious?
Why not?
It is.

But it also may be right.
And may not in any given case.
Which case is this one :-) ?



       Russell

2008\02\27@084509 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Apptech wrote:
{Quote hidden}

We so rarely see eye to eye, Russell... but this is one of the clearest
explanations
I've ever seen in print.   er... ever consider running for President?


--Bob A

2008\02\27@115737 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 27, 2008, at 4:23 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> Heck, we already /know/ that most things we
> create don't last longer than a few years.

We've been storing nuclear waste of one sort or another for close
to 60 years now.  That should be something of a case study.  As
far as I know, the (known) ecological consequences have been less
than those from conventional mining of various sorts, or even
farmland construction via rain forest destruction.  (and perhaps
less than the results of burning 60y worth of fossil fuels.)

(I suppose with all the excitement about bombs and/or bomb grade
material leaking out of politically destabilized areas, there has
been some scrutiny to check for raiding of waste facilities for
"dirty bomb" manufacture in those same regions?)

BillW


2008\02\27@121517 by David VanHorn

picon face
> We've been storing nuclear waste of one sort or another for close
> to 60 years now.  That should be something of a case study.  As
> far as I know, the (known) ecological consequences have been less
> than those from conventional mining of various sorts, or even
> farmland construction via rain forest destruction.  (and perhaps
> less than the results of burning 60y worth of fossil fuels.)

Well there are those hot frogs on the loose..  :)

But I'm inclined to agree, and again the radioactives released by
natural gas and coal might be even more than the nuke plants in total,
and they are ignored.

2008\02\27@151627 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>  > We've been storing nuclear waste of one sort or another for close
>>  to 60 years now.  That should be something of a case study.  As
>>  far as I know, the (known) ecological consequences have been less
>>  than those from conventional mining of various sorts, or even
>>  farmland construction via rain forest destruction.  (and perhaps
>>  less than the results of burning 60y worth of fossil fuels.)
>
>Well there are those hot frogs on the loose..  :)
>
>But I'm inclined to agree, and again the radioactives released by
>natural gas and coal might be even more than the nuke plants in total,
>and they are ignored.

There's an interesting article about just that subject here:
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Coal-Combustion-Waste-CCW1jul93.htm

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\02\28@080524 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

> On Feb 27, 2008, at 4:23 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
>> Heck, we already /know/ that most things we create don't last longer
>> than a few years.
>
> We've been storing nuclear waste of one sort or another for close
> to 60 years now.  That should be something of a case study.  

It maybe is, and it seems to tell us that none of these sites worked
without constant and close supervision and without fault. So these "case
studies" seem to contradict the ones that say otherwise.

> As far as I know, the (known) ecological consequences have been less than
> those from conventional mining of various sorts, or even farmland
> construction via rain forest destruction.  (and perhaps less than the
> results of burning 60y worth of fossil fuels.)

As I already said, I don't want to say which one is worse. I don't know,
and I don't see a way to tell for sure. But I think the storage scenario is
much less certain than some would like to present it, and much less
"factual". I always go into "deep distrust" mode when someone wants to
claim facts for the future, and when that is the future over several
thousand years, that becomes "deep deep distrust" :)  Our past is the only
"case study" we have for something like that, and a little bit of history
would do good to consider in this context. (Don't forget: /one/ case study
is not science... Science is about "statistical consensus", and one case is
not enough to even start with statistics.)

Gerhard

2008\02\28@084928 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
James Newton wrote:
> Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally occurring veins
> of radioactive ore being exposed by some natural or unnatural upheaval and
> that same sort of exposure happening to spent fuel rods.
>
> Shit happens.
The "Law of Unintended Consequences" is the problem here.  I think it's
likely that something we
currently don't know will bite us in the butt.  And do we want a
mountain full of nuclear
waste to be the biter?
Carey

2008\02\28@100842 by David VanHorn

picon face
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Carey Fisher <EraseMEcareyfisherspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTncsradio.com> wrote:
> James Newton wrote:
> > Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally occurring veins
> > of radioactive ore being exposed by some natural or unnatural upheaval and
> > that same sort of exposure happening to spent fuel rods.

Fuel rods would have isotopes and elements that don't occur in nature.
Still, the hot stuff decays fast, and the cool stuff is well... cool.

Interestingly, humans didn't invent nuclear waste either.
www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

2008\02\28@101038 by David VanHorn

picon face
> Interestingly, humans didn't invent nuclear waste either.
> http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml
>

Interesting note:

"Once the natural reactors burned themselves out, the highly
radioactive waste they generated was held in place deep under Oklo by
the granite, sandstone, and clays surrounding the reactors' areas.
Plutonium has moved less than 10 feet from where it was formed almost
two billion years ago."

2008\02\28@103918 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> > Interestingly, humans didn't invent nuclear waste either.
> > www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml
> >
>
> Interesting note:
>
> "Once the natural reactors burned themselves out, the highly
> radioactive waste they generated was held in place deep under
> Oklo by the granite, sandstone, and clays surrounding the
> reactors' areas. Plutonium has moved less than 10 feet from
> where it was formed almost two billion years ago."

Interesting, but do keep the base rate principle in mind when
interpreting this. If long ago a compareable natural reactor would have
been split up by an quacke, and its content washed into the oceans by
rain, how would we ever know about it?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\28@105951 by David VanHorn

picon face
> Interesting, but do keep the base rate principle in mind when
> interpreting this. If long ago a compareable natural reactor would have
> been split up by an quacke, and its content washed into the oceans by
> rain, how would we ever know about it?

So if it makes no noticable difference, is it a problem?

Obviously the "containment" at Oklo lasted a hell of a long time, and
it probably isn't the only site where this has happened.

The idea is that we can in fact dispose of waste products in a place
that has been stable for millions of years, and after 10kyears, a
geological "moment", it decays to safe levels.

Remember too that geology isn't coin flips.  A site that has been
stable for a long time is very likely to remain so.

2008\02\28@110607 by Peter Todd

picon face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 04:38:48PM +0100, wouter van ooijen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

We wouldn't. The point is that the above example shows that for the
given conditions that natural reactor was exposed to the granite,
sandstone and clays do a good job at keeping the plutonium and other
wastes in place. You can then use that knowledge, and other geological
knowledge, to make sure that a proposed dump will be exposed to similar
conditions.

- --
http://petertodd.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHxtsI3bMhDbI9xWQRAhNNAJ0YHKOmWJzoOFY6JZAoaKDhcxutBwCeKz1i
hF+1KWX0m2E86rVY2TENXkA=
=r7h6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2008\02\28@115051 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
The LOUC is the same as the bogeyman behind the tree, the glowing  
green frogs, etc.  LOUC is proportional to the Hubris Factor.  
Anyway, a mountain full of Nook waste is a far less of a problem to  
deal with than Global Warming.  See ...... on the one hand, there is  
hand wringing about Global Warming ( which I have severe reservations  
about ) and the same people who wring their hands and say it is going  
to wipe us out ,offer such limp wristed solutions such as collecting  
plastic at the curb, or let's use wind power ( big wind farms ----->  
LOUC ---> you ain't seen nothing yet ) or solar.  I have nothing  
against solar, it is a technology that perhaps will solve everything  
in the future.  Right now It is not ready for prime time.  If humans  
really cause GW and if it is really happening, then first, " let's  
kill all the people."  [Henry VI]             ::-]    ( i wear glasses )
cc


{Quote hidden}

> --

2008\02\28@120812 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> We wouldn't. The point is that the above example shows that
> for the given conditions that natural reactor was exposed to
> the granite, sandstone and clays do a good job at keeping the
> plutonium and other wastes in place. You can then use that
> knowledge, and other geological knowledge, to make sure that
> a proposed dump will be exposed to similar conditions.

I disagree. You are confusing correlation with cause-and-effect. Without
much much more proof (much more than 1 non-random sample) I do not trust
anyone to correctly identify the factors that made this site stable. Not
for anything as important as dumping spent fuel.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu




2008\02\28@141127 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 2/25/08, David VanHorn <microbrixspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?

I can see three reasons:
* No bases near where you want a reactor due to population
(transmission losses), water source, geologic stability and other
factors
* Don't want the military to control power to the people (low, but
possible military coup)
* Don't want to let enemies get 2 birds with one stone

As far as letting them run them, the military has a mission that,
while not incompatible, is certainly not completely lined up with
being a utility company.

-Adam

2008\02\28@150312 by David VanHorn

picon face
>  * No bases near where you want a reactor due to population
> (transmission losses), water source, geologic stability and other
> factors

Well, we've moved bases before, and actually population centers and
bases seem to go hand in hand mostly, especially with navy bases.  I
dunno how many reactors the army has run, but the navy is certainly
used to them, working in VERY close quarters with them.

>  * Don't want the military to control power to the people (low, but possible military coup)

Seems way farfetched.

>  * Don't want to let enemies get 2 birds with one stone

Again, the bases are already in major population centers in a lot of cases.


> As far as letting them run them, the military has a mission that,
> while not incompatible, is certainly not completely lined up with
> being a utility company.

Yes, but that is where you bring in some civilians in.

2008\02\28@151757 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>  > As far as letting them run them, the military has a mission that,
>>  while not incompatible, is certainly not completely lined up with
>>  being a utility company.
>
>Yes, but that is where you bring in some civilians in.

Placing the US Bullion Depository at Ft Knox seems to have prevented
anyone from trying to improperly acquire the gold, James Bond
villains aside ;-)

I'm all for setting up a few locations across the US where many
nuclear reactors are placed. Near enough to major population centers
to be where the loads are, far enough away for a buffer zone. Set up
restricted airspace around them.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\02\28@153547 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Cedric Chang wrote:
> The LOUC is the same as the bogeyman behind the tree, the glowing  
> green frogs, etc.  LOUC is proportional to the Hubris Factor.  
> Anyway, a mountain full of Nook waste is a far less of a problem to  
> deal with than Global Warming.  See ...... on the one hand, there is  
> hand wringing about Global Warming ( which I have severe reservations  
> about ) and the same people who wring their hands and say it is going  
> to wipe us out ,offer such limp wristed solutions such as collecting  
> plastic at the curb, or let's use wind power ( big wind farms ----->  
> LOUC ---> you ain't seen nothing yet ) or solar.  I have nothing  
> against solar, it is a technology that perhaps will solve everything  
> in the future.  Right now It is not ready for prime time.  If humans  
> really cause GW and if it is really happening, then first, " let's  
> kill all the people."  [Henry VI]             ::-]    ( i wear glasses )
> cc
>
>  
No, No, they said "First, we'll kill all the lawyers".

--Bob A

2008\02\28@154700 by David VanHorn

picon face
> I'm all for setting up a few locations across the US where many
> nuclear reactors are placed. Near enough to major population centers
> to be where the loads are, far enough away for a buffer zone. Set up
> restricted airspace around them.

That's what I'm thinking.. We already have a lot of the security
infrastructure there, and it makes some sense to combine the
functions.  In case of a problem, the base probably remains powered
up, which is a good thing.

Since a lot of the folks responsible for the security and operations
would be essentially living at the plant, I would think that they
would take a serious interest.

2008\02\28@155531 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>  > I'm all for setting up a few locations across the US where many
>>  nuclear reactors are placed. Near enough to major population centers
>>  to be where the loads are, far enough away for a buffer zone. Set up
>>  restricted airspace around them.
>
>That's what I'm thinking.. We already have a lot of the security
>infrastructure there, and it makes some sense to combine the
>functions.  In case of a problem, the base probably remains powered
>up, which is a good thing.
>
>Since a lot of the folks responsible for the security and operations
>would be essentially living at the plant, I would think that they
>would take a serious interest.

That's an excellent point. If your wife and kids are living there,
you're going to be extra careful.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\02\28@161124 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Chris Smolinski wrote:

{Quote hidden}

You are projecting your feeling and ideals on other people. If everyone
felt like you there would be no wife beating husbands or child beating
fathers. Don't expect others to be more careful because you would be. Some
people will still see it as just another job.

Regards
Sergio

2008\02\28@163255 by James Newton

face picon face
My point is that we currently have mountains (plural) and plains and caves
and back yards full (to a lesser concentration) of nuclear waste (well, not
waste, but still radioactive to some degree) which we aren't even apparently
aware of and we don't worry about that, so why do we worry about a mountain
that we DO know about?

There are places where yellow cake sits around in national parks and kids
use it to draw on rocks. Xrays, high airplane flights, and bad water cause
more radiation damage than any nuke waste ever has. And coal power causes
more damage of all sorts (radiation, pollution, etc...) than anything
nuclear does ever.

So why do we get so upset about nuke plants and nuke waste? The numbers
don't account for the emotions.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\02\28@164529 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>My point is that we currently have mountains (plural) and plains and caves
>and back yards full (to a lesser concentration) of nuclear waste (well, not
>waste, but still radioactive to some degree) which we aren't even apparently
>aware of and we don't worry about that, so why do we worry about a mountain
>that we DO know about?
>
>There are places where yellow cake sits around in national parks and kids
>use it to draw on rocks. Xrays, high airplane flights, and bad water cause
>more radiation damage than any nuke waste ever has. And coal power causes
>more damage of all sorts (radiation, pollution, etc...) than anything
>nuclear does ever.
>
>So why do we get so upset about nuke plants and nuke waste? The numbers
>don't account for the emotions.

Because human are not rational, and incorrectly assign risk to events.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\02\28@164747 by James Newton

face picon face
This, again, misses the point. IMnHO.

It isn't that we KNOW for certain that Yucca will prove to be as stable as
Oklo. That would be the best guess, based on scientific methods, but no
scientist worth his or her salt will claim that his or her prediction is
100% reliable.

The POINT is that it is better to have the radioactive material in a place
were we KNOW about it rather than in a place where mother nature (bless her
homicidal heart) can belch it up at us at some unpredictable point in the
future.

Promoting nuke plants stimulates the mining of nuke fuel, thereby tracking
it down and moving it OUT of places where we didn't know it was and INTO
places where we DO know where it is.

Again, spent fuel is not fundamentally any more dangerous than naturally
occurring radioactive sources. At least we KNOW what we are doing with our
waste. We have no idea how Gia will use its "waste".

And by avoiding nuke power, we subject ourselves to coal power, "natural"
gas power, and oil power, all of which are killing us faster than all of our
nuke waste would if we just put it back right where we got it.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\02\28@164849 by David VanHorn

picon face
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:33 PM, James Newton <@spam@jamesnewtonKILLspamspammassmind.org> wrote:
> My point is that we currently have mountains (plural) and plains and caves
> and back yards full (to a lesser concentration) of nuclear waste (well, not
> waste, but still radioactive to some degree) which we aren't even apparently
> aware of and we don't worry about that, so why do we worry about a mountain
> that we DO know about?

And all that waste that we already DO have, is sitting in FAR less
secure areas now.


Everything has it's costs, and it does seem that embedded interests
are hyping the dangers of the new stuff so that they won't loose their
market.   There were at one time laws that required a motor vehicle to
be preceeded by a flagman, etc..

2008\02\28@173404 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> The POINT is that it is better to have the radioactive
> material in a place were we KNOW about it rather than in a
> place where mother nature (bless her homicidal heart) can
> belch it up at us at some unpredictable point in the future.

You still don't get it: what we must store after using it is totally
different from what we mined. I would *not* mind the natural stuff being
stored in Yucca mountain or even in a clay pit in the Netherlands. But
real nuclar waste (what remaings of the fuel rods after their usefull
life) is a totally different piece of cake.

> And by avoiding nuke power, we subject ourselves to coal
> power, "natural" gas power, and oil power

Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently 'accepted'
amount of energy ( and at the current price).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\28@180518 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>  > The POINT is that it is better to have the radioactive
>>  material in a place were we KNOW about it rather than in a
>>  place where mother nature (bless her homicidal heart) can
>>  belch it up at us at some unpredictable point in the future.
>
>You still don't get it: what we must store after using it is totally
>different from what we mined. I would *not* mind the natural stuff being
>stored in Yucca mountain or even in a clay pit in the Netherlands. But
>real nuclar waste (what remaings of the fuel rods after their usefull
>life) is a totally different piece of cake.
>
>>  And by avoiding nuke power, we subject ourselves to coal
>>  power, "natural" gas power, and oil power
>
>Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently 'accepted'
>amount of energy ( and at the current price).

Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
century, with lifespans of 30 years.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\02\28@181648 by James Newton

face picon face
The soviets have used Navy nuke ships to provide civilian power. When our
carriers are in port, why not use them to supply the grid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy We have 80 nuke powered ships.
Over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience (if the military is
to be believed, and a major accident would be hard to hide, I would expect).

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\02\28@181653 by James Newton

face picon face
The difference between naturally occurring radioactive materials and nuke
waste is ONLY in terms of the level of radiation coming out of it. The type
and effect of the radiation is absolutely the same. If you dilute the spent
fuel rods enough, the resulting radiation field is NO different than the
naturally occurring fuel.

AND

It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the materials are
producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they have a shorter half life, so
over all, they will produce less total energy than the original substance.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\02\28@183508 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, wouter van ooijen wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it will always come down to
trust. You can chase these arguments round and round but ultimately it
always boils down to the same thing.

Regards
Sergio

2008\02\28@185000 by Jinx

face picon face
> The soviets have used Navy nuke ships to provide civilian power.
> When our carriers are in port, why not use them to supply the grid?

When Auckland had a major power outage a few years ago, the
diesel-fuelled NZ Navy ships did just that, but it was an emergency

As for nucular waste, it's been discussed here before - the problem
is more to do with people than the material. If there's a will to find
a secure long-term home for the waste, then it can be done

When you look at some of the world's major engineering feats -
Boston's Big Dig, the Channel Tunnel, the Mont Blanc Tunnel,
Holland's Zuiderzee and Delta projects, even NZ's Manapouri
Hydro scheme - is it that difficult to bury it waaaaay down ?

2008\02\28@190051 by David VanHorn

picon face
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 6:06 PM, James Newton <KILLspamjamesnewtonKILLspamspammassmind.org> wrote:
> The soviets have used Navy nuke ships to provide civilian power. When our
> carriers are in port, why not use them to supply the grid?

Kauai (in hawaii) got knocked offline in a hurricane, what I heard was
that their sole turbine went down, and the diesel they used to start
it wouldn't go, so they had to call in a navy nuke sub to "jump start"
the island.

That's really hilarious in that Kauai was pretty much the center of
hawaii's anti-nuke community.

:)

2008\02\28@191358 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
James   Until you learn to factor in the glowing green frogs and the  
vampires, you just won't get it.  Nuclear Power is different than any  
other kind of science.  When dealing with NP, you must learn to throw  
out the scientific method and substitute "worst case is the truth"  
reasoning. No amount of safety procedures will work, people who are  
handed the responsibility to operate NP facilities rapidly go insane  
and pull levers at random, while singing a green frog song.  On top  
of all of that , NP has killed more people in that last 50 years than  
have died from all other causes during the entire history of  
mankind.  If you are alive right now to read this sentence, your  
chances of dying from out of control radiation clouds spewing from  
Yucca Mountain is  123%.  Trust me on this.
cc

{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2008\02\28@191639 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

And how many traffic deaths were there when a flagman insured your  
safety ?  Close to zero I imagine.  And now , about 50k people die  
per year.  Oh, I regret that we ever foolishly eliminated flagmen and  
flagfems.
cc

2008\02\28@192628 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

So, Sergio , expand on this trust thing ...... Who do you trust ?  Do  
you vote ?  Do you drive ?  Do you trust yourself ?  I myself trust  
everyone as far as I can throw them.  And I want electricity and  
electronic toys and vacations and restaurants and medical care and I  
want to drive on the highway.  Do I trust utilities  and Apple and  
Greeks and AppleBees and my doctor and other drivers ?  Not really, I  
just have to fake it since I want all those things.  So what has  
trust have to do with it ?
cc

2008\02\28@201224 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> The LOUC is the same as the bogeyman behind the tree, the
>> glowing
>> green frogs, etc.  LOUC is proportional to the Hubris
>> Factor.

This can be true, and too often is.
But using it as an excuse to ignore LOUC in all cases, or in
cases where it suits one desires to do so, helps guarantee
UC. Murphy loves this approach.

LOUC needs to be part, alas, of any study of a project of
any magnitude. A good question (or two) is/are  "What is the
worst possible outcome, and am I prepared to accept the
possibility of that outcome occurring". The first question
is often not able to be answered with accuracy but a skim
over the release-candidate answers usually gives you a good
clue to the second answer.

eg    As much for the stupidity that even engineers can
manage as for the sermon:        The Clutha hydro dam is
NZ's largest. To stand by the hydraulic jump at the bottom
of its spillway when the lake is full is to look into the
face of death at a few metres remove. Similar to standing in
the hillside caverns at Lauterbrunnen where the Eiger melt
water travels its subterranean path. An awe and fear
inspiring experience in both cases. But not my point :-).
The dam was built on top of an active faultline. Once the
implications of this were reanalysed during the decade or so
of construction they spent a vast amount of money not only
strengthening the design but in modifying the hill tops
around where the new lake would be to reduce potential size
of the quake induced avalanches will occur in a major
earthquake, so that any local 'tsunami' would be less likely
to overtop the dam catastrophically. Competent people have
reanalysed the result and claim that there is a reasonable
prospect that the dam will fail given too probable to be
nice circumstances.

If you offered me a cheap enough price on an Apricot orchard
a mile downstream from the dam I'd happily consider retiring
there without and great reference to the dam factor in my
reckonings.

This does not prove my strong like of surfing but rather
demonstrates that people who aregue for the predictability
of nuclear waste storage can be about as one eyed in their
decision making as I, and as the many current Clutha apricot
farmers.



       Russell



2008\02\28@203423 by John Gardner

picon face
> Until you learn to factor in the glowing green frogs and the
> vampires, you just won't get it.  Nuclear Power is different than any
> other kind of science.  When dealing with NP, you must learn to throw
> out the scientific method and substitute "worst case is the truth"
> reasoning. No amount of safety procedures will work, people who are
> handed the responsibility to operate NP facilities rapidly go insane
> and pull levers at random, while singing a green frog song.  On top
> of all of that , NP has killed more people in that last 50 years than
> have died from all other causes during the entire history of
> mankind.  If you are alive right now to read this sentence, your
> chances of dying from out of control radiation clouds spewing from
> Yucca Mountain is  123%.  Trust me on this.

Ah ... I think I've got it now...

Jack


On 2/28/08, Apptech <spamBeGoneapptechspamBeGonespamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\02\28@205736 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Chris Smolinski wrote:

>>Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently 'accepted'
>>amount of energy ( and at the current price).
>
> Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
> century, with lifespans of 30 years.

When was the last time you were outside the USA? That may not necessarily
be a time travel 400 years back :)

Gerhard

2008\02\28@223606 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to
>> the 16th
>> century, with lifespans of 30 years.

> When was the last time you were outside the USA? That may
> not necessarily
> be a time travel 400 years back :)

He didn't say it wasn't also a current occurrence (although
at a country level it's not) but that he didn't want it ;-)

FWIW - those under 50 years at present from UN.
CIA world fact book results differ and have  alower
minimum - still Swaziland - at about 32 years.

Only 4 of the below have a lower female than male life
expectancy - from bottom up Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Sawziland and
Afghanistan.

The top 8 female to male longevity ratios go to former
Russian republics !!!!!!!!!!!!, followed by Thailand.

Men live to be oldest in Iceland, then HK Japan

     Singapore
    80
    78
    81.9

     New Zealand
    80.2
    78.2
    82.2

     Canada
    80.7
    78.3
    82.9

     Israel
    80.7
    78.5
    82.8

     Macau
    80.7
    78.5
    82.8

     Sweden
    80.9
    78.7
    83

     Australia
    81.2
    78.9
    83.6

     Switzerland
    81.7
    79
    84.2

     Japan
    82.6
    79
    86.1

     Hong Kong
    82.2
    79.4
    85.1

     Iceland
    81.8
    80.2
    83.3




Numbers are overall / male / female.

177  Burundi 49.6 48.1 51.0
178  South Africa 49.3 48.8 49.7
179  Côte d'Ivoire 48.3 47.5 49.3
180  Malawi 48.3 48.1 48.4
181  Somalia 48.2 46.9 49.4
182  Nigeria (30% below world average) 46.9 46.4 47.3
183  Democratic Republic of the Congo 46.5 45.2 47.7
184  Guinea-Bissau 46.4 44.9 47.9
185  Rwanda 46.2 44.6 47.8
186  Liberia 45.7 44.8 46.6
187  Central African Republic 44.7 43.3 46.1
188  Afghanistan 43.8 43.9 43.8
189  Zimbabwe 43.5 44.1 42.6
190  Angola 42.7 41.2 44.3
191  Lesotho 42.6 42.9 42.3
192  Sierra Leone 42.6 41.0 44.1
193  Zambia 42.4 42.1 42.5
194  Mozambique 42.1 41.7 42.4
195  Swaziland (40% below world average) 39.6 39.8 39.4

2008\02\28@230827 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 28, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

>>> Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently  
>>> 'accepted'
>>> amount of energy ( and at the current price).
>>
>> Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
>> century, with lifespans of 30 years.
>
> When was the last time you were outside the USA? That may not  
> necessarily
> be a time travel 400 years back :)

Well, yeah.  Even if what we current consider the "first world"  
manages to use their energy more efficiently and cuts their energy  
consumption in half while maintaining what they consider a reasonable  
standard of living, there's still a good part of the world that would  
be INCREASING their energy consumption to reach that same standard of  
living.  I don't think it would be a good idea from either a moral or  
practical point of view to tell a couple billion people "I'm sorry,  
the energy is all gone, you can't have any."

Perhaps the US will become a backwater part of civilization "still  
BURNING fossil fuels" while the rest of the world goes nuclear and  
passes us in any number of ways.  I hear that France is up to about  
85% nuke for power generation.  Good for them!  (too bad about the  
glowing frogs' legs...)

BillW

2008\02\29@032229 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> >Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently
> >'accepted' amount of energy ( and at the current price).
>
> Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
> century, with lifespans of 30 years.

You are free to hold your own opinion, but IMO (no H) the health of my
offspring is a far too high price to pay for a bit of 'enjoyment' now.

I don't think your 2nd scentence needs a serious response.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\29@032230 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> The difference between naturally occurring radioactive
> materials and nuke waste is ONLY in terms of the level of
> radiation coming out of it.

Dunno what 'nuke waste' is (waste after an exploding nuke?), I was
talkinmg about what's left of the fuel rods after their lifetime. That
stuff is *very* different from natural uranium ore, for a starter it is
chemically different: there is a significant amount of plutonium in it.

> The type and effect of the
> radiation is absolutely the same.

I doubt that is correct, but if it were: amount of radiation does make a
different. Ask any aussie whether sunbathing is a good for your health.

> It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the
> materials are producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they
> have a shorter half life, so over all, they will produce less
> total energy than the original substance.

Again I doubt if this is true, but for the sake of argument let's accept
it for now. So the radiation which would otherwise occur over a very
long time is now concentrated in let's say a few 100 years. I don't
think the people living in those few 100 years will like that.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\29@074519 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>  > >Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently
>>  >'accepted' amount of energy ( and at the current price).
>>
>>  Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
>>  century, with lifespans of 30 years.
>
>You are free to hold your own opinion, but IMO (no H) the health of my
>offspring is a far too high price to pay for a bit of 'enjoyment' now.

Yes, the health of my children is important also, which is why I want
us to continue to maintain the current level of technology, as well
as nutrition. If others wish to return to living in thatched huts,
that's fine with me.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\02\29@082725 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:21:59AM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
> > The difference between naturally occurring radioactive
> > materials and nuke waste is ONLY in terms of the level of
> > radiation coming out of it.
>
> Dunno what 'nuke waste' is (waste after an exploding nuke?), I was
> talkinmg about what's left of the fuel rods after their lifetime. That
> stuff is *very* different from natural uranium ore, for a starter it is
> chemically different: there is a significant amount of plutonium in it.

Actually there isn't going to be. All fuel rods would be reprocessed and
all of the useful fuel would be put back into new fuel rods.

According to this site:

http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm

Only 3% of the rod is actual waste and the other 97% (depleted uranium
mixed with plutonium) would be extracted and reused.

> > It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the
> > materials are producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they
> > have a shorter half life, so over all, they will produce less
> > total energy than the original substance.
>
> Again I doubt if this is true, but for the sake of argument let's accept
> it for now. So the radiation which would otherwise occur over a very
> long time is now concentrated in let's say a few 100 years. I don't
> think the people living in those few 100 years will like that.

I would agree with you if the waste were made into a statue that was placed
in a open public park. But when buried under hundreds of meters of solid
rock, the residual radiation effect is minimal. That's why the EPA's
estimate for Yucca Mountain for the first 10,000 years was so important,
because virtually all of the highly radioactive waste products would have
decayed by then.

BAJ

2008\02\29@122705 by Carey Fisher

face picon face

>  The answer is "I don't know and you don't know BUT the answer is
> 'we don't know' and not 'nothing'".
>
>
>         Russell
>
>  
Wow.  I'm saving this.  It expresses, very succinctly, the reality about
many important things.

And the rest of the post was outstanding in it's expository presentation
as well.  Thank you Russell!

Carey

2008\02\29@142613 by James Newton

face picon face
But you are happy for your offspring to be exposed to coal fired generating
plant exaust and coal ash (which is radioactive)?

Or to live with less electricity and therefore less of a technological
advantage?

Or to be more dependant on foreign oil?

--
James.

wouter van ooijen Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 00:22
> You are free to hold your own opinion, but IMO (no H) the health of my
> offspring is a far too high price to pay for a bit of 'enjoyment' now.

2008\02\29@143415 by James Newton

face picon face
By "nuke waste" I mean spent fuel rods from a fission reactor.

The radiation is exactly the same. And the sunbathers in oz are getting the
same TYPE of skin damaging radiation we get in SoCal, just more of it. So in
both cases, it is an issue of *quantity* not *quality*. All issues of
quantity can be solved with dilution. In Oz, don't go out in the sun as
much, and wear sun block / floppy hats. With nuke waste, spread it thinner
when you dispose of it, and put it deep in the earth in very stable
geological areas.

As to the level of radiation over the next 100 years: First the argument was
that it will be radioactive for millions of years and our distant offspring
will end up being exposed to it since we will have forgotten where it is;
which is actually more of a problem with the naturally occurring radioactive
ores since they are often in less stable areas and will be radioactive for a
longer time. Now the argument is that it will be more radioactive for a
short term, in a containment area that we WILL be here to monitor and
despite the fact that by the time we are likely to be exposed to it, it will
actually be LESS radioactive than the naturally occurring stuff, and that is
somehow a bad thing?

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\02\29@154239 by Herbert Graf
flavicon
face

On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:26 -0800, James Newton wrote:
> But you are happy for your offspring to be exposed to coal fired generating
> plant exaust and coal ash (which is radioactive)?
>
> Or to live with less electricity and therefore less of a technological
> advantage?
>
> Or to be more dependant on foreign oil?

Here, here James. It seems people are so open to being afraid of the
"badness" of nuclear, yet COMPLETELY IGNORE all the badness of all the
other poisons we spew into the air/water/ground that our descendants
will have to deal with.

I doubt very much they'll care WHICH poisons we are poisoning them with.

FWIW I'm a big nuclear proponent. Yes, it produces nasty stuff, but is
the nasty stuff per watt any worse then the nasty stuff per watt of
coal, or even natural gas?

TTYL

2008\02\29@173206 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Byron Jeff wrote:
{Quote hidden}

My main objection to nuclear power is simply that it seems obvious to me
and many others that capturing
solar energy to generate electricity would result in minimal damage to
anything. And we wouldn't even NEED
a Yucca Mtn.

But I am one of a few persons spitting against a hurricane, and its
pretty obvious that nuclear will win in the
end.

--Bob A

2008\02\29@174555 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Chris Smolinski wrote:
>
>>>> Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently
>>>> 'accepted' amount of energy ( and at the current price).
>>>
>>>  Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
>>>  century, with lifespans of 30 years.
>>
>> You are free to hold your own opinion, but IMO (no H) the health  
>> of my
>> offspring is a far too high price to pay for a bit of 'enjoyment'  
>> now.
>
> Yes, the health of my children is important also, which is why I want
> us to continue to maintain the current level of technology, as well
> as nutrition. If others wish to return to living in thatched huts,
> that's fine with me.

Me too   I have a bit of property you could set your igloo on and  
there is water nearby.  I will wave as I cruise by in my diesel  
powered PURE POD.
cc


2008\02\29@182721 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:31:53PM -0500, Bob Axtell wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Unfortunately that's a very narrow view. Two major points:

1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity, it takes
more energy to create solar panels than they produce.

2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
production and waste.

>
> But I am one of a few persons spitting against a hurricane, and its
> pretty obvious that nuclear will win in the end.

It's not a done deal, though I wish that it could happen.

BAJ

2008\02\29@200010 by James Newton

face picon face
Byron Jeff Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 15:24
> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity, it takes
> more energy to create solar panels than they produce.

Ahhh... Huh? Could you provide a reference or supporting data for that
assertion? If it takes more energy to make a solar panel than it will ever
produce, wouldn't the cost of the panel exceed the value of the electricity
produced? Why would anyone produce a panel if that were the case? Wouldn't
the power to make it cost them more than the panel is worth?

http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/solar/case1.htm my solar panels
cost $16,000. The system cost $21,000 TOTAL including professional
installation. I paid $12,759 after rebates. The first year, it made $1,400
worth of electricity. The panels are warranted for 25 years so they should
produce $29,400 dollars worth of electricity. And that assumes that the
price of electricity stays the same; which it has not:
http://techref.massmind.org/images/other/ePwrRates.GIF

> 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
> production and waste.

Pretty much everything has nasty stuff in it, but I would curious to know
exactly what they have that is any worse than roofing material.

--
James.

2008\02\29@200358 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
BCC recipients:

           Stop reading when eyes glaze over ...

______________

> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to
> electricity, it takes
> more energy to create solar panels than they produce.


1. Reference?
2. Credible reference?
3. Peer reviewed credible reference?
4. Peer reviewed accurate credible reference? :-)


Modern solar panels have efficiencies of 13% - 15% for
single junction cells and around 30% for triple junction
cells in space applications where a wider spectrum is
available and used. Lifetimes for reasonable quality
terrestrial panels are a genuine 20 years wit the primary
degradation mode after early failures being the EVA
laminating adhesive. So this lifetime can be expected to
increase. There is some degradation of output over lifetime
but for poly and mono crystalline cells it is relatively
small. New amorphous continuous process thin film panels on
flexible substrates are expected to deliver a cost of around
$US1 "sometime soon". the panels

Consider an existing technology polycrystalline terrestrial
panel available off the shelf for about $US5/Watt in
commercial volumes and assume a pessimistic 10% delivered
efficiency. As panels are liable to be installed in volume
in areas where they are more likely to be useful let's
assume a mean insolation of 5 kWh/day/m^2. This is very
achievable in substantial areas in the US. Don't depend on
this figure in Moscow in mid winter (actually = 0.2
kWh/m^2/day average).

Over a 20 year lifetime the output per m^2 is 5 x 365 x 20 x
10% = 3,650 kWh. At say $US0.10/kWh (use your own
assumptions) that $365/m^2 of energy production / m^2. While
you many manage to get that figure down an order of
magnitude with DCF, support infrastructure, maintenance
(reasonably modest) and all the usual cost of doing business
sinks, at the resultant 10% of energy value $36.50 level
it's still highly arguable that energy costs of production
exceed energy value produced.

The main cost of production is in making the actual raw
cells - lovely paper thin pieces of super delicate wonder.
>From there on the cost of manufacture and the energy content
can be so low as to appal you - I've stood in a factory and
watched people turn the raw silicon cells into finished
panels using ultra cottage industry techniques at around
$US1/hour pay rates.

Solar is potentially on the edge of viability now. Large
scale installations in a number of countries are being
driven by massive government subsidy programs. But ongoing
advances in flexible thin film, economies of scale of
polycrystalline (helped by the volumes produced by current
subsidies) and new developments are well on the way to
making it viable against eg hydrocarbon energy alternatives.
IF there was a worldwide will to make it work (which barring
threatened alien invasion is not liable to happen), then we
could see solar as a genuinely viable and massively deployed
alternative to many existing systems within say 10 years.

Wind also is "getting there", but that's another story.


       Russell

2008\02\29@201658 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
James Newton wrote:
> http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/solar/case1.htm my solar panels
> cost $16,000. The system cost $21,000 TOTAL including professional
> installation. I paid $12,759 after rebates. The first year, it made $1,400
> worth of electricity. The panels are warranted for 25 years so they should
> produce $29,400 dollars worth of electricity. And that assumes that the
> price of electricity stays the same; which it has not:
> http://techref.massmind.org/images/other/ePwrRates.GIF

I'm doing the same at my (new) place James (have I already mentioned
that? :)
the figures in here are roughly the same.
I agree with you.

Though, I'd love easy and cheap nuclear power - I was raised with that
in mind!


--
Ciao, Dario

2008\02\29@233723 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Trot out the solar solution. Where does it go ? How much does it  
cost ? How does it fit in with the existing infrastructure ?  I am  
all for it if it is cost competitive.  If it is as cheap as nuclear  
to implement, let's rock and roll.
cc



'[OT] Just wondering..'
2008\03\01@000257 by Cedric Chang
flavicon
face

> Wind also is "getting there", but that's another story.
>
>
>         Russell


Yes, wind farms have many unknowns relative to effects on micro and  
macro climates and the local flora and fauna and local ambience.  I  
would fear wind farms more than I would fear Nukes.
cc

2008\03\01@001433 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 22:02 -0700, Cedric Chang wrote:
> > Wind also is "getting there", but that's another story.
> >
> >
> >         Russell
>
>
> Yes, wind farms have many unknowns relative to effects on micro and  
> macro climates and the local flora and fauna and local ambience.  I  
> would fear wind farms more than I would fear Nukes.

Wind farms are wonderful, as long as the wind is blowing.

You can have as many wind farms as you want, you'll still need either
another source of generation that can operate 24/7 to cover 100% of the
load, or some way to store the energy for later use (doesn't really
exist on the large scale).

Solar has the exact same problem, although energy storage is a little
more theoretically possible then with wind generation.

To me, the only renewable energy source that is at all feasible is
hydro, and there just isn't enough out there to even come close to our
energy needs, so for today non-renewable generation is here to stay.

TTYL

2008\03\01@002815 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Byron Jeff wrote:
{Quote hidden}

er.. I didn't think I said PV arrays, I said solar energy. Concentrating
the sunlight into a heat source
to run a turbine or stirling engine is more efficient, and for a large
generating system would be more
practical. A nuclear generation plant and a concentrated solar
generation plant have two main
differences: (1) during the night, no electricity can be generated at
the solar plant; and (2) no hazardous
waste is generated, EVER. Aside from that, the very same workers are
needed by both types of plants.
The solar plant would cost much less initially than the nuke plant, its
fuel costs are almost zero; and
maintanence would be much less.

I have a client who builds steel buildings. He uses tracking solar PV
arrays and batteries to run his entire
business- even some spot welding machines. He's been in business for
several years, and never bought
a dime's worth of power from the local utility; in fact, no power lines
are even routed to his yard.
Yes, we are in Tucson, AZ- and we have a LOT of sun.

OK, I'll bite. I have heard that PV array yarn before. I'd sure like to
find out where that comes from.
Fill me in. From what I have seen, your statements are unsupportable.

--Bob A

>> But I am one of a few persons spitting against a hurricane, and its
>> pretty obvious that nuclear will win in the end.
>>    
>
> It's not a done deal, though I wish that it could happen.
>
> BAJ
>  

2008\03\01@012954 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> But I am one of a few persons spitting against a
>> hurricane, and its
>> pretty obvious that nuclear will win in the
>> end.

There are many people spitting against the hurricane,
rightly or wrongly.

> Trot out the solar solution. Where does it go ? How much
> does it
> cost ? How does it fit in with the existing infrastructure
> ?  I am
> all for it if it is cost competitive.  If it is as cheap
> as nuclear
> to implement, let's rock and roll.

The difficulty is comparing the two.
Firstly let both bear their own regulatory and management
costs. If it costs more then it pays more. Nuclear is fairly
solidly saddled with costs in that area but it is fair for
it to pay providing such costs are justified. Whether they
are justified depends on whether the zealot who is trying to
convince you is hugging a tree or glows in the dark.

Next add the true costs of any indemnities offered against
prosecution or liability. These are easily priced by
estimating what price the market insurers would charge for
them. if no insurers would front up at any cost it's not a
viable industry - or so the market forces people would tell
me. Why wouldn't I choose to believe them in this case ?

Next add the true cost of greenfielding the site when the
economic lifetime is over. Assuming that a site has an
economic lifetime for some reason or other. Greenfielding
includes the true costs (as if they were carried out by free
market of black fielding some other yuccy location and
keeping it securely that way until it turns green all by
itself or itself can be greenfielded.

Next add any costs for extras such as requisite security for
sites or products or whatever.

You can allow a positive contribution for outputs other than
power per se as long as the prices are paid by fully non
subsidised customers. To give an example, if you can sell
Plutonium to a military body that is fully self funding and
doesn't depend on taxpayer support then you have a valid
sale. [[Sales to the French government, at a minimum, are
liable to fail this test alone rather handsomely]].

Now add the cost of fuel, production etc.

Now add all that up and calculate true cost per unit of
electricity.

When do you want your solar thermal plant delivered?


       Russell


2008\03\01@015954 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu On Behalf Of James Newton
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 8:01 PM
>
> Byron Jeff Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 15:24
> > 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity,
> > it takes more energy to create solar panels than they produce.
>
> Ahhh... Huh? Could you provide a reference or supporting data for that
> assertion? If it takes more energy to make a solar panel than it will ever
> produce, wouldn't the cost of the panel exceed the value of the
> electricity
> produced? Why would anyone produce a panel if that were the case? Wouldn't
> the power to make it cost them more than the panel is worth?

I've never encountered good data that proves or disproves the proposition
that it takes more energy to make them than they can produce. However, it is
plausible because of the substantial discounts on electricity prices for
industry, see:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

To use California as an example, average residential power costs 14.26
(Cents per kilowatthour) while industry pays only 9.75. If the manufacturer
is in another state, like say the Iowa Thin Film Co. now known as
http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/, they'd only pay 4.45. Also some, possibly
much, of the energy used in the manufacturing operation will come from less
expensive fossil fuel sources further lowering the total cost of energy
(e.g. natural gas fired kilns and ovens).

Whether or not solar panel production uses more energy than the panels will
produce, the panels certainly allow the transfer of industries cheaper
energy prices over to residential customers who typically get paid for the
solar generated power at the residential rate. If you where only paid the
industrial rate for the power you generate would the payback period exceed
the life span?

Paul Hutch

{Quote hidden}

2008\03\01@040252 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Whether or not solar panel production uses more energy
> than the panels will
> produce, the panels certainly allow the transfer of
> industries cheaper
> energy prices over to residential customers who typically
> get paid for the
> solar generated power at the residential rate. If you
> where only paid the
> industrial rate for the power you generate would the
> payback period exceed
> the life span?

When the arguments get down to such fine hair splitting as
to which energy pricing is being used the argument is lost,
or muddied to the extent that it will provide endless hours
of fun without productive outcome.

Possibly useful is to deal in kWh, and that's what people
generally do in studies. If they get close enough you can
then fight over realistic energy sources and costs.

If you want to us lowest known power prices to deny the
arrival of solar as a serious technology then you should use
the cost of electrical energy to an aluminium smelter as
your yardstick. I believe that it is in the 1 to 2 cent or
thereabouts range per kWh but prices are always said to be
"commercially sensitive" and not disclosed. That's another
way of saying that the peasants will rise up and lynch the
government em masse if they find out how much Manapouri
power station electricity is being sold to furriners for.

Solar is obviously sensible [tm]. ie it is knocking on the
door now with technology that is simple enough to make and
leave in the sun for 20 years. What goes wrong is often the
glue they use to glue the solar cells to the glass. You can
be sure people are working on improving that. And sheet
amorphous in football field, or house roof, lengths is
available now and will become increasingly now.

In Ring-World our heroes laid out black "cloth" and
connected wires to gather 'solar' energy. I remember
thinking it was a slight reach even in those circumstances.
I have long since realised that it was well within the
expectable capabilities of the situation. They also carried
full oxygen sets which allowed breathing in any degree of
contamination. Louis noted that he had brought them only
because they crumpled (folded?) up in a pocket and took no
room and weight so he thought he may as well take them. I'll
be looking for a few of those after they start delivering
25% roll out solar cloth at $10/kW.




       Russell





2008\03\01@085316 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Apptech wrote:

> Next add the true costs of any indemnities offered against prosecution or
> liability. These are easily priced by estimating what price the market
> insurers would charge for them. if no insurers would front up at any
> cost it's not a viable industry - or so the market forces people would
> tell me. Why wouldn't I choose to believe them in this case ?

I always get a strange feeling when the same people who just a few minutes
ago told me that the superiority of the capitalist system lies in trusting
the wisdom of "the masses" (whose actions determine the price of everything
in such a system) are now telling me that it's the stupidity of "the [same]
masses" that prevents the superior solution of the problem of the day.

I guess you can't have it both ways. If you think it's because of the
stupidity of "the masses" that the superior solution of our energy problems
isn't viable and you think this should be changed, then I think this has
consequences that go far beyond energy policy.

Gerhard

2008\03\01@090322 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
James Newton wrote:

> With nuke waste, spread it thinner when you dispose of it, and put it
> deep in the earth in very stable geological areas.

This sounds to me as being contrary to each other: putting it deep in the
earth in stable areas sounds to me as concentrating it all in one location
(or a few locations), not as spreading it thin.

> As to the level of radiation over the next 100 years: First the argument
> was that it will be radioactive for millions of years and our distant
> offspring [...]

FWIW, 100 years /is/ distant offspring. How many of those that were in
their 40ies or older 100 years ago (that is, the "deciders") do you know?
Is there any guarantee the USA and its control structures (and the
maintenance documentation) will still exist in 100 years? (And FWIW, if the
current development of the public debt and the problems some very much
smaller private debts have already created are any indication ... :)

Let's just try to plan a solution for the next few centuries. Then we'll
look into the more distant periods. And we really need an appropriate
insurance for a nuke plant right now... I need it for my car, and I don't
see how they could not need it for a power plant.

Gerhard

2008\03\01@105441 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> And we really need an appropriate
> insurance for a nuke plant right now... I need it for my
> car, and I don't
> see how they could not need it for a power plant.

AFAIK:

US "nuke plants" are indemnified by law in a manner is not
afforded to any other industry. Their operators are
effectively protected against the sort of risks which would
make their level of uncertainty unacceptable to the
insurance industry.

Somebody here can no doubt provide greater detail, or
explain how I'm wrong.

       Russell


2008\03\01@111726 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 12:27:45AM -0500, Bob Axtell wrote:

Need some snippage...

{Quote hidden}

Solar tower. OK. I went and reread the Wikipedia article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

>A nuclear generation plant and a concentrated solar generation plant have
>two main differences:

>(1) during the night, no electricity can be generated at the solar plant;
>and (2) no hazardous waste is generated, EVER.

(1) is not technically true. As long as some type of heat storage (heating
water for example) is possible, generation can continue after the Sun has
set.

>Aside from that, the very same workers are
> needed by both types of plants.

> The solar plant would cost much less initially than the nuke plant,

The article debates that. The big problem with the Solar tower is that the
collector requires huge expanses of surface area is order to work. That
drives up the costs significantly.

With nuclear the vast majority of the cost is regulartory. A streamlined
approval process of a standard plant design would significantly reduce the
initial cost of building a nuclear power plant.

As for the waste issue, we've been over it multiple times. I do realize
that risks are involved. I'm not dismissing them. I know that accidents
occur. But I believe that by super overengineering the containment system
those risks are significantly reduced.

The point that's missing here is that the nuclear genie is already out of
the bottle. The US already has 9% of its electricity generated by nuclear.
France is upwards of 90% nuclear. Canada is at 15% or so.

Another approach is to consider a different type of reactor: the molten
salt reactor (MSR). You can take a long read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

The key points are that it burns virtually all of its fuel onsite, so there
are minimal waste products. The other point is that none of the waste
products have long half lives (all less than 30 years), so after 10 half
lives the waste is less radioactive than its original fuel source. The next
point is that the salts operate is low pressure environments, so no
explosions are possible. Finally the liquid fuel is temperature self
regulating, so if it gets too hot, it slows down the reaction.

The biggest problems seems to be possible corrosive effects and the fact
that fuel is so efficient that there's very little money in fueling the
plants.

{Quote hidden}

I have to call a mea culpa. I dropped that statement in from something I
read a while ago without reresearching it. I was wrong. This 1997 article
points to reasonable payback periods for solar panels:

http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm

BAJ

2008\03\01@113054 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>Apptech wrote:
>
>>  Next add the true costs of any indemnities offered against prosecution or
>>  liability. These are easily priced by estimating what price the market
>>  insurers would charge for them. if no insurers would front up at any
>>  cost it's not a viable industry - or so the market forces people would
>>  tell me. Why wouldn't I choose to believe them in this case ?
>
>I always get a strange feeling when the same people who just a few minutes
>ago told me that the superiority of the capitalist system lies in trusting
>the wisdom of "the masses" (whose actions determine the price of everything
>in such a system) are now telling me that it's the stupidity of "the [same]
>masses" that prevents the superior solution of the problem of the day.

The anti-nuclear movement has at the core a small group of
scientifically illiterate people who oppose nuclear power for
ideological reasons. Through a well financed dis-information
campaign, they've been able to convince the general public that
nuclear energy is dangerous. I still remember a book put out by one
of them that claimed that the electricity produced by nuclear power
plants was itself radioactive.

Of course the dismal state of scientific education in the US makes it
quite easy for the general public to be manipulated.


--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\03\01@114323 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Chris Smolinski wrote:

> The anti-nuclear movement has at the core a small group of
> scientifically illiterate people who oppose nuclear power for
> ideological reasons. Through a well financed dis-information
> campaign, they've been able to convince the general public that
> nuclear energy is dangerous. I still remember a book put out by one
> of them that claimed that the electricity produced by nuclear power
> plants was itself radioactive.
>
> Of course the dismal state of scientific education in the US makes it
> quite easy for the general public to be manipulated.

Italy, 8th november 1987.
Sadly true.
(side note: if ever French nuke plants would explode, my town would be
contaminated as well. Of course. But they sell us electricity)

--
Ciao, Dario -- ADPM Synthesis sas -- http://www.adpm.tk

2008\03\01@125404 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Would your client be willing to talk to me about his experience with  
solar energy ?  I would love to do an article about cost /benefit  
including maintenance costs operating costs and his back up plan in  
case the sun does not come up ( see David Hume ).
Hey I was just kidding about that last part.
CC  720 222 1309   Denver , CO

2008\03\01@130014 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Rustle, I am disappointed.  Where are the hard figures ( or at least  
good estimates ) that I know you love to provide ?  I do not think  
you have made your case without them.  Greenfielding is generally  
only a problem when people are trying to hide something and then get  
caught and have to fix it.  This is generally done big time by  
governments.

CC

2008\03\01@130601 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Paul Hutch

Paul , your ideas look really interesting.  I could not follow the  
logic.  Could you summarize it for me ?  I do apologize.
CC

>

2008\03\01@171928 by Mike Reid

picon face
As to wind power, I have a fun April's Fools Day memo in mind.  Maybe a
fellow Piclist member can help with this joke.

I would like to prepare a press release or memo that states that after
exhaustive research, some official sounding organization has found proof
that at the present rate of construction of windmills around the world for
energy production, that within a few years we will slow down the rotation of
the earth due to all the friction against the wind, etc., etc., and that our
days will be getting longer.  By 2025 we will be adding 1/2 hour or
something like that to each day.

I'm sure we could write something that would get picked up by some newswire
and we could all have a few laughs.

An takers?

2008\03\01@195935 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Bob Axtell <engineerEraseMEspam.....cotse.net> wrote:
> A nuclear generation plant and a concentrated solar
> generation plant have two main
> differences: (1) during the night, no electricity can be generated at
> the solar plant; and (2) no hazardous
> waste is generated, EVER.

Depends on your definition of hazardous waste.  Something has to be
pumped through the turbines, and it isn't going to be pure water
(liquid sodium in some plants, IIRC).  The mirrors will also be washed
off with something strong than water.  The turbines must be maintained
with a variety of petrochemicals, the transformers sealed in cooling
oils, etc.  Even in the 'closed' systems there's filtering and
maintenance that results in wastage.

Environmentally friendly solutions may be found for those, and even if
not they aren't quite the ecological disaster spent nuclear waste is,
however it's quite a stretch to say that there is never any hazardous
waste.

-Adam

2008\03\01@225035 by Jinx

face picon face
> As to wind power, I have a fun April's Fools Day memo in mind.
> Maybe a fellow Piclist member can help with this joke

> the present rate of construction of windmills around the world

> I'm sure we could write something that would get picked up by
> some newswire and we could all have a few laughs.

Properly presented, that would not be hard to get on the news
services. Good grief, a NZ politician got caught with the old
"ban di-hydrogen oxide" sting lately

You know what else is slowing the Earth down ? Tall buildings.
The higher they go and the more of them there are, more weight
is out from the centre. Conservation of momentum, just like a
figure skater

When the World Trade Centre buildings came down, the world
sped up a little. Whenever a poorly-built 3rd World apartment
block falls down, whenever a factory chimney is demolished, we
all face the increase risk of being spun off into space. Don't plant
climbing plants. Ground covers please. Sit, don't stand. Better still,
lie down with a loved one. And we need more basements

2008\03\01@230116 by Jinx

face picon face
> I still remember a book put out by one of them that claimed
> that the electricity produced by nuclear power plants was
> itself radioactive

And some people still believe that electricity drips of off wires

A ready and willing market for the unscrupulous

2008\03\02@050449 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Chris Smolinski wrote:

>> I always get a strange feeling when the same people who just a few
>> minutes ago told me that the superiority of the capitalist system lies
>> in trusting the wisdom of "the masses" (whose actions determine the
>> price of everything in such a system) are now telling me that it's the
>> stupidity of "the [same] masses" that prevents the superior solution of
>> the problem of the day.

Let's have a look at the "scientific" content of the response...

> The anti-nuclear movement

Is there something like "the" anti-nuke movement? This expression implies
that there is one single (exactly one) identifiable coherent movement.

> has at the core

The movement implicitly claimed to exist above is now claimed to be
centrally controlled, by having a core.

> a small group of scientifically illiterate people

This part even claims to know the people who control the one single
movement and the quality and quantity of their scientific education.

> who oppose nuclear power for ideological reasons.

And the respondent not only knows the scientific (non) credentials of these
controllers of the movement, but also their motivations.

> Through a well financed

Apparently not only are the education and motivation of this core group
known to the respondent, but also its balance sheet.

> dis-information campaign,

And besides of this all, he is aware of the majority of publications of
this one single group, and has -- of course -- the qualification to judge
the factual content against objective reality.

> they've been able to convince the general public

This seems to imply that, excepting the respondent (and possibly a small
group of other superior beings), the general public is dumb enough to
believe these imposters. (Again, I think the consequences of this go way
beyond energy policy. We, the general public, should probably just lie our
future into the hands of this select group and not question any further.
It's obvious that they "just know" their facts.)

> that nuclear energy is dangerous.

Which it definitely is not. Not at all, and never has been.

All these statements on the side of the author are pure, easily provable
objective fact, in alignment with the (not postulated, but real) impersonal
reality and no emotion or ideology is involved.

I'm not sure whether to add a :) or a :( here... neither seems to be
adequate, yet something seems to be needed... maybe a few tears?

Gerhard

2008\03\02@114832 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> By "nuke waste" I mean spent fuel rods from a fission reactor.

OK with me, but the term is not familiar to me.

> So in both cases, it is an issue
> of *quantity* not *quality*. All issues of quantity can be
> solved with dilution.

Juk, that's the opinion of a person that does not shrink back from
polluting my backyard because he wants to spend more energy than he is
entitled to (entitled, of course, by me :) ).

(Actually, in both cases it is also an issue of quality. For the aussies
the amount of some UV wavelengths, for waste/natural the amounts of
A/B/G radiation and the energy levels of each. For waste/natural also
the chemical properties of the suff, Iodine might be a troublesome
element because it can concentrate in certain body parts, and plutonium
because it is also chemically a poison.)

For the record: this discussion is of course a nice excercise in typing,
but I don't have the opinion it will changes anyone's opinion, do you (=
not just James, but everyone in this discussion).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\03\02@114834 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> Depends on your definition of hazardous waste.  Something has
> to be pumped through the turbines, and it isn't going to be
> pure water (liquid sodium in some plants, IIRC).

Nooooo! Liquid sodium is used as primary coolant in fast breeder
reactors, but it is definitely not what it passing through the turbines!


Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\03\02@114837 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> But you are happy for your offspring to be exposed to coal
> fired generating plant exaust and coal ash (which is radioactive)?

No, I am not.

> Or to live with less electricity and therefore less of a
> technological advantage?

yes, and no.

> Or to be more dependant on foreign oil?

I dunno what 'foreign' oil is, we have no 'local' (or 'resident') oil
here.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\03\02@114840 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> The anti-nuclear movement has at the core a small group of
> scientifically illiterate people who oppose nuclear power for
> ideological reasons. Through a well financed dis-information
> campaign, they've been able to convince the general public that
> nuclear energy is dangerous. I still remember a book put out by one
> of them that claimed that the electricity produced by nuclear power
> plants was itself radioactive.

What exactly does this piece of text try to argue? There are dummies
that aro opposed to nuclear energy, and they write stupid texts. I did
not read those texts, but I don't doubt they exist. I know both people
of the above type (stupid anti-N.E. people) people of the other three
combinations of anti/pro and stupid/clever. So what?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\03\02@115026 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> Yes, the health of my children is important also, which is why I want
> us to continue to maintain the current level of technology,

That fine with me, provided that you keep the muck you create in your
own backyard, and not just diring your own lifetime.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\03\02@180322 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Good  point. But non-nuclear hazardous waste will not get bright people
scratching their combined
heads over it. That's my point...

--Bob

2008\03\03@011329 by Eoin Ross

flavicon
face
Wind/Hydro could complement each other - given enough capacity of each. Don't drain the lake while the wind is blowing, and vice versa.

Issue here is considering the effects on river ecology, building a buffer dam immediatly downstream to smooth the load/flow fluctuations is impractical (Might make a good "surf lake" though ;).

To me there wouldn't be a huge difference between forest plantings and wind generators. Not an expert or done the studies there mind you...

>>> RemoveMEmailinglist4EraseMEspamEraseMEfarcite.net 01 Mar 08 00:14:30 >>>

On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 22:02 -0700, Cedric Chang wrote:
> > Wind also is "getting there", but that's another story.
> >
> >
> >         Russell
>
>
> Yes, wind farms have many unknowns relative to effects on micro and  
> macro climates and the local flora and fauna and local ambience.  I  
> would fear wind farms more than I would fear Nukes.

Wind farms are wonderful, as long as the wind is blowing.

You can have as many wind farms as you want, you'll still need either
another source of generation that can operate 24/7 to cover 100% of the
load, or some way to store the energy for later use (doesn't really
exist on the large scale).

Solar has the exact same problem, although energy storage is a little
more theoretically possible then with wind generation.

To me, the only renewable energy source that is at all feasible is
hydro, and there just isn't enough out there to even come close to our
energy needs, so for today non-renewable generation is here to stay.

TTYL

2008\03\03@013204 by David VanHorn

picon face
There's not that many places where we have enough head for practical hydro.

But we could dig a really deep hole using nukes!  :)



I'm all for hydro where it's practical. It has it's minuses in the
damming of rivers, but again it's a cost/benefit ratio.  Of course the
failure of the containment at a hydro plant can certainly ruin your
day too.

2008\03\03@192322 by David VanHorn

picon face
An interesting link that popped up today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7445131

McGaffigan has held jobs on Capitol Hill, in the White House and at
the embassy in Moscow. But if you go way back he did graduate work in
physics. And he says if there was one thing he could convince people
of about nuclear power it's that radiation is everywhere, and its
risks should be kept in perspective.

"We self-irradiate ourselves at 40 millirems (a unit for measuring
small doses of radiation) per year because of the potassium 40 we
carry in our bodies. "[In] double beds, you know your spouse will
irradiate you to about 2 or 3 millirems a year," McGaffigan said.
"These are doses we actually regulate at. And I've always wondered,
when people demand even tighter [nuclear] regulation, why they're not
demanding that double beds be regulated or bananas be regulated or
Brazil nuts be regulated."

2008\03\03@200929 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> "We self-irradiate ourselves at ...
> ... you know your spouse will irradiate you ...

> And I've always wondered, when people demand even tighter
> [nuclear] regulation, why they're not
> demanding that double beds be regulated or bananas be
> regulated or
> Brazil nuts be regulated."

Where's the fear? !!!!
You have to have fear as well or it doesn't work.

He has the uncertainty and doubt off pat.
But to spread F.U.D. you need all three.

Mind you, he's making some sort of attempt at ridicule and
sarcasm and trivialisation and marginalising the doubters.
So maybe he things that RUD will carry the day. Or RSTMUD.



           R


2008\03\03@210930 by David VanHorn

picon face
I just picked up a canister of K^40 at the grocery store yesterday,
anticipating the arrival of a custom radiation sensor in the next day
or so.

2008\03\03@212104 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
I get a bit over background from salt-substitute.
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/science/radprod.html


>I just picked up a canister of K^40 at the grocery store yesterday,
>anticipating the arrival of a custom radiation sensor in the next day
>or so.
>--


--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\03\03@231001 by James Newton

face picon face
That is a really cool page...
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/science/radprod.html

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamKILLspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspamspammit.edu] On Behalf Of
Chris Smolinski
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 18:21
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Just wondering..

I get a bit over background from salt-substitute.
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/science/radprod.html


>I just picked up a canister of K^40 at the grocery store yesterday,
>anticipating the arrival of a custom radiation sensor in the next day
>or so.
>--


--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\03\23@133002 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Chris,

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:55:06 -0500, Chris Smolinski wrote:

> >Since a lot of the folks responsible for the security and operations
> >would be essentially living at the plant, I would think that they
> >would take a serious interest.
>
> That's an excellent point. If your wife and kids are living there,
> you're going to be extra careful.

Didn't work at Chernobyl!

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\03\23@135441 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Herbert,

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:42:12 -0500, Herbert Graf wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I think you've strayed from arguing against the argument, to criticising the person making the argument.  

I think this is wrong, especially in this place.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\03\23@142235 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Byron,

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:23:53 -0500, Byron Jeff wrote:

{Quote hidden}

A moment's thought about the economics of this make me ask: How can this possibly be true?

According to the only person I know who has significant solar generation capacity (James), his annual electricity bill is about zero - he generates enough surplus to
pay for what he uses when he isn't generating.  As a result, he is "paid back" each year by an amount equal to the electricity he's used, and that will pay off the
cost of the solar roof in a decade or so (I forget the actual number - perhaps 12 years?).  The useful life is about twice that, so he will have saved about twice the
cost of the roof all together.  Now the people who built the panels had to pay for the energy to make them.  Unless they get *really* cheap energy somehow, that
means that the energy they use *must* be less than the panels generate over their life, because otherwise they couldn't "pay back" as above.  Not to mention that
as well as the cost of the energy to make them, there's all the other manufacturing costs, profit, and the cost of installing the panels.

So unless solar panel manufacturers have a really cheap source of energy, your point makes no sense to me.  And if they have got really cheap energy, they could
make more profit selling it on, rahter than making panels with it!  :-)

> 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
> production and waste.

This is true of practically everything manufactured, so I really don't see it as a problem specific to solar panels.

Further, since photovoltaic panels aren't very efficient yet, why not use the heat directly?  We don't have coal-voltaic or gas-voltaic plant that generates
electricity directly from the fuel, we go via steam, so why not do the same with solar heat?  In the UK a lot of our energy use is to produce heat (I understand that
in other places this isn't true, such as Southern California where a lot of it produces "cool"), so heating water directly from sunshine is a Good Thing, and solar
water-heating panels have some success here - moreso than photovoltaic, I believe.

When you think about the long term (the 10,000 years that keeps cropping up in the nuclear debate is a good start) then we *must* get our energy from what is
coming from the Sun now - otherwise we *will* run out of fuel, whatever it is.  We are a closed system, and coal, oil and nuclear fuel aren't being recreated at a
rate that is useful to us, so the only permanent solution is to use what is arriving here each day, either directly in sunlight, or indirectly in wind, waves, tides,
rain-circulation.  The sooner we accept this, the sooner we can put development effort into achieving it, rather than squabbling about alternative ways to eke out
what we have, so they run out later rather than sooner.

IMHO, of course!  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\03\23@144125 by David VanHorn

picon face
>  A moment's thought about the economics of this make me ask: How can this possibly be true?

Government subsidies.

2008\03\23@144229 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Herbert,

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:14:30 -0500, Herbert Graf wrote:

>...
> Wind farms are wonderful, as long as the wind is blowing.

Quite!  And fossil fuels are fine as long as there's some left...

> You can have as many wind farms as you want, you'll still need either
> another source of generation that can operate 24/7 to cover 100% of the
> load, or some way to store the energy for later use (doesn't really
> exist on the large scale).

Indeed, although it could if hydro-electric systems were designed that way, pumping water back up into the lake when there was excess energy.  There's a tidal
hydro-electric system in France which does this, where if there's excess energy on the grid at tide-turn, it over-pumps in the previous tidal direction.

> Solar has the exact same problem, although energy storage is a little
> more theoretically possible then with wind generation.

Hang on!  They both produce electricity - why is it any easier to store solar electricity than wind electricity?

> To me, the only renewable energy source that is at all feasible is
> hydro, and there just isn't enough out there to even come close to our
> energy needs, so for today non-renewable generation is here to stay.

But during a drought hydro "dries up" too!  And even if there was a massive increase in hydro-electric capacity, some places could never use the traditional
lake-and-drop setup because of geography and/or climate eg. Southern California, where there's no water, the Netherlands, where there's plenty but it's all
pretty-much at sea level.  I'm sure Wouter would be unhappy to rely for his electricity on other countries which are more mountainous - political stability just isn't
that good!  (As a matter of interest, is there any wave or tidal generation in the Netherlands?)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\03\23@150058 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Jinx,

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:01:10 +1300, Jinx wrote:

>...
> And some people still believe that electricity drips of off wires

If you walk under the 440kV pylons here on a wet day, you can hear it doing so!  :-)

(Actually you can more feel it - the buzz goes right through you.  There's no way I'd live underneath one - or even close)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\03\23@154151 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
David,

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:41:04 -0400, David VanHorn wrote:

> >  A moment's thought about the economics of this make me ask: How can this possibly be true?
>
> Government subsidies.

Not on this side of the pond!  I am seriously envious of James' economic situation with his solar array - not only would I have to pay full whack for it and it's more
expensive here anyway, about £3.50 to £4 per watt (say US$7 to $8) just for the bare panels, but anything I generate is not netted from what I buy in, I'd get paid
for what I'd exported once a quarter, at a rate that's less than I pay for what I use.

Actually there *are* subsidies available, but the rules for them are so stringent that hardly anyone gets them, they aren't substantial (nowhere near the rate that
James got), and you have to employ a certified installer to get them.  Which costs much more than doing it yourself, so the net effect is that it's more expensive to
get the subisdy than to pay full price for the parts and DIY!  I believe I'd pay about £4,500 after subsidy per kWhp.  And it has to be approved according to Building
Regulations (which costs a couple of £hundred) and you have to get Planning Permission.  You may not get the permission, but have to pay for the application for it
anyway!

My investigations and experiments reveal that at the moment, the financial situation in the UK means that it's not worth having PV panels that export power.  It's
possibly OK if you use all you generate, but that's marginal and very dependant on the price of electricity (although it has just gone up again - I'm now paying up to
24p (US$0.48) per kWh).

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\03\23@154649 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 02:21:53PM -0400, Howard Winter wrote:
> Byron,
>
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:23:53 -0500, Byron Jeff wrote:
>
> >...
> > > My main objection to nuclear power is simply that it seems obvious to me
> > > and many others that capturing
> > > solar energy to generate electricity would result in minimal damage to
> > > anything. And we wouldn't even NEED
> > > a Yucca Mtn.
> >
> > Unfortunately that's a very narrow view. Two major points:
> >
> > 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity, it takes
> > more energy to create solar panels than they produce.
>

> A moment's thought about the economics of this make me ask: How can this
> possibly be true?

I wqas speaking to energy amounts, not cost. I subsequently retracted my
statement, having found newer information that indicates a reasonable
energy paybay time.

Snipping your example.

> > 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
> > production and waste.
>

> This is true of practically everything manufactured, so I really don't
> see it as a problem specific to solar panels.

The point is though that everyone thinks that solar, wind, and
hydroelectric are "clean" energy resources as compared to nuclear. The fact
of the matter is that each contributes damage in their own ways.

>

> Further, since photovoltaic panels aren't very efficient yet, why not use
> the heat directly?  We don't have coal-voltaic or gas-voltaic plant that
> generates electricity directly from the fuel, we go via steam, so why not
> do the same with solar heat?

Because in miniature distributed solar installations, it's difficult to
build efficient systems for steam generation.

>  In the UK a lot of our energy use is to
> produce heat (I understand that in other places this isn't true, such as
> Southern California where a lot of it produces "cool"), so heating water
> directly from sunshine is a Good Thing, and solar water-heating panels
> have some success here - moreso than photovoltaic, I believe.

No disagreement from me. Same with solar space heating. But there are still
a ton of electrical needs beyond those two.

> When you think about the long term (the 10,000 years that keeps cropping
> up in the nuclear debate is a good start) then we *must* get our energy
> from what is coming from the Sun now - otherwise we *will* run out of
> fuel, whatever it is.  We are a closed system, and coal, oil and nuclear
> fuel aren't being recreated at a rate that is useful to us, so the only
> permanent solution is to use what is arriving here each day, either
> directly in sunlight, or indirectly in wind, waves, tides,
> rain-circulation.

Not nuclear. There are enough uranium and thorium reserves in the crust of
the planet to sustain centuries of worldwide power production with some
rather simple reprocessing steps. Fundamentally 99% of currently spent
nuclear fuel is resusable. You can find a detailed discussion here:

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-5HUMJH?OpenDocument

>  The sooner we accept this, the sooner we can put
> development effort into achieving it, rather than squabbling about
> alternative ways to eke out what we have, so they run out later rather
> than sooner.

While I agree in the longer timeframe (100000 years plus) that solar will
be the only option, in the nearer term nuclear can work.

BAJ

2008\03\23@170730 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

>> When you think about the long term (the 10,000 years that keeps  
>> cropping up in the nuclear debate is a good start) then we *must*  
>> get our energy from what is coming from the Sun now - otherwise we  
>> *will* run out of fuel, whatever it is.

Well, there's geothermal (lets cool the planetary core; I'm sure that  
won't have any detrimental environmental effects!)  And there is  
fusion...

BillW

2008\03\23@183229 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
I am of the opinion that as fossil-fuel costs rise out of sight, people
will finally
"get it"; solar and wind will replace everything. When it happens, people
will marvel at how easy it was to do....People will plug in their
electric cars
to their local solar/wind generator.

I know that Israel developed inexpensive  hot-water heating 20 years ago,
and almost none is heated by the mains there anymore...

--Bob A

Howard Winter wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\03\23@183714 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Next week I am driving to Phoenix to see a PV setup that uses cells made
from silica, so
my friend says. I guess he means "glass" with a thin film of silicon to
generate the electricity.
Something new, said to cost less than 50%  of normal new cells. They
generate less power,
but costs and usage of silicon is low.

--Bob A


Howard Winter wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\03\23@214640 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 18:41 +0000, Howard Winter wrote:
> Herbert,
>
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:14:30 -0500, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> >...
> > Wind farms are wonderful, as long as the wind is blowing.
>
> Quite!  And fossil fuels are fine as long as there's some left...

Umm, ya, that's the definition of non-renewable, which is what I'm
speaking of.

> > To me, the only renewable energy source that is at all feasible is
> > hydro, and there just isn't enough out there to even come close to our
> > energy needs, so for today non-renewable generation is here to stay.
>
> But during a drought hydro "dries up" too!  And even if there was a
> massive increase in hydro-electric capacity, some places could never
> use the traditional
> lake-and-drop setup because of geography and/or climate

Umm, ya, that's basically what I said.

I suppose the point of my post was missed.

The point I was making is the only renewable energy source that at least
had the potential of serving our needs unsupported was hydro.
Unfortunately for most of the planet it doesn't supply anywhere near
enough.

Therefore, renewable energy, in it's current forms is insufficient. All
the hope and dreams of people out there can not currently be fulfilled.
We have to use non-renewable sources of energy, there is currently no
way around it, despite what some might want the public to believe.

Personally, given the fact that we must rely on non-renewable energy
sources, I'm a large supporter of nuclear. Yes, it produces some very
nasty stuff, but why people have so much more of a problem with such a
tiny amount of really nasty stuff, vs. the billions of tons of poisons
pumped into our lands, water and air by the other sources, never mind
the insane unrest it creates in the world trying to lock in our sources
of oil, just doesn't make sense to me. I haven't even started with the
CO2 issue it creates as well.

By current estimates the sources of nuclear material would easily cover
the planet's current and future energy needs for FAR longer then
estimates of fossil fuel reserves. It's NOT the final solution, but it's
far better then what we currently use IMHO.

The fact that my country still uses COAL for electricity production is
just embarrassing to me.

TTYL

2008\03\23@222225 by Jinx

face picon face
> > Quite!  And fossil fuels are fine as long as there's some left...

Marillion, Yes, Deep Purple, Genesis et al will get in the ground
eventually and make black gold in the long term ;-)

> The fact that my country still uses COAL for electricity production
> is just embarrassing to me.

I heard this on the radio this morning

"Soot found to contribute 50 percent of warming once blamed
only on CO2 within brown clouds and transoceanic haze"

www.scientificblogging.com/leebert/airborne_soot_causing_50_percent_o
f_warming_once_blamed_on_co2

I notice the date posted as 15th Sept 07, - the local newsroom
has just stumbled on it !!

2008\03\23@225703 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>>> When you think about the long term (the 10,000 years
>>> that keeps
>>> cropping up in the nuclear debate is a good start) then
>>> we *must*
>>> get our energy from what is coming from the Sun now -
>>> otherwise we
>>> *will* run out of fuel, whatever it is.

> Well, there's geothermal (lets cool the planetary core;
> I'm sure that
> won't have any detrimental environmental effects!)

If you could it would, in time.
Present schemes don't and can't.
They are mere pinpricks on what has come up already.
They may cause local effects but the planert's core ignores
them.

> And there is  fusion...

When we get He3 fusion and lunar Helium imports "all will be
well" [tm] for 'quite a long while' [tm].
Until then we have to find stopgap measures.


       Russell

2008\03\23@234619 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> > To me, the only renewable energy source that is at all
>> > feasible is
>> > hydro, and there just isn't enough out there to even
>> > come close to our
>> > energy needs, so for today non-renewable generation is
>> > here to stay.

>> But during a drought hydro "dries up" too!  And even if
>> there was a
>> massive increase in hydro-electric capacity, some places
>> could never
>> use the traditional
>> lake-and-drop setup because of geography and/or climate

FYI, China plans to start work this year and next on hydro
stations with about 50,000 megaWatt of capacity.

And, FWIW, the extent to which hydro "dries up" is a known
factor in the planning process. Just as is wind variability,
solar insolation variability and the observed fact that the
sun doesn't produce useful levels of sunshine for more than
half the time.

A factor to note is the effect of "climate change", however
caused,  on all short term solar input based systems (which
not surprisingly includes hydro, wind and solar). Here is
one NZ look at the expected effects of climate change  on
hydro inflows. They are even taking account of IPCC worst
case scenarios "just in case".

       http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/32185/seasonal-inflow.pdf





       Russell McMahon

2008\03\24@105048 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
Restoring some snippery to make the query/answer
intelligible

>>> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to
>>> electricity, it takes
>>> more energy to create solar panels than they produce.

>>  A moment's thought about the economics of this make me
>> ask: How can this possibly be true?

> Government subsidies.

We already had a round of detailed answers to this.
We seem to be going around the loop again.

So, no, it's not true by any normal standards.
While PV panels are not, as yet, competitive with grid
electricity in most areas, they are both net energy positive
over a typical lifetime and cost competitive in their own
right.

Rough and quick:

$5/Watt bare panel.
20 year life.
4 kWh/day insolation mean.
12% delivered efficiency.

Returned energy in 20 years for a 100 Watt panel is

100/1000 kW x 4 kWh/day x 365 days x 20 years =~ 3000 kWh
Panel cost = 100 x 5 = $500.
Energy value varies but at Howard's horrendous $US0.48/kWh
that's
   0.48*3000 = $US1440.
Add installation, cabling and more and it's closer to break
even than is nice.

But the selling price is, the invisible  hand assures us,
significantly above the energy cost of production.

By all means add your own assumptions.

Note that "government subsidies", as also discussed here
recently, can include, as well as pork and more, payments
for the advantages conveyed to the body corporate of having
individuals enter the power generation market. While one
James rooftop of PV panels is no big deal in the scheme of
things, a state full of such can make a significant
difference in power generation reckonings. Some see that
anything they can make from others at no true cost to
themselves as a legitimate gain but any payment by the state
for legitimate gain as personal theft of their property. For
such there are no legitimate savings which the government
can pay for so such payments are necessarily theft. A
philosophy free accountant, should such exist, may be more
easily convinced by such arguments .



       Russell

2008\03\24@112024 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> The point is though that everyone thinks that solar, wind,
> and
> hydroelectric are "clean" energy resources as compared to
> nuclear. The fact
> of the matter is that each contributes damage in their own
> ways.

Indeed.
But nuclear has ionising radiation which, as well as causing
cancers, can alter reproductive outcomes. It's not unique in
this capability but it's a much less acceptable effect than
many others. Thalidomide is a celebrated example of drug
induced mutations but its mode of operation is not strictly
comparable to ionising radiation induced mutation. [FWIW
Thalidomide is still an extremely useful drug in some areas
and is still in use in carefully controlled circumstances.]


       Russell


2008\03\24@115931 by James Newton

face picon face
Even without the government subsidies, solar panels produce more income via
electricity than their cost within about 15 to 18 years. Their cost must
include more than just the cost of electricity (e.g. labor, materials,
transport) although those can also be thought of as energy costs, they are
not only electrical energy costs.

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspamspamspamBeGonemit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu] On Behalf Of
David VanHorn
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 11:41
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Just wondering..

>  A moment's thought about the economics of this make me ask: How can this
possibly be true?

Government subsidies.

2008\03\24@121012 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:20:27AM -0400, Apptech wrote:
> > The point is though that everyone thinks that solar, wind,
> > and
> > hydroelectric are "clean" energy resources as compared to
> > nuclear. The fact
> > of the matter is that each contributes damage in their own
> > ways.

> Indeed.  But nuclear has ionising radiation which, as well as causing
> cancers, can alter reproductive outcomes.

That's a given Russell. The question is what's the real risk.
I'm about to jump in my car and go to work. I'm much more likely to be
killed in a car accident than getting cancer from a nuclear power plant.

The most disastrous and most covered US nuclear accident was Three Mile
Island. To hear the story told it was a total meltdown and the state on
Pennsylvania was made barren. But the truth of the matter is that in the
absolute worst accident in the nearly 60 years of US nuclear power
generation, no one died and the incidence of the terrifying nuclear
radiation induced cancer ridden mutant baby zombies was statistically
imperceptable:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2385551.stm

Accidents happen. We all know that. The question lays in the frequency and
severity of these accidents. Tens of thousands die each year in cars, yet
we drive them each and everyday. No one dies from nuclear power, but yet 60
years later, it's still the boogieman.

Sigh.

BAJ

2008\03\24@204149 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Byron Jeff wrote:
>
> That's a given Russell. The question is what's the real risk.
> I'm about to jump in my car and go to work. I'm much more likely to be
> killed in a car accident than getting cancer from a nuclear power plant.
>
>  
That's correct. Let's analyse that. Probably because you are more
inclined to BE in the car when
it crashes, maybe, and unlikely to be in a radioactive leak from a
nuclear reactor?

> The most disastrous and most covered US nuclear accident was Three Mile
> Island. To hear the story told it was a total meltdown and the state on
> Pennsylvania was made barren. But the truth of the matter is that in the
> absolute worst accident in the nearly 60 years of US nuclear power
> generation, no one died and the incidence of the terrifying nuclear
> radiation induced cancer ridden mutant baby zombies was statistically
> imperceptable:
>
>  
I don't recall hearing about it in that way. But anyways, I'll take
another crack at it.

Nuclear power works by heating steam to superheated levels, and spinning
turbines with the steam.
The steam part has been around since before Telsa was a boy. The only
thing new is that the steam
is heated by nuclear energy instead of wood or coal.

The difference between wood or coal and nuclear heat is the complexity.
Maybe  humans can  keep
doing things right, and there will be no accident, but the odds are that
sooner or later, there will be
a screwup. It happens with humans...we are simply big screw-ups.

Now we look at statistics. If we create a plethora of nuclear plants all
over the US in addition to the
ones we have already, it stands to reason that an accident will occur
eventually. If we have a LOT of
plants, we will increase our chances of having MORE or BIGGER accidents.

If a coal-fired plant has an accident, it catches fire and burns up,
that's all. If a nuclear plant has an accident,
something more serious will happen, because nuclear power is serious
business.

Let's look at the terrorist threat for a minute.  'course,  the Dems say
there IS no terrorist threat, never was.
I believe that the security is so lax at most nuclear plants that a few
old ladies with brooms could do enough
damage to put 'em off line.

Now, I will grant you that France seems to be doing pretty well with
their systems. Frankly, I am astonished,
but perhaps they don't "kiss and tell" like we do here.

All I am saying is that some money oughta be tossed toward heating the
steam with the sun instead of coal, gas,
wood, nuclear material, or whatever else pops up. But don't worry, there
won't be. The crackpots still hold
sway.

--Bob A

> Accidents happen. We all know that. The question lays in the frequency and
> severity of these accidents. Tens of thousands die each year in cars, yet
> we drive them each and everyday. No one dies from nuclear power, but yet 60
> years later, it's still the boogieman.
>
>  

2008\03\24@223658 by David VanHorn

picon face
But we like to ignore the smaller hazards that happen every day, and
pay attention to the big scary one that may or may not happen.

Grab a copy of the emergency response guidebook, and look at what's on
trucks around you every day.  Look at how many are fuels and chemicals
used in energy production.   Then look at the firefighting procedures
and emergency response guidelines, and evacuation areas.

The ones for nuclear material are surprisingly small, and in the end,
rather innocuous, even for fissile uranium or high level waste.

I've seen a gasoline tanker run a red light.  I've seen nerve gas on a
truck on a major highway around indianapolis.  I've seen a truck drive
for miles with tires on fire, no idea what was happening till I pulled
him over.  Watch the trains late at night, going through your town.
Write down the numbers on the placards and run them.  (been there,
done that, the interesting stuff runs at night)  All those risks
quietly rolling around your neighborhood.

2008\03\25@061116 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
David VanHorn wrote:
> But we like to ignore the smaller hazards that happen every day, and
> pay attention to the big scary one that may or may not happen.
>
> Grab a copy of the emergency response guidebook, and look at what's on
> trucks around you every day.  Look at how many are fuels and chemicals
> used in energy production.   Then look at the firefighting procedures
> and emergency response guidelines, and evacuation areas.
>
> The ones for nuclear material are surprisingly small, and in the end,
> rather innocuous, even for fissile uranium or high level waste.
>
> I've seen a gasoline tanker run a red light.  I've seen nerve gas on a
> truck on a major highway around indianapolis.  I've seen a truck drive
> for miles with tires on fire, no idea what was happening till I pulled
> him over.  Watch the trains late at night, going through your town.
> Write down the numbers on the placards and run them.  (been there,
> done that, the interesting stuff runs at night)  All those risks
> quietly rolling around your neighborhood.
>  
That makes me feel BETTER about a possible nuclear accident? I guess I
wasn't paying attention...

--Bob

2008\03\25@093204 by David VanHorn

picon face
>  That makes me feel BETTER about a possible nuclear accident? I guess I
>  wasn't paying attention...

Point being that we are running risks all the time, and having
accidents at a level that would make headline news if they were
"nuclear accidents", but since it was "just" a gas tanker or such,
somehow it's no big deal.

2008\03\25@101106 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>>  That makes me feel BETTER about a possible nuclear
>> accident? I guess I
>>  wasn't paying attention...

> Point being that we are running risks all the time, and
> having
> accidents at a level that would make headline news if they
> were
> "nuclear accidents", but since it was "just" a gas tanker
> or such,
> somehow it's no big deal.

A factor is that the "just a gas tanker" accidents have
relatively well defined outcomes. Those who die in fireballs
or being crushed etc are able to be counted with some
certainty. The injured may be categorised statistically by
means which are good enough for demographics and never good
enough for the victims. The more abstruse outcomes such as
poisonings, mutations, xxx due to release of yyy into the
environment are usually small enough to be comfortable with.
Every now and then you get a Bhopal or Thalidomide to shake
you. But usually not.

There would be every right for accidents at the gas tanker
level to be headline news if they occurred. It's all too
pervasive once it does get out.

Nuclear has the nasty ionising radiation effect which I
mentioned yesterday and which was noted as a given but not
addressed. It's pervasive enough that it can sneak up on you
in impossibly small doses such that eg the (largely
childhood) cancer clusters at Sellafield can't possibly have
been caused by radiation / nucleotides / ... so are
stunningly and stupidly rejected by science as 'just
something that happened" when it is obvious to ALL others
that the methodology and measurement has holes in it and
that death and mutation stalks the land invisibly - albeit
at a very very very small scale. As long as science is going
to be used as a club to prove white black and black white
then you are not going to sell yer nuclear cocktails to the
great unwashed. And even if it's not you will probably have
a hard time doing so :-).

While one is working on levelling the playing field one may
wish to deal with eg DU used in weaponry but sourced from
nuclear waste so that it contains subtly different trace
level radio isotope mixes. Quite why people decided to cost
and corner cut to get rid of their waste profitably this way
who can tell?

Must be time to go to sleep ... :-)


       Russell





2008\03\25@105040 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:10:53AM -0400, Apptech wrote:
> >>  That makes me feel BETTER about a possible nuclear
> >> accident? I guess I
> >>  wasn't paying attention...
>
> > Point being that we are running risks all the time, and
> > having
> > accidents at a level that would make headline news if they
> > were
> > "nuclear accidents", but since it was "just" a gas tanker
> > or such,
> > somehow it's no big deal.
>

[Snip to get to the point.]

> Nuclear has the nasty ionising radiation effect which I
> mentioned yesterday and which was noted as a given but not
> addressed.

The radiation is addressed in the engineering of the plant. Nuclear plants
are designed to keep radiation contained even in the event of catastrophic
accidents (earthquakes, plane crashes) and have multiple failsafes in place
to prevent radiation releases.

The point is that you get to a point where you've done all that you can
reasonably do to be safe, and then you live with the residual risk.

My point is that the risk of nuclear accident has been shown so far to be
exceedingly small. In the entire history of US commercial nuclear power
generation, there has not been even a single death that I'm aware of that
has been directly related to radiation exposure.

{Quote hidden}

And that's my frustration. It's all perception. People would rather pump
millions of tons of CO2 and have documented coal mining deaths than to
switch to something that has been proven so far to have minimal
environmental impact and can power our human endeavors cheaply for years to
come. It's just like folks with irrational fears of flying. Sure plane
crashes happen. But the number of deaths per passenger mile flying is so
small as compared to the others, it's not even funny. But folks who
wouldn't step foot on a plane happily jump right in their cars and zip all
over the place.

But money may finally be the deciding factor. When gas gets to $8 USD and
stays there, folks will reconsider alternatives including nuclear.


> While one is working on levelling the playing field one may
> wish to deal with eg DU used in weaponry but sourced from
> nuclear waste so that it contains subtly different trace
> level radio isotope mixes. Quite why people decided to cost
> and corner cut to get rid of their waste profitably this way
> who can tell?

If you use thorium as your base fuel, you don't get usable plutonium for
weapons.

BAJ

2008\03\25@105737 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
David VanHorn wrote:
>>  That makes me feel BETTER about a possible nuclear accident? I guess I
>>  wasn't paying attention...
>>    
>
> Point being that we are running risks all the time, and having
> accidents at a level that would make headline news if they were
> "nuclear accidents", but since it was "just" a gas tanker or such,
> somehow it's no big deal.
>  
Did somebody get a copy of my diatribe against nuclear? can you forward
it? for some reason,
it did not show up for me...

--Bob

2008\03\25@110419 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Byron Jeff wrote:
>
> [Snip to get to the point.]
>
>
>  
> But money may finally be the deciding factor. When gas gets to $8 USD and
> stays there, folks will reconsider alternatives including nuclear.
>
>  
Yes. Maybe one of the alternatives will be solar...

--Bob

2008\03\25@113121 by David VanHorn

picon face
>  Yes. Maybe one of the alternatives will be solar...

Although rare, consider the effects of a significant hailstorm
(baseball sized hail over 10's of square miles at 100MPH, punching
holes in buildings), or tornado, or lightning strikes on that rather
large and rather delicate solar plant.

When you have a large scale structure like that, rare weather events
for any given acre add up.

I'm not against solar, but it's still pretty impractical.

2008\03\25@120359 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
David VanHorn wrote:
>>  Yes. Maybe one of the alternatives will be solar...
>>    
>
> Although rare, consider the effects of a significant hailstorm
> (baseball sized hail over 10's of square miles at 100MPH, punching
> holes in buildings), or tornado, or lightning strikes on that rather
> large and rather delicate solar plant.
>
> When you have a large scale structure like that, rare weather events
> for any given acre add up.
>
> I'm not against solar, but it's still pretty impractical.
>  
That is one reason to use So Arizona, little hail, no tornadoes or snow,
little rain. But somebody will have to
blow the sand off of the concentrators...I've been here 6 years, have
never seen really bad weather yet.

There ARE a few electrical storms. Awesome to hear the rumble of thunder
bounce off the nearby mountains.

--Bob A

2008\03\25@153905 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Apptech wrote:
>>> > To me, the only renewable energy source that is at all
>>> > feasible is
>>> > hydro, and there just isn't enough out there to even
>>> > come close to our
>>> > energy needs, so for today non-renewable generation is
>>> > here to stay.
>
>>> But during a drought hydro "dries up" too!  And even if
>>> there was a
>>> massive increase in hydro-electric capacity, some places
>>> could never
>>> use the traditional
>>> lake-and-drop setup because of geography and/or climate
>
> FYI, China plans to start work this year and next on hydro
> stations with about 50,000 megaWatt of capacity.

Yes, but at what cost? How many thousands of square kilometers will be
flooded, and how many millions of people displaced?

"Some places" includes most of the US. All the good spots are already dammed
up.

Vitaliy

2008\03\25@190210 by W. Jacobs

flavicon
face
The risk may be imperceptible at TMI but the "Cancer Belt" that
surrounds Hanford is fairly well documented.
Bill
who believes in coal and pays $0.066 a kWH

Bob Axtell wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\03\25@194103 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> The risk may be imperceptible at TMI but the "Cancer Belt"
> that
> surrounds Hanford is fairly well documented.
> Bill
> who believes in coal and pays $0.066 a kWH

>>> But the truth

What is truth?

>>> of the matter is that in the
>>> absolute worst accident in the nearly 60 years of US
>>> nuclear power
>>> generation, no one died and the incidence of the
>>> terrifying nuclear
>>> radiation induced cancer ridden mutant baby zombies was
>>> statistically
>>> imperceptable:

What is statistics?

There are no cancers in the residential areas of Sellafield
/ Windscale caused by the nuclear facilities there.
It's true!
It's been statistically proven!
Utterly rigorous scientific investigations have shown that
the cancer clusters in Sellafield are/were unrelated in any
way to the adjacent nuclear facilities.

See my ad for bridges for sale.
And family friendly houses in Sellafield.



       Russell


2008\03\25@212731 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:01:49PM -0400, W. Jacobs wrote:

> The risk may be imperceptible at TMI but the "Cancer Belt" that
> surrounds Hanford is fairly well documented.

Apples and gorillas. Hanford was a US military project designed to produce
plutonium. The US miltary deliberately dumped and contained radioactive waste in
the environment.

BAJ

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\03\25@214127 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:40:22PM -0400, Apptech wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I gave the link in my original post.

>
> There are no cancers in the residential areas of Sellafield
> / Windscale caused by the nuclear facilities there.
> It's true!
> It's been statistically proven!
> Utterly rigorous scientific investigations have shown that
> the cancer clusters in Sellafield are/were unrelated in any
> way to the adjacent nuclear facilities.

That's not what the Wikipedia entry for Sellafield says. The COMARE report
http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/comare_pr10.htm

Indicates that while no significance at commercial nuclear power plants in
England, that places like Sellafield did have an increased incidence.

Again Sellafield was used as a weapons grade plutonium reprocessing plant
and that nuclear waste were dumped into the Irish sea and gaseous releases
into the air.

BAJ

2008\03\25@230911 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> What is statistics?

> I gave the link in my original post.


That was really a reference to a 2000 year or so old quote
:-)
(John 18:37b - 18:38a)

{Quote hidden}

That is my point.
PEOPLE claimed it was happening.
COMARE investigated and agreed.
BUT scientific investigations subsequently found that there
was no evidence that radiological issues were to blame. ie
the clusters "just happened" in that area, but it had
nothing to do with the radiation.

It would probably help their case long term if the
proponents of nuclear power erred on the side of
acknowledging that they may be due some of the doubt of the
benefit in uncertain cases. Claiming squeaky cleanness in
all events tend sto get non productive long term.

> Again Sellafield was used as a weapons grade plutonium
> reprocessing plant
> and that nuclear waste were dumped into the Irish sea and
> gaseous releases
> into the air.

Yes. But you get weapons grade plutonium from "residential
grade" power plants. ie while this was not a direct reactor
problem  it was utterly linked to reactors existing.

I personally would not be too too worried to live a few km
downwind of a competently run nuclear power station operated
in a non corrupt environment. Being certain of the
competence and the non-corruption would be the major
problem. Most of the time it all *seems* to work reasonably
well inside the stations proper.

______

While I'm here, when I referred to DU and weapons before I
was meaning "Depleted Uranium" used in "penetrators" in
modern weapons systems. eg Abrams MBT and Warthog 'rounds'.
It's generally accepted that a proportion of the Uranium is
vaporised in transit or on arrival or deposited over wide
areas as very fine dust. Any potential effects are made
'somewhat worse' by the fact [tm][national security may
preclude exact data being available] that rather than using
only virgin U to D into DU (such as happens when natural U
is gas centrifuged to separate U235 from its friends),
much/some/unknown-fraction of the DU is derived as a weapons
recovery program byproduct. It carries a small but
interesting cocktail of 'other stuff' along with the U. The
ratio is extremely small. The effects are debateable and
debated. Playing (or living) on ex US battlefields in Iraq
or the Balkans may not be a good idea. May beat standing in
front of a Warthog or Abrams during initial delivery though.

Random factoid. An Abrams crewman receives about a maximum
annual dose of radiation from his own DU during an otherwise
uneventful tour of duty. YMMV depending on your location
within the beast. [If Merkavas* used DU (and who can say)
the problem would be reduced due to the enlightened crew
placement.]




       Russell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava


2008\03\26@015803 by W. Jacobs

flavicon
face


Byron Jeff wrote:
> Apples and gorillas. Hanford was a US military project designed to produce
> plutonium. The US miltary deliberately dumped and contained radioactive waste in
> the environment.
>
> BAJ
>  
Gorillas and oranges.  Commercial nuclear plants sent their spent fuel rods to US DOD plants like Hanford to reprocess the fuel.  The Gov wanted the plutonium and did not want anyone else to have it.  This is part of the cost of nuclear power that does not show up in the cost of electric.  It is subsidized by the government.  
President Carter placed a moratorium on reprocessing and very little has been done since then.  Most nuclear plants have a swimming pool that is filled with spent fuel and water.  It boils the water 24/7.  Heaven help you if it ever boils dry.  It will need maintained for the foreseeable future
It is now under control of Dept of Energy

bill

2008\03\26@044752 by Peter Todd

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:44AM -0400, W. Jacobs wrote:
{Quote hidden}

By foreseeable future, you mean a few years at most. Spent fuel *does*
cool down, that energy has to come from somewhere. According to my
second link, you get a 100x reduction in heat load over five years, due
to the fairly short half-lives of the stuff present that makes fresh
fuel so radioactive. As always in radioactivity, the hotter and more
dangerous something is, the fast it cools down and becomes safe.

In any case here is a good link to a risk evaluation:

http://www.inesap.org/bulletin22/bul22art30.htm

The main problem is that the zirconium cladding can burn, which would
lead to a potentially massive (20x Chernoble for instance in one
worst-case scenario) release of Caesium-137 into the environment. The
damage is then a matter of half-lifes, which for C-137 is 30 years. You
do have to empty the pool though, they are normally around 40-50 feet
deep of which only a few feet of depth is actually needed. Even then, a
few fire hoses of water spray are more than enough to keep the fuel
cool. The real issue is contingencies for a major accident, where
sending in people to setup hoses becomes dangerous. In some worst case
scenarios you'd be asking people to take some very serious risks to
setup that sort of emergency cooling system.

Remember though that the risks there are due to the greater density, 5
to 7 times the original designs, that many plants are packing their
fuel. As designed the density of those pools was such that the fuel
would be perfectly safe with no water cooling. You could get the stuff
to burn in a terrorism situation, by say, pouring gasoline on it, but it
is not dangerous on it's own. The water was there simply to protect the
operators from the direct gamma radiation hazard, which it does a very
good job of. When I went on a tour of Pickering Nuclear about a decade
ago I got to see the pool and above ground cask storage in person.
Incidentally, if the fuel was boiling the water, it sure wasn't doing so
very vigorously, I didn't notice any bubbles at all, and I think the
guide would have mentioned it, he did mention science behind that pretty
blue glow... Anyway, the immediate solution is to have the plants build
more pools or more low-density dry cask storage. Waiting works too, due
to the half-lifes and quickly reducing heat loads.

As for that option here is a link talking about dry cask storage and the
trade-offs inherent in it:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8967/are_nuclear_spent_fuel_pools_secure.html

Pretty much an issue of money really, water makes a far cheaper and
space-efficient radiation shield and cooling system than air and
concrete.


For comparison one of my friends at school works as a landscaper during
the summer.  He's works for a company with a got quite unique niche,
maintaining the grass over chemical holding tanks for indefinite storage
of waste by-products, toluene, dioxines, cyanide etc. His qualifications
are landscaping experimence, passing a bunch of chemical safety training
courses, and knowing not to use backhoes on top of tanks covered by 2ft
of soil. Various chemical related industries simply store this often
horrendously deadly stuff in large, monitored, concrete tanks
indefinitely. It'd be a much better idea to incinerate, especially for
hydrocarbon stuff like toluene, but building and operating incinerators
is completely out of the question politically.

Now the contents liquids and often water soluble and will contaminate
ground water if they leak. As always a fire could, and has on occasions,
triggered large scale chemical releases which do poison people, and
there is enough of them that in Ontario alone there is a company
specializing in doing landscaping of those tanks...

- --
peter[:-1]@petertodd.org http://petertodd.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH6g1g3bMhDbI9xWQRAoIkAJ9BA8KkPXfhnlwLmAru/z20xK2RwwCfX+KR
odDOXX80gs31cYbLgAZS4Gg=
=AUpc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2008\03\26@061409 by SME

picon face
> You do have to empty the pool though, they are normally around 40-50 feet
> deep of which only a few feet of depth is actually needed. Even then, a
> few fire hoses of water spray are more than enough to keep the fuel
> cool.
...
> As designed the density of those pools was such that the fuel
> would be perfectly safe with no water cooling. You could get the stuff
> to burn in a terrorism situation, by say, pouring gasoline on it, but it
> is not dangerous on it's own.

Given "the job" it would be interesting to see if you could divert
liquid sodium reactor coolant into the pool, perhaps by bringing
specialist equipment on site. That way you'd have the potential to get
several parallel "effects" for your money. Sodium, or NaK would do a
nice job of dealing with the water but odds are more would get flung
out by the violence of the reaction than would burn on the spot. That
should do a good job of spreading 'the material' around as well as
sending it skyward. You should get enough combustion however to do the
job well. Extra credit for opening up water supplies into the general
area - perhaps with part of the Sodium being dedicated to this support
act. Perhaps Sodium and water directed around the containment vessel
could discontain it? You'd need to know your way around the reactor
concerned if you wanted the loss of coolant to do something useful
internally at about the same time. Using a team with 1 way tickets and
a dedication to the job would have distinct advantages in this sort of
scenario. Anyone want a scenario consultant? [I can do rather better
than that with far more certainty. I told the FBI but if they heard
they jest lay low or don't care. No, I'm not telling you.].



       SME

2008\03\26@063304 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>From March 2nd.
Found in passing

Re comparing nuclear with solar on an equal footing.

> Rustle, I am disappointed.  Where are the hard figures (
> or at least
> good estimates ) that I know you love to provide ?  I do
> not think
> you have made your case without them.

I doubt your disappointment.
BUT I was not trying to make a case.
I was simply introducing stage one of a process - first find
out how level the playing field is and see what it will take
to allow a gorillas-gorillas comparison. This is, of course,
an extremely hard task in this case (as in many cases) and I
would be utterly wasting my time in putting any figures on
it. Those with Plutonium on their breaths would with a wave
of the hand (or a spent fuel rod) dismiss any such figures
with nary a further thought. Those hugging trees would pause
from doing so long enough to add a 0 on the end of all my
results. Status quo would prevail.

What I rather sought to do was provide some mental filter
opening over the sort of issues that would need to be
considered if you ever wanted to do serious comparisons. I
listed some finite areas for consideration. Which of these
do you so lightly dismiss and why?

If you (whoever) are serious about addressing these issues
do NOT use the points below which miss some detail - respond
to the original.

Synopsising from the original:

{Quote hidden}

I'd wager, if I wagered, that the cost of nuclear is liable
to be double what you expect, even if you allow for this
rule.

At present solar is cost marginal against semi-available
alternatives. Solar will get cheaper. Many alternatives will
get dearer with time. Solar is not necessarily the best mass
energy source, but it is a viable one. It just depends on
whether we are happy to pay for our energy at a fair rate
now or would rather pay for it at a rather higher rate later
on.



       Russell

2008\03\26@072509 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:44AM -0400, W. Jacobs wrote:
>
>
> Byron Jeff wrote:
> > Apples and gorillas. Hanford was a US military project designed to produce
> > plutonium. The US miltary deliberately dumped and contained radioactive waste in
> > the environment.
> >
> > BAJ
> >

> Gorillas and oranges.  Commercial nuclear plants sent their spent fuel
> rods to US DOD plants like Hanford to reprocess the fuel.

Not from my reading they don't. I see now that this is past tense. Right
now spent US nuclear fuel is stored in cooling ponds onsite. There is a
once through fuel cycle with no reprocessing.

To quote the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Reprocessing

"The recovered uranium and plutonium can, if economic and institutional
conditions permit, be recycled for use as nuclear fuel. This is currently
not done for civilian spent nuclear fuel in the US."

>  The Gov wanted
> the plutonium and did not want anyone else to have it.

While the second part is certainly true, with breeder reactors at Hanford
producing tons of plutonium, the US military certainly didn't need
plutonium from commercial reactor cores to make bombs.

Commercial reactors are poor breeders for plutonium. If you want to make
bombs, it's much better to actually build a breeder reactor.

>  This is part of
> the cost of nuclear power that does not show up in the cost of electric.
> It is subsidized by the government.

Reference please? Is this supposed subsidy, along with the sprialing
regulatory costs, the reason that no more new commercial reactors have come
online in over a decade:

http://www.southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2007/08/tva-green-lights-watts-bar-2.asp

Watts Bar in Tennesee took $8 billion and 23 years to come to fruition.

Who subsidized that?

> President Carter placed a moratorium on reprocessing and very little has
> been done since then.  Most nuclear plants have a swimming pool that is
> filled with spent fuel and water.  It boils the water 24/7.  Heaven help
> you if it ever boils dry.  It will need maintained for the foreseeable
> future
> It is now under control of Dept of Energy

Just continuous roadblocks. And that's what I keep complaining about. The
NRC should safely restart the US commercial nuclear program:

1) They need to preapprove a simple safe reactor design. Test the hell out
of it and approve it. Anyone who builds a plant with that design is
streamlined to build.

2) Start reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel. You get 97% of the volume to
put right back into the plants.

3) Take the final 3%, distill the hell out of the actinides (which are the
longest term radioactive products), and take rest and stick it Yucca
Mountain.


BTW I know it sounds like I'm talking about an exclusively nuclear
infrastructure. I really don't have a problem with solar, wind, or hydro.
But at the end of the day each present significant limitations in their
ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of different situations.
Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and the water don't
flow. Use it where it's appropriate. But nuclear needs to be a part of the
mix.

BAJ

2008\03\26@081130 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
I think you meant IYHO > 1) They need to ...  :-) ?

> But at the end of the day each present significant
> limitations in their
> ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of
> different situations.

Yes.

> Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and
> the water don't
> flow. Use it where it's appropriate.

Yes.

> But nuclear needs to be a part of the mix.

No.

Nuclear COULD be a part of the mix.
But it doesn't have to be.
It has convenient attributes, but it's not a necessity.

The others are renewables but have peaky to very peaky
characteristics.
Direct solar doesn't do well at night :-).
It's statistical performance by day is good enough to plan
by.

Wind (indirect solar) is peaky and energy density is
variable. You build it in high energy density areas first.
Some countries (Scandinavia?) are building 'farms' offshore
for lower eco complaints and a more constant wind pattern.

Nobody seems to have mentioned wave power here lately, or
tidal basins.

Thought exercise. Consider the largest ocean harbour you
know. Consider how much energy it would take to pump it down
several metres when full in 6 hours. And how much to then
fill it by about the same amount in the next 6 hours. Start
getting ideas.

Wave power is a hard master - but the energies available are
immense. Thought exercise. Hinge two VERY large barges
together. Load them to the gunnels. Moor them in a wave line
so they happily hinge  to and fro as waves pass by. Now
consider how much energy it would take to make the large and
loaded barges do the same thing in the absence of waves or
water. Start getting ideas. (Gargoyle wave contouring raft)
[IEEE: heaving and pitching bodies, cavity resonators, wave
focusing, pressure devices surging devices, paddles,
outriggers.]

There are bidirectional hydro systems now that pump water
into storage basins. The overall efficiencies are reasonable
if not stunning.

Vanadium Redox batteries promise to allow utterly immense
battery systems to be implemented in future. Not up to
pumped hydro size.

A hydro scheme used as a load leveller for a wind + sun +
hydro system can greatly extend the duration that the water
reserve can be useful over in dry periods. And the wind and
solar can reverse pump the solar system if so designed.

The dread hydrogen could be used as a load leveller with
wind and sun using electrolysis and either thermal
combustion or fuel cells. Scale probably not nice for fuel
cells. Not yet anyway.

Ocean thermal (OTEC) has promise. It works. Probably poor
cost effectiveness so far.

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion

Hawaiian land based !!!!!!!! trial OTEC

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OTEC_in_Hawaii.jpg


Quite a few of these schemes, and various others that are
available, could be expensive. But, until the TRUE cost of
nuclear is used in calculations, it stops marginal ones
being considered. Even if nuclear stations are not being
built it acts as "dog in the manger" to other prospective
solutions through its offer of alleged cheap, or not too too
dear,  power. Thought exercise: Price insurance in the
genuine free market for nuclear power generation without any
government intervention whatsoever. Go fishing.



           Russell








2008\03\26@083321 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:08:38PM -0400, Apptech wrote:

[Snip]

{Quote hidden}

What are these subsequent investigations?

> It would probably help their case long term if the
> proponents of nuclear power erred on the side of
> acknowledging that they may be due some of the doubt of the
> benefit in uncertain cases. Claiming squeaky cleanness in
> all events tend sto get non productive long term.

I agree. When Sellafield is dumping nuclear waste into the Irish Sea, you'd
best believe that there are going to be harmful effects on the environment.

> > Again Sellafield was used as a weapons grade plutonium
> > reprocessing plant
> > and that nuclear waste were dumped into the Irish sea and
> > gaseous releases
> > into the air.
>
> Yes. But you get weapons grade plutonium from "residential
> grade" power plants. ie while this was not a direct reactor
> problem  it was utterly linked to reactors existing.

But it's only a small byproduct in residential grade power plants. You need
a breeder reactor to get significant amounts of plutonium. This article:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_security/Nuclear-Reprocessing-Factsheet.pdf

indicates that residential plutonium constitutes about 1% of a spent
reactor core.

According to the Plutonium Watch:

http://www.isis-online.org/global_stocks/plutonium_watch2004.html

"Civil plutonium is in two basic forms--contained in spent (irradiated)
fuel, or in separated (unirradiated) form. Unirradiated plutonium may be in
pure form, in the process of being fabricated into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel,
or in fresh MOX fuel. Once it has been irradiated, however, the plutonium
in MOX fuel, like the plutonium produced when uranium fuel is irradiated,
is contained in spent fuel. The plutonium in spent fuel is considered more
proliferation resistant because it is difficult to separate the plutonium
from the other radioactive constituents of spent fuel."

BAJ

[snipped the rest]

2008\03\26@092107 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

_______________

Equivocal results

       http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0952-4746/19/4/605

but re increasing numbers of still births correlated with
the time that a worker is employed in the plant.

"    In the Commentary given in The Lancet, Hazel Inskip
from the University of Southampton advises that the possible
risk of stillbirth should be kept in perspective, and
comments that `there is no obvious mechanism for the
association',"

ie There is a correlation between ttime that you work there
and the prospect of your wife having still;-born children
*BUT* correlation does not prove causation and there is no
obvious causation present.

Hopefully this resulted in them going away and improving
their knowledge of causal mechanisms in such cases. What's
the bet?


_______________________


Aaagh
Browser crashed.
Work and sleep call.

Gaggafraffle        sellafield statistical

or similar for lots more.




           R

2008\03\26@110557 by Eoin Ross

flavicon
face
Geothermal - at lower source temperatures that previously used
apparently.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4245896.html
Geothermal Power in Alaska Holds Hidden Model for Clean Energy
At Chena Hot Springs Resort, a visionary owner and an ingenious
engineer tap into one of the world's most overlooked energy
resources*not fossil fuels*to produce electricity, heat buildings
and soon, they hope, generate hydrogen.

"A black-eared husky named Amberlynn watches her every move from below.
The cool thing about this ... , she begins, as she does most sentences,
and it occurs to me that it's appropriate every time: This is cool. It
is Alaska's first geothermal plant, and it's producing electricity
from lower temperature water than any plant in the world."

Today, geothermal plants in the United States generate nearly 3000
megawatts of electricity*enough to power South Dakota. Almost all of
it comes from reservoirs that are at least 150 C / 300 F. The water
rising through a fracture in the granite pluton under Chena is only 70 C
/ 165 F.


>>> apptechSTOPspamspamspam_OUTparadise.net.nz 26 Mar 08 08:10:49 >>>
I think you meant IYHO > 1) They need to ...  :-) ?

> But at the end of the day each present significant
> limitations in their
> ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of
> different situations.

Yes.

> Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and
> the water don't
> flow. Use it where it's appropriate.

Yes.

> But nuclear needs to be a part of the mix.

No.

Nuclear COULD be a part of the mix.
But it doesn't have to be.
It has convenient attributes, but it's not a necessity.

The others are renewables but have peaky to very peaky
characteristics.
Direct solar doesn't do well at night :-).
It's statistical performance by day is good enough to plan
by.

Wind (indirect solar) is peaky and energy density is
variable. You build it in high energy density areas first.
Some countries (Scandinavia?) are building 'farms' offshore
for lower eco complaints and a more constant wind pattern.

Nobody seems to have mentioned wave power here lately, or
tidal basins.

Thought exercise. Consider the largest ocean harbour you
know. Consider how much energy it would take to pump it down
several metres when full in 6 hours. And how much to then
fill it by about the same amount in the next 6 hours. Start
getting ideas.

Wave power is a hard master - but the energies available are
immense. Thought exercise. Hinge two VERY large barges
together. Load them to the gunnels. Moor them in a wave line
so they happily hinge  to and fro as waves pass by. Now
consider how much energy it would take to make the large and
loaded barges do the same thing in the absence of waves or
water. Start getting ideas. (Gargoyle wave contouring raft)
[IEEE: heaving and pitching bodies, cavity resonators, wave
focusing, pressure devices surging devices, paddles,
outriggers.]

There are bidirectional hydro systems now that pump water
into storage basins. The overall efficiencies are reasonable
if not stunning.

Vanadium Redox batteries promise to allow utterly immense
battery systems to be implemented in future. Not up to
pumped hydro size.

A hydro scheme used as a load leveller for a wind + sun +
hydro system can greatly extend the duration that the water
reserve can be useful over in dry periods. And the wind and
solar can reverse pump the solar system if so designed.

The dread hydrogen could be used as a load leveller with
wind and sun using electrolysis and either thermal
combustion or fuel cells. Scale probably not nice for fuel
cells. Not yet anyway.

Ocean thermal (OTEC) has promise. It works. Probably poor
cost effectiveness so far.

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion

Hawaiian land based !!!!!!!! trial OTEC

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OTEC_in_Hawaii.jpg


Quite a few of these schemes, and various others that are
available, could be expensive. But, until the TRUE cost of
nuclear is used in calculations, it stops marginal ones
being considered. Even if nuclear stations are not being
built it acts as "dog in the manger" to other prospective
solutions through its offer of alleged cheap, or not too too
dear,  power. Thought exercise: Price insurance in the
genuine free market for nuclear power generation without any
government intervention whatsoever. Go fishing.



           Russell








2008\03\26@185727 by W. Jacobs

flavicon
face


Byron Jeff wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:44AM -0400, W. Jacobs wrote:
>  
> BTW I know it sounds like I'm talking about an exclusively nuclear
> infrastructure. I really don't have a problem with solar, wind, or hydro.
> But at the end of the day each present significant limitations in their
> ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of different situations.
> Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and the water don't
> flow. Use it where it's appropriate. But nuclear needs to be a part of the
> mix.
>
> BAJ
>  

In a coal fired power plant, they burn coal. Somewhere buried in the
cost of the every millions tons of coal, is a small addition for the
cost of a miner that was killed in the mining process. It is regrettable
but it exist and we, the users of electric from coal must pay for it.
The power plant burns the coal and makes electric. At the end of the
day, they back a truck up to a chute and load the ash. They sell the ash
to the road department who mix salt with it and put it on the roads in
the winter and they sell some of it to cement block people and they make
block out of it. When the day is done, The sale of the electric and the
ashes minus the cost of the coal and other expenses net a profit or loss
for the power plant. If they see a loss, they will increase the cost of
electric. And tomorrow will have a profit. This is simple. It works

In a nuclear plant, they “burn” nuclear. I would think that somewhere in
the cost of every fuel exchange they have the cost of some person that
was killed on the job. This person could be run over by a fork truck. I
am not saying he is killed by radiation, but he is there. It is called
an industrial accident. And again it is regrettable but it exist and we,
the users of electric from nuclear plant must pay for it. Again, the
power plant burns the fuel and makes electric. However in this case, no
one hauls the ashes away. They sit in this pool awaiting reclamation.
The spent fuel is degrades by only about 5% . That means it is 95% good
fuel. If this spent fuel was reclaimed, it would be reused and the cost
of reclaiming must be much cheaper than making new fuel however we do
not do that.

We must haul the ashes. We must bring this process to a close. Until we
do, we do not know what the cost of the electric is. Since the cost of
hauling the ash is not figured in the cost of the electric, we do not
know what it cost for electric. This is what I object to.

People talk about sending the ashes to Yucca Mountain. The people at
Yucca Mountain don't want the ashes. It is their property, they have a
right not to have it. The Yucca Mountain Repository is a government
facility used to store spent fuel, the ashes out of a nuclear reactor.
This is a government facility. I pay for this. I am subsidizing nuclear
power and I do not want to.

This facility needs to be operated by a consortium of nuclear power
plants. The cost has to be born not by the public but by the user. This
is my objection.

We should not permit any more plants until we know what the power cost.
We assume that nuclear power is completive with coal and wind and solar
and all the other sources but we do not know.

Because we do not know the cost of the power from the nuclear plant,
because it is subsidized, we think it is cheap. When we think it is
cheap, we tend to build more. There is a problem with this strategy.

Right now, we build wind mills. They may or may not be completive. There
is a 2 cent per kWh subside for every kWh made(I can buy electric for
2.3 cents per kWh). It comes as a tax credit. Also in most states, the
property tax on the wind mill is subsidized(you probably pay more for
your house than a power company pays for a wind mill).

Because of this, all monies to be invested in alternate energy are put
in wind mills. This deprives money for research into solar thermal,
geothermal, or other forms of such energy. This is a shame. However,
economically, if you have money to spend on alternate energy, you will
get a better return on wind mills.

I can understand this subsidy to get a start, but it should be reduced
as time go on. With wind mills, it is increased. The subsidized used to
be 1.7 cents per kWh.

So, Haul the ashes. Find out what the true cost of the nuclear power is.
End the subsidy. If nuclear energy is profitable, the market will do the
rest. Only then should we permit new units.

Bill
I like geothermal. It is 24/7. It may not be endless as it cools the
earth. It will go for a long time.

2008\03\26@190502 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Well said, Mr Jacobs.

--Bob A

W. Jacobs wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\03\26@192800 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

>> In a nuclear plant

Perhaps we should stop talking about the US nuclear industry as if it  
were
somehow at the forefront of technology WRT nuclear energy.

What do they do in France, and what have the results been?  (France  
apparently gets over 75% of their electricity from nuclear...)

BillW

2008\03\26@195421 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> What do they do in France, and what have the results been?
> (France
> apparently gets over 75% of their electricity from
> nuclear...)

True cost would be genuinely interesting.

It's very much a political decision. Which doesn't make it a
bad one. Just one that needs to be examined carefully. The
French are exceptionally keen on being self contained and
not dependant on other people for crucial infrastructure.
Which has it's merits :-). But this is a major factor in
their decision to use nuclear power extensively. They may
have made the same decision without this factor, but it
needs to be kept in mind when doing comparisons and
establishing true costs. I do not know how good their safety
records are but I have not heard of any terrible things
happening there. Which could be for several reasons :-).


       Russell


2008\03\27@072802 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
W. Jacobs wrote:

> Byron Jeff wrote:
>> BTW I know it sounds like I'm talking about an exclusively nuclear
>> infrastructure. I really don't have a problem with solar, wind, or
>> hydro. But at the end of the day each present significant limitations
>> in their ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of different
>> situations. Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and the
>> water don't flow. Use it where it's appropriate. But nuclear needs to
>> be a part of the mix.

> We must haul the ashes.

That's about the shortest description of the problem (or one of it) :)

{Quote hidden}

The thing is that nuclear is a totalitarian form of energy. It requires a
central power to oversee and organize it -- and to push it through. No
central organization, no government intervention, no nuclear power. With
the subjects of the free market acting like they do, there is no way
nuclear power has any chance in a free market.

You can't praise the free market one day and the next day think the general
public (the subjects that make the free market work) are too ignorant to
know what's good for them, energy-wise.

Gerhard

2008\03\27@083116 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

I hate to be "devil's advocate here" but it's horribly
possible that in a TRUE free market the price would be all
too low. AFAIR Russia (post Soviet bloc?) has previously
been a willing acceptor of nuclear waste. And I imagine that
China would be happy to compete on the free market as a
nuclear waste acceptor. And in a genuinely free market, for
certain classes of waste, you may even get people lining up
to pay you money to take it away. In fact, in a genuinely
free market you'd get people lining up to take nuclear waste
of  any sort away for free. What happens after that is
another matter. In part nuclear waste handling HAS to be
regulated at a government level because of how desirable and
undesirable it is, all at the same time. Allowing this
process into the invisible hand's hands would with certainty
lead to utter disaster in short order. If you need proof of
how as-much-power-as-you-can-manage-to-wrangle corrupts
as-much-power-as-you-can-manage-to-wrangle-lutely you need
look no further than eg Enron, Omni Consumer Products and
Halib...., er, tons of other examples exist - you get the
idea.

So, in measurinmg the true cost of nuclear you need to
spread the scope of "cost" fairly widely. Ongoing security
of waste at a high level is an utter necessity for as long
as people are people.

"We had another break in last night".
'Anyone see them this time?'
"No, not a trace. As per usual"
'Did they get anything valuable this time?'
"No. Same pattern as before. Just a few barrels of useless
rubbish"
'That's OK then. Strange. That's the third time this month'.

______________

Wanted to buy: Nuclear Waste. Any type & condition. Will
collect. Cash paid.




           Russell

2008\03\28@080726 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Apptech wrote:

>>> This facility needs to be operated by a consortium of nuclear power
>>> plants. The cost has to be born not by the public but by the user.
>>> This is my objection.
>>
>> The thing is that nuclear is a totalitarian form of energy. It requires
>> a central power to oversee and organize it -- and to push it through.
>> No central organization, no government intervention, no nuclear power.
>> With the subjects of the free market acting like they do, there is no
>> way nuclear power has any chance in a free market.
>>
>> You can't praise the free market one day and the next day think the
>> general public (the subjects that make the free market work) are too
>> ignorant to know what's good for them, energy-wise.
>
> I hate to be "devil's advocate here" but it's horribly possible that in
> a TRUE free market the price would be all too low.

Depends what you call a "true free market". My use of the term is one where
there are no externalities -- an ideal, of course, but so is most any other
social concept.

As long as people can be forced to accept radiation from a neighboring
property or substances leaking into the ground "for the greater good", it's
not a free market (in my sense).

> AFAIR Russia (post Soviet bloc?) has previously been a willing acceptor
> of nuclear waste. And I imagine that China would be happy to compete on
> the free market as a nuclear waste acceptor.

And I'm quite sure that the people in the places where they dump it don't
get to say whether they want that or not -- not a free market in the sense
I use the term.

> And in a genuinely free market, for certain classes of waste, you may
> even get people lining up to pay you money to take it away.

Only because they have places at their disposal that are not part of the
free market in my sense, and so they are creating an externality for the
free market.

> In fact, in a genuinely free market you'd get people lining up to take
> nuclear waste of  any sort away for free.

Also only because they are backed by a non-free market.

> What happens after that is another matter.

Not for me. Even if a country had a free market, but would start to sell
its waste to a non-free market, in my use of the term it would "import" the
non-free nature of the waste target market and therefore cease to be a free
market.

> In part nuclear waste handling HAS to be regulated at a government level
> because of how desirable and undesirable it is, all at the same time.
> Allowing this process into the invisible hand's hands would with
> certainty lead to utter disaster in short order.

A free market isn't one where there is only the "invisible hand". A free
market is one that is free of coercion (at least) -- and that goes really
deep, if you think about it. I don't think there would be nuclear waste to
start with, without coercion.

If some free market proponents think that environmental regulations go too
far, they should try looking at this with the eye of a truly coercion-free
market: nobody is forced to tolerate any effects of someone else on his or
her property, without consent. This would have far-reaching consequences.
Anything else is coercion, needs regulation (as to how much one can be
forced to tolerate for the greater good) and is not "free" anymore.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...