Question:
In Search of a National Energy Strategy – Why Cold, Hard Scientific Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy Political Ideals 6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc. http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=769
Response:
>In Search of a National Energy Strategy – Why Cold, Hard Scientific >Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy Political Ideals >6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc. >http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=769
blah.. blah… More scientific soothsaying.. and half truths.. Still using old prices for renewables. Which are getting CHEAPER each year as scale of economy grows. While the other sources are getting MORE expensive year by year. And using old stereotypes for wind power… tsk..tsk.. The larger turbines have blades which are slow and visible enough that most birds can avoid them. (reduced bird kills). The author also ignores that the Sierra Club is NOW promoting wind power ! http://www.wind-works.org/articles/scsitingadvisory.html Nuclear may look cheap until you factor in the cost of contaminating a state or two with radioactive isotopes. Same goes for burning coal. The emissions are a significant problem that will never go away, Dependence Foreign Oil.. Just look at the cost of Iraq operation.. Projected to be over ~250B$! Just to wrest control of it’s oil from Saddam! Imagine if that money had been put into conservation and renewables !
Response:
> Nuclear may look cheap until you factor in the cost of contaminating a > state or two with radioactive isotopes.
I have never understood this: aren’t the wastes from nuclear plants a fairly small volume of material, easily contained? And which states have been contaminated and how much has it cost the taxpayer?
Response:
> In Search of a National Energy Strategy – Why Cold, Hard Scientific > Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy Political Ideals > 6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc. > http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=769
an idiotic article with clearly false assumptions in every point it made – at least out of the first third I read. Regards, NT
Response:
: >
: > : > : > : > : > Nuclear may look cheap until you factor in the cost of contaminating a : > state or two with radioactive isotopes. : : I have never understood this: aren’t the wastes from nuclear : plants a fairly small volume of material, easily contained? Yes, absolutely and it is common practice. : And which states have been contaminated and how much has it cost : the taxpayer? None, nor is it likely or even possible given the currently imposed standards for handling. Good questions, too many people take the anti-nuke kooks at their word with out checking. :
Response:
> None, nor is it likely or even possible given the currently > imposed standards for handling. > Good questions, too many people take the anti-nuke kooks at their > word with out checking.
The problem with nuclear power is that the current reators aren’t safe. Chernobyl was just one example, 3 mile island was another. These are reactors that blew up completely. Chernobyl contaminated farms 2,000 miles away. Meat from farms in Wales and milk from farms in Wales was contaminated and had to be treated as toxic waste. Cancer across the area has risen tremendously. Because the accidents can be so severe for even a minor failure, the risk is far too great. — Yours Zebedee (Claiming asylum in an attempt to escape paying his debts to Dougal and Florence)
Response:
> The problem with nuclear power is that the current reators aren’t safe. > Chernobyl was just one example, 3 mile island was another. These are > reactors that blew up completely.
TMI blew up? That would be news to everyone who lives right around it. Making yourself look ignorant of basic fact does little to support your points. I’m assuming that you are an American since most of the rest of the world is well aware of the percent of energy in Europe and Japan that is produced by Nuclear power. The examples that you cite are 50+ year old designs which are all that is common in the US due to people like you NIMBYing any modern reactor construction. It’s the equivalent of saying that modern cars aren’t safe since a ‘57 Chevy didn’t have seat belts, air bags, ABS, crumple zones, etc. > Chernobyl contaminated farms 2,000 miles > away. Meat from farms in Wales and milk from farms in Wales was contaminated > and had to be treated as toxic waste. Cancer across the area has risen > tremendously.
You are exposed to FAR more radioactive waste from Coal fired power plants than Chernobyl. Take a look at http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html for a scope of the actual numbers. We have much more to worry about from the existing coal energy production infrastructure than new nuclear development. > Because the accidents can be so severe for even a minor failure, the risk is > far too great.
Modern designs are self-limiting. That is to say they can not go critical (which neither Chernobyl nor TMI were in danger of anyway) but will in fact naturally "fail safe." Bill
Response:
> The problem with nuclear power is that the current reators aren’t safe. > Chernobyl was just one example, 3 mile island was another. These are > reactors that blew up completely.
TMI did NOT blow up completly; in fact, it did not blow up at all, read the facts here: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle….. Chernobyl is a whole different deal, and something that can not happen in the US. Why? Because it happened first in 1957 at a place in the UK then called Windscale and we learned not to use graphite-moderated reactors for power production. Instead, we use pressurized water reactors. I respectfully suggest that you Google "Wigner reaction Windscale", read, and come back smarter. > Chernobyl contaminated farms 2,000 miles > away. Meat from farms in Wales and milk from farms in Wales was contaminated > and had to be treated as toxic waste. Cancer across the area has risen > tremendously. > Because the accidents can be so severe for even a minor failure, the risk is > far too great.
Yes, I agree that we should not build graphite-moderated power producing nuclear reactors (the Chernobyl type). Also, no nuclear reactors should be built without containment buildings (like Chernobyl). By the way, this is pretty much the way we have always done it in the United States. Vaughn
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : > > : > > : > > : > > : > > : > Nuclear may look cheap until you factor in the cost of > contaminating a > : > state or two with radioactive isotopes. > : > : I have never understood this: aren’t the wastes from nuclear > : plants a fairly small volume of material, easily contained? > Yes, absolutely and it is common practice.
Most waste right now is stored close to the reactor, becuase no one has figured out what to do with it. Waste has to be contained basically for eternity, so you’re foisting a debt upon humanity that can never be repaid, so that you can watch silly programs on the TV for a few years. Whatever the volume, engineering for eternity is expensive; just look up ‘yucca mountain’. Throughout the ages, all this waste will have to be guarded against both leakage and theft for blackmail or terrorism. There is a lot of waste even now; to use nuclear power to replace coal and provide power to growing nations would make the problem much worse.
Response:
> Most waste right now is stored close to the reactor, becuase no one > has figured out what to do with it.
Wrong. Most waste is stored close the reactor because it is safer that way. Radioactive decay of used nuclear fuel occurs at an exponentially decreasing rate. That means that the bulk of the radiation is gone after a very few years and then moving it to a permanent storage site becomes much safer. Theft of recently used nuclear fuel is less of a problem because safely handling it represents a big problem, and it is much more easily detectible than older used fuel. The scientific/engineering community HAS figured out what to do with nuclear waste, nuclear waste storage is now mostly a political problem because of the misinformation and scare mongers. Vaughn
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Most waste right now is stored close to the reactor, becuase no one > has figured out what to do with it. > Wrong. Most waste is stored close the reactor because it is safer that > way. Radioactive decay of used nuclear fuel occurs at an exponentially > decreasing rate. That means that the bulk of the radiation is gone after a very > few years and then moving it to a permanent storage site becomes much safer. > Theft of recently used nuclear fuel is less of a problem because safely handling > it represents a big problem, and it is much more easily detectible than older > used fuel. > The scientific/engineering community HAS figured out what to do with > nuclear waste, nuclear waste storage is now mostly a political problem because > of the misinformation and scare mongers.
Well, capital punishment doesn’t cost much, unless you include the average of $2 million of lawyer’s fees it takes in the US. Yes, the process of getting someone to accept your 10,000 year radioactive waste is expensive because of NIMBYism, but the expense is a real one that must be paid. Is it possible to bury a large volume of radioactive waste for a longer period than civilization has yet existed? Maybe. Is it cheap? No. Yucca mountain in the US hasn’t even opened yet, and the local government in Nevada is doing everthing it can to stop it. If you tried to run the Europe and the US and Asia off of nuclear power, how many yucca mountains would be needed, and what would the real expense be? Is it ethical to place this burden on people 1,000 years in the future, when in truth there is no way to prove that a particular bit of engineering will be reliable for that long? For that matter, how do you secure nuclear plants and wastes against terrorists who have proven to be both inventive and suicidal?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Most waste right now is stored close to the reactor, becuase no one > > has figured out what to do with it. > Wrong. Most waste is stored close the reactor because it is safer that > way. Radioactive decay of used nuclear fuel occurs at an exponentially > decreasing rate. That means that the bulk of the radiation is gone after a very > few years and then moving it to a permanent storage site becomes much safer. > Theft of recently used nuclear fuel is less of a problem because safely handling > it represents a big problem, and it is much more easily detectible than older > used fuel. > The scientific/engineering community HAS figured out what to do with > nuclear waste, nuclear waste storage is now mostly a political problem because > of the misinformation and scare mongers. > Well, capital punishment doesn’t cost much, unless you include the > average of $2 million of lawyer’s fees it takes in the US. Yes, the > process of getting someone to accept your 10,000 year radioactive > waste is expensive because of NIMBYism, but the expense is a real one > that must be paid. > Is it possible to bury a large volume of radioactive waste for a > longer period than civilization has yet existed? Maybe. Is it cheap? > No. Yucca mountain in the US hasn’t even opened yet, and the local > government in Nevada is doing everthing it can to stop it. If you > tried to run the Europe and the US and Asia off of nuclear power, how > many yucca mountains would be needed, and what would the real expense > be? Is it ethical to place this burden on people 1,000 years in the > future, when in truth there is no way to prove that a particular bit > of engineering will be reliable for that long?
I love these ‘arguments’ about ‘..there is no way to prove…..X’. There is also ‘no way to prove the Brooklyn Bridge will be standing tomorrow’; ’no way to prove the house you’re living in will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way to prove a particular tree will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way to prove a particular airplane won’t fall out of the sky tomorrow’. Engineering can only build on past performance and extrapolate. It’s done every day in every new building built, every new bridge built, every new car built. It’s acceptable for 767’s to be built this way carrying thousands, if not millions of passengers in their lifetime. Or every home built in a city. Yet somehow the scaremonger’s and irrational don’t think it is acceptable for nuclear waste. And have you ever think about the burden’s that have been left us by our predecessors? Probably not very often. Yet who gave us racism, slavery, religious hatrid…?? We don’t go around blaming the ancient Egyptions or Romans for such things now, do we? How many generations were poisoned by lead plumbing because of our ancestor’s?? Was that ‘ethical’? In 500 years, our progeny may be thanking us in their nightly prayers (or whatever passes for that in their time) for putting all of that valuable fissile and radioactive material in such a well marked location that they were able to find it and save them a lot of trouble. They may use some of it for irradiating foods to limit spoilage; fueling their reactors; various medical and industrial processes. > For that matter, how do you secure nuclear plants and wastes against > terrorists who have proven to be both inventive and suicidal?
The same way you secure airplanes, public monuments, highways, everything else. By also being inventive. Considering the number of airplanes hijacked, the number of buildings attacked and the number of nuclear plants not attacked, it would seem that nuclear plant security is working. daestrom
Response:
… > I love these ‘arguments’ about ‘..there is no way to prove…..X’. There is > also ‘no way to prove the Brooklyn Bridge will be standing tomorrow’; ’no > way to prove the house you’re living in will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way > to prove a particular tree will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way to prove a > particular airplane won’t fall out of the sky tomorrow’. > Engineering can only build on past performance and extrapolate. It’s done > every day in every new building built, every new bridge built, every new car > built. It’s acceptable for 767’s to be built this way carrying thousands, > if not millions of passengers in their lifetime. Or every home built in a > city. Yet somehow the scaremonger’s and irrational don’t think it is > acceptable for nuclear waste.
I think the main issue with the nuclear waste is that all the past performance and extrapolations indicate that what is promised by politicians (keeping it safely) isn’t going to happen. More to the point, it especially won’t happen where they plan to do it. > And have you ever think about the burden’s that have been left us by our > predecessors? Probably not very often. … How many generations were poisoned by > lead plumbing because of our ancestor’s?? Was that ‘ethical’?
People curse prior generations all the time. Anyone who has had to do any kind of toxic waste cleanup (including lead and asbestos) on their property usually has a bad opinion of previous standard practices and sometimes previous owners. Anyone who has come down sick due to toxic waste usually is not happy about it. The question is, should we do this ourselves? Should we knowingly poison and kill people in the future? Most folks would rather not. >For that matter, how do you secure nuclear plants and wastes against >terrorists who have proven to be both inventive and suicidal? > The same way you secure airplanes, public monuments, highways, everything > else. By also being inventive. Considering the number of airplanes > hijacked, the number of buildings attacked and the number of nuclear plants > not attacked, it would seem that nuclear plant security is working.
We do not secure any of these things very well. It’s just not possible. Security comes mainly from various police forces attempting to catch the dangerous people before they do something or, at least, not very long after they have. Anthony
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > … > I love these ‘arguments’ about ‘..there is no way to prove…..X’. There is > also ‘no way to prove the Brooklyn Bridge will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no > way to prove the house you’re living in will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way > to prove a particular tree will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way to prove a > particular airplane won’t fall out of the sky tomorrow’. > Engineering can only build on past performance and extrapolate. It’s done > every day in every new building built, every new bridge built, every new car > built. It’s acceptable for 767’s to be built this way carrying thousands, > if not millions of passengers in their lifetime. Or every home built in a > city. Yet somehow the scaremonger’s and irrational don’t think it is > acceptable for nuclear waste. > I think the main issue with the nuclear waste is that all the past > performance and extrapolations indicate that what is promised by > politicians (keeping it safely) isn’t going to happen.
Last time I checked, politicians weren’t designing things. Just bi** about why some money should go to their favorite projects. More to the > point, it especially won’t happen where they plan to do it. > And have you ever think about the burden’s that have been left us by our > predecessors? Probably not very often. … How many generations were poisoned by > lead plumbing because of our ancestor’s?? Was that ‘ethical’? > People curse prior generations all the time. Anyone who has had to > do any kind of toxic waste cleanup (including lead and asbestos) on > their property usually has a bad opinion of previous standard practices > and sometimes previous owners. Anyone who has come down sick due to > toxic waste usually is not happy about it. > The question is, should we do this ourselves? Should we knowingly > poison and kill people in the future? Most folks would rather not.
Is burying toxic waste in a well marked, guarded, monitored location ‘knowingly poisoning and killing’?? Nuclear or otherwise toxic? How many barrels of toxic waste are being buryed every day with far less oversight/planning everyday? What is being done about that? If burying nuclear waste is ‘unethical’, then so is burying many other toxic metals/toxins. Considering the relative amounts and quantities involved, seems like we should be focusing on coal ash and lead batteries more than we are. Yet these receive far less attention (haven’t seen Dan Rather saying anything about them on the 6 o’clock news). And they may ‘poison and kill’ many in future generations than nuclear waste. daestrom
Response:
>…
Would you kindly move your nuclear thoughts out of alt.solar.thermal, home of "practical uses for the sun’s heat"? Thanks. Nick
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Is it possible to bury a large volume of radioactive waste for a > longer period than civilization has yet existed? Maybe. Is it cheap? > No. Yucca mountain in the US hasn’t even opened yet, and the local > government in Nevada is doing everthing it can to stop it. If you > tried to run the Europe and the US and Asia off of nuclear power, how > many yucca mountains would be needed, and what would the real expense > be? Is it ethical to place this burden on people 1,000 years in the > future, when in truth there is no way to prove that a particular bit > of engineering will be reliable for that long? > I love these ‘arguments’ about ‘..there is no way to prove…..X’. There is > also ‘no way to prove the Brooklyn Bridge will be standing tomorrow’; ’no > way to prove the house you’re living in will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way > to prove a particular tree will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way to prove a > particular airplane won’t fall out of the sky tomorrow’. > Engineering can only build on past performance and extrapolate. It’s done > every day in every new building built, every new bridge built, every new car > built. It’s acceptable for 767’s to be built this way carrying thousands, > if not millions of passengers in their lifetime. Or every home built in a > city. Yet somehow the scaremonger’s and irrational don’t think it is > acceptable for nuclear waste.
Well, for something like the brooklyn bridge, you can make it quite reliable, do stress testing, etc, and you have a history of how bridges hold up over their lifetimes, and millenia of civil engineering before that. Airplanes, of course, fail periodically, and some people will always be killed that way. Failures are kept to a minimum by investigating every fault, and fixing it so it never happens exactly the same way twice. With nuclear waste containment, the time where it has to be reliable is longer than the time civilization has existed; you do not have a history of how this containment works over the lifetime of the thing. Extrapolating from a few stress tests and a 50 year history of containing (and failing to contain) waste to a 10,000 year operating life is nothing more than educated guesswork. By comparison, you can extrapolate from previous experience to the decades or centuries a bridge may be in operation with some confidence. > And have you ever think about the burden’s that have been left us by our > predecessors? Probably not very often. Yet who gave us racism, slavery, > religious hatrid…?? We don’t go around blaming the ancient Egyptions or > Romans for such things now, do we? How many generations were poisoned by > lead plumbing because of our ancestor’s?? Was that ‘ethical’?
Well historical figures did many bad things. We needn’t emulate them or descend any further. And, if the nile river were radioactive as a result of Ramses wanting to have better air conditioning, I think we would hold him up as one of history’s great horrors. > For that matter, how do you secure nuclear plants and wastes against > terrorists who have proven to be both inventive and suicidal? > The same way you secure airplanes, public monuments, highways, everything > else. By also being inventive. Considering the number of airplanes > hijacked, the number of buildings attacked and the number of nuclear plants > not attacked, it would seem that nuclear plant security is working.
Any security can be penetrated; having lots of radioactive material around means that the inevitable terrorist successese will be far more destructive. The september 11 attackers thought of taking out a nuclear reactor with aircraft, but decided not to, that time. There’s no way of protecting every plant, everywhere, forever. If you could, it would be horribly expensive. Why not just cover north dakota with wind farms and arizona with PV? From a national security point of view, it’s far, far safer.
Response:
… > Because the accidents can be so severe for even a minor failure, the risk is > far too great.
This is, I think, a statement of faith, not fact. Just how much risk is there really. The risk of doing without nuclear are pretty large.
Response:
… > Most waste right now is stored close to the reactor, becuase no one > has figured out what to do with it.
As I understand the plan. It is, store the hot spent fuel for a few years to cool off then "dispose" of it. The dispose process has been discussed to death, so most of the fuel rods are cooling down a few extra years at the facility. The problem is not that no one has figured out what to do, but because no one can get the citizens to agree to let them do anything (any of the 5 or 10 solutions now considered technically adequate).
Response:
> … > Because the accidents can be so severe for even a minor failure, the risk > is > far too great. > This is, I think, a statement of faith, not fact. Just how much risk is > there really. The risk of doing without nuclear are pretty large.
Exactly; it is a statistical fact that air pollution kills just as surely as radiation, but no significant radiation escapes a nuclear power plant while we tolerate plumes of pollution from "safe" fossil plants. And then there are those wars in the middle east over oil… Everyone seems to forget that the US Navy has been operating hundreds of nuclear reactors for decades under far more severe conditions than any stationary commercial power plant. Problems? None. In the process, they have spent millions of your tax $ training nuclear operators to an extremely high standard. Needless to say, most of this talent goes to waste in the civilian world due to public opinion. Vaughn (an ex-Navy nuclear reactor operator)
Response:
> … > Most waste right now is stored close to the reactor, becuase no one > has figured out what to do with it. > As I understand the plan. It is, store the hot spent fuel for a few years to > cool off then "dispose" of it. The dispose process has been discussed to > death, so most of the fuel rods are cooling down a few extra years at the > facility. The problem is not that no one has figured out what to do, but > because no one can get the citizens to agree to let them do anything (any of > the 5 or 10 solutions now considered technically adequate).
Perhaps a more precise way to say it is, the waste stays at the reactor because it at present has no where else to go. You can blame this on NIMBYism if you want, but that doesn’t make the problem go away. You have to count the full costs of nuclear power, and it seems to me that a lot of that cost is securing the waste for eternity. Even if you assume reactors can be made perfectly safe, it may be that nuclear power is too expensive to serve as the primary energy source, except where subsidised or used for military applications — submarines, aircraft carriers, etc. One source of subsidy is assuming the government and future generations will handle your waste disposal and security problems for you.
Response:
Please keep this off-topic nuclear stuff out of alt.solar.thermal. Thanks, Nick
Response:
… > You have to count the full costs of nuclear power, and it seems to me > that a lot of that cost is securing the waste for eternity.
You have to count the full cost of coal power, and that seems to me that a lot of that cost is securing the waste for eternity (because the waste includes poisons that never break down), where nuclear waste only needs to be secured for up to a few thousand years. (after that it becomes just chemical waste and is about as nasty as the coal waste, except not as radioactive.) Why one solution for coal and another for nuclear? If the reactors just sprayed the fuel into the air after 100 years, they would emit less radionuclide than the coal plant does per KWH. So why are we so much more worried because the radioactive material comes from a reactor rather than a coal plant? You have to count the full cost of hydro power. The cost of warming the impound and changing fish species in the rivers, loosing the migratory species like the salmon. Changing the erosion balance and where the beaches are located (the sand beaches, many of them anyway, are stable only by a constant influx of sand from the erosion materials carried down the rivers). Of increasing the risk of massive flooding when the dam fails, and of course the risk of terrorist attack. The disposal of accumulated silt without injuring the disposal area. This is our most benign energy source and it is still very costly in unpriced ways. And in the end, you also have to count the full cost of not having that power there when you need it. What is the cost of not getting our folk to work? You know this personally if you were out of work during the Bush depression.
Response:
>… > You have to count the full costs of nuclear power, and it seems to me > that a lot of that cost is securing the waste for eternity. >You have to count the full cost of coal power, and that seems to me that a >lot of that cost is securing the waste for eternity (because the waste >includes poisons that never break down),
Never ? And at what concentration ? > where nuclear waste only needs to >be secured for up to a few thousand years. (after that it becomes just >chemical waste and is about as nasty as the coal waste, except not as >radioactive.)
How few thousand years did you have in mind ? >Why one solution for coal and another for nuclear? If the reactors just >sprayed the fuel into the air after 100 years, they would emit less >radionuclide than the coal plant does per KWH.
A good point if it’s true. Is it ? > So why are we so much more >worried because the radioactive material comes from a reactor rather than a >coal plant?
The concentration of waste, reactor fires, track record, new technology, dread risk, cancer etc… >You have to count the full cost of hydro power. The cost of warming the >impound and changing fish species in the rivers, loosing the migratory >species like the salmon. Changing the erosion balance and where the beaches >are located (the sand beaches, many of them anyway, are stable only by a >constant influx of sand from the erosion materials carried down the rivers). >Of increasing the risk of massive flooding when the dam fails, and of course >the risk of terrorist attack. The disposal of accumulated silt without >injuring the disposal area. This is our most benign energy source and it is >still very costly in unpriced ways.
Yes, all options have environmental aspects and impacts, but a) can you show that nuclear power is better ? b) If so, by what criteria ? c) Do all stakeholders agree on the criteria ? d) If not (c), then who the hell are you to impose a solution ? Cheers, J/. — John Beardmore
Response:
… >lot of that cost is securing the waste for eternity (because the waste >includes poisons that never break down), > Never ? > And at what concentration ?
Wait. We never addressed either of these issues when we were being frightened by fuel rods? But for the heavy metals, the best we can do is oxidize them into a ceramic like material that won’t disolve. Otherwise, like lead, they just hang around, so the concentration had better be very very low. … >Why one solution for coal and another for nuclear? If the reactors just >sprayed the fuel into the air after 100 years, they would emit less >radionuclide than the coal plant does per KWH. > A good point if it’s true. Is it ?
Actually I am glad you asked. I made it up. But it could be true. I have heard some numbers which I would not trust without a lot more research on how much radioisotope pollution coal produces, but I do not expect much of it to become free. I think it is left in the ash, mostly, and we then have the problem of how well sequestered this ash is, compared to the fuel rods and such. Forgive me for stating a counter point as if it were a factoid. It is just a possible conclusion if we wanted to do a fair evaluation of which process screws us over the most. > c) Do all stakeholders agree on the criteria ? > d) If not (c), then who the hell are you to impose a solution ?
Ah! The very heart of democracy. We all get a vote. But our votes can be bought, re-educated, or even simply nullified by the leaders doing one thing and telling us another. On the other hand, the physics of this is not a voteable issue. The question is not if the stakeholder agrees, but if the physics is complete and sound. I want the science right, then try to address the public perceptions.
Response:
>> >lot of that cost is securing the waste for eternity (because the waste > >includes poisons that never break down), > Never ? > And at what concentration ? >Wait. We never addressed either of these issues when we were being >frightened by fuel rods?
Of course we did, though the question is one of (perception of ?) integrity of containment ? > But for the heavy metals, the best we can do is >oxidize them into a ceramic like material that won’t disolve.
Actually, the best thing might be to bombard some of them with neutrons and extract more energy, but that’s another story… > Otherwise, >like lead, they just hang around,
Decaying… Unlike lead… > so the concentration had better be very >very low.
? > >Why one solution for coal and another for nuclear? If the reactors just > >sprayed the fuel into the air after 100 years, they would emit less > >radionuclide than the coal plant does per KWH. > A good point if it’s true. Is it ? >Actually I am glad you asked. I made it up.
Thought so ! > But it could be true.
Might be… > I have >heard some numbers which I would not trust without a lot more research on >how much radioisotope pollution coal produces, but I do not expect much of >it to become free. I think it is left in the ash, mostly,
Why do you think that ? I thought most things were pretty volatile at combustion temperatures. > and we then have >the problem of how well sequestered this ash is, compared to the fuel rods >and such. Forgive me for stating a counter point as if it were a factoid. It >is just a possible conclusion if we wanted to do a fair evaluation of which >process screws us over the most.
Yes. Coming from a coal mining family I can see both sides of the argument. Proper life cycle analysis would be appropriate for sure, but you have to appreciate the limits of the ‘numeric’ approach. > c) Do all stakeholders agree on the criteria ? > d) If not (c), then who the hell are you to impose a solution ? >Ah! The very heart of democracy.
Yes. > We all get a vote.
But we are not all well informed ! > But our votes can be >bought, re-educated, or even simply nullified by the leaders doing one thing >and telling us another.
Yes. > On the other hand, the physics of this is not a >voteable issue. The question is not if the stakeholder agrees, but if the >physics is complete and sound.
No. That is simply wrong. The physics is not subject to democratic process (though the elements of science you are taught may be). None the less, the decision will necessarily be made by those with incomplete knowledge. To get a good environmental decision, it is just as important to have the decision makers understand the science as it is to have the science correct. One can convey no benefit without the other. > I want the science right, then try to address >the public perceptions.
Order them whichever way you like – you still have to deal with both to get an outcome that is fair to all stakeholders. Cheers, J/. — John Beardmore
Response:
>…
Would you kindly move your nuclear thoughts out of alt.solar.thermal, home of "practical uses for the sun’s heat"? Thanks. Nick
Response:
> Nuclear may look cheap until you factor in the cost of contaminating a > state or two with radioactive isotopes.
I have never understood this: aren’t the wastes from nuclear plants a fairly small volume of material, easily contained? And which states have been contaminated and how much has it cost the taxpayer?
Response:
In Search of a National Energy Strategy – Why Cold, Hard Scientific Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy Political Ideals 6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc. http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=769
Response:
"N. Thornton" wrote : "Roger Gt" wrote : > "N. Thornton" wrote : : > : > : > In Search of a National Energy Strategy – Why Cold, Hard : > : > : > Scientific Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy : > : > : > Political Ideals : > : > : > 6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, : > Inc. : > http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=769 : > : > : an idiotic article with clearly false assumptions in every : > point it : > : > : made – at least out of the first third I read. Regards, NT : : > : > Interesting choice of words! : > <snipped Authors reply> : : > : This further comment does not address the numerous and somewhat : > dim : > : problems with the original article. While the article may get : > people : > : thinking, and exercising their brains looking for all its : > mistakes, : > : and thus learning something, the article’s conclusions are still : > : tripe. Regards, NT : : > In your opinion? Which is not the point! Your saying that your : > context superimposed upon someone else’s article is more valid : > then the Authors own? I see much I agree with, as well as some : > points I will privately question. But it is too clearly : > addressing a real problem to dismiss so cavalierly! : > : > Roger Gt : : : Its too full of cockups to be taken seriously, IMHO. Should we go : through them one by one? I’d been trying to avoid it so far : Regards, NT You don’t get it. Your opinion is worth what I paid for it! :>) I will keep my own council on the value of the original work! Roger Gt
Response:
Well yes if you read the resumes they go back that far. It’s not an opinion on the current administration just look how their families investment profile looks.Past ,present and future. mikell
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The only drawback to nuclear power is emotion. The last few plants under > construction but never finished stand testament to that. The Cheney’s and > Bush’s have invested in oil and how to get it. That’s why we are where we’re > at today. > Yeah, right. We haven’t built any nuke plants since the 80’s. Oh, > I know, Bush and Cheney’s influence is so strong it goes back in time. > Yes, it’s emotionalism over reality that keeps us from having more > nuke plants. But, blaming it on a politician you obviously don’t like > is asinine.
Response:
… > I love these ‘arguments’ about ‘..there is no way to prove…..X’. There is > also ‘no way to prove the Brooklyn Bridge will be standing tomorrow’; ’no > way to prove the house you’re living in will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way > to prove a particular tree will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way to prove a > particular airplane won’t fall out of the sky tomorrow’. > Engineering can only build on past performance and extrapolate. It’s done > every day in every new building built, every new bridge built, every new car > built. It’s acceptable for 767’s to be built this way carrying thousands, > if not millions of passengers in their lifetime. Or every home built in a > city. Yet somehow the scaremonger’s and irrational don’t think it is > acceptable for nuclear waste.
I think the main issue with the nuclear waste is that all the past performance and extrapolations indicate that what is promised by politicians (keeping it safely) isn’t going to happen. More to the point, it especially won’t happen where they plan to do it. > And have you ever think about the burden’s that have been left us by our > predecessors? Probably not very often. … How many generations were poisoned by > lead plumbing because of our ancestor’s?? Was that ‘ethical’?
People curse prior generations all the time. Anyone who has had to do any kind of toxic waste cleanup (including lead and asbestos) on their property usually has a bad opinion of previous standard practices and sometimes previous owners. Anyone who has come down sick due to toxic waste usually is not happy about it. The question is, should we do this ourselves? Should we knowingly poison and kill people in the future? Most folks would rather not. >For that matter, how do you secure nuclear plants and wastes against >terrorists who have proven to be both inventive and suicidal? > The same way you secure airplanes, public monuments, highways, everything > else. By also being inventive. Considering the number of airplanes > hijacked, the number of buildings attacked and the number of nuclear plants > not attacked, it would seem that nuclear plant security is working.
We do not secure any of these things very well. It’s just not possible. Security comes mainly from various police forces attempting to catch the dangerous people before they do something or, at least, not very long after they have. Anthony
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : > In Search of a National Energy Strategy – Why Cold, Hard > Scientific > : > Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy Political Ideals > : > 6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc. > : > > : > > http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=769 > : an idiotic article with clearly false assumptions in every point it > : made – at least out of the first third I read. > : > : Regards, NT > Interesting choice of words! > A response from the author posted after the article might be in > order! > Mr. Verbeke… Thanks for your comment. You obviously have more > up-to-date information on costs of wind power than I do. The > purpose > of my article was not really to debate the economics of > alternative > energies, nor their possibilities — they are all indeed possible, > and if we are willing to pay the price, they have value in niche > markets and special applications. My intent was to point out that > certain realities of science make them impractical for backbone > energy resources. > For example, no amount of research will change the amount of solar > radiation striking the earth’s surface. This is a limiting factor > that can never be overcome no matter how many billions we spend on > research. > In the U.S, most renewable generation resources which operate in > the > black are able to do so only because of taxpayer subsidies. This > somewhat masks their true costs to energy consumers. As you say, > costs may in fact be reduced by further research, but this will > never > make them suitable as primary energy resources, simply because of > the > amount of energy we need in order to continue to grow. > We need energy today, and we have only so much money to spend on > research. Why not spend it on ways to make what we already have in > great abundance work to our advantage? Why abandoning these > abundant > resources and go in search of something which does not now exist > and > may never exist? > As for my "conveniently forget(ing) to mention that each year, > 100’s > of millions of birds are killed by the giant hood of the SUV’s > roaming on US highways and … by domestic cats," I would not have > mentioned it even if I had remembered it because it has nothing to > do > with the subject matter of developing a national energy strategy. > It is refreshing to know that a fellow engineer is reading my > article > and has taken the time to comment on it at such length. > Thanks again for doing so. — Richard Barker
This further comment does not address the numerous and somewhat dim problems with the original article. While the article may get people thinking, and exercising their brains looking for all its mistakes, and thus learning something, the article’s conclusions are still tripe. Regards, NT
Response:
> The only drawback to nuclear power is emotion. The last few plants under > construction but never finished stand testament to that. The Cheney’s and > Bush’s have invested in oil and how to get it. That’s why we are where we’re > at today.
Yeah, right. We haven’t built any nuke plants since the 80’s. Oh, I know, Bush and Cheney’s influence is so strong it goes back in time. Yes, it’s emotionalism over reality that keeps us from having more nuke plants. But, blaming it on a politician you obviously don’t like is asinine.
Response:
: >
: > : > : > : > : > Nuclear may look cheap until you factor in the cost of contaminating a : > state or two with radioactive isotopes. : : I have never understood this: aren’t the wastes from nuclear : plants a fairly small volume of material, easily contained? Yes, absolutely and it is common practice. : And which states have been contaminated and how much has it cost : the taxpayer? None, nor is it likely or even possible given the currently imposed standards for handling. Good questions, too many people take the anti-nuke kooks at their word with out checking. :
Response:
>In Search of a National Energy Strategy – Why Cold, Hard Scientific >Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy Political Ideals >6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc. >http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=769
blah.. blah… More scientific soothsaying.. and half truths.. Still using old prices for renewables. Which are getting CHEAPER each year as scale of economy grows. While the other sources are getting MORE expensive year by year. And using old stereotypes for wind power… tsk..tsk.. The larger turbines have blades which are slow and visible enough that most birds can avoid them. (reduced bird kills). The author also ignores that the Sierra Club is NOW promoting wind power ! http://www.wind-works.org/articles/scsitingadvisory.html Nuclear may look cheap until you factor in the cost of contaminating a state or two with radioactive isotopes. Same goes for burning coal. The emissions are a significant problem that will never go away, Dependence Foreign Oil.. Just look at the cost of Iraq operation.. Projected to be over ~250B$! Just to wrest control of it’s oil from Saddam! Imagine if that money had been put into conservation and renewables !
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > … > I love these ‘arguments’ about ‘..there is no way to prove…..X’. There is > also ‘no way to prove the Brooklyn Bridge will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no > way to prove the house you’re living in will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way > to prove a particular tree will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way to prove a > particular airplane won’t fall out of the sky tomorrow’. > Engineering can only build on past performance and extrapolate. It’s done > every day in every new building built, every new bridge built, every new car > built. It’s acceptable for 767’s to be built this way carrying thousands, > if not millions of passengers in their lifetime. Or every home built in a > city. Yet somehow the scaremonger’s and irrational don’t think it is > acceptable for nuclear waste. > I think the main issue with the nuclear waste is that all the past > performance and extrapolations indicate that what is promised by > politicians (keeping it safely) isn’t going to happen.
Last time I checked, politicians weren’t designing things. Just bi** about why some money should go to their favorite projects. More to the > point, it especially won’t happen where they plan to do it. > And have you ever think about the burden’s that have been left us by our > predecessors? Probably not very often. … How many generations were poisoned by > lead plumbing because of our ancestor’s?? Was that ‘ethical’? > People curse prior generations all the time. Anyone who has had to > do any kind of toxic waste cleanup (including lead and asbestos) on > their property usually has a bad opinion of previous standard practices > and sometimes previous owners. Anyone who has come down sick due to > toxic waste usually is not happy about it. > The question is, should we do this ourselves? Should we knowingly > poison and kill people in the future? Most folks would rather not.
Is burying toxic waste in a well marked, guarded, monitored location ‘knowingly poisoning and killing’?? Nuclear or otherwise toxic? How many barrels of toxic waste are being buryed every day with far less oversight/planning everyday? What is being done about that? If burying nuclear waste is ‘unethical’, then so is burying many other toxic metals/toxins. Considering the relative amounts and quantities involved, seems like we should be focusing on coal ash and lead batteries more than we are. Yet these receive far less attention (haven’t seen Dan Rather saying anything about them on the 6 o’clock news). And they may ‘poison and kill’ many in future generations than nuclear waste. daestrom
Response:
> In Search of a National Energy Strategy – Why Cold, Hard Scientific > Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy Political Ideals > 6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc. > http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=769
an idiotic article with clearly false assumptions in every point it made – at least out of the first third I read. Regards, NT
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Most waste right now is stored close to the reactor, becuase no one > > has figured out what to do with it. > Wrong. Most waste is stored close the reactor because it is safer that > way. Radioactive decay of used nuclear fuel occurs at an exponentially > decreasing rate. That means that the bulk of the radiation is gone after a very > few years and then moving it to a permanent storage site becomes much safer. > Theft of recently used nuclear fuel is less of a problem because safely handling > it represents a big problem, and it is much more easily detectible than older > used fuel. > The scientific/engineering community HAS figured out what to do with > nuclear waste, nuclear waste storage is now mostly a political problem because > of the misinformation and scare mongers. > Well, capital punishment doesn’t cost much, unless you include the > average of $2 million of lawyer’s fees it takes in the US. Yes, the > process of getting someone to accept your 10,000 year radioactive > waste is expensive because of NIMBYism, but the expense is a real one > that must be paid. > Is it possible to bury a large volume of radioactive waste for a > longer period than civilization has yet existed? Maybe. Is it cheap? > No. Yucca mountain in the US hasn’t even opened yet, and the local > government in Nevada is doing everthing it can to stop it. If you > tried to run the Europe and the US and Asia off of nuclear power, how > many yucca mountains would be needed, and what would the real expense > be? Is it ethical to place this burden on people 1,000 years in the > future, when in truth there is no way to prove that a particular bit > of engineering will be reliable for that long?
I love these ‘arguments’ about ‘..there is no way to prove…..X’. There is also ‘no way to prove the Brooklyn Bridge will be standing tomorrow’; ’no way to prove the house you’re living in will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way to prove a particular tree will be standing tomorrow’; ‘no way to prove a particular airplane won’t fall out of the sky tomorrow’. Engineering can only build on past performance and extrapolate. It’s done every day in every new building built, every new bridge built, every new car built. It’s acceptable for 767’s to be built this way carrying thousands, if not millions of passengers in their lifetime. Or every home built in a city. Yet somehow the scaremonger’s and irrational don’t think it is acceptable for nuclear waste. And have you ever think about the burden’s that have been left us by our predecessors? Probably not very often. Yet who gave us racism, slavery, religious hatrid…?? We don’t go around blaming the ancient Egyptions or Romans for such things now, do we? How many generations were poisoned by lead plumbing because of our ancestor’s?? Was that ‘ethical’? In 500 years, our progeny may be thanking us in their nightly prayers (or whatever passes for that in their time) for putting all of that valuable fissile and radioactive material in such a well marked location that they were able to find it and save them a lot of trouble. They may use some of it for irradiating foods to limit spoilage; fueling their reactors; various medical and industrial processes. > For that matter, how do you secure nuclear plants and wastes against > terrorists who have proven to be both inventive and suicidal?
The same way you secure airplanes, public monuments, highways, everything else. By also being inventive. Considering the number of airplanes hijacked, the number of buildings attacked and the number of nuclear plants not attacked, it would seem that nuclear plant security is working. daestrom
Response:
The only drawback to nuclear power is emotion. The last few plants under construction but never finished stand testament to that. The Cheney’s and Bush’s have invested in oil and how to get it. That’s why we are where we’re at today. mikell
Response:
> Most waste right now is stored close to the reactor, becuase no one > has figured out what to do with it.
Wrong. Most waste is stored close the reactor because it is safer that way. Radioactive decay of used nuclear fuel occurs at an exponentially decreasing rate. That means that the bulk of the radiation is gone after a very few years and then moving it to a permanent storage site becomes much safer. Theft of recently used nuclear fuel is less of a problem because safely handling it represents a big problem, and it is much more easily detectible than older used fuel. The scientific/engineering community HAS figured out what to do with nuclear waste, nuclear waste storage is now mostly a political problem because of the misinformation and scare mongers. Vaughn
Response:
: > In Search of a National Energy Strategy – Why Cold, Hard Scientific : > Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy Political Ideals : > 6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc. : > : > http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=769 : : an idiotic article with clearly false assumptions in every point it : made – at least out of the first third I read. : : Regards, NT Interesting choice of words! A response from the author posted after the article might be in order! Mr. Verbeke… Thanks for your comment. You obviously have more up-to-date information on costs of wind power than I do. The purpose of my article was not really to debate the economics of alternative energies, nor their possibilities — they are all indeed possible, and if we are willing to pay the price, they have value in niche markets and special applications. My intent was to point out that certain realities of science make them impractical for backbone energy resources. For example, no amount of research will change the amount of solar radiation striking the earth’s surface. This is a limiting factor that can never be overcome no matter how many billions we spend on research. In the U.S, most renewable generation resources which operate in the black are able to do so only because of taxpayer subsidies. This somewhat masks their true costs to energy consumers. As you say, costs may in fact be reduced by further research, but this will never make them suitable as primary energy resources, simply because of the amount of energy we need in order to continue to grow. We need energy today, and we have only so much money to spend on research. Why not spend it on ways to make what we already have in great abundance work to our advantage? Why abandoning these abundant resources and go in search of something which does not now exist and may never exist? As for my "conveniently forget(ing) to mention that each year, 100’s of millions of birds are killed by the giant hood of the SUV’s roaming on US highways and … by domestic cats," I would not have mentioned it even if I had remembered it because it has nothing to do with the subject matter of developing a national energy strategy. It is refreshing to know that a fellow engineer is reading my article and has taken the time to comment on it at such length. Thanks again for doing so. — Richard Barker
Response:
> The problem with nuclear power is that the current reators aren’t safe. > Chernobyl was just one example, 3 mile island was another. These are > reactors that blew up completely.
TMI did NOT blow up completly; in fact, it did not blow up at all, read the facts here: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle….. Chernobyl is a whole different deal, and something that can not happen in the US. Why? Because it happened first in 1957 at a place in the UK then called Windscale and we learned not to use graphite-moderated reactors for power production. Instead, we use pressurized water reactors. I respectfully suggest that you Google "Wigner reaction Windscale", read, and come back smarter. > Chernobyl contaminated farms 2,000 miles > away. Meat from farms in Wales and milk from farms in Wales was contaminated > and had to be treated as toxic waste. Cancer across the area has risen > tremendously. > Because the accidents can be so severe for even a minor failure, the risk is > far too great.
Yes, I agree that we should not build graphite-moderated power producing nuclear reactors (the Chernobyl type). Also, no nuclear reactors should be built without containment buildings (like Chernobyl). By the way, this is pretty much the way we have always done it in the United States. Vaughn
Response:
:
: >… : Would you kindly move your nuclear thoughts out of alt.solar.thermal, : home of "practical uses for the sun’s heat"? : : Thanks. : Nick Would you kindly use your delete key? This is interesting!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : > > : > > : > > : > > : > > : > Nuclear may look cheap until you factor in the cost of > contaminating a > : > state or two with radioactive isotopes. > : > : I have never understood this: aren’t the wastes from nuclear > : plants a fairly small volume of material, easily contained? > Yes, absolutely and it is common practice.
Most waste right now is stored close to the reactor, becuase no one has figured out what to do with it. Waste has to be contained basically for eternity, so you’re foisting a debt upon humanity that can never be repaid, so that you can watch silly programs on the TV for a few years. Whatever the volume, engineering for eternity is expensive; just look up ‘yucca mountain’. Throughout the ages, all this waste will have to be guarded against both leakage and theft for blackmail or terrorism. There is a lot of waste even now; to use nuclear power to replace coal and provide power to growing nations would make the problem much worse.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > "N. Thornton" wrote > : > : > In Search of a National Energy Strategy – Why Cold, Hard > : > : > Scientific Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy > : > : > Political Ideals > : > : > 6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, > Inc. > : > : > > http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=769 > : > : an idiotic article with clearly false assumptions in every > point it > : > : made – at least out of the first third I read. Regards, NT > : > Interesting choice of words! > <snipped Authors reply> > : This further comment does not address the numerous and somewhat > dim > : problems with the original article. While the article may get > people > : thinking, and exercising their brains looking for all its > mistakes, > : and thus learning something, the article’s conclusions are still > : tripe. Regards, NT > In your opinion? Which is not the point! Your saying that your > context superimposed upon someone else’s article is more valid > then the Authors own? I see much I agree with, as well as some > points I will privately question. But it is too clearly > addressing a real problem to dismiss so cavalierly! > Roger Gt
Its too full of cockups to be taken seriously, IMHO. Should we go through them one by one? I’d been trying to avoid it so far Regards, NT
Response:
"Zebedee" wrote : "Roger Gt" wrote : > None, nor is it likely or even possible given the currently : > imposed standards for handling. : > : > Good questions, too many people take the anti-nuke kooks at their : > word with out checking. : : The problem with nuclear power is that the current reators aren’t safe. : Chernobyl was just one example, 3 mile island was another. These are : reactors that blew up completely. Chernobyl contaminated farms 2,000 miles : away. Meat from farms in Wales and milk from farms in Wales was contaminated : and had to be treated as toxic waste. Cancer across the area has risen : tremendously. : : Because the accidents can be so severe for even a minor failure, the risk is : far too great. : Yours – : Zebedee No one builds reactors like the one at Chernobyl now! However there have been more casualties from plants burning coal than nuclear reactors. A lot of what you claim is hysteria generated by the Anti-nuke kooks, and it appears you are a member of that group. No other facility has had such an incident, and none are anticipated. But you knew that! The French and Canadians are quietly building reactors and they are unlikely to take any un-necessary risks. Because something MAY happen, means you CAN prevent it, but disregarding a resource due to unreasonable fear of a possibility is just stupid! You could not get out of bed in the morning if that was your normal mode! You might get hit by a train on it’s way to pick up some Nuclear fuel! :>)
Response:
"N. Thornton" wrote : "Roger Gt" wrote : > "N. Thornton" wrote : > : Phil Cook wrote : : > : > In Search of a National Energy Strategy – Why Cold, Hard : > : > Scientific Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy : > : > Political Ideals : > : > 6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc. : > : > : > http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=769 : : > : an idiotic article with clearly false assumptions in every point it : > : made – at least out of the first third I read. Regards, NT : > Interesting choice of words! <snipped Authors reply> : This further comment does not address the numerous and somewhat dim : problems with the original article. While the article may get people : thinking, and exercising their brains looking for all its mistakes, : and thus learning something, the article’s conclusions are still : tripe. Regards, NT In your opinion? Which is not the point! Your saying that your context superimposed upon someone else’s article is more valid then the Authors own? I see much I agree with, as well as some points I will privately question. But it is too clearly addressing a real problem to dismiss so cavalierly! Roger Gt
Response:
> None, nor is it likely or even possible given the currently > imposed standards for handling. > Good questions, too many people take the anti-nuke kooks at their > word with out checking.
The problem with nuclear power is that the current reators aren’t safe. Chernobyl was just one example, 3 mile island was another. These are reactors that blew up completely. Chernobyl contaminated farms 2,000 miles away. Meat from farms in Wales and milk from farms in Wales was contaminated and had to be treated as toxic waste. Cancer across the area has risen tremendously. Because the accidents can be so severe for even a minor failure, the risk is far too great. — Yours Zebedee (Claiming asylum in an attempt to escape paying his debts to Dougal and Florence)
Response:
> : Its too full of cockups to be taken seriously, IMHO. Should we > go > : through them one by one? I’d been trying to avoid it so far > : Regards, NT > You don’t get it. Your opinion is worth what I paid for it! :>) > I will keep my own council on the value of the original work! > Roger Gt
ok heh
Response:
> The problem with nuclear power is that the current reators aren’t safe. > Chernobyl was just one example, 3 mile island was another. These are > reactors that blew up completely.
TMI blew up? That would be news to everyone who lives right around it. Making yourself look ignorant of basic fact does little to support your points. I’m assuming that you are an American since most of the rest of the world is well aware of the percent of energy in Europe and Japan that is produced by Nuclear power. The examples that you cite are 50+ year old designs which are all that is common in the US due to people like you NIMBYing any modern reactor construction. It’s the equivalent of saying that modern cars aren’t safe since a ‘57 Chevy didn’t have seat belts, air bags, ABS, crumple zones, etc. > Chernobyl contaminated farms 2,000 miles > away. Meat from farms in Wales and milk from farms in Wales was contaminated > and had to be treated as toxic waste. Cancer across the area has risen > tremendously.
You are exposed to FAR more radioactive waste from Coal fired power plants than Chernobyl. Take a look at http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html for a scope of the actual numbers. We have much more to worry about from the existing coal energy production infrastructure than new nuclear development. > Because the accidents can be so severe for even a minor failure, the risk is > far too great.
Modern designs are self-limiting. That is to say they can not go critical (which neither Chernobyl nor TMI were in danger of anyway) but will in fact naturally "fail safe." Bill
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Most waste right now is stored close to the reactor, becuase no one > has figured out what to do with it. > Wrong. Most waste is stored close the reactor because it is safer that > way. Radioactive decay of used nuclear fuel occurs at an exponentially > decreasing rate. That means that the bulk of the radiation is gone after a very > few years and then moving it to a permanent storage site becomes much safer. > Theft of recently used nuclear fuel is less of a problem because safely handling > it represents a big problem, and it is much more easily detectible than older > used fuel. > The scientific/engineering community HAS figured out what to do with > nuclear waste, nuclear waste storage is now mostly a political problem because > of the misinformation and scare mongers.
Well, capital punishment doesn’t cost much, unless you include the average of $2 million of lawyer’s fees it takes in the US. Yes, the process of getting someone to accept your 10,000 year radioactive waste is expensive because of NIMBYism, but the expense is a real one that must be paid. Is it possible to bury a large volume of radioactive waste for a longer period than civilization has yet existed? Maybe. Is it cheap? No. Yucca mountain in the US hasn’t even opened yet, and the local government in Nevada is doing everthing it can to stop it. If you tried to run the Europe and the US and Asia off of nuclear power, how many yucca mountains would be needed, and what would the real expense be? Is it ethical to place this burden on people 1,000 years in the future, when in truth there is no way to prove that a particular bit of engineering will be reliable for that long? For that matter, how do you secure nuclear plants and wastes against terrorists who have proven to be both inventive and suicidal?
Response:
> Well yes if you read the resumes they go back that far. It’s not an opinion > on the current administration just look how their families investment > profile looks.Past ,present and future.
This just in: businesses compete with each other.
Response:
on a lighter note – what style of music does your band play? im an electronic music composer… i do live stuff with vocals at the moment… bw miriam – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Thanks for the response! sure, I agree with you that the delusions are > real to him. Trouble is, he’s charismatic enough to get the other guys > to accept he *might* be the new messiah, so to speak, and their ‘benefit > of the doubt’ is interpreted by him as support for his grand delusion. > I understand how this works – I was a scientologist for four years, so I > fully appreciate how a charismatic guy, moving goalposts, can bamboozle > others. It can be so persuasive that Hubbard himself believed the > content of his own manipulation-based techniques after a while… > So the first thing I need to do is to get the other boys in the band to > understand what we’re looking at. I don’t doubt I can do that with > enough time, but the problem is going to be getting the singer to > appreciate it. As you say, his delusions are real to him, and he’s sure > he’s not crazy, so it’s jumping the gun to suggest he come with me to > see a doctor of any description. I need to find a route in first, before > we even mention the route OUT! > cheers! > Don 
>Zardos 
… but at the same time, i think maybe it might be healthy to bring it here, in virtual space… cos i know how a woman’s mind works, we are complex little beasties we women… and we’re trained by the media to compare ourselves to others all the time, we’re always feeling we’re not perfect… so its kinda hard for us…. i can understand her feelings of insecurity because i’ve felt similiar with an ex of mine who had a thing about certain women in the media, even though i *knew* full well it meant nothing to him… it was just a bit of fun… but a womans mind is a very self-critical thing…. i know gwen is just something fun for you too, and i think it *is* cool that you can come here and have some fun… yeah… sometimes these things arent your fault, or her fault, or anyone’s fault… there are just times when we dont understand each other as people… when we feel insecure or get angry with each other, when we need to listen to each other and understand how *each other* is feeling… from both sides… and thats just human life… its not always easy… but there will be more good times too, im very sure of that…. take care mate m~ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > So things here have calmed down, no exactly back to normal, talked a > bit to the wife, she says she’s been feeling very insecure lately, > witch ain’t my fault, well maybe the Gwen stuff doesn’t help, but i’ve > been really good with that just lately, i don’t tell my wife about it, > i come in here and dump it on you instead ( sorry about that ). > So i guess in a couple of days, we’ll back be back where we were and > all forgotten, right, right, right. > Oh well, another page in me diary, and nothing got resolved