# Nuclear power generation.



## babalu87 (May 24, 2007)

Why isnt it more popular?

The US Navy (you know those military dummies according to Kerry) have over 75 nuclear powered vessels, how often do we hear of an incident?
We all know why Chernobyl blew up, complacency. Besides the issue of radiation why hasnt this been explored more by the United States? 

France gets much of their energy from Nuclear power, why do we continue to use coal for most of ours?


----------



## Mike Wilson (May 24, 2007)

Especially when the costs are so similar... see the below chart.

Now, Hyman Rickover's guys definitely inspire me to more confidence than your average nuke tech at Millstone, but there are now much more modern and safe nuke plant designs that take the human out of the system, and reduce risk.  I look out my window and see a nuke plant on the horizon, and Electric Boat just past that, yet I still sleep at night.

-- Mike


----------



## webbie (May 24, 2007)

I'm still skeptical about the total cost of the nuclear fuel cycle. Look at all the regular Superfund sites that are costing billions to partially clean up now. What is the real cost of the total fuel cycle of Nuclear Power? In other words, everything from digging the ore to storing the waste for tens of thousands of years?

I think some of those economics are false because the government changed the law and allows the plants to store waste onsite until they figure something else out. Then we (as taxpayers) will be expected to foot the bill for the mountains in NV where they want to store waste. Oh, wait - NV is now developing and they don't want it there either. Maybe we can ship it to poor third world nations and pollute them to death!

The safety argument may not be valid, but I think the waste one is. Throwing the responsibility on future generations just seems so "unsustainable".

Another concern is the proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons. Personally, I think this is all water over the dam....but the sad fact is that the more reactors and nuclear materials and knowledge that are floating around...means more countries with the bomb. As I said, I think that is a done deal anyway. Once Pakistan was "allowed" to have bombs, the writing was on the wall. The Saudis are going for them now, and of course they not only have the money and means, but they have billions of dollars worth of US made military hardware to deliver 'em with.


----------



## webbie (May 24, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> Why isnt it more popular?
> 
> 
> France gets much of their energy from Nuclear power, why do we continue to use coal for most of ours?



What? You are looking FORWARD to France. You....you....you.......Freedom Fries Forever, I say. Down with people who enjoy themselves! Down with good food, sex, mistresses, wine and general enjoyment of life. It is so anti-american that......that I have to get my nose back to the grindstone right now.

Down with intellectuals, readers, oral sex, philosophy....good bread, even.

How can we listed to folks who torture ducks? And who use unisex communal bathrooms? No way, Jose!
 :coolsmirk:


----------



## Hogwildz (May 24, 2007)

I have a nuke plant 2-1/2 miles from me. I ain't the most thrilled about it. But the last place I lived had one 40 miles away. At least this place its a quick painless death.
As far as how safe they are, by percentages I am sure they are. But I remember 3 Mile Island growing up, also near where I lived. Chernobyl, and I bet there are a few other incidents we just don't know about. Its all good, until having to get rid of the spent fuel rods, then what?
Why can't the plants be put in remote regions and the power lined to its places of need? My biggest fear is more terrorism against a plant than plant failure.
Still all in all it beats coal. Have a coal burning generation plant nearby also, about 7 miles away, the mountains of spent coal slag looks as nasty as it truly is.
Heavy rains and it runs off all over. BTW its right next to a main river. Tell me there ain't bad stuff happening from that. Just found out the cancer rate of this area is real high. Oh well I'm here for life, be it long or short.


----------



## babalu87 (May 24, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> babalu87 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



France is turning things around, you did see who they elected right?
Everyone is for a mistress until one leaves the spooge on that navy dress or their wife finds out.

Wants a national language, tighter borders etc, etc, etc
Hell I may move there once the crap hits the fan here  :-S


----------



## Mike Wilson (May 24, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Down with ...sex, mistresses,
> 
> Down with... oral sex,



Oh my... HearthNet has just taken a turn... however in which direction, I'm not exactly sure...  :gulp:  

-- Mike


----------



## TMonter (May 24, 2007)

Actually I did my Master's Thesis on human factors and focused some on the Chernobyl accident. Chernobyl happened not because of complacency, but because the operators were operating the RBMK reactor in an unsafe manner (not to mention the design was flawed to begin with).

The biggest problems with nuclear power:

1) Long term storage of high and medium level radioactive waste.

2) Capital cost, the capital costs associated with a nuke plant are enormous and the electricity cost out the back end is more expensive than oil or gas.

3) Insurance. Nuclear plants cannot get private insurance and are usually insured by the government. I don't know about you but I want the government to stop subsidizing big business.

4) Fuel. Uranium still has to be mined which creates all sorts of environmental problems on its own.

5) Short life cycle. In terms of operating life, nuclear plants have a relatively short life cycle (40 years before a complete overhaul) because of radiation induced fatigue, especially around the components of the core.


----------



## webbie (May 24, 2007)

That all sounds correct, T.

Isn't it strange that while we all understand we are not paying the REAL price for oil, we wish to replace it with something else that we don't want to pay the real price for? Except, in this case, we want to shift much of the load to the next 100 to 100,000 years, instead of the couple of generations we are used to throwing our debts upon.

Speaking of French, I can't really find decent fries around here.....except maybe when the local fair comes to town. I got addicted to those Belgian Fries - the ones that they have on every street in Amsterdam. Fresh cut, double fried and delectable. I had some that claimed to be Belgian Fries at the Sierra Grill here in Noho last night, but sad to say they didn't make it - cut small and greasy. 

Glad to see the French are coming back into favor. I'm sure they missed us (NOT)...


----------



## Highbeam (May 24, 2007)

All of those problems are dealt with every day in the navy ships. I worked as a naval architect in the shipyards in the Puget Sound at the scrapping of nuclear powered submarines. We pulled the rods, sent them away, and then welded the reactors shut and barged them off to Hanford for a long life of sitting in the desert until the radiation goes away. The reactors are cooled off within 100 years, the fuel rods take longer but they are small. Nuclear power is this big mysterious dangerous thing until you actually sit next to a reactor. The ships actually have two reactors and we send all of these things into wars to be shot at. 

It will happen, just not until the easy options are used up. Politics.

Maybe just build the powerplant next to the pier and pipe the steam from a navy ship.


----------



## webbie (May 24, 2007)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> . We pulled the rods, sent them away, and then welded the reactors shut and barged them off to Hanford for a long life of sitting in the desert until the radiation goes away.
> 
> the fuel rods take longer but they are small. Nuclear power is this big mysterious dangerous thing until you actually sit next to a reactor.
> .



So, tell me how long they take, and what is the combined and projected amount of spent fuel rods and other long lasting radioactive material which need stored?

The answer is that we have:
"In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states that there are "millions of gallons of radioactive waste" as well as "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material" and also "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water"

So concentrating on the really bad stuff, the spent fuel, it will need to be stored for about 10,000 years or more - more then double the time of the earliest records of mankind on the earth. 

Even that can be done, but what is the cost? We've all seen the way projects go above budget, and is it fair to saddle future generation with the invoice for a quick 50 years (life of nuclear plant) of "cheap" electric?

Even solar cells and wind machines have a cost - the pollution and minerals used in mining the metals and creating the stuff - and then in getting rid of it, etc.

How about insurance for Nuclear Plants? Turns out the plant operators can't get it! Too risky! Do insurance companies have it wrong? Instead, your Congress in 2005 reinstated and extended the Price-Anderson Act (covers the nuclear generation industry) for another 20 years—the longest extension Congress has ever granted.

All I ask in the nuclear debate is that we take the same considerations in mind that we SHOULD be taking with other fuels.


----------



## Mike Wilson (May 24, 2007)

Uranium comes from mines... so take the nuclear waste and put it back in the very same mines it came out of.  Yeah, it wasn't as enriched as when we removed it, but you still wouldn't want to drink a nice tall glass of water from any hill with a uranium deposit in it.  Either that, or dump it in France... same effect.

-- Mike


----------



## Oregon Fire (May 24, 2007)

I had the pleasure to have lunch with two nuclear engineers - they were working as electrical engineers doing design work...     They told me a few things...

1. Newer nuclear power plants create pressure in the containment chamber if they lose coolant supply and heat up - this shuts down the reaction.    The chance of a chernobyl meltdown is very low with this design.
2. Westinghouse has two very good designs on the shelf and are selling and installing them in foreign countries.  Look at the ap1000 here...

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/index.shtm

3. Using newer reactors, the fuel is re-enriched and re-used so very little goes off to yucca mountain for a million years, etc.

4. In the past, each nuclear site had to be licensed with the NRC - now the design is licensed and they can construct them without having to go to the NRC to approve every plant - they are all the same...

-------
  If we want to have the U.S. continue to compete in the world marketplace - power must be competitively priced relative to the energy available to our global competitors. 

  I can only hope that we get off our butts and build some nuclear powerplants pronto.    I would love for stability in the middle east to not be "in our strategic interest".  Alternatively, I would like to see a ton of nuclear power - generates no greenhouse gases - only steam.   You can generate hydrogen using this power - and power electric vehicles.    Have homes convert to electric heat after the new plants are on-line and prices are stabilized and reasonable.

jeff


----------



## webbie (May 24, 2007)

Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> Uranium comes from mines... so take the nuclear waste and put it back in the very same mines it came out of.  Yeah, it wasn't as enriched as when we removed it, but you still wouldn't want to drink a nice tall glass of water from any hill with a uranium deposit in it.  Either that, or dump it in France... same effect.
> 
> -- Mike



Mike, certainly you know the the waste contains dozens of other elements that were not there in first place--isotopes generated during the reactions. 

So we are not dealing with just Uranium here - 

Oh, and those mine tailings? They have not even put those back in the ground...they are in giant piles releasing their radiation to the atmosphere.

When the cost of all this is figured in, then someone can calculate how cheap the power is.

From:http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0338.shtml

"Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste are materials from nuclear power plants and government defense programs. These materials contain highly radioactive elements, such as cesium, strontium, technetium, and neptunium.

Some of these elements will remain radioactive for a few years, while others will be radioactive for millions of years."

No, you cannot put uranium back in the mine any easier than you can put DDT or Dioxin back into the oil well or wherever they come from.


----------



## Highbeam (May 24, 2007)

"The answer is that we have: 
“In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states that there are “millions of gallons of radioactive waste” as well as “thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material” and also “huge quantities of contaminated soil and water” 

So concentrating on the really bad stuff, the spent fuel, it will need to be stored for about 10,000 years or more - more then double the time of the earliest records of mankind on the earth. "

Millions of gallons. No big deal. I have a 15 million gallon water tank just built near my home. It fit on a tiny lot. Yes, the containment of those millions of gallons must be in a vessel that is designed to last as long as the radiation but that was not a problem with the submarines. The steel hull will last longer than the radiation. 

Thousands of tons. Come on now, childs play. A thousand tons is 2,000,000 lbs and a regular old OTR tractor trailer weighs over 100,000. 
The solids are the longer lasting waste. The fuel rods last much longer but they don't leak fluid into groundwater. Dig a big hole, use any one of those monster strip mines or other huge holes. Or heck, put it in a mountain. The mountain has been around longer than 10,000 years and will be there 10,000 more.

Huge amounts of contaminated soil and water. Ah yes, the propoganda starts. Sounds like they wanted shock value. I contaminated a large amount of soil in my backyard when I went potty back there. What the heck, a huge amount of soil and water was poisoned with urine. 

Jettison the nasty waste into space. Sink it to the bottom of the ocean. It is an extremely small volume of waste.

And yes, I only know what I've been taught about the old style reactors and the hundreds of scrapped reactors, and rods that are setting in the middle of the desert in Hanford awaiting cool off. It is a small amount of waste, our earth is very very large. 

I suppose the nuclear debate is as much about emotion as it is about facts since nobody really knows what we will be able to do in 10,000 years or even whether we'll be alive. People fear things they don't know about and most people know about burning oil so it seems safe.


----------



## webbie (May 24, 2007)

High,

No emotion - just facts.
How much does the entire fuel cycle cost - from start to finish (100 to 10,000 years)?

That is a relatively simple question. I am not touching on radiation deaths, cancers and all those other emotional issues. I would feel very safe living within a relatively short distance of a plant...that is not my worry, money is!

Just the plain facts. Never before in the history of the world have we had to calculate the cost of storing waste for 10,000 years. But I'm certain it is an issue that can be guessed at.

According to your simplistic description, we should just go ahead blindly and let whatever happens, happen. THAT is what seems to be an emotional stance. Who in the world would start doing something without a budget?

So far, you must admit the record is shaky. The industry never intended to store spent fuel rods in pools and casks onsite. They promised they would figure out scientifically how to safely store or remove them. Now they have shifted that to the government and the taxpayers...or are at least attempting to do so.

So let's not say it's cheap power, clean power, dirty power or expensive power. Let's figure out the whole deal, and then....and only if it makes sense, think about using it. But if the equation is simply one of throwing the costs into the future for our children to clean up and pay - well, then (without emotion) I'm against it. Only by taking responsibility for our actions can we start to get off this treadmill.

As far as the Earth being very large - just take one look at the % of the world which was affected by the incident in Russia - radiation in cows milk thousands of miles away. Then take a look at earth from 40,000, 100,000 FEET - and then from space. It is not big at all. In fact, it is very small.

The enclosed pic shows the spread of the radiation cloud from Russia - all within 3 weeks! Although this was by no means a heavy dose for the affected areas (outside of Russia), it does show how small the world is.


----------



## wg_bent (May 24, 2007)

You guys are sooo behind the times.  Nuke is the fuel of the past.   There is a totally renewable and green alternative.  Turkey S**t.  Yes folks, you've hear of guano, you've hear of people in india cooking with cow poop, but there is a new power plant in Minn. that instead of using coal or gas, it will use tons of waste from thousands and thousands of turkeys and other birds. The nation's first poultry-litter-fired power plant begins operation next month. And it will produce enough power for fifty-thousand homes.

(see NPR for the full story)

BTW... NYC is putting a requirement that By the year 2012, every one of the thirteen thousand taxis in the nation's largest city will have to be a fuel-efficient hybrid.    (toyota stock is goin north folks!!)


----------



## titan (May 25, 2007)

Warren do you know if that plant could be converted to burn bullchit?If so,the Ash Can should power NYC from now 'til 2012.


----------



## restorer (May 25, 2007)

Warren said:
			
		

> You guys are sooo behind the times.  Nuke is the fuel of the past.   There is a totally renewable and green alternative.  Turkey S**t.  Yes folks, you've hear of guano, you've hear of people in india cooking with cow poop, but there is a new power plant in Minn. that instead of using coal or gas, it will use tons of waste from thousands and thousands of turkeys and other birds. The nation's first poultry-litter-fired power plant begins operation next month. And it will produce enough power for fifty-thousand homes.
> (see NPR for the full story)
> 
> BTW... NYC is putting a requirement that By the year 2012, every one of the thirteen thousand taxis in the nation's largest city will have to be a fuel-efficient hybrid.    (toyota stock is goin north folks!!)





Turkey, chicken. cow, pig, if we raise it, and it's organic, we have come up with ways to create power/fuel. There are several "experimental farms" around the country using waste to generate electric power, excess added to the grid, and a few making a liquid fuel to  run machinery. Trouble is, it's not quite cost effective. There is a facility in Georgia, I think, that's using Tyson's waste from packing to fuel a whole town. I think the problem might be, you can't have any ability to smell and live in the town. I have a bad nose and I get within ten miles of a feedlot and I know it. Think what it is like if you are burning it???? Well, forget dinner.

A treat for all of you who like sugar would be the catch ponds at a sugar beat processing plant, or a potatoe plant. I personally know if two people who claimed the had extreme asthma attacks, and ended up in the hospital just driving by one on a particularly bad/ripe day. 

There are lots of things to burn, but what are we willing to give up to burn it???

BTW, I heard the NPR report and started laughing in the shop. Bloomberg cracks me up. Does anyone really think that any of the NY cabbies are going to understand how to use a hybrid? And who is going to turn over a machine like that to a hack? If you have cab company stock dump it tomorrow.

Locally some of the cabs are switching to CNG (compressed natural gas) it's selling for about $.71 per gallon today in Salt Lake. Cheap and affordable, but the 300 lb tank gives you a range of about 150 miles. Can't take the trip to Yellowstone.

I'm actually looking for a retrofit kit for my '84 van. That's cheaper than buying a sub compact. It'd only be used locally, and there is a fuel station less than a mile from the shop. Cost for the kit will be about the same as a new carb. It may take a few months, but they are out here, been used for 10-15 years.


----------



## jjbaer (May 25, 2007)

Mike Wilson said:
			
		

> Uranium comes from mines... so take the nuclear waste and put it back in the very same mines it came out of.  Yeah, it wasn't as enriched as when we removed it, but you still wouldn't want to drink a nice tall glass of water from any hill with a uranium deposit in it.  Either that, or dump it in France... same effect.
> 
> -- Mike



Mike.....read the ending three times......LMFAO....ROTFF......


----------



## restorer (May 25, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> Mike Wilson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Better to send it over there..., over there...., over there. And the yanks are......

Speaking for the source of much of the uranium mined in America, and the proposed resting place for all the waste (one of the better lit suburbs of Las Vegas0, sending that crap here is not a good idea. We already get the nations low level radioactive waste, and we are the only area where folks were exposed to above ground testing. Gee, thanks. Sorry TVA, you got the rads, but not the lights.

One of my good customers is a general manager at "THE SITE", the Idaho National Nuclear Testing Site. They have several mothballed reactors that are small, effective, efficient, and totally out of date for use. They will be hazardous for 20,000 years. Sorry grandkids for the next 100,000 generations. At Hanford, Washington we have the potential to destroy the entire Columbia River Basin Water supply for the next 50,0000 years because we have been too cheap to do it right. Don't even get me started about other major screw ups. Think about our own nuclear pellets from TMI.

Say you folks out in Oregon and Washington notice the glow from the cooling towers at Satsup? Glad I don't live near Diablo Canyon in California. If the earth quakes don't get you the nuclear toxic waste will, right?

My first Commercial van was from Niagra-Mohawk Power. It was used as a test van at their power plants. After I had driven it for three years, a stop in Colorado woke me up. A friend's family had an Agricultural and Commercial junk yard. My van set their sniffer off. They had to monitor radioactivity because of Rocky Flats. It wasn't too hot, but it was not at the background level.

Ya'll want nucs, bring it on.


----------



## webbie (May 25, 2007)

BTW, you can't really jet it into space - you could send it into the sun, but the cost of sending something into the sun is probably on the order of $20,000 a pound....maybe more.

Once again, you must take the total cost into account. Once you spend $40 million per ton to get rid of the stuff, is it cheap fuel? Or even competitive fuel?

Seems that the only way it becomes cheap is when you forget about the consequences.


----------



## Mike Wilson (May 25, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> Mike.....read the ending three times......LMFAO....ROTFF......



 ;-P 


-- Mike


----------



## babalu87 (May 25, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Speaking of French, I can't really find decent fries around here.....except maybe when the local fair comes to town. I got addicted to those Belgian Fries - the ones that they have on every street in Amsterdam. Fresh cut, double fried and delectable. I had some that claimed to be Belgian Fries at the Sierra Grill here in Noho last night, but sad to say they didn't make it - cut small and greasy.



I would have figured that any place on the planet capable of replicating something that the French do would happen in Northampton, go figure  ;-P 

Me loves some of that Northampton brewery beer though and Fitzwillys......... LOVE that place, had our rehearsal dinner there. Wife is from right next door and her brother lives in Northampton so I know you aint all bad out that way ;-P

40 years is a long life for a powerplant, my father is a retired boilermaker and I know he was at L street a few times before I worked there for an overhaul in the early 90's.

Theres got to be a way to figure the waste issue out. 
Space, the final frontier and dump.


----------



## webbie (May 25, 2007)

As to the nuke waste, that (we can figure it out) is exactly what they said when they started building plants 50 years ago. The best minds in the world still have to wipe their arses! And when it comes to the "bowels" of Nuclear Energy, the same applies. They can blow up the bombs, but they have not yet figured out how to put all the radiation back in the bottle!

As Bob Marley says.."Have no fear of Atomic Energy, cause none of them can stop the time"....meaning we ain't quite as fancy as we sometimes think we are!


----------



## Eric Johnson (May 25, 2007)

Personally, I'll take contained, controlled waste over unregulated mercury, sulfuric acid, CO2, etc. spewing unrestricted and uncontrolled through the atmosphere, any day of the week.

Human beings won't be on this planet for much longer, anyway, so what are you all worried about?


----------



## keyman512us (May 25, 2007)

Highbeam said:
			
		

> "The answer is that we have:
> “In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states that there are “millions of gallons of radioactive waste” as well as “thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material” and also “huge quantities of contaminated soil and water”
> 
> So concentrating on the really bad stuff, the spent fuel, it will need to be stored for about 10,000 years or more - more then double the time of the earliest records of mankind on the earth. "
> ...



What about your backyard highbeam???

Tell ya what...let me turn your neighborhood into superfund site...and see if you change "your tune".. 

"Hey that's perfectly acceptable levels of radiation dosing for trans-uranic waste...why you bitchin' bout' it???"

Or have you changed your mind already??  lol


----------



## restorer (May 25, 2007)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> Personally, I'll take contained, controlled waste over unregulated mercury, sulfuric acid, CO2, etc. spewing unrestricted and uncontrolled through the atmosphere, any day of the week.
> 
> Human beings won't be on this planet for much longer, anyway, so what are you all worried about?



Eric:
Interesting you mention those things. I assume you are speaking of the toxic fumes from coal and oil fired plants, industrial and power. Well, this new wrinkle if from industry. Not only does Utah have the nations most air polluting facility, Mag-Corp., we have recently re-discovered a ditch filled in over 50 years ago running 17 miles through the, as yet, undeveloped part of the Salt Lake Valley. It is an old canal that carried waste water from a copper precipitation plant operated by the predecessors of Kennecott Copper. Turns out this ditch is buried from a few inches below surface to several feet in places. What is unique is the color of the soil, orange. Orange from deadly levels of arsenic. I'm not a mining engineer, but my Uncle was it's part of the processing by-products of refining copper. The powers that be are now passing the buck on who's responsible. But Kennecott has over 50% of the undeveloped land in the valley. They will win, I'm sure. So if you want to ship some more toxic waste, we can build another canal, maybe.


----------



## keyman512us (May 25, 2007)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> Personally, I'll take contained, controlled waste over unregulated mercury, sulfuric acid, CO2, etc. spewing unrestricted and uncontrolled through the atmosphere, any day of the week.
> 
> Human beings won't be on this planet for much longer, anyway, so what are you all worried about?



Good points Eric...

But how long after they build 40 or so Nuke plants... till' the lobbyists let them put the waste in say...dog or cat food?

"Here fido...Here fluffy...Time to do your part for our enrgy needs...eat up your 'Glow in the dark Alpo/Fancy Feast.." 

Human beings..you're right we won't have to worry about being around much longer the 'self destruct mechanism is already in place...think they call it (un-controlled)CAPITILISM. 

Nuke power?? WHY? If nobody cares anymore...just put turbines back on all the rivers in New England! How much (taxpayers') money have the Eco-Nazi's made us spend to tear out century old dam sites..."to protect the fish/eco-system"???? 

Who cares about the fish..they are going to disapear before human beings anyway! And even if they don't...again..who cares?? They are so polluted now with everything from mercury to PCB's...who the hell would want to eat them anyway? Nobody wants to eat the fish equals no money equalls no value.


----------



## Eric Johnson (May 25, 2007)

I'm not trying to be overly cynical, but I think that too much is made of the half-life issue. As everyone correctly points out, we are surrounded by very toxic substances that can kill many people a lot more quickly than stuff in the general category of "nuclear waste." True, the nuclear waste will still be around in 10,000 years, but I don't think humanity will be around to "enjoy" it. So I think it's an overblown, over-emotionalized, moot point, at least where human beings are concerned.

Doubt the surviving species will be overly concerned about a mine full of nuclear waste in the Nevada desert.

And in the final analysis, I think the technological hurdles of overcoming our dependence on fossil fuels are much, much greater than those involved in safely containing and disposing of nuclear waste. It will be far easier to deal with the waste, in other words, than trying to get by without nuclear power.

Tell me I'm wrong when oil hits $100 or $200 a barrel.


----------



## keyman512us (May 25, 2007)

UncleRich said:
			
		

> Eric Johnson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Speaking of "Regulated/Controlled waste"??? How far away from the "waste mountain in Utah" are you Uncle Rich???

I worked a cleanup project in Lawrence MA... "GenCorp Main Buildings Demolition" in 1996. The place was so polluted they (LaidLaw Enviromental) knocked it down and shipped EVERYTHING to some "Disposal Facility in UTAH". Place was loaded with PCB's (amongst other things).

Interesting side note...Everyone (working on the site) had to get their "Background PCB levels checked" before and after working the site. Almost a month into working the site, the (subcontractor)company I was working for "Quietly and unexpectedly" moved me to another site without "any explanation".
...Four years later...In the "old neighborhood" the furniture factory behind my childhood home was declared a superfund site...heavily contaminated with PCB's.

Strange coincidence??? Anyone think they know about the history of PCB use? Great example of true capitilism!

Ohh? And BTW...If you think your backyard is safe...Next time you go in for a "check-up" under our lovely HMO system in this country...ask for a "baseline" toxicity test for PCB levels to be performed on yourself...you might be shocked at the results. 

Everyone and everything has "background levels"...PCB's are found in the deepest depths of the ocean...to the highest mountaintops'. Modern chemistry "at your service"...Synthesized in a lab in Syracuse NY in the 1920's and found everywhere today.

EcoMagination...brought to you by the company that "Brings good things to life"...They got the track record to prove it...just look at PCB's


----------



## keyman512us (May 25, 2007)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be overly cynical, but I think that too much is made of the half-life issue. As everyone correctly points out, we are surrounded by very toxic substances that can kill many people a lot more quickly than stuff in the general category of "nuclear waste." True, the nuclear waste will still be around in 10,000 years, but I don't think humanity will be around to "enjoy" it. So I think it's an overblown, over-emotionalized, moot point, at least where human beings are concerned.
> 
> Doubt the surviving species will be overly concerned about a mine full of nuclear waste in the Nevada desert.
> 
> ...



Don't get me wrong Eric...You got valid points...but here is mine:

"Our Government" goes to great lengths to say there are "acceptable levels" for everything. They have done test after test after test to prove "Substance A or substance X" in small quanities are "harmless"... But have they done any tests to when "XYZ"'s are all combined like in the "real world"??? What the effect is???

Personally I think ("land based")"Nuclear Energy" is a waste of time and money...Putting it on an ocean-going vessel makes sense (there are no 'real' alternatives). But building new Electric Generating Nuclear plants? WHY? It's a waste of time and money. There are alternatives.

$$$$ is the controlling factor. In present day 2007 dollars how much would it cost JUST to build a new plant? 40 billion? Fifty billion? Fifty billion would buy a hell of alot of PV panels or wind turbine's....but wait...that doesn't make financial sense...because big Corporations wouldn't be able to garner "Continious profits" from the other alternatives. 

I'm sorry but If they want to "Spout all the BS about a free market/Capitilism and all the other 'Cheerleader Hype'..." let them pay their own damn way. Let them pay for the disposal facilities and all the other associated costs. 

Nuclear energy is not in OUR interests...it's in big businesses'...that being the case...let them use their own damn money! But wait...that will never happen...becuase unless some is getting rich...it's not feasible.

I'm sick of paying into a SOCIALIST system and not getting SOCIALIST services.

Bottom line is this...The nuclear industry has shown it's true colors...our safety (your's and mine) takes a back seat to the profit margin...that's a price I'm not willing to pay (even at $200.00 a barrel).

Nuclear energy and Capitilism combined are a recipe for disaster...You know it, I know it...and Americans in General..as a whole know it.

 They had their chance... they blew it... "Thank YOU...NEXT"


----------



## webbie (May 25, 2007)

If one thinks we are at the "end of days" (the current Prez has this view, among many others), then it is a perfect excuse NOT to be responsible. After all, why save any resources or purity for a future that will not exist?

However, I take the longer view - since we have been around in one form or another for at least 50,000 years, I would guess that 10,000 more is not a problem. That being the case, for our purposes it would seem prudent to plan for "forever" as opposed to putting a time frame on the future.

On a more technical basis, when it comes to radiation, virtually ANY increase over background causes increases in cancer deaths. The larger the increase of total radiation (airline flights, dental x-rays, medical treatments, etc.), the larger your chance of getting cancer - and worse yet, the larger your chances of passing birth defects on to the first and second generation afterwards. Not good.

But the questions still comes down to a simple one - can the power be produced for a reasonable price when plant construction, insurance, operation and disposal/decommissioning is taken into account? Remember, France and Japan have no oil, very little coal, not a lot of Hydro and all the other good stuff we have here. They don't have anywhere near the solar potential either. So what is good in France is not always right here.


----------



## keyman512us (May 25, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> If one thinks we are at the "end of days" (the current Prez has this view, among many others), then it is a perfect excuse NOT to be responsible. After all, why save any resources or purity for a future that will not exist?
> 
> However, I take the longer view - since we have been around in one form or another for at least 50,000 years, I would guess that 10,000 more is not a problem. That being the case, for our purposes it would seem prudent to plan for "forever" as opposed to putting a time frame on the future.
> 
> ...



Well like I said before Web..."Civilization peaked with the 8-track".

All the debate, all the hype, all the media put out is worthless so far. I'm not into conspiracy theories, or into 'causes' or remotely thinking of becoming a "cheerleader" for any particular case,casuse, or movement.

But there is NO WAY i'm going to "entertain" all the BS the "big $$$ powers that be" spoon feed people everyday! 99% of Americans walk around "half asleep" and don't look at the "bigger picture" you or I might at least "think about".

Al Gore is wasting his time...IMHO he needs to make a movie along the story line of the "Terminator Trilogy":

Perhaps you or I as a "grey Haired old man" talking to a five year old grandson on a mountain top "We had the world by the short hairs...At one time this country had factories that actually made things HERE and sold them here and to other parts of the world...There was a time when other nations wanted to be just like the USA...then 50 years of greed brought it all down....that's why you can't drink the water, breathe the air or even feel good about tommorow...thats why you go for medical treatment every month and swallow fistfulls of pills...."

GE??? Ecomagination??? BS Plain and simple...they can put all the spin on it they want...Their track record is no better than Dow Chemical, Union Carbide...or EXXON MOBIL's or any of the other countless big time corporations...just be honest!

"We don't give a rat's ^ss about you, the enviroment or anything else except our bottom line profit margin!..." 

Until our so called "Elected officials... of the people... for the people" realize that the hands that feed them have effectively destroyed this country and that the good ole' USA...for over 50 years... We as a nation don't "Stand a chance in hell".

Do you honestly think any other nation on earth looks to the USA as an example of a "Perfect world"???

Maybe it's time for this country to stand back and "take a good hard look at itself". 

What has the economy of this nation become? (honestly)?? We have gone from a "land of prosperity" to one of "desparity".



I would rather see a coal plant and steel factory on every street corner...than a nuke plant and a Taco Bell.


----------



## webbie (May 25, 2007)

I agree GE is in it for the bucks- but that does not counter the fact that only large industries can make stuff like efficient jet engines or diesels. GE is making  those diesels here, as well as wind machines and jet engines. It's the modern equiv. of the coal plant and steel factory you want.

The give a rats ass if WE give a rats ass. We want cheap airfares. We want lower freight rates. We want wind power - so they do.

That's what scares me most about people just wanting more nuclear or coal plants. While we all give lip service to conservation, we are not moving fast enough in that direction. Energy is an addiction - we never want less. So we think we will be OK if we just build more nuclear or coal plants. But, as you suggest, it is not true. 

No doubt this country is scarred....pretty big time - both on a physical level and a mental/spiritual one. IMHO the solution is the same as with individual behavior. If something is not working, you have to throw it out and adopt new behaviors. Change is good. There was really never any such thing as the good ole days. 

It's a big cruise ship and it does not turn on a dime. But if we look at the energy replaced by all the wood and pellet stoves, and by the wind farms and current solar systems, it does come to an actual numerical percentage of our energy use. 

I see much of this as a failure of leadership. Instead of tackling the problems we are talking about, this country is becoming more militarized - putting untold resources into protecting us against the boogeyman or whoever. Why save energy or build a new economy when you can simply take over the middle east, build more nuclear plants, dig more coal, or whatever?


----------



## keyman512us (May 26, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I agree GE is in it for the bucks- but that does not counter the fact that only large industries can make stuff like efficient jet engines or diesels. GE is making  those diesels here, as well as wind machines and jet engines. It's the modern equiv. of the coal plant and steel factory you want.
> 
> The give a rats ass if WE give a rats ass. We want cheap airfares. We want lower freight rates. We want wind power - so they do.
> 
> ...



Web,
I agree with what you have said above.
GE has a chance..."To break away from the pack". While some of the things they have done in the past "have left egg on their face" (so long as "they" keep that in mind) I would 'applaud' their "business decisions". (Moral)Capitilism can work...but is a long ways away.

Trully, I would like to see a company like GE get into manufacturing EV's and other LSV's etc. 

The fact that GE (Transportation Systems) manufactures it's "Ecomagination Locomotive (The Dash-9)" right in Erie PA...and has "market share over GM-EMD" is a pleasant thought.

I just wonder "How Long" is it going to last? And how many other corporations will "follow"???

BTW...I used the "coal plant" reference to simply state...I think this country needs to "turn the clock back a bit" and start off where it "went wrong"...I favor conservation/changing views as opposed to "building new"...unfortunately until "attitudes change" it's all just a pipe dream.


----------



## Oregon Fire (May 26, 2007)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> $$$$ is the controlling factor. In present day 2007 dollars how much would it cost JUST to build a new plant? 40 billion? Fifty billion? Fifty billion would buy a hell of alot of PV panels or wind turbine's....but wait...that doesn't make financial sense...because big Corporations wouldn't be able to garner "Continious profits" from the other alternatives.



   Well you are only off by a factor of 50.  The cost to build nuclear power plants has fallen dramatically since the 1980s, etc.   This is due to use of standardized designs (GE and Westinghouse).     The cost to build a nuke plant is 1 billion.    Time to construct the plant is approximately 3 years.     The price to produce electricity using nuclear plants is cheaper than all other alternatives - and yes, this includes the cost of construction, operation, decommissioning and disposal of radioactive waste.  Just do search on google on "nuclear plant costs" and educate yourself.   

 Let's see...

1. Safer nuke plant designs...
2. Dramatically lower construction costs for nuke plants...
3. Does not contribute to global warming - zero CO2 output.
4. Cheapest power generation option.

  There's a reason why GE and Westinghouse have spend billions developing these standardized nuke plant designs. They know that basic economics will make them necessary in the future...

   Nuclear power is coming and it is coming in a big way...   

jeff


----------



## keyman512us (May 26, 2007)

Oregon Fire said:
			
		

> Eric Johnson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay...If this is true? When was the last billion dollar plant built (or should I say WHEN is it going to be built)???

..."The proof will be in the pudding"...I'll believe it when I see it.

This "Billion dollar plant" was this the "brain child" of former employees of ENRON/Arthur Anderson by any chance...lol


----------



## Oregon Fire (May 26, 2007)

From a recent speach by Presidential Hopeful John McCain :

*The United States needs to overcome its fear of nuclear power and embrace the technology as a way to wean itself from fossil fuels, Sen. John McCain told an audience in Manchester yesterday.

Nuclear power "is safe. The technology is here," McCain said, speaking to a crowd of about 200 at a breakfast hosted by The New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. "It's a NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem."

McCain pointed to France, which draws more than three-quarters of its power from nuclear plants, and Russia, which has plans to build 40 new plants, as examples. "We've got to get over it, get over Three Mile Island," he said, referring to the 1979 accident at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant.*

and...

*“I firmly believe that nuclear power is a key technology for addressing climate change. As we develop strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we simply cannot ignore this emission-free technology. While there are other sources of low- or zero-emission power sources, they simply do not have the power density to match that of nuclear power plants.”

“The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable and, frankly, irresponsible position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude of the threat posed by global warming. … I strongly believe nuclear energy can and should play and even greater role … for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming."*

-------

jeff


----------



## Oregon Fire (May 26, 2007)

keyman512us said:
			
		

> Okay...If this is true? When was the last billion dollar plant built (or should I say WHEN is it going to be built)???



http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Czech republic plant was recently built for 1 billion.   On average plants have cost about 1.5 billion.  Prices are dropping as designs are being standardized and processes streamlined.

Other plants built in the last decade are around 3 billion for two generation plants - co-located at same site.   e.g. Korean plants.  

Here is a list of upcoming nuclear plants in the u.s.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf


jeff


----------



## Eric Johnson (May 26, 2007)

I've been called a lot of dirty things over the years, Craig, but putting me into the same ideological boat as GWB is a new low. I'm not worried about (or eagerly anticipating) the Second Coming--I'm talking about the guy in his SUV and all his buddies who don't give a rat's ass about anybody but themselves. It's true that "humanity" has been walking the earth for more than 50,000 years, but it's only in the last 200 or so that we've started using the planet's resources at unsustainable levels. It's pretty clear to me that our "civilization" is doomed. I guarantee you that when we're done ruining the environment, a little bit of nuclear waste from power plants won't even be worth mentioning.

I think that roughly half the population of the U.S. (and maybe even more than that) is counting on Divine Intervention to save our silly souls, which basically means they don't have to worry themselves about details like conserving resources. W comes to mind. That leaves the rest of us banking on humankind saving itself. No rational analysis would conclude that we have much of a future on this planet.

Speaking of GE: I'm constantly appalled at the nerve of those guys. Does anybody actually believe that the other creatures on this planet would applaud some minor technological advance in jet engine technology that pollutes just a little bit less than it's predecessor? As in: "the animals are happy, so we must be doing something right!" If the wild animals had any sense (which they probably do) they would want us extinct--like yesterday!

--end of Saturday morning rant--


----------



## webbie (May 26, 2007)

Once again we are talking about the PRICE, not the COST.

The best case price of 1.5 billion in no way includes decommissioning and storage of the spent fuel. It can't, since there is not yet any way to safely store them! 

And how about all the existing plants and the thousands of tons of waste? Should the "industry" be responsible for that, or should then get to start from a clean slate? 

Another downside of nuclear not mentioned is that it cannot easily be turned up and down. In other words, it cannot vary to meet demand. This means it must be used only for "baseline" demand, or...as with our local plant here, feed into a pumped water storage facility which uses water pumped to the top of a mountain to store the energy.

The great science we are relying on is still "they will find a way to get rid of the waste someday". To discuss simply the construction costs or operating costs of a plant is to miss the point. Also, building something for a good price somewhere else in the world is a totally different thing than doing so in the US. Take a look at the rising cost of metals and other commodities and it will become evident that prices are likely to rise.

I've never thought that the construction cost was the problem - anything south of 4 billion is probably workable...after all, a new Las Vegas Resort costs 2 billion! But the total cost is still not figured in.

We'll see whether the American public and business community accepts the new nuke attempts. There are not a lot of places left in the populated zones (where the power is needed) that these units can be placed at. 

Solve the problem of the waste stream and I'll jump on board myself - but replacing relatively short term pollution with 10 to 50,000 year pollution does not seem like the best trade off for our energy needs.

None of the above addresses the reality that more nukes=more bombs..... when the technology spreads and is sold all over the world, it becomes much easier to enrich, etc.


----------



## Eric Johnson (May 26, 2007)

My favorite scenario for the demand swing issue involves all of driving plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles, which we plug in according to some schedule that balances out the load. Not that hard to do for huge gain in efficiency.

I'll concede the point on proliferation, but that's not an insurmountable problem, either. Not compared to some of the challenges posed by some of the alternative energy sources we're either using or trying to figure out how to use.

My bottom line is that, if we insist on keeping our many energy-hungry extravagances (such as casinos in Las Vegas), we don't have the luxury of picking and choosing our energy supplies. We're going to be using them all, so maybe it's a good idea to figure out the best and safest way to do it.


----------



## keyman512us (May 26, 2007)

Oregon Fire said:
			
		

> From a recent speach by Presidential Hopeful John McCain :
> 
> *The United States needs to overcome its fear of nuclear power and embrace the technology as a way to wean itself from fossil fuels, Sen. John McCain told an audience in Manchester yesterday.*


*

Personally I don't fear nuclear power...What I fear are the greedy, money grubbing SCUMBAGS that run it that put making a $ above the quality and safety of my life AND YOURS.



			Nuclear power "is safe. The technology is here," McCain said, speaking to a crowd of about 200 at a breakfast hosted by The New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. "It's a NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem."
		
Click to expand...


Safe? Yeah so long as safety doesn't get in the way of profit. NIMBY problem? Waste problem?

NO! It's a "trust problem"...For too many years the CORPORATE decision making progress has been a "simple equation"...The difference between right and wrong...boils down to profit or loss!



			McCain pointed to France, which draws more than three-quarters of its power from nuclear plants, and Russia, which has plans to build 40 new plants, as examples. "We've got to get over it, get over Three Mile Island," he said, referring to the 1979 accident at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant.
		
Click to expand...

*
FRANCE??? Quoting what works in (for all intents and purposes) a "Socialist" nation...Don't fly in the "PROFIT ONLY CAPITILIST" type we have here in the good ole' USA!


> and...
> 
> *“I firmly believe that nuclear power is a key technology for addressing climate change. As we develop strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we simply cannot ignore this emission-free technology. While there are other sources of low- or zero-emission power sources, they simply do not have the power density to match that of nuclear power plants.”
> 
> ...



IRRESPONSIBLE??? You damn right! The nuclear industry in this country has been irresponsible for over 50 YEARS!
 Nuclear power has NO PLACE in the current structure...A Nuke Plant is not a "Plastic Shop" to think it can be run like one and put on "every street corner"..is not sustainable.

Tell YA What! You and Sen McCain want to "Sell ME" on the virtues of Nuke Power??? You go get the numbers and tell me How Much $$$ have you and I...John Q. Taxpayer...paid out of our own pockets since the "Dawn of Nuke Power" to "Clean up the loose ends" and then you tell me how you can figure it is "so economical"...

PAAA-LEEZ Try slinging your BS logic on someone that might buy it...

You can try to blame the failure of Nuke power on THE PEOPLE all you want...But the industry has nobody to blame...but itself!

Tell me I'm wrong! How can you? The only way Nuke power COULD work is with more "Corporate Welfare". Until the Corporations are willing to risk THEIR FORTUNES...waste disposal isn't even on the radar scope!

You might want to throw "Good money after bad...but I don't".


----------



## webbie (May 26, 2007)

Sorry, but McCain is a loon - the kind of person where I automatically will look at the opposite of what he thinks about a subject.

Getting shot down is not a prerequisite for wisdom, nor for leadership. Folks use such things as a springboard to politics, but once they get there they have to prove themselves though actions. I know most American disagree with the guy on Iraq, Immigration and lots of other relevant subjects.

It always concerns me when failures (the nuke industry) say "now we know how to do it right". What they are really saying is "we fixed those mistakes, but don't know the next ones until we try - and until then, we want government assistance and assurance".

Read this and think:
"Is nuclear energy enjoying a renaissance? Electrical utilities certainly think so.

No new nuclear plant has been proposed since the 1970s. But now, three companies, Exelon (nyse: EXC - news - people ), Dominion Resources (nyse: D - news - people ) and Entergy (nyse: ETR - news - people ), have filed applications for site permits with the government, and 16 companies have said they're planning to apply for licenses to build and operate up to 25 new plants.

On Wednesday, at Excelon's Limerick nuclear plant outside Philadelphia, President George W. Bush gushed about the joys of nuclear power and trumpeted Nuclear Power 2010, his initiative to get more plants built. That was his second appearance at a nuclear reactor since last June, when he visited a reactor in Maryland. And it was the second time a sitting president has visited a nuclear reactor site since Jimmy Carter's appearance at Three Mile Island.

Utilities famously backed away from nuclear power in the decades after that 1979 accident. But their cold feet weren’t caused so much by environmental concerns as financial ones: Once the massive construction costs are factored in, nuclear plants simply aren't as profitable as their competitors, coal and gas-fired plants.

"It's not as if Greenpeace killed the industry. Guys in pinstripe suits on Wall Street killed the industry," said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington.

The specter of caps on carbon emissions--which many in the power industry believe are inevitable--certainly increases the appeal of nuclear power, which is emissions-free. But even with the run-up in natural gas and coal prices, nuclear is not profitable without a raft of government subsidies. Still, with the largess it extracted from the government last year, the nuclear industry may have put even the ethanol lobby to shame.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended insurance coverage to the public in case of a reactor accident at any new plant for 20 years. It provided for a generous production tax credit and federal loan guarantees for up to 80% of the project's cost. The government even agreed to step in and eat the cost of any delay in plant construction related to litigation or government red-tape--a huge prize for plant sponsors and investors given the massive capital costs associated with building a nuclear plant.

These new subsidies were lavished on top of old ones, including the biggest one of all: the government's shouldering the problem of nuclear waste. It is little wonder that nuclear is getting a second look. "

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

Basically, what it says is that anyone who is for nuclear is for massive corporate welfare - given to these companies BY ME AND YOU.

If they are so safe and if waste and accidents can be figured in, then WHY can't they even consider operating without being excluded from liability?

Talk to me when they are ready to take responsibility. Until then, I'm against it.


----------



## BrotherBart (May 26, 2007)

Ran the calculator again. Looks like I have ten years left so I want Harbor Freight to come out with a backyard home mini-nuke plant to supply power to this joint for the next ten years. We already get around twenty percent of our juice from a nuke thirty miles south of here so why not get it all from one thirty feet to the south of the house.

The neighbors won't need to worry. I will careful. Really. I will. And wood smoke won't even make it to their list of concerns anymore.


----------



## babalu87 (May 27, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Sorry, but McCain is a loon - the kind of person where I automatically will look at the opposite of what he thinks about a subject.



You must hate the immigration bill now that you have slept on it.

Back on topic.

Nuclear is cleaner and has less overall waste than coal.
Nuke plants built today can last twice as long as a coal plant.
Coal produces tons of waste, Nukes produce pounds.
Put the spent Uranium in a lead box and forget about it. Nuclear isnt the BOOGEYMAN

Less than 60 years ago we thought there was more oil than we could possibly use, now we are afraid to go to the next level for fear of what may happen in TEN THOUSAND years? Have any of you even visited a dump? How much trash (pounds) do you throw away in a week? Dont tell me a bag if your using a trash compactor, I want the number in POUNDS.

Until everyone stops thinking Chernobyl, Nukes wont stand a chance.


----------



## restorer (May 27, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think about Chernobyl. I think about TMI, I think about Hanford, Wahshington, I think about Skull Valley, Utah, I think about Moab, Utah, I think about Rocky Flats, Colorado.

Can I ask a personal question, do you think the toxic stuff you dump down your sewer isn't a problem??????


----------



## babalu87 (May 27, 2007)

UncleRich said:
			
		

> babalu87 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is this toxic stuff you refer to?

Three Mile Island

_The full details of the accident were not discovered until much later. In the end, the reactor was brought under control. Although approximately 25,000 people lived within five miles of the island at the time of the accident,[2] *no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred, and a government report concluded that "the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident... is approximately one". *But the accident had serious economic and public relations consequences,_


----------



## webbie (May 27, 2007)

Bab, do some reading on Rocky Flats. Basically, we have already poisoned large areas of the west with this "safe" pounds of waste. I guess you are all for shipping it to Uncle Riches land?

No one is worried about what might happen...it has already happened. The big lie was told that we would figure out a way to get rid of it, and that worked as long as no one knew and we shipped it over the mountains, etc. - but now people live there! Yes, that is NIMBY, and I would rather have a biomass plant with all it's problems - at least I would know that I was not poisoning future generations just to run my TV.

I'll repeat again and again - if they can be responsible for all the costs including disposal until it is safe (and it is NOT simply putting in a lead box!), then I'll gladly be open to changing my mind.


----------



## restorer (May 27, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> UncleRich said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I won't get in a pissing match, so do some searches on the web for the Rathrum aquifer. Our lowly trains are harmless?? If you have ever dumped waste oil, or antifreeze, or an old tire into a waste system, you are as guilty as anyone else. When you changed the belts on your car and drained the freon out of the air conditioning to make it easier, did you use a recovery unit? Point your finger in the mirror. I have done some of those things, but I don't do them now, and I certainly won't standby while industry does it. 

 I own a three thousand dollar solvent recovery system, not because I have to, but because I think it's the right thing to do, can you say the same thing? 

I have a nephew that lives in Portland, Oregon. He's Eco conscious to the point he doesn't own a car and uses my old racing bike for transportation. He is now concerned that he won't have a home when the pollution reaches the Columbia. Can't blame him. He is a cook and makes sure everything from the restaurant that can be recycled is recycled. 

I use less than $40 per month in electricity and would like it to be less, because I don't like the way my local electricity is generated.

I'm not a torch carrying radical environmentalist. I just believe we need to be honest about what we do and what we are strapping on the backs of our off-spring for a very few creature comforts. 

Simply put, my family for 50 years celebrated Memorial Day with flags, "sparklers" and good friendship. We had a picnic and cooked hamburgers and hotdogs (home made sausauge) on a wood fired stove in my Granddad's back yard. He built the stove, cooked the beans, carrots, cabbage, potatoes grown by family on their farms and of course had fresh corn and watermelon. It was special when my Uncle brought pinion charcoal and bask cured ham for a special smoked treat. It all came for the land and the pine nuts were great when freshly roasted. I even remember some sage hen, and  Western flyway duck.

So now I look back and ask, What is my legacy?"


----------



## jjbaer (May 27, 2007)

Folks..take your pick from the following: 1) conservation 2) more coal power plants or 3) more nuke plants..............ain't too many choices in the next 20 years.........until fusion gets here in 20 years or so, short of aliens visiting us and giving us a claen, unlimited power source, one or more than one of the above is going to happen........learn to live with it.....


----------



## restorer (May 27, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> Folks..take your pick from the following: 1) conservation 2) more coal power plants or 3) more nuke plants..............ain't too many choices in the next 20 years.........until fusion gets here in 20 years or so, short of aliens visiting us and giving us a claen, unlimited power source, one or more than one of the above is going to happen........learn to live with it.....



Wind looks very good, passive hydro is a commer, and TURNING OFF YOUR WASTED USE, looks best. I do not have an incandescent light bulb in my house or shop, can you say the same? What did you save today??????? The best conservation starts with not using the power.


----------



## webbie (May 27, 2007)

We can send rockets to other solar systems, but not harness tidal and wave power?
Wind and solar are here now.....wind is totally competitive and has pretty good potential for a decent percentage of our electric.

Solar is still a few cents more per KWH, but give that a florescent bulb saves about 3/4 of energy, what is the big deal about paying a few cents more per KWH for clean juice. We can do that and still have a similar lifestyle. Back to the SUV point...we don't all need to drive around in 3 ton vehicles (but some do), and for the rest it is absolutely no skin off our backs to drive around in something with better mileage, a hybrid, etc. 

We could easily save 20-25% off our entire energy use with just current conservation techniques. With minor lifestyle changes (still the same standard or living, but smaller houses, cars, etc.), we could save 50%. Or, we could poison the planet for 10,000 years.

Which one will we choose?

Right now there is a big fight going on once again between the US and Germany and other industrial countries regarding emissions and energy use. They are trying to bring us to the table (G8) to work together on caps and such things. The current administration is declining once again to even attempt to play well with others. Looks like their minds are already made up on which way they will solve our energy needs.


----------



## begreen (May 27, 2007)

Cast has it exactly right, though long term I would add - #4 innovation. Right now the lack of real energy conservation in this country is immoral. This is the single best and fastest solution we have a hand and it doesn't require new technology. What is does require is vision, leadership and commitment. All virtues that currently seem to be lacking in DC. 

In WA state, we are starting to think of how we can solve future energy issues by greater independence. Several PUDs are stepping up to the plate with some good ideas. Snohomish PUD has received permitting for seven potential locations for tidal generation. At a recent energy conferences, there have begun talks of using plugin hybrids to solve part of the energy storage issue with solar and wind power. 

The idea is for electricity to become the gasoline of the future in this state. This can work where there are abundant hydroelectric resources. Lots of plugin hybrids means thousands of traveling battery packs, most of which will sit idle in parking lots all day and garages all night. If the parking lots were equipped to allow these cars to feed the grid during the day and store charges at night, they may have the potential to be a partial solution to the storage issue. It's future science now, but it's interesting to note that by 2010 there are 65 models of plugin hybrids planned for market. By that year, next generation,  thin film solar panels will be in full production. These panels will be thin enough and at a price that makes them effective for car roofs. Visualize a large corporate parking lot and that is a lot of power. Think it can't happen? In the Pac NW, the Prius is the number one selling car at Toyota dealers this year. That's above the Camry, the best selling car in the country. The market is ready for change. 

This is just a partial solution. It would require significant infrastructure and maybe it won't happen. But it is this kind of thinking that will create jobs, change and hope in the future. We need a lot more of it. 

http://www.crosscut.com/business-technology/2905/


----------



## TMonter (May 28, 2007)

> The United States needs to overcome its fear of nuclear power and embrace the technology as a way to wean itself from fossil fuels, Sen. John McCain told an audience in Manchester yesterday.
> 
> Nuclear power “is safe. The technology is here,” McCain said, speaking to a crowd of about 200 at a breakfast hosted by The New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. “It’s a NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem.”
> 
> ...



McCain is a politician not a engineer.

I've done work for several nuke plants on STG upgrades back when I worked for Siemens and nukes are not cheaper than coal to either operate or build, even on a lifecycle cost.

If you do a little research into what it costs to break down and dispose of a nuke plant, often it costs 3-4 times the original price of the plant.

Nuke plants do not last longer than coal plants when both are properly maintained.

Unless someone comes up with a viable way to store and transport waste long term, Nuclear simply isn't a viable option from a cost perspective.

Also do you want to subsidize with you tax dollars the cost to insure nuke plants? That further adds to the cost of the electricity, the difference being that it's hidden.

Think 12 or 16 cents per kWh is expensive? Try 25+ if you de-load all of the hidden costs for nukes.


----------



## jjbaer (May 28, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> We can send rockets to other solar systems, but not harness tidal and wave power?
> Wind and solar are here now.....wind is totally competitive and has pretty good potential for a decent percentage of our electric.
> 
> Solar is still a few cents more per KWH, but give that a florescent bulb saves about 3/4 of energy, what is the big deal about paying a few cents more per KWH for clean juice. We can do that and still have a similar lifestyle. Back to the SUV point...we don't all need to drive around in 3 ton vehicles (but some do), and for the rest it is absolutely no skin off our backs to drive around in something with better mileage, a hybrid, etc.
> ...



We can harness anything Craig...but much of it is so dilute that until, for example, solar cell prices drop, etc, it just isn't that viable yet...... I agree that the quickest way to beat this (which by the way, also costs zero) is conservation...


----------



## Oregon Fire (May 29, 2007)

Well, I have learned something from this thread...

   Ignorance and fear usually hang out together...  

jeff


----------



## jjbaer (May 29, 2007)

Oregon Fire said:
			
		

> Well, I have learned something from this thread...
> 
> Ignorance and fear usually hang out together...
> 
> jeff



Jeff....please elaborate........as an engineer, I don't fear any mechanical or electrical process but I do know that some processes are better than others.......and I know that both coal and nuclear both have "tails" (shortcomings)....coal has a CO2, particulate and nasty chemical output "tail" and nuclear has a nasty "half life" and disposal "tail" that we're going to saddle the next 300 generations with taking care of.........let's face it......short of conservation (which, BTW, could solve this problem overnight) neither coal nor nuclear are ideal....and that's what I think we're hearing/seeing from people on this site.......however, to characterize it as "fear and ignorance" hanging out on the same forum is, I think, another form of ignorance.......I worked in a coal power plant as a power plant Mechanical Engineer and visited our company's nuclear plant and I can tell you from first hand experience, coal aint' the answer nor is nuclear............short-term maybe but too much crap goes into the atmosphere with coal and nuke power has disposal problems.....

The answer lies, I believe, in: 1) conservation (costs virtually nothing to implement and it can be implemented immediately...overnight), 2) massive push into more renewable energy sources like solar for home use (imagine solar shingle technology that will allow most homes to provide a good deal of their power requirements, thus negating the need for additional power plants) and 3) an equally massive push on fusion. Innovation, of course, plays key roles in all three of these but building endless power plants using coal and nuclear technology without first implementing massive (mandatory) conservation techniques, is not the answer.....and this, my friend, ain't a by-product of "ignorance and fear" hanging out together at the local coal pile or depleted uranium storage facility...........LOL.....


----------



## begreen (May 29, 2007)

Missing from the options is geothermal power. We're all sitting on a hot rock. In some places, it's pretty close to the surface. I'd rather see the billions proposed for nuclear going into geothermal first. It's 24/7 energy and clean. Currently in our state we're only using geothermal for spas. Oregon is moving further ahead. CA has some notable GT power plants. But there is a lot of close to the surface geothermal heat in the west that is going untapped. Instead we have coal plants are sprouting up like mushrooms. Where's the sense in that?


----------



## babalu87 (May 29, 2007)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Missing from the options is geothermal power. We're all sitting on a hot rock. In some places, it's pretty close to the surface. I'd rather see the billions proposed for nuclear going into geothermal first. It's 24/7 energy and clean. Currently in our state we're only using geothermal for spas. Oregon is moving further ahead. CA has some notable GT power plants. But there is a lot of close to the surface geothermal heat in the west that is going untapped. Instead we have coal plants are sprouting up like mushrooms. Where's the sense in that?



What happens when a huge number of homes in the same area tap into geothermal? The Earth is cooling (under the surface) at a certain rate, what are the consequences of increasing that rate? 
Sinkhole? I like the idea of Geo-thermal and we considered it when we built our house 10 years ago but it was cost prohibitive, looking back we should have taken the hit. Of course if there were tax benefits/refunds for installing those systems maybe we would have considered it. All was fine and dandy in 1997 though..............

Short of conservation maybe we are just on a road to nowhere?
If I could afford to cover my roof with PV tiles and put up a windmill it would be done already........... or maybe I could just scare the sh!t out of everyone with a movie. Then when I get caught with my pants around my ankles using over 12 times the gas/electricity of the average Joe I can spin it and say I am buying carbon credits and putting up solar tiles and a windmill..................


----------



## jjbaer (May 29, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> Friggin joke
> The guy had a decent enough message but anyone with a shred of common sense knows what he is talking about when he says "green"
> 
> ROFL Fat credits
> My neighbor is at his limit with poophead credits



Babs,

By "the guy" do you mean Gore?


----------



## jjbaer (May 29, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> The guy had a decent enough message but anyone with a shred of common sense knows what he is talking about when he says "green" Are you asking the hypocrite Gore?
> Yes.



Babs,

Gore didn't have any good ideas otherwise he'd be doing them himself....and he wasn't..........also, as we both know, "carbon credits" when bought from others are bu*l sh*t....they only increase the total amount of carbon...it works like this:  currently there is "X" amount of carbon being released.  Along comes "Mr poophead" with his "carbon credits" crap.....all that means is that some rich fat cat can pollute more than he is now while buying "credits" from someone who won't be reducing their carbon footprint with or without carbon credits being bought/sold.  So...the overall net effect is that the rich guy pollutes more and the other person (whom they're buying credits from) doesn't change their lifestyle one iota and the overall net effect is greatly increased carbon being released.......and that, my friend, typifies "Mr Carbon Credits" lifestyle....he's unable to separate fact from fiction, truth from lies............oh...and I forgot...all while telling us that WE consume too much energy.......LMFAO....ROTFF...........


----------



## begreen (May 29, 2007)

> What happens when a huge number of homes in the same area tap into geothermal? The Earth is cooling (under the surface) at a certain rate, what are the consequences of increasing that rate?



The geothermal plants I'm refering to are on the industrial level, big steam plants generating megawatts. All of Iceland is currently run by geothermal electricity. Clean and available power.


----------



## webbie (May 29, 2007)

Closing another thread cause Cast and Bab do not know how to discuss things.

Tell you what, I will PAY for Al Gore and Clinton dolls to be delivered to those two, and then they can stick pins in 'em.

The only "truth" I can imagine is that these folks are either jealous or obsessed, and neither is good for the soul. If you don't like somebody - ignore 'em!

But the more you mention the names, the more it is clear that you are perhaps intrigued.


----------

