Thanks, nspire. It's good to see a sense of humour displayed on this board.

Ken

… I see that you're one semi-log (plot) short of a logjam …

Okay pacplyer,

You say KEM's arguments are more logical, Let's just see about that. He trots out one a fairly regular basis that had me falling out of my chair. It is the statement about one nanoparticle of DU having the same radio-biological impact as 10,000 chest x-rays (one of the few statements he has made than can actually be evaluated as opposed to merely expressing an opinion).

First, a nanoparticle (we have to assume a composition of 100% U-238, since natural uranium comprises just 7 parts per 2000, U-235 and virtually all of that small percentage has been removed to create the depleted uranium) of U-238 has 20 to 24 atoms in it. To be generous to KEM, let's assume 24. Again, to be generous let's assume a 100 year life-span after exposure. Since U-238 has a half-life of 4.46 billion years, that means that 12 of the atoms in the nano-paricle will have undergone disintegration (to Thorium) releasing an Alpha particle in the process, in 4.46 billion years.

That means our poor, doomed inhaler of the aforementioned nano-particle has a one in three and three quarters millions (3,750,000) chance of being alive when a single one of the disintegrations takes place. You are welcome to check my math. As I have said to KEM on numerous occasions, the radioactive component is nowhere near as dangerous as the heavy-metal, chemical toxicity and the possibility that the DU acts as some sort of nuclear-level, chemical catalyst.

You say KEM's arguments are more acceptable to most here? Of that I have no doubt. You say a great deal about me without knowing the least thing. Why, because I dare to state a contrary opinion (heavens to betsy, how dare I do such a thing in a democracy) - I feel it is important to understand the issues not simply have an opinion.

By the way, you can call me any name you want but unlike the "silver spoon idiot", Bush, I paid attention in school. I am not a sheep, bleeting in the herd nor a zealot who believes without reason. I will not give credit to the opinions of those who talk a good game but slept through high-school physics.

Ken

Before any of the smarter folks here object, yes, I know the disintegrations occur more along the lines of a lognormal distribution rather than a straight line. I had to keep the math simple. It really doesn't matter – divide the result by 10,000 and it still equals 4+ normal lifetimes before the first disintegration.

Ken

I'm not surprised to see old "pottymouth" try to get in the last word here. KEM is in no way set in his opinions. I and others have changed his mind on issues.... KEM has changed our minds as well. None of us are adverse to someone putting forth a rational argument against anything.

What upsets kendpotter so much, is that KEM's arguments are more logical and acceptable to most here than his. Being able to cut and paste biased sources does not make you more educated than anyone else, potty. I have seen nothing that you have posted kendpotter to make me believe that you have anything other than a substandard high school education.

Billy on the other hand, has changed our views many times since he is logical, calm, obviously well educated with authentic technical grounding, and more importantly knows how to put forth complex subject matter in a form that people from other backgrounds can understand. He knows how to teach.

You, on the other hand, have none of these strengths, and what's worse, your ill mannered.

Lastly, you don't even know where you are. You are on an open public forum; not an ivy league debating team for silver spoon idiots like Bush.

pacplyer

Kem,

Arguing with you is futile. It doesn't matter how well meaning a person is, it is an utter waste of time. You have your position. It is set. You don't know why you believe the way you do. You have listened to some people, and made up your mind. It has become a matter of faith, since you don't have the requisite education to rationally evaluate the information you read. You don't know or care to invest the study time necessary to devine the difference between a rem and the band R.E.M. or a bagel and a bequerel.

These are serious issues demanding difficult choices. I am not a "pro-nuke" nutcase. Conservation is our first, obvious, and best choice. Other decisions won't be so easy and anyone who thinks economics isn't important, is too dim-witted to participate in the conversation. Individuals may act against there own self-interest for a period of time, but groups never will (see tragedy of the commons).

The discussion is not helped by religious (what else is faith in abscence of understanding?) zealotry. These are important problems that hold the future of our society and the human habitability of the Earth at stake. There are a lot of people out there willing to say anything to sell a book and maybe gain some noteriety. Get an education so you can tell when someone is trying to sell you some snake-oil (like cold fusion). These fake remedies distract us from real issues.

There is no such thing as faith-based science.

Ken

Good points PAC. I admire Billy also. I often jab at him and he at me, we kid a lot. Sometimes too much for some who are not familiar with us, I admit. He would be a big help to correct the mess, for the reasons I stated. ___ So would you and Paul Smith

Pissing up a rope is foul language? How about fuck, shit and dirty cocksucker. ___ Now that's foul.

Glad this thread is in th e archives.

The response to Bill above uses some very good points, they would be better served without the foul language abuse and personal attack. I would add that some good thinking people do get lost on the trees without looking at the forest. This issues of nuclear energy are a grand problem because they seem to be advertised in a way that makes this option viable. This so because the industry has so much money attached and invested that it has to be maintained. The industry, with government help and lobby has lied to the congress and paid the people who make the laws in a number of way.

The grid of course is a way to keep control of the population and is a key thought, one to be addressed. But the most important point that Bill seems to forget challenging me directly, must review is the environmental down side. It is not only about money BILL, it is about health and safety of the environment and all its creatures, including the fish that are dying in hordes near any nuclear installation. It is about the heat that it generates in all aquatic situations and the radioactive water that permeates the environment regardless of what the PR people are telling you including the scientists who are bout by the industry, just as Exxon Mobile bout a bunch for fifteen million dollars to argue Global Warming.

Bill, it is only partially about money. . .try thinking about health. Also even in talking about relative costs they are measured by how many people make the switch. production figures impact on relative costs.

You can easily ignore that critical assessment BILLY, or accept it as construtive observations. It is people with your brains, experience and abilty to communicate, that we desperately need to stop the madness, congress people and senators will listen to people who have your knowledge. Please listen to Pacplayer, Paul B, Sjc and Paul M Smith and others who exhibit a high degree of common sense and really examine the other side of the coin, and then accept the fact that we really are going to have the methane gas release into the atmosphere. We still have a slim chance of preventing that disaster. __ Slim!

I don't care what the cost figures are for developing and using solar panels, and there are new types of solar rods being developed which are far less expensive to manufacture than the panels. If we would initate massive programs to develop geo-thermal, tidal, wind energy and solar combined, we could have clean energy, nation wide, within five to seven years. If we don't do that and start now, we are just screwing oursleves.

If any wish to sit and figure the monitary costs, while the global warming is not intelligently addressed, they might as well count beans. The global warming and acidity of the oceans is the most seriious problem, and using fossil fuel and atomic energy to produce our energy needs is insane.

That's the bottom line, not how much it costs for each KW of electrical power when using solar or wind versus nuclear or coal. What is wrong with you Billy? Put your calculator away for a day, have a couple of drinks, relax and honestly think about your children and any they may have in the future. Do we reallly wish to ignore the major problems and allow them to get so far out of control we kill the planet and all life on it? Why on Earth do I sit here and waste my time? It's like pissing up a rope. For a man as obviously as intelligent and decent as you are, it amazes me to see you are so self centered on one issue and can't see the forest for the trees.

Socialism for the wealthy. Reagan's job, like Bush's today, is to ensure that the m.i.c. continues to get its entitlement "social programs". Nuclear is one of the largest outside of the military, and entails many of the same contractors as well.

God forbid we have single-payer health care, health care for kids, properly fund things like Head Start, etc. The poor should remain capitalists (without capital).

Utility scale would be solar thermal electric like the Kramer Junction Plant in the Mojave Desert. Concentrated solar parabolic troughs heat oil that heats steam to drive turbines. There has been 300 mw of production there for more than 25 years. Now they want to expand it to 9 square miles producing 1.2 gh of electricity. They would have kept going in the 80s, but Reagan put a stop to it.

Pacflyer,

Maufacturing of the solar cells is energy intensive. Here is a link to one of the life cycle studies:

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf

The pertinent comparision of nuclear with solar is on page ii.

What your neighbor has done is great. PV solar scales very well for consumer use. The economics of solar are very different for the consumer and the utility.

A consumer who lives in a fairly consistently sunny area with high electrical costs can use PV solar to generate domestic electricity and avoid the retail price of electricity as your neighbor has done. In those areas where the utilities are required to purchase excess consumer generated electricity it works out even better.

For the utiliity, generating electricity is very expensive. Primarily because of the cost of manufacturing the panels. The last time I checked the price, solar panels were about $5/watt at retail. Assuming a utility would get 40% off retail for bulk purchase, that is $3/watt.

Assuming land, installation and power conditioning is $1/watt which gives a total of $4/watt. New build nuclear is projected to be about $2/watt.

Solar operates at about 25% of capacity (i.e. it only works when the sun shines). Nuclear operates at about 90% of capacity (all the time except for refuel and manintenance).

For delivered electricity capital for solar ends up about 8 times as expensive as nuclear. This is partially compensated for the fact that nuclear has an ongoing fuel cost which solar does not.

Regards,

Bill

I am surprised by Billy's claim that the construction CO2 footprint of solar plants is greater that the CO2 footprint of a Nuclear plant per Kwh.

Which life cycle studies do you refer to Bill? The details seem suspect to me. For example, are we talking about the low cost Siemans panels that my neighbors in CA use? I suspect your studies do not consider this application of solar. No construction of a plant is necessary since the consumer puts these panels on his roof. CO2 emmissions are virtually zero.

For example, my old neighbor Jim, bought $12,000 worth of solar panels for his 7,000 sq ft home, the gov paid him $6,000 and he figures his break even is four years. He has an automatic grid switch, which when it is cloudy or dark, switches him back to the grid. Usually, he uses his own power and runs his meter Backwards. The utility company then sends him a check for about $30-100 each month buying the excess power for about half of what they charge for it (scumbags.)

These are high quality silicone panels if I remember correctly. Millions of these in the southern states would put this nuke scam out of business wouldn't they? Also I suspect the other worry is that the gov would no longer have control of power generation and we could shut down the grid any time we had a grievance with our leaders/corps.

They would just phucking hate that wouldn't they?

IMHO, nuke power makes absolutely no sense at all. Nuke power is about control, not sustainability.

pac "the other side of the coin" plyer

There is not an unlimited supply of uranium either. We have just so much of it and that makes it a finite resource. We should use the energy we get everyday in that form of wireless fusion called the sun, which creates the wind, waves and rainfall. Think of fossil and big bang energy as a gift to be saved for the future. When is comes to solar and wind, use it or lose it.

I advocate using renewable now in a big way and saving the finite non-renewable energy for later. Do not wait until we run out of fossil energy resources and scramble for renewables. Use renewables NOW, so that we have some fossil energy left for later on.

We need fossil energy to make equipment like windmills and solar panels to save the remaining fossil energy resources. This is THE intelligent thing to do when you have a valuable finite resource, leverage it!

That is my understanding also Paul. You make it you own it.

It is physically and chemically possible to scrub CO2 emissions to a fairly clean state.

To my knowledge, it is not possible/feasible to render spent radioactive waste harmless. Nor is there any means of "scattering" or diluting it back to nature's original relatively benign entropy. It remains a very long-term burden.

Billy,

Thank you for the link. And thank you for continuing to put up with our impassioned barbs.

Good points all around. KEM is right to be alarmed, however, Billy is a friend here KEM and ike kay's point is valid that Billy does not make national policy; he does us all a great service by educating us on the science/politics of energy. I think we are all agreed that the hidden costs of coal (world-wide flooding, methane risk and weather disruption) mandate that we control the carbon output at all costs. It is a shame that the posters above are not on the US energy policy committee for the survival of our children depends on fast gov action. It seems to me then a combination of immediate coal stack CO2 scrubbers, solar panels mandated for residential use in the southern states and, god forbid, nuke plants (since the MIC is going to force them on us anyway) needs to be mandated by us through a National Boycott and a National Strike.

KEM is right, this is an emergency, and our leaders must all be thrown out since they are not doing their jobs here. I feel boycotting the main stream media in favor of sites like CD is an essential first step in the fight for public perception.

Please help me CDer's in accomplishing that by canceling your cable, dish, direct tv accounts and use the money to support sites like this one.

Thank you all.

Ike,

Nuclear power does indeed emit carbon dioxide from construction (and demolition) as well as during the mining of uranium. All other forms of electrical generation require energy inputs also.

Life cycle studies have shown that nuclear power emits less CO2 per kwh than solar power and slightly more than wind power. All three are vastly lower than natural gas, the best of the fossil fuels.

Bill

I enjoin this discussion is given to those who really do not know some of the facts surrounding the Nuclear discussion. I will debate any fact with anyone here if that is necessary. I have all the facts figures and research! As a filmmaker I have researched these statements for documentaries I produce. As far as how France pays for its energy; It is the same question that might be posed to America when asking how it will pay the one and half trillion for the Iraq war it will eventually cost. It is done with Chinese debt. The nuclear reactor and other inventions like cars that keep polluting this world is based on industry collusion is why changes are not made and fought to the end when it looks like they must come to an end. If they continue we face the end of the world for all life.
The amount of money invested into these industries keeps them functioning. The nuclear establishment now has a cause celebre', global warming, to push for increased production of Nuclear energy, even though its down side is horrific. You might be interested to know that despite the costs and interest on the debt for Nuclear power it is extremely dependent on fossil fuel during and after plant construction and for other reasons. For example the amount of concrete needed is extremely polluting and driven by fossil fuels and is not offset by the energy production. That is only one reason there are many more, such as the cost to the waterways, that are heated as well as the ocean. The amount of heat produced is causing major changes in the environment wherever a plant is located. This not even to consider the other dangers of meltdown, security breaches and radioactivity in the water and the environment.
In recent breakthrough in conserver technology, solar power technology invested with Google Corp money and others, has developed a new wafer thin solar panel capable of halving the cost of all energy produced from coal or nuclear plants and is within reach in less than two years. I think the Jurassic minds have to give way to the future. But if this moribund thinking prevails, take heart there will be some means of living for a while regardless of how difficult it becomes because of toxicity, radioactivity, lack of fresh water, or the myriad problems America faces. All this while one and a half trillion dollars will be spent on Iraq.. It has been said by many there are too many people on this planet in any case. What matter to those persons if four fifths of the population perishes?
We can learn some things from our elders. They remember a time when "disposable" wasn't part of our lexicon, when we lived with far less but family and community were the keys to happy, fulfilled lives. Like the idea of getting off the grid that this new technology offers.
Ever since the end of World War II when the transition from a war economy to a peace economy was made by making consumption a North American way of life, we have been caught up in the notion that life is all about having more stuff, though every indicator shows that greater material wealth does not mean greater happiness and fulfillment. Most people in the world grew up in this time of unprecedented growth and change, so to them, this is the way all must be sustained at all costs.
Since more and more of us live in cities, our understanding of our biological dependence on clean air, clean water, clean energy and other living things becomes subsumed by the notion that the economy is the source of everything that we need. I was told by the Alberta environment minister years ago that without a strong growing economy, we can't afford to protect the environment. So even the environment minister saw the economy as a higher priority than the very things that keep us alive and healthy."

This has to change or we perish some more thinking for those who want nuclear options for life.

IKE

Good points Paul. The most serious problem now of course, is the global warming and the coming release of methne gas into the atmosphere. Without a MASSIVE world wide effort to correct that, or an attempt to correct it, we are all screwed.

We must initiate a massive effort to stop burning coal and America should lead the way. It would be easier, faster, and far less expensive to do that with development of clean energy, __ not nuclear.

We don't have the time to go with small companies, it has to be a massive effort now, and use the power grids we already have in place. It won't happen. To many of the powers, don't believe the global warming issue.

Kem,

I'm coming to wonder whether the autocratic/authoritarian aspect of the pro-nuke and pro-oil lobby pushes those forms of energy because they are, by nature, monopolized, centralized, top-down administered, gridded, etc. If our society promoted energy sources which were privately and locally maintained, managed by co-ops, etc. or otherwise handled like most ordinary commodities, it might cause a decentralization, resurgence in small-town Americana, new methods for people to get off the grid, become more independent rather than dependent, etc.

Seraphicmom,

France has basically no indigenous fossil fuels. It was importing fuels for power generation at the time of the Arab oil embargo of 1972. The French government realized how vulnerable their economy was to fuel disruptions and resolved to address the problem. After internal debate, the government decided to massively adopt nuclear energy for power generation.

The first couple of reactors were purchased from Westinghouse along with design rights. The French company Framatome adapted and updated that early design for the remainder of the fleet. The reactors are owned and operated by the government national utility, EdF.

Framatome has now joined with Siemens to design and market a new generation of reactors. The first of these reactors is being built in Finland, the second in France. The design has just been adapted and submitted to the NRC for licensing in the US.

France operates a fleet of 59 nuclear power reactors. They provide approximately 80% of the electricity for the country. The remainder is mostly hydroelectric. Other than the hydroelectric, they have very little investment in renewables. They have excess electric power and export electricity to both Italy and England.

The French did not make their nuclear decision for greenhouse gas reasons but, because of that decision, they have among the lowest of carbon footprints in Europe.

France does not have economic deposits of uranium. Most of their uranium is imported from Africa.

If you want greater depth on nuclear power in France here is a link: www.uic.com/au/nip28.htm

Bill

Nuclear power makes a very few, very wealthy.
Those who own the gold __ make the rules.

Nuclear power is:
expensive,
inefficient,
unsafe,
bad for civil liberties,
open to terrorist exploitation,
prone to serious accidents,
a major contributor to greenhouse gases when you consider the whole life-cycle of the system,
a major water waster at the mine,
a major water waster at the plant,
a major water waster at the rest of the fuel cycle,
bad for energy independence for America (with only 4.5% of the world uranium reserves in the U.S.),
a capital/upfront dollar hog,
a subsidy hog,
a waste management burden on future generations,
. . . and I could go on.
Nuclear power would never make sense in a free market, without massive subsidies.

We have the technology now to have clean enegy here. Funny, if the oil and uranium people would put money into clean energy, own and operate the facilities, they could make just as much money as they do now. Guess it's not 'funny'.

If we had that kind of technology, we'd screw up another water planet.

MOM Google France nuclear power plants. The articles will answer every question.

Google nuclear accidents too, __ amazing

sjc,
Even with relatively small disasters like hurricanes, the insurance companies often can't pay out.

Kem,
If we had that sort of technology, we'd have a giant solar array in orbit and some means worked out to transmit the energy cleanly back to earth.

But it seems our civilization is faltering -- under the rule of self-destructive pirates. We can't put a man on the moon any more, even our auto manufacturing has now slipped to Japan.

It may well be that oil and nuclear are favored not because they're "new" technologies (they're technologies of 50-100 years ago), but because the US is no longer interested much in leading science and solving new engineering problems at-large (with the exception of medicine), pushing frontiers.

It is my understanding that the insurance fund for nuclear plant disasters is self (under) funded by the industry. The government does not force the industry to properly fund this account and if any disaster happens and there is not enough money to cover the damages, the U.S. government must cover the rest.

i have some questions about france, thought some of you brainy informed people might have some answers for me. 1)why did france have no way to buy coal or oil ? was an embargo against them ? 2)whose idea was it to go with nuclear energy ? who sealed the idea ? 3)what company was hired to build the plants ?what country was the builders,from ? 4) what country is selling them the uranium ? whom are their suppliers ? any answers, posters ?

irishgawdess,

The New Mexico enrichment plant will be operated under the supervision of the IAEA. It will not manufacture weapons grade uranium. It will enrich uranium suitable for commercial power reactors.

The US government has excess stocks of weapons grade uranium and is diluting them down with either natural or depleted uranium to demilitarize them and prepare them for use in commercial power reactors. The Russian government is doing likewise.

The only enrichment plant in operation today in the US is an obsolete diffusion plant using WWII technology in Kentucky. It is very energy intensive and not competitive. The company that operates the plant in Kentucky, USEC, is building a centrifuge plant in Ohio to compete with the one being built in New Mexico.

Bill

Let's play a game, it could be fun and offer food for thought, or for some, it could be stupid and a waste of time. If so, just scroll on by and forget it. For those who are bored and want to play a brief game, here goes.

First, here are the rules: ___ NASA has discovered there is another water planet in the Mlky Way galaxy, it's in an enviromental state, just like Earth was 10,000 years ago. There are no humans there, everything else is the same as Earth once was, the same flower and fauna, the same wild life. It's beautiful,___ a garden of Eden.

NASA is developing space ships which will carry a total of 500,000 volunters, people of evey race on Earth to that new planet, on a one time, one way flight, there will be no other flights. You and your loved ones are selected to be among the immigrants.

You all arrive safely at your new planet named Sanguine and you have the necessary hand tools to build a city and protect yourselves from any obnoxious wildlife and the elements of nature.

You have carpenters, wheelwrights, cabint makers, blacksmiths, doctors, teachers, scientists, farmers, seamen, foresters, geologists, miners, craftsmen, story tellers and writers, musicians, herbologists and dancing girls, children and Siouxrose, Billy__y4 and one fu#*ing lawyer.

You establish a democracy, have a constitutional government and elect your leaders and pass ten necessary laws and build a small city, a school and a jail, you put Cheney and Bush in it. (They snuck aboard one of the cargo ships). Craftsmen start businesses. You mine gold, siver, precious gems and have currency.

Then you decide to have electrical power, for the wood fires and candels are already beginning to create a slight pollution of the pure atmosphere near the seashore city.

You have three choices of how you will develop electrical power. (One)__ burn oil or coal to make steam. __ (Two) Atomic power. __(Three) Clean energy, using wind/solar/hdro-electric/geo-thermal/tidal. All of the adults vote on the issue. Now, how do yu think the vote will turn out?

If you say clean energy, you can leave your computer and go eat a cookie, or some chocolate, have a beer, coffee, tea, or a mixed drink, ORRR, have wild sex with someone, or yorself if alone. ( Another human please if you don't wish to do it by hand ).

If you picked either of the other two options, you must stand in a corner, and beat your head against the wall for one hour. I understand one can lose 150 calories an hour doing that. If you picked nuclear, you must also smash your computer to pieces and promise to never, ever, log onto Common Dreams again.

What transpired here on this little world, this unique biosphere, was after we had managed to split the atom, the genie was out of the bottle, all wizards knew it was clean enegy, inexpensive and could be safe, IF, we were very careful with the deadly wastes produced. There was plenty of uranium for fuel and we went that way. Now we are stuck with it. ___Sort of.

Now, durng the past 30 some years, we know how to effectively and economicaly use solar/wind/geo-thermal/and tidal. Hdro-electric is about maxed out, due to limits of dam locals. The problem is, the powers who are, own the uranium and coal mines and they really don't want clean energy ___ yet.

Those who own the gold, make the rules. And that is why we are all gonna die, when the methane gas erupts in the thawing Arctic. That's sad, tragic actually, because it is true and it will happen, maybe in just ten years or less, maybe thirty or forty. __ But then, no one ever said life was fair. If any did, they were delusional.

"...the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection said Exelon's coastal management plan for Oyster Creek was consistent with a state plan, an Oyster Creek spokeswoman said."

Yes, but the question should be, "How much have the NRC's standards been lowered over the past seven years due to cutbacks and lack of government responsibility?" We need everything to revert back to pre-January 2001 in order to make realistic assessments on something this important.

Why stop with nuclear reactors in New Jersey? New Mexico, governed by presidential candidate Bill Richardson, has nuclear reactors, as well as a plant being built by a Louisiana company, that will supply the materials needed for nuclear weapons.

Are we going to allow this plant to come online and perpetuate war?

Find the IPCC chart of ice core data that was the basis of Gore's movie and book. (A great chart is in the book Inconvenient Truth). Note that the past cycles each had a spike of temp and CO2 which was in a very short geological moment defeated and reversed. Until this cycle, it would have been hard to tell what triggered the reversal, GHG or temp. But we can now see that CO2 was not it, because CO2 has already gone so far past natural historical norms that if it was the trigger, we would have the direct, present time experience of whatever it was that did the reversing. That means global temperature is the trigger. That means nuclear energy is part of the problem, just as much as burning oil, coal or ethanol. Note the required cooling towers.
If you are reading this tonite, make a quick visit to NOAA NWS.gov and get a gander at that west coast storm--satellite-west conus-water vapor-loop will give you an idea of the beginning stages of the weather phenomena that will do the natural reversal. Read Gore's book and watch The Day After Tomorrow for a flawed, overly dramtic Tinsel Town version. Then buy some solar stock and hang on.

"perhaps animals are smarter than men,he thought,taking only what they need to live today, leaving something for tomorrow...maybe it is man who will eventually perish as he destroys the land and all it offers, taking the animals down with him." (zech macivey, a land remembered, by patrick d. smith )`

Again, environmentalists are the leading edge of progressive action. Thank you.

Hey guys:

Changing the subject ever so slightly, check out these links about predicted power future power sources from our government. We are going completely in the wrong direction regarding coal. With or without nuclear, this trend is going to be the end of us all.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_8.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_4.html

Coal will have a hockey stick graph all its own! Kem Patrick asked for opinions about the future the other day. Well here it is from the experts.

Hi PaulK. Yeah, we don't hear it all do we, but I said at the beginning of my post that it was not my opinions. If you doubt it, read the link given by Paul Magill Smith. The accident in Conn. was even worse. No one heard about that at the time. "It was a minor release of radioactive gas, not to worry folks."

Read that article and if you have any arguments there, we can debate it.

Kem wrote:

"The New Jersey Oyster Creek reactor once released five times as much radioactive elements than that of the Three Mile Island accident."

Just fact checking: I have to find out if this is true. Three Mile Island was a complete loss of coolant accident and then a partial core meltdown. The TMI molten core had to melt out the side of the containment vessel first and then down, but it counts as a meltdown. Mother Jones reported that lots of TMI locals all got cancer.

To beat TMI by a factor of 5, Oyster Creek would have had to boil off all of its coolant at a ripe old age. I would have heard of this.

Oh, by the way, this is a big argument for closing down very old nuclear power stations. When they violently kick off, they dump over 10 times the long-lived radioactive by-products into the air that the 20 month old Three Mile Island dumped out.

Are you sure you weren't comparing Three Mile Island to Chernobyl?

Yeah and we bought some cheeze from Switzerland and discovered it was full of holes. We sent that stuff to the NRC for analysis,__ they never replied. You just can't trust the government.

There's also an interesting overlap between conservation and astronomy (light pollution is the astronomer's bane). I grew up a few miles from a highway strip with over a dozen or two auto dealers. Brilliantly lit all night, even after the businesses were closed, you could easily see the haze on a cloudy night from a long way off.

The French decision was also made before the Euro, the EU and much closer cooperation in general.

I was in Germany shortly after the Chernobyl disaster and there wasn't much fresh milk -- all tossed out, even that far from the reactor.

i look at this picture of a nuclear energy plant and see the smoke that billows profusely and i know there must be hidden and invisible and deadly enemies within its smokey clouds.by populating this world with nuclear plants,it is playing roulette with the odds,the more plants,the more our chances balloon to being destroyed by them.a little accident here,a big accident there,a gruesome scenario.humans are not perfect,machines can malfunction, we have no right to play with such awesome power, we will eventually get burned. nobody suspected that airplanes could be used as weapons, what of nuclear power plants ?

A French politician said that the French reliance on nuclear power was based on no coal, no oil, no choice. This decision was made before alternative energy was possible on a large scale. I don't know their wind and solar resource potential, but I bet they will use a greater % of their potential than the USA within the next ten years.

I had a 1984 Renault Encore that AVERAGED 42 mpg it was built in Kenosha Wisconsin by American Motors. In a mere 13 years the USA will require 35 mpg for cars. We have a long way to go before we can complain about other nations' energy choices.

and kem patrick ,for once,i totally agree with you...(don't let that scare you off from your fine take on this subject)

thanks billy, sorry kendpotter, but i thought you were making light of some serious health issues, that have recently come to light in france. as far as economics goes...it doesn't get more economical than the sun and the wind and the tides. i refuse to believe that those technologies cannot be harnessed by mankind,efficiently.the problem would lie in keeping the money-grubbing elite nabobs,from messing up the good things,creation has provided for free.

GottaGetOffTheGrid,

In your comparison of nuclear reactors with wind power you need to include the "on" time or average percentage of rated power.

Land based wind turbines average about 25 to 30% of their rated power. CANDU reactors, as used in Canada, average about 85% of their rated power.

Bill

It is not possible for a homeowner to insure their home against a catastrophic accident of a nearby nuclear reactor in the US. The Price Andersen Act limits liablility of the reactors( and merchant generators) to 9.2 billion dollars. According to the Calculated Reactor Accident Casualty study #2 of 1982, paid for by federal money done by Sandia labs - it found that our local reactor would have 68 billion in expenses in 1980 US dollars. This stuff is amazing. The current nuclear renaissance is a PR sham, based on the 2005 Energy Policy Act and its paying of 72+ % of the start up costs for the next 6000 Megawatts of new nuclear power.
France and its dependence on nuclear is nothing to write home about.

"Didier Anger, a representative of Normandy, and a founder of France's Green Party said," "France made a historic mistake when it decided to rely so heavily on nuclear power, rather than develop more advanced renewable technologies and efficient utilization methods," "France is no showcase for nuclear power,… Before pointing to France as a success story, the American public should ask the French people what they think of the problems of waste, disease, and government cover-ups."

Reprocessing doesn't destroy radiation. It divides and spreads the radiation into: plutonium, uranium, highly radioactive waste, medium level nuclear waste and a lot of low level nuclear waste. The process increases the volume of nuclear waste by 'contaminating' buildings, people and the environment. The financial cost of dealing with the legacy of the nuclear industry keeps growing.

So, unless and until nuclear can be safe- I will keep spending my time and fun tickets working to stop the re-licensing of old reactors...

nayoibi,

Polonium-210 is not an issue with watercooled reactors. It is associated with a Russian designed and built fast reactor which uses liquid lead and bismuth as a coolant. it may also be used in some Russian weaponry.

There are many radioactive isotopes produced in a watercooled reactor that, if released into the environment, are very dangerous. Polonium-210 is not one to worry about. Strontium-90 mentioned in another post is one to worry about.

Bill

These Nuke plants are touted as providing cheap electricity. the fact is wind power has become just as cheap.

Up here in Alberta, they are proposing to spend $6B to build a 2500MW nuke plant.

Suncor just built a 76 MW wind farm for $176M, thats $2.3M per MW.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2007/10/c9555.html

if they spent the $6B on wind farms they'd get 2600MW. Nuke plants, even subsidised ones, are simply not economical anymore.

I see where Paul Magill Smith has posted an excellent link on the subject. It's a long article and if any are really interested enough to post a comment here, you may wish to copy it and study it. Nuclear power is far more dangerous than I ever imagined.

The three Mile Isand accident was one of the most publicised, it is not the worst in the states by a long shot. Read that link Paul offered and you will see why that is true.

If someone wishes to discuss the economics of nuclear power, here is some economics to ponder.

We have spent near a trillion on the war and occupation in Iraq, ___ wasted money. If our government would allocate just 20% of the amount we are still spending on that disaster, we could have totally clean electrical energy in five to six years, ___ with a MASSIVE project to do so. By MASSIVE, I mean a crisis type, MASSIVE effort. It could and it should be done. We are facing a crisis with the global warming issue and time is running out.

A program to eleminate burning fossil fuel in power plants would be a good start to fight that crisis. We could also eleminate every nuclear power plant and show the world that we indeed are a powerful nation after all. Lead the way is how we should be acting and performing. Not bombing and shock and awe.

Glenn,

All of the privately owned nuclear power plants in the US carry privately issued liability insurance. It is a requirement of their license to operate.

Like any liability insurance policy, they are capped. No insurance company will write a liabilty policy without a cap for a nuclear plant or anything else.

Price-Anderson, which all the antinuclear folks get their panties in a bunch about, addresses the liability beyond
the insurance cap if that is required by an accident. The first thing P-A does is allow an industry pool for accidents beyond the cap. This would not be otherwise allowed under antitrust legislation. If that pool is exceeded, then the government would step in.

The most expensive nuclear accident in the US was Three Mile Island-2. The damage and cleanup exceeded the limits of the utility's insurance. The industry pool was invoked and provided the remainder of the cost for the cleanup. No government funding was used.

Bill

The following is not my opinions, they are those of Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, an emeritus professor of radiological physics.

ALL nulear power plants emit dangerous radioactive elments. There have have also been mumerous 'accidental' releases of strodium 90 for just one example, that poison will attack the bone marrow, weakening the immune system. That is where our blood's white cells are formed and people suffer and die from all kinds of conditions which are not know to have been caused from a nuclear power plant's accidential release. Children are far more sucepptable to radiation hazards.

The New Jersey Oyster Creek reactor once released five times as much radioactive elements than that of the Three Mile Island accident. That drifted all across the North Eastern United States. People who live there now suffer a very high amont of cancers and other diseases and health costs are out of sight, the enormous insurance rates are bankrupting companies or forcing them to outsource to foreign countries.

In 1975, after an accident at the Millstone reactor in Connecticut, millions of curies of radioactive gases were released. There are far too many nuclear power plant accidents to mention here, but the infomation is available to any who wish to find it on the web. France for another one of many countries, has had several accidents and of course they dump radioactive waste into the oceans, which is cheaper than storing it.

These are my opinions. We must have a world wide program to develop and use clean energy, wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal and hydro electric combined, and begin now. Using nuclear energy is actually insane. __ So is burnig coal.

bbr-001

I couldn't agree more. This stuff is dangerous and needs the most rigorous oversight we can achieve. The Neo-con nincompoops would have us running them like it was no big deal.

RE: kendpotter January 4th, 2008 4:53 pm
Glenn,

"I am not going to dispute facts with you (particularly since your post has none, merely assertions)."

Don't take my word for it, kendpotter, but how about the FACTS from a worldclass respected physicist?:

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html

Why gosh, nayoibi, thanks.

Such a humanitarian you are. I don't recall wishing anything bad for you or anyone else. I guess its my just desserts for having dared to express an opinion contrary to yours.

By the way, I am not ignorant of the surge in childhood leukemia. Epidimioligists are working very hard to determine if the two are related since there are so many other factors at work.

Best wishes, nayoibi!

P.S. Don't think I didn't notice that you failed to address the economic question that I brought up.

The nuclear industry is no place for neocon deregulation by nonenforcement or reductions in force. I guess nothing is safe from these morons.

We need nuclear power and we need to do it right. Bring in the IAEA if necessary. If al baredei has to audit the US program, embarassing, but so be it. Fits with the US going third world.

kendpotter,i would hope they will build one in your backyard,but that would still be to close to mine.if you did any fact checking,you would find that children in france are having a rise in health problems and those within closer proximity,a substantial epidemic of leukemia.

Glenn,

I am not going to dispute facts with you (particularly since your post has none, merely assertions).

I would however, like to pose a question. If the economics of nuclear power are so bad, how is France able to produce over 80% of their electricity that way without going bankrupt? For the life of me, I can't understand why their citizens aren't storming the Bastille since their government had made it a priority to produce electricity in the most expensive fashion possible. Obviously, the government has to subsidize the heck out of it, but then where do they get all the revenue to provide such excellent, universal health care? And on a 35 hour work-week! It's amazing!! Talk about voodoo economics. It must be magic of some sort or other.

I am sure it is just sheer dumb luck that none of the material has fallen into the hands of terrorists especially since the French (gasp!!!) reprocess.

Those poor, damned, doomed Gallic fools. It's too bad they don't have you to show them the way.

Ken

Nuclear is the most expensive form of power ever devised. If we taxpayers were to stop providing liability for the power companies - no insurance company would be foolish enough to provide coverage - and have the companies cover all the costs even the decommissioning and waste protection and the liability, they would quickly lose interest in this most insane form of power production ever devised. Right now our soldiers are disposing of the waste (depleted uranium) all over Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to birth defects, cancers and death for our troops as well as many generations of civilians. This is indiscriminate mass murder on an epic scale. We need to learn how to do democracy.

contrary to wide-held beliefs.nuclear energy is not clean,safe or economical for our long run.the waste from it not only has a shelf life of infinity, the by-products are extremely dangerous and the stuff a 'terrorists' dreams are made of.as far as i know,no one has conducted any tests to see if even the smallest amounts of polonium,a natural by-product is being released,silently,invisibly and deadly.can you imagine a world,where a grid of nuclear plants grid the globe ? how easy it would be for the new world order to control life and death. i will take my solar, wind and tidal power straight-up as creation designed it.