OT: Nuclear Energy

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:54:40 -0500, "bonnie" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I believe the thoughtful development and use of alternative energy is
>imperative.
>
>Why though, is there no talk of building nuclear power plants. Yes, I
>know there are dangers but it seems no one is trying to work on
>it...trying to make them safer so nuclear can be used without much
>public upset.
>
>Just wanted to see what you guys think about this.
>
>bonnie
>
In the OECD countries environmental impact rules mean that the
approval process may take a decade or more. At the end of that
approval may not even be granted. The life of a nuke plant may be at
best 40 years after which there is a long and expensive
decommissioning process. So we are looking at a 60 year or more
committment that only a clear government nuclear power policy can
provide and a government owned utility is capable of enduring. This is
where all this mantra about privatizing everything and free enterprise
has come back to haunt the US and the rich countries that bought into
the US model.

"PaPaPeng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4roe141vhjf01kvg9oq7qummvkut5b7pub@4ax.com...

So we are looking at a 60 year or more
: committment that only a clear government nuclear power policy can
: provide and a government owned utility is capable of enduring.

I guess we better get cracking then. I only see the world demand
growing, and fast.

bonnie wrote:
> "PaPaPeng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:4roe141vhjf01kvg9oq7qummvkut5b7pub@4ax.com...
>
> So we are looking at a 60 year or more
> : committment that only a clear government nuclear power policy can
> : provide and a government owned utility is capable of enduring.
>
> I guess we better get cracking then. I only see the world demand
> growing, and fast.

As noted earlier, the ChiCom solution isn't needed--there are plenty of
applications already filed to clearly refute his notions that processes
are so onerous as to prevent action by private utilities.

It will be a test of the new "streamlined" licensing process and a
telling observation of whether the C-sequestration crowd really wants to
accomplish something or are simply still just obstructionists at heart.

--

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:06:37 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>bonnie wrote:
>> "PaPaPeng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:4roe141vhjf01kvg9oq7qummvkut5b7pub@4ax.com...
>>
>> So we are looking at a 60 year or more
>> : committment that only a clear government nuclear power policy can
>> : provide and a government owned utility is capable of enduring.
>>
>> I guess we better get cracking then. I only see the world demand
>> growing, and fast.
>
>As noted earlier, the ChiCom solution isn't needed--there are plenty of
>applications already filed to clearly refute his notions that processes
>are so onerous as to prevent action by private utilities.
>
>It will be a test of the new "streamlined" licensing process and a
>telling observation of whether the C-sequestration crowd really wants to
>accomplish something or are simply still just obstructionists at heart.



Okay. All major countries in the world face the same national energy
security problem and have to seek solutions. (The small countries
don't have a say.) We'll see in 10 years time which national
strategies work. The rest of this GWB year plus two presidential terms
into the next administration(s) should provide important real world
lessons and evidence. The large energy importers will be US, China,
EU, India, Japan and the Cetral European countries. That's a pretty
good mix of economic and political models from which to draw critical
conclusions.

On 4/29/2008 10:54 AM bonnie spake thus:

> I believe the thoughtful development and use of alternative energy is
> imperative.
>
> Why though, is there no talk of building nuclear power plants. Yes, I
> know there are dangers but it seems no one is trying to work on
> it...trying to make them safer so nuclear can be used without much
> public upset.

"No talk"? What, I guess you haven't been watching your required minimum
daily ration of network TV lately, which certainly has covered this
subject. 20/20 recently ran a piece on it, with their usual
libertarian/free market/laissez faire take that we ought to unleash this
"clean" source of energy.

As a former anti-nuclear activist, I remain adamant in my opposition to
this basically evil form of energy production. Please educate yourself
about the dangers, which come not so much from fears of a Three Mile
Island-type accident (which, while remote, is still a real possibility)
as from the threats of radioactive exposure and contamination all
through the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to milling to fuel rod
fabrication to plant usage to end-of-life storage (remember that we
still have no long-range solution for nuclear waste disposal), including
the dangers of transport all along the way.

My take is that we already have the world's safest nuclear fusion
technology, and we ought to take advantage of it. It's called the sun.


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote in
news:48176633$0$19797$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com:

> On 4/29/2008 10:54 AM bonnie spake thus:
>
>> I believe the thoughtful development and use of alternative energy is
>> imperative.
>>
>> Why though, is there no talk of building nuclear power plants. Yes, I
>> know there are dangers but it seems no one is trying to work on
>> it...trying to make them safer so nuclear can be used without much
>> public upset.
>
> "No talk"? What, I guess you haven't been watching your required minimum
> daily ration of network TV lately, which certainly has covered this
> subject. 20/20 recently ran a piece on it, with their usual
> libertarian/free market/laissez faire take that we ought to unleash this
> "clean" source of energy.

It IS clean.

> As a former anti-nuclear activist,

"former"? what changed you?

> I remain adamant in my opposition to
> this basically evil form of energy production.

that "evil" is a construct of your own twisted mind.
IMO,coal mining/burning is far more "evil".

> Please educate yourself
> about the dangers, which come not so much from fears of a Three Mile
> Island-type accident (which, while remote, is still a real possibility)
> as from the threats of radioactive exposure and contamination all
> through the nuclear fuel cycle,

yeah,that's been a real problem in the many years of actual use by all the
countries that use nuclear power plants.[sarcasm]

> from mining to milling to fuel rod
> fabrication to plant usage to end-of-life storage (remember that we
> still have no long-range solution for nuclear waste disposal),

yes,we do;Yucca Mtn.
too bad the environuts keep blocking it's use.
(and then complaining there's no solution)

> including
> the dangers of transport all along the way.

Only a "danger" in your own mind.

> My take is that we already have the world's safest nuclear fusion
> technology, and we ought to take advantage of it. It's called the sun.

if it were PRACTICAL,it would have already been done.
heck,the environmental nuts could have financed it themselves.
But they'd never risk their own money on what they propose.
they just want to demand everybody do as they say.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik <[email protected]> writes:

> David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:48176633$0$19797$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com:
>
>> On 4/29/2008 10:54 AM bonnie spake thus:
>>
>>> I believe the thoughtful development and use of alternative energy is
>>> imperative.

>> from mining to milling to fuel rod
>> fabrication to plant usage to end-of-life storage (remember that we
>> still have no long-range solution for nuclear waste disposal),
>
> yes,we do;Yucca Mtn.
> too bad the environuts keep blocking it's use.
> (and then complaining there's no solution)

I think it's the voters in Nevada.
Seems to me I remember GWB promising the Nevadians
that they'd never have to worry about Yucca Mountain being used.
I guess he's the environut you are referring to.

Anyway, I think stuffing the waste in a hole is the wrong way to go.

As I understand it, reprocessing the radioactive material can
separate the long lived wasted from the short lived waste and
reduce the volume of the dangerous stuff to almost nothing.

Carter outlawed that approach because of the plutonium produced.
However plutonium is a good reactor fuel.

Without reprocessing, I'm against reactors because the cost of
guarding something for 100,000 years is astronomical.
With reprocessing, it's clean enough and newer designs are safe enough.

The only other good disposal solution is encasing the material
and dropping it over the edge of the continental shelf where
is will eventually be subducted under the continent.

I'm certainly not against developing wind, solar, hydro,
geothermal, etc.