BobR wrote:
....
I believe there are safe ways to dispose of it but until a valid plan
is in place to do so, we have no damn business creating yet more
waste. Right now, there is nothing but stockpiling the stuff in
holding areas that are an ever increasing hazard to everyone. Find a
solution, prove it, implement it and then lets talk about building new
facilities. Until then, NO!

Unfortunately, we need the power now and the problem to be solved is
primarily political, not technical.

As noted upthread, Reid has been using Yucca Mountain as his own
personal populist whipping boy to his personal advantage for nearly 30
years. Once it does finally open and we can move stuff from the spent
fuel pools, there really is no crisis as far as ultimate disposal by
whatever means is finally allowed. Again, that will primarily be a
political, not technical decision.

--

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:00:44 -0600, dpb wrote:

BobR wrote:
...
I believe there are safe ways to dispose of it but until a valid plan
is in place to do so, we have no damn business creating yet more
waste. Right now, there is nothing but stockpiling the stuff in
holding areas that are an ever increasing hazard to everyone. Find a
solution, prove it, implement it and then lets talk about building new
facilities. Until then, NO!

Unfortunately, we need the power now and the problem to be solved is
primarily political, not technical.

As noted upthread, Reid has been using Yucca Mountain as his own
personal populist whipping boy to his personal advantage for nearly 30
years. Once it does finally open and we can move stuff from the spent
fuel pools, there really is no crisis as far as ultimate disposal by
whatever means is finally allowed. Again, that will primarily be a
political, not technical decision.

Harry "Pinky" Reid says Yucca Mountain will not open.

Other recent comment (DAGS).

"DOE: Cost Estimate Soars for Yucca Mountain Project

08/06/2008
By Pam Hunter and Tom Ichniowski

The cost of the proposed nuclear waste repository beneath Nevada’s
Yucca Mountain has risen sharply. The Dept. of Energy reported on Aug.
5 the project’s estimated 150-year life-cycle cost is $96.2 billion,
up 67% from 2001’s $57.5-billion. DOE says the hike includes $16
billion for inflation and a 26% rise in the amount of spent fuel to be
disposed. Construction, operation and decommissioning comprise $54.8
billion of the new figure."

http://enr.ecnext.com/coms2/article_newaar080806d

Intersting photos he

http://www.yuccamountain.org/photo.htm

Oren wrote:
....
Harry "Pinky" Reid says Yucca Mountain will not open.
....
Oh, it _will_ open, the question is just how much longer Harry can keep
dragging it out. There simply isn't a viable alternative any longer and
it is inevitable imo there will begin to be brownouts before we final
get past the quagmire which is (also imo) only going to deepen w/ the
next adminstration which will focus on the utopian dreams which will
turn out to be unrealizable in time if ever. At that point, public
opinion will change dramatically and Harry won't matter any longer.

pictures, etc., ... did quite a bit of work there years ago thru
consulting firm was working for at the time. Always hated it when was
short enough of other work that ever had to work on DOE-sponsored stuff
instead of commercial, but in Oak Ridge one always had to hold one's
nose and do what needed doing on occasion to stay in groceries.

--

On Dec 4, 3:29*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
BobR wrote:
On Dec 4, 11:27 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
BobR wrote:
What makes the cost so bizarre is the anti-nuclear movement!
Fifteen years of litigation, design changes ten times the
requirements of engineering best practices, abundant political
machinations, all contribute to the bill. Who needs the grief?-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree on most respects but the one cost that has been and
continues to be ignored is how to dispose of the contaminated
waste. This cost is growing and may well be the biggest expense we
will yet pay for nuclear power. Until this issue is resolved, there
should be NO FURTHER development of nuclear power plants. And
before you get on your high horse about me being anti-nuclear, I am
not. I simply believe that we have to solve the disposal problems
before we increase the problems beyond the point of no return.

This is straw-man argument.

No decision has been made on the disposal of nuclear waste because a
decision is not yet necessary!

There are several seemingly-excellent disposal techniques: Imbedding
the waste in molten glass and sinking the ingots in the Marinaras
Trench, shooting the waste into the sun, pumping the stuff into
abandonded salt mines, yak-yak-yak. There is almost no end to
possible fixes.

Until we HAVE to make a decision, it is best to DELAY the decision
on the chance a better solution will present itself.

Suppose, for example, the glass-ingot method were put into play.
Then, ten years from now, somebody discovers you can turn
radioactive material into burgers and feed the world. Can you
imagine the effort and treasure necessary to retrieve all those
ingots from five miles under water? If, on the other hand, we had
shot the waste into the sun, we'd NEVER be able to get it back
(unless we went at night).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe there are safe ways to dispose of it but until a valid plan
is in place to do so, we have no damn business creating yet more
waste. *Right now, there is nothing but stockpiling the stuff in
holding areas that are an ever increasing hazard to everyone. *Find a
solution, prove it, implement it and then lets talk about building new
facilities. *Until then, NO!

We HAVE a plan!

The plan is to NOT dispose of the stuff until we HAVE to dispose of the
stuff. At the moment we can no longer safely store the waste, we'll pick
from competing alternatives. Until then, it is prudent and responsible to
wait for any alternative methods that haven't yet made it to the party.

NOT disposing of nuclear waste is far preferable to disposing of it the
wrong way.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's not a plan, its a disaster just waiting to happen. It just
plain stupid and anyone with half a brain would recognize that. What
you have just said is that you don't have a valid alternative for
disposal so you just ignore the problem in the hope that some way will
eventually be found BEFORE a disaster occurs.

On Dec 4, 4:00*pm, dpb wrote:
BobR wrote:

...

I believe there are safe ways to dispose of it but until a valid plan
is in place to do so, we have no damn business creating yet more
waste. *Right now, there is nothing but stockpiling the stuff in
holding areas that are an ever increasing hazard to everyone. *Find a
solution, prove it, implement it and then lets talk about building new
facilities. *Until then, NO!

Unfortunately, we need the power now and the problem to be solved is
primarily political, not technical.

As noted upthread, Reid has been using Yucca Mountain as his own
personal populist whipping boy to his personal advantage for nearly 30
years. *Once it does finally open and we can move stuff from the spent
fuel pools, there really is no crisis as far as ultimate disposal by
whatever means is finally allowed. *Again, that will primarily be a
political, not technical decision.

--

We already have more nuclear waste waiting to be disposed of that can
be put into the Yucca Mountain site if it were opened tomorrow and it
is not ready to be opened. Political or Technical, it is a problem
that must be addressed before it becomes a disaster not after.

h wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Norminn wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Subsidized: Where the government takes money, by force, from the
citizens.
To pay for something that the citizens don't want to think they are
really
actually paying for.

I'm sure California could have lower energy prices, if they raised taxes
to
pay the difference. Then, they could be just as socialist as Albeeta.



How is giving my money to big banks NOT Socialist? And why do Socialist
countries have a much
higher standard of living than we do?

Care to give an example of such a socialist country with a higher
standard of living than that in the US?

Sweden. And just a point, the US doesn't even make the top ten list of
countries with the highest standard of living, although Canada, Finland,
Norway, and Sweden all do.

Care to provide cites to that ranking and to the criteria used to
determine it? I expect an objective eye will find significant bias in
the criteria, intentional or unintentional.

It could well be unintentional as I've found in much dealings with
Europeans that they have great difficulty grasping just how large and
diverse the US is (The entire UK would fit into Texas something like
3.5X) and that one seemingly bad statistic in one city in no way applies
to the entire US.

I can't say I've been to Sweden, Norway or Finland, however I have been
to Canada numerous times and from everything I've seen, the standard of
living there is not any better than that in the US.

On Dec 4, 4:39*pm, dpb wrote:
Oren wrote:

... Harry "Pinky" Reid says Yucca Mountain will not open.

...
Oh, it _will_ open, the question is just how much longer Harry can keep
dragging it out. *There simply isn't a viable alternative any longer and
it is inevitable imo there will begin to be brownouts before we final
get past the quagmire which is (also imo) only going to deepen w/ the
next adminstration which will focus on the utopian dreams which will
turn out to be unrealizable in time if ever. *At that point, public
opinion will change dramatically and Harry won't matter any longer.

pictures, etc., ... did quite a bit of work there years ago thru
consulting firm was working for at the time. *Always hated it when was
short enough of other work that ever had to work on DOE-sponsored stuff
instead of commercial, but in Oak Ridge one always had to hold one's
nose and do what needed doing on occasion to stay in groceries.

--

Obama has made it clear in the past that he does not favor nuclear
power and Reid will not have any problem getting his support to
continue to stonewall.

On Dec 4, 9:47*am, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Pete C." wrote onster.com:







David Nebenzahl wrote:

anti babble deleted

Nuclear energy is "green", both safe and non polluting and given proper
reprocessing, largely renewable.

Nuclear is also the only source that is currently viable at the scale
necessary to eliminate coal and nat gas fueled generation, and further
to provide subsidized charging electricity for electric/hybrid vehicles
to further reduce oil consumption.

Nuclear is the only viable intermediate source that can allow a
significant shift away from fossil fuels *now* while the technologies
for other sources such as solar, wind, hydro and tidal develop further
to overcome the significant issues they currently have, largely the
utility scale energy storage capabilities required given the
intermittent generation of most of those sources.

plus you have to remember that the greenies are against dams,
so that kills hydropower,and they are against windmills because they kill
birds.
They also are against the power lines necessary to distribute the electric
power from remote windfarms.(or any other power generating source...)

Their concept is that you DO WITHOUT;Reduce your lifestyle.

Meanwhile Russia,Iran,Venezuela,other countries all are proceeding with new
nuclear powerplants.

Nebenzahl is just a Luddite.

MORE nuclear power,NOW!

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You should have put it slightly differently. Their concept is that
YOU DO WITHOUT just like Gore wanted everyone (But Him) to do without
while he continued to burn more energy that any 50 other people in the
country. They never want to look in the mirror at their own
consumption but are quick to ask YOU to sacrifice.

BobR wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:39 pm, dpb wrote:
Oren wrote:

... Harry "Pinky" Reid says Yucca Mountain will not open.

...
Oh, it _will_ open, the question is just how much longer Harry can keep
dragging it out. There simply isn't a viable alternative any longer and
it is inevitable imo there will begin to be brownouts before we final
get past the quagmire which is (also imo) only going to deepen w/ the
next adminstration which will focus on the utopian dreams which will
turn out to be unrealizable in time if ever. At that point, public
opinion will change dramatically and Harry won't matter any longer.

pictures, etc., ... did quite a bit of work there years ago thru
consulting firm was working for at the time. Always hated it when was
short enough of other work that ever had to work on DOE-sponsored stuff
instead of commercial, but in Oak Ridge one always had to hold one's
nose and do what needed doing on occasion to stay in groceries.

--

Obama has made it clear in the past that he does not favor nuclear
power and Reid will not have any problem getting his support to
continue to stonewall.

Until the lights go out...then sentiment will change overnight.

And, unless something is done sizably w/ conventional generation of one
sort or the other, it's inevitable assuming he's not so adamant the he
does actually drive the boat into a complete economic collapse.

It's simply not possible w/ any short term alternative technology on the
present horizon.

And, don't forget, there are 28+ new units already filed on the NRC
licensing docket. There will be some delay owing to the current
slowdown undoubtedly that will allow for some additional deferral of
demand, but as those new units approach operation and time continues w/
operating units, the spent fuel pools _will_ have to be emptied or the
current units will have to shut down with nothing to replace them.

And, of course, also as noted upthread don't forget that if the big-O
and his minions are really serious about C-sequestration, there simply
is no large-scale alternative w/ the necessary reliability factor.
Solar and wind are simply too intermittent for more than the 20% sort of
contribution unless he can figure out how to pull a Joshua on the solar
and harness the hot air from DC for the wind. Otherwise, afaik, the one
sets every night still and will probably continue to do so and the other
is sporadic even in the windiest of areas, also somewhat inconveniently
at typical minimums in the height of summer and the depth of winter; the
two highest demand times of the year.

It's a case of reality will trump hoping for in the end.

--

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:25:38 -0800, scorpster wrote:

I just received a notice from California Edison that Tier 3, 4 and 5 rates
are increasing AGAIN in the first quarter of 2009. My electric bill is
typically $400 a month. I don't think very many people fall into Tier 1 or
2. Here's what really ****es me off: the electric utilities fail to take
advantage of clean nuclear power. They keep wasting our money on natural
gas, wind power, and all kinds of inefficient "green" ideas but they are
blind to nuclear power. If we had nuclear power we'd only be paying a
fraction of the price and it would be good for the environment!!

Blame the envirowackos who have fought nuclear power and the stupid
politicians and judges who caved in to their demands and the stupid
California residents for continuing to elect morons, like the sex offender
governator.

BobR wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:00 pm, dpb wrote:
BobR wrote:

...

I believe there are safe ways to dispose of it but until a valid plan
is in place to do so, we have no damn business creating yet more
waste. Right now, there is nothing but stockpiling the stuff in
holding areas that are an ever increasing hazard to everyone. Find a
solution, prove it, implement it and then lets talk about building new
facilities. Until then, NO!
Unfortunately, we need the power now and the problem to be solved is
primarily political, not technical.

As noted upthread, Reid has been using Yucca Mountain as his own
personal populist whipping boy to his personal advantage for nearly 30
years. Once it does finally open and we can move stuff from the spent
fuel pools, there really is no crisis as far as ultimate disposal by
whatever means is finally allowed. Again, that will primarily be a
political, not technical decision.

--

We already have more nuclear waste waiting to be disposed of that can
be put into the Yucca Mountain site if it were opened tomorrow and it
is not ready to be opened. Political or Technical, it is a problem
that must be addressed before it becomes a disaster not after.

Change the politics, then.

And, of course, it doesn't take anything near the complexity of Yucca
Mountain for spent fuel storage.

--

Norminn wrote:

Someone said we should just keep the nuclear waste until we develop
technology to make it safe..........nukes take fuel, too.

We have the technology to make it safe - reprocess it and reuse it in
the plants. That cycle can continue so long as to make nuclear energy
effectively renewable.

As for the greenie who babbled about the sun and it being inexhaustible
- wrong, it will run out of energy one day too.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:39:03 -0600, dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
...
Harry "Pinky" Reid says Yucca Mountain will not open.
...
Oh, it _will_ open, the question is just how much longer Harry can keep
dragging it out. There simply isn't a viable alternative any longer and
it is inevitable imo there will begin to be brownouts before we final
get past the quagmire which is (also imo) only going to deepen w/ the
next adminstration which will focus on the utopian dreams which will
turn out to be unrealizable in time if ever. At that point, public
opinion will change dramatically and Harry won't matter any longer.


Harry don't matter anyway, imo. I think completion is due in 2020?
Just a layman here, BUT there are a lot of transport problems to be
faced in our future. Particularly trucking and train safety.

pictures, etc., ... did quite a bit of work there years ago thru
consulting firm was working for at the time.

What about earthquakes at Yucca Mt.?

Just yesterday Vegas had a small quake.

"LAS VEGAS -- A 2.6 magnitude earthquake could be felt across the
Valley Wednesday night, according to the National Earthquake Center.

The minor earthquake originated from the area of East Lake Mead and
North Nellis boulevards, near Nellis Air Force Base."

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/18199923/detail.html

Oren wrote:
....
Just a layman here, BUT there are a lot of transport problems to be
faced in our future. Particularly trucking and train safety.

No. Spent fuel transport casks have been demonstrated experimentally to
take direct hit from 70-mph railroad locomotive followed by fire and not
leak contamination. There's no significant radioactive risk.

....

What about earthquakes at Yucca Mt.?

Just yesterday Vegas had a small quake.
....

What about them? If worst were to come to worst, it will simply bury
the waste underground. Meanwhile, the facility is designed to
accommodate seismic activity. There are far more real dangers and
boogey men to worry over in this world.

--

dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
...

Just a layman here, BUT there are a lot of transport problems to be
faced in our future. Particularly trucking and train safety.


No. Spent fuel transport casks have been demonstrated experimentally
to take direct hit from 70-mph railroad locomotive followed by fire
and not leak contamination. There's no significant radioactive risk.

...

What about earthquakes at Yucca Mt.?

Just yesterday Vegas had a small quake.

...

What about them? If worst were to come to worst, it will simply bury
the waste underground. Meanwhile, the facility is designed to
accommodate seismic activity. There are far more real dangers and
boogey men to worry over in this world.

--

Being buried far underground does not necessarily contain the
radioactivity (10,000 years worth?)..

Norminn wrote:
dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
...

Just a layman here, BUT there are a lot of transport problems to be
faced in our future. Particularly trucking and train safety.


No. Spent fuel transport casks have been demonstrated experimentally
to take direct hit from 70-mph railroad locomotive followed by fire
and not leak contamination. There's no significant radioactive risk.

...

What about earthquakes at Yucca Mt.?

Just yesterday Vegas had a small quake.

...

What about them? If worst were to come to worst, it will simply bury
the waste underground. Meanwhile, the facility is designed to
accommodate seismic activity. There are far more real dangers and
boogey men to worry over in this world.

--

Being buried far underground does not necessarily contain the
radioactivity (10,000 years worth?)..

Even _IF_ (the proverbial "big if" which in this case is simply huge,
not just big) it were to happen, that it's underground would prevent any
massive immediate release and the effects afterward could be dealt with
w/o any need for rush.

I reiterate that there are far more serious boogey men to worry over
than some theorized disaster at Yucca Mtn is my point. Sure, a large
enough 'quake could make a mess of the facility, but it would not be any
nuclear disaster.

--

Pete C. wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"scorpster" wrote in message
...
I just received a notice from California Edison that Tier 3, 4 and 5 rates
are increasing AGAIN in the first quarter of 2009. My electric bill is
typically $400 a month.
BFD, that is meaningless to all of us outside of CA. What is the rate per
kW hour? I'm paying 18¢.

I'm paying about 13¢ here in TX.

Here in S. Texas is 10.7¢. I am not complaining but having such a
diversity doesn't make much sense to me...

not surprised, everything about california is rediculous..

----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm

Erma1ina wrote:
....
... The Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which shut down
its Rancho Seco nuclear plant in 1989 due to high costs and chronically
poor performance, is unlikely to want to go down that road again."

...

SMUD was, regrettably, a _VERY_ poor nuclear operating utility--the
problems there were really very little related to the power plant per se
but to poor (primarily inexperienced w/ nuclear generation vis a vis
fossil so they didn't control the interaction w/ the NRC and follow the
regulatory requirements to the tee. That led to the extremely high
costs in having to try to meet those after the fact which is far more
difficult and costly than doing so originally). I was, in fact, working
in the commercial nuclear division of the particular reactor vendor
during construction and went through plant startup and first year or so
of operation so know the plant pretty well and knew SMUD well also.

I'd have to refresh my memory on the actual shutdown decision politics,
but as I recall it was a plebiscite organized by the various activist
groups of the time that made the final determination rather than a
Utility District decision.

IMO of the time, if they would have brought in an experienced operating
contractor to oversee the plant day-to-day operation early on rather
than trying to operate it inhouse it would be a positive impact
economically to the state and an additional 850 MWe on the grid today.

SMUD, btw, wasn't terribly unique to several other relatively small and
first-time-nuclear utilities. They and others tended to think of them
as simply generation units w/ a nuclear boiler instead of coil or oil
which they were used to operating. Consequently, they generally would
name an experienced fossil manager as head of the nuclear project and
that would start the problems of not building the correct nuclear
management and operation mindset of even more precise attention to
detail. Many of the "performance issues" in these cases really had very
little at all to do with other than paper audit trails on welds or
similar QA/QC processes. The problem would be, when a failure to
document was found, it could be months down the road after a zillion
more welds had been completed or thousands of yards of concrete poured
or whatever and to have to go back and qualify the oversight was
terribly expensive.

Experienced nuclear utilities (often w/ ex-nuclear Navy-trained folks
who had already been thru the drill w/ Rickover) managed to avoid many
those mistakes; or at least minimized them.

If I were in the area, I'd have no qualms of a restart of Rancho Seco
from the plant safety aspect at all. It is, of course, out of the
question at this point as the plant wasn't maintained w/ the idea of a
restart.

quake-prone CA and nukes --

If there were a serious quake, in containment would be an ideal place to
be to ride it out.

--

Regarding the general issue the nuclear power in
[fresh-water-starved-fault-riddled] California:

"Rivers in California . . . are increasingly impractical and unavailable
for nuclear power. . . . there is continued demand for fresh water from
agriculture, industry and residential development. In the southern
United States, recent droughts have resulted in nuclear reactors being
shut down due to low water levels and high water temperatures in rivers
and lakes. The bulk of California's rivers are fed by Sierra snowmelt,
which means that drought and global warming (combined with the other
demands for water), tend to make river water an unreliable long-term
source, particularly in the quantities needed by nuclear plants."

and

"The Pacific Ocean provides the water for California's two operating
nuclear power plants, Diablo Canyon (on the Central Coast) and San
Onofre (between Los Angeles and San Diego), and there is certainly
plenty of ocean water. One problem in siting new nuclear plants on the
coast becomes apparent upon looking at seismic hazard maps - the coastal
region of California also is largely an area of significant seismic
risk. Even the staunchest advocates of nuclear plants should hesitate to
locate a reactor in an earthquake-prone area.

"In short, siting a nuclear plant in California presents a dilemma - if
you site it where there is plenty of water, you are increasing your
earthquake risk."

Chris wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
....
BFD, that is meaningless to all of us outside of CA. What is the
rate per kW hour? I'm paying 18¢.

I'm paying about 13¢ here in TX.

Here in S. Texas is 10.7¢. I am not complaining but having such a
diversity doesn't make much sense to me...

Look to your rate commission and be glad it isn't even worse.

Here E KS is as much as 60% lower than W owing to bias in the makeup of
the rate commission in the populated areas vis a vis the
agricultural/less populated.

--

On 12/4/2008 2:00 PM dpb spake thus:

BobR wrote:

I believe there are safe ways to dispose of it but until a valid plan
is in place to do so, we have no damn business creating yet more
waste. Right now, there is nothing but stockpiling the stuff in
holding areas that are an ever increasing hazard to everyone. Find a
solution, prove it, implement it and then lets talk about building new
facilities. Until then, NO!

Unfortunately, we need the power now and the problem to be solved is
primarily political, not technical.

As noted upthread, Reid has been using Yucca Mountain as his own
personal populist whipping boy to his personal advantage for nearly 30
years. Once it does finally open and we can move stuff from the spent
fuel pools, there really is no crisis as far as ultimate disposal by
whatever means is finally allowed. Again, that will primarily be a
political, not technical decision.

You're at least partially correct that the problem is political rather
than technical, except that the technical objections to nuclear waste
storage are also formidable.

Regarding Nevada as you mentioned, it should be pointed out that not
only Nevada, but also Utah have both maintained very strong opposition
to high-level nuclear waste storage policy at the federal level. I know
about this: in college I won a cash award for a paper I wrote on the
subject. I used to subscribe to both the Utah and Nevada state
newsletters from the agencies in those states set up specifically to
fight the waste repositories from going there. So it wasn't just one
senator's personal vendetta. And I hardly need to point out that these
are both conservative states, hardly bastions of antinuclear activity or
havens for tree-huggers. (Interesting to note that Utah also vigorously
opposed the MX missile--remember that?--on account of the Mormon
Church's *moral* opposition to siting a weapon of mass destruction in
the state.)


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

On 12/4/2008 3:21 PM dpb spake thus:

Oren wrote:

What about earthquakes at Yucca Mt.?

Just yesterday Vegas had a small quake.

What about them? If worst were to come to worst, it will simply bury
the waste underground. Meanwhile, the facility is designed to
accommodate seismic activity. There are far more real dangers and
boogey men to worry over in this world.

You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.

One of the requirements for any high-level nuclear waste repository
(such as Yucca Mountain) is that the waste be both monitored and
retrievable. They don't just chuck it in there willy-nilly and figure
"out of sight, out of mind". Mind you, these are DOE's rules, not those
written by some granola-munching tree hugger.

So earthquakes do pose significant risks, and you can be sure that the
DOE is paying attention to the reports they get from the USGS.


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:25:38 -0800, "scorpster"
wrote:
but they are
blind to nuclear power. If we had nuclear power we'd only be paying a
fraction of the price and it would be good for the environment!!

It is not cheap if you include the cost of decommissioning.
Consider the cost of taking care of the leftovers for the next few
thousand years. Frankly no one knows what that cost might be since no
one has ever decommissioned a atomic plant. They have shut them down
and keep the maintenance up because:

A: No one wants the wase in their back yard
B: No one knows how to do it.

Maybe you don't care, but frankly I don't want to leave my
grand kids and great great great grand kids with all that waste and
cost.

Atomic energy has never been cheep enough to compete with
other sources. The only way atomic plants have been built was to
provide materials for great projects like bombs. Take a look and see
what the true cost of building and operating a modern atomic plant per
unit of energy (after deducting government investment) and see what
the real cost is, not counting decommissioning.

On 12/4/2008 3:13 PM Pete C. spake thus:

As for the greenie who babbled about the sun and it being inexhaustible
- wrong, it will run out of energy one day too.

Since that was me, let me say how idiotic that objection is. It (the
sun) *is* inexhaustable for all intents and purposes, since when the sun
finally does go out, the game's over for all of us.


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/4/2008 2:00 PM dpb spake thus:

BobR wrote:

I believe there are safe ways to dispose of it but until a valid plan
is in place to do so, we have no damn business creating yet more
waste. Right now, there is nothing but stockpiling the stuff in
holding areas that are an ever increasing hazard to everyone. Find a
solution, prove it, implement it and then lets talk about building new
facilities. Until then, NO!

Unfortunately, we need the power now and the problem to be solved is
primarily political, not technical.

As noted upthread, Reid has been using Yucca Mountain as his own
personal populist whipping boy to his personal advantage for nearly 30
years. Once it does finally open and we can move stuff from the spent
fuel pools, there really is no crisis as far as ultimate disposal by
whatever means is finally allowed. Again, that will primarily be a
political, not technical decision.

You're at least partially correct that the problem is political rather
than technical, except that the technical objections to nuclear waste
storage are also formidable.

Regarding Nevada as you mentioned, it should be pointed out that not
only Nevada, but also Utah have both maintained very strong opposition
to high-level nuclear waste storage policy at the federal level. I know
about this: in college I won a cash award for a paper I wrote on the
subject. I used to subscribe to both the Utah and Nevada state
newsletters from the agencies in those states set up specifically to
fight the waste repositories from going there. So it wasn't just one
senator's personal vendetta. And I hardly need to point out that these
are both conservative states, hardly bastions of antinuclear activity or
havens for tree-huggers. (Interesting to note that Utah also vigorously
opposed the MX missile--remember that?--on account of the Mormon
Church's *moral* opposition to siting a weapon of mass destruction in
the state.)

Cash prize or no, the point is it is policy and that policy was made by
the processes of government. I'm not saying it necessarily was the best
decision, but it was the decision reached and NV did not prevail in the
debate. So far, they've been unable to win a change in that decision
and for the better good of the whole it's time to move forward.

The technical issues can't be resolved until there is a stable political
framework within which to operate to solve them. As noted earlier, a
misguided (1) former president tossed over a billion dollars of private
investment in a reprocessing facility about 20 years ago and nobody in
the national political spectrum has had the backbone since to pay more
than lip service to any truly coherent and realizable energy policy.

Time is coming, however, when it will no longer be able to be pushed
aside and ignored as it has been and (imo) when the generation shortage
reaches the crises stage there will be a massive change in public
attitude and all these apparently insurmountable issues of such
importance will be swept aside almost overnight in the rush.

(1) Despite (or perhaps because of the military side of it) his training
in the nuclear Navy, this former president was never able to separate
and understand the difference between commercial and military nuclear
power. Hence despite his well-intentioned but naive efforts he
succeeded in neither accomplishing nonproliferation (witness N Korea and
Iran) and in hastening and sealing the current stagnation of the US
commercial nuclear industry, thereby hastening the use of significant
quantities of natural gas for electrical power generation, surely one of
the most extreme examples of shortsighted use of a resource ever.

--

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 08:24:25 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:


Nuclear power, on its own, is clean, cheap, and reliable. It's certainly
clean - the only thing it emits is heat.

And radiation, and lots of radioactive waste that no one has yet
found an acceptable safe way of disposing of. It is all sitting in on
sight storage, costing us taxpayers money while producing no power.

Building a nuclear power plant is
relatively cheap - it can cost on the same order as a coal-fired plant.

Care to provide numbers. Please include full life cycle cost,
including full cost of decommissioning.


What makes the cost so bizarre is the anti-nuclear movement! Fifteen years
of litigation, design changes ten times the requirements of engineering best
practices, abundant political machinations, all contribute to the bill. Who
needs the grief?

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/4/2008 3:21 PM dpb spake thus:

Oren wrote:

What about earthquakes at Yucca Mt.?

Just yesterday Vegas had a small quake.

What about them? If worst were to come to worst, it will simply bury
the waste underground. Meanwhile, the facility is designed to
accommodate seismic activity. There are far more real dangers and
boogey men to worry over in this world.

You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.

One of the requirements for any high-level nuclear waste repository
(such as Yucca Mountain) is that the waste be both monitored and
retrievable. They don't just chuck it in there willy-nilly and figure
"out of sight, out of mind". Mind you, these are DOE's rules, not those
written by some granola-munching tree hugger.

So earthquakes do pose significant risks, and you can be sure that the
DOE is paying attention to the reports they get from the USGS.

You didn't read or at least pay attention to what I wrote upthread. I
had already talked of there being seismic criteria for the design and
construction of Yucca Mountain. I was simply saying that in the
extremely unlikely event of a seismic event even greater than the design
basis plus the overdesign that something did happen it would _still_ not
cause a nuclear disaster.

A design for a high-level waste repository only requires it be both
monitored and retrievable _IF_ that is the goal and design criterion.
It does so happen that that is the criterion for Yucca Mountain, true.

The reason for that is, of course, owing to the fact that the
reprocessing option had previously been removed from the table leaving
this as the only way forward at the time the decision was made.

I reiterate that there are far more serious boogey men to worry over in
the world than a postulated seismic event at Yucca Mountain. That is
true in large part to what I do know has been included in the design of
the facility and what I know from 30 years commercial nuclear power
experience of the nature of spent nuclear fuel.

--

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/4/2008 3:13 PM Pete C. spake thus:

As for the greenie who babbled about the sun and it being inexhaustible
- wrong, it will run out of energy one day too.

Since that was me, let me say how idiotic that objection is. It (the
sun) *is* inexhaustable for all intents and purposes, since when the sun
finally does go out, the game's over for all of us.

The problem is it still isn't connected to the grid in any
cost-effective manner that can contribute more than fractional
percentages of demand and it doesn't appear likely that that can change
within any near term horizon.

--

wrote:
....
... The only way atomic plants have been built was to
provide materials for great projects like bombs. ...

That's absolutely untrue. No commercial reactor fuel or reprocessed
spent commercial fuel has been used for weapons purposes.

U weapons can be and were created w/o the need of a reactor at all.

--

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:21:15 -0600, dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
...
Just a layman here, BUT there are a lot of transport problems to be
faced in our future. Particularly trucking and train safety.

No. Spent fuel transport casks have been demonstrated experimentally to
take direct hit from 70-mph railroad locomotive followed by fire and not
leak contamination. There's no significant radioactive risk.


How does the layman trust the government for the truth on this
experiment?

Some how, I read a particular metal would be needed to encase
(shielded around) all this mess (10,000 years) and would deplete the
earth supply of that material.

What about earthquakes at Yucca Mt.?

Just yesterday Vegas had a small quake.
...

What about them? If worst were to come to worst, it will simply bury
the waste underground. Meanwhile, the facility is designed to
accommodate seismic activity. There are far more real dangers and
boogey men to worry over in this world.

I'm just more skeptical of the government than I am of the dangers of
a quake. But I live here 100 miles away.

Oren wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:21:15 -0600, dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
...
Just a layman here, BUT there are a lot of transport problems to be
faced in our future. Particularly trucking and train safety.
No. Spent fuel transport casks have been demonstrated experimentally to
take direct hit from 70-mph railroad locomotive followed by fire and not
leak contamination. There's no significant radioactive risk.


How does the layman trust the government for the truth on this
experiment?
....
There are tapes of the impact -- I'm sure if one looked one could find
them on the internet by now.

I'm absolutely positive one can still find the reports and look at the
pictures.

If you're worried about the black helicopters, sorry I can't help.

--

wrote:
....
one has ever decommissioned a atomic plant. They have shut them down
and keep the maintenance up because:

A: No one wants the wase in their back yard
B: No one knows how to do it.
....

That's also simply flat-out wrong. In the US alone for only commercial
(non-defense facilities) the following sites have had equipment,
structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive
contaiminants removed or been decontaminated to a level low enough that
the property can be released and the NRC license terminated:

Big Rock Point Charlevoix, MI
Fort St. Vrain Platteville, CO
Haddam Neck Meriden, CT
Maine Yankee Wiscasset, ME
Pathfinder Sioux Falls, SD
Saxton Saxton, PA
Shippingport Shippingport, PA
Shoreham Wading River, NY
Trojan Ranier, OR
Yankee Rowe Franklin Co., MA

The following are in progress of decontamination:

Rancho Seco Herald, CA
San Onofre 1 San Clemente, CA

--

I doubt the higher standard of living. Socialism fosters laziness. The
bailout is Socialist.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Norminn" wrote in message
m...


How is giving my money to big banks NOT Socialist? And why do Socialist
countries have a much
higher standard of living than we do?

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/4/2008 3:13 PM Pete C. spake thus:

As for the greenie who babbled about the sun and it being inexhaustible
- wrong, it will run out of energy one day too.

Since that was me, let me say how idiotic that objection is. It (the
sun) *is* inexhaustable for all intents and purposes, since when the sun
finally does go out, the game's over for all of us.

The reprocessing of our nuclear fuel sources is equally inexhaustible in
that context as well.

As for the game being over when the sun runs out of juice, that is very
much dependent on how far we progress in space travel and colonization
in the millenias until the sun does go kaput.

You know, Bob, that's about what I was thinking. You think socialism is so
good, move to England. And take all the elected leftists with you.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"BobR" wrote in message
...

How is giving my money to big banks NOT Socialist? And why do Socialist
countries have a much
higher standard of living than we do?

By who's measure? And if you think they are so damn great, why don't
you move your butt there and shut up?

dpb wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/4/2008 3:13 PM Pete C. spake thus:

As for the greenie who babbled about the sun and it being inexhaustible
- wrong, it will run out of energy one day too.

Since that was me, let me say how idiotic that objection is. It (the
sun) *is* inexhaustable for all intents and purposes, since when the
sun finally does go out, the game's over for all of us.

The problem is it still isn't connected to the grid in any
cost-effective manner that can contribute more than fractional
percentages of demand and it doesn't appear likely that that can change
within any near term horizon.

--
Only if you think in terms of electricity. We should have been building
all houses with at least some passive solar capability for the last 30
years. It ain't rocket science or gee-whiz tech- the sunnier,
less-electrified parts of the world have been taking advantage of the
sun for thousands of years. Electric and gas have simply been so damn
cheap since central HVAC for the masses came along, that nobody bothered
to think about it. Build the house right, and you can reduce your need
for electric and gas a bunch.

--
aem sends...

I suggest we hang onto it. Sooner or later, someone will form some new kind
of reactor, which will take our nuke wastes, and turn them into more energy.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"BobR" wrote in message
...

I agree on most respects but the one cost that has been and continues
to be ignored is how to dispose of the contaminated waste. This cost
is growing and may well be the biggest expense we will yet pay for
nuclear power. Until this issue is resolved, there should be NO
FURTHER development of nuclear power plants. And before you get on
your high horse about me being anti-nuclear, I am not. I simply
believe that we have to solve the disposal problems before we increase
the problems beyond the point of no return.

We must immediately halt all production of electric cars, until the
pollution and waste problem is solved. What to do with all the huge
batteries, after two or three years. Car batteries at present are 4 to 5
years, and they are shallow discharge. Deep cycle trolling batteries (or
some new technology) will need to be replaced every few years. Think of the
children!

In my own unscientific texts, ethanol is a major loser. My van gets 18 MPG
on gasoline, and 15.5 MPG on ethanol. What that means, is that I burn MORE
petroleum with gasohol than I do by burning pure gasoline. I lose more than
10% mileage, on the 10% ethanol.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"RickH" wrote in message
...

You think they are high now, just wait till every hippie in CA is
driving a Chevy Volt. The problem with most environmentalists is that
they will protest for electric cars or ethanol, etc. then realize
later that the laws of thermodynamics are still in effect. The
gasoline-burned energy that pushes your car 60 miles, is the same
amount of electric energy needed to push your car 60 miles on a
charge.

Yes if electric cars become the norm, then nuclear will have to be
increased. I live around Chicago where we have the highest
concentration of nuclear plants anywhere in the US, they are perfectly
safe, and the newer plants are even safer.

Evidence?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"h" wrote in message
...


Care to give an example of such a socialist country with a higher
standard of living than that in the US?

Sweden. And just a point, the US doesn't even make the top ten list of
countries with the highest standard of living, although Canada, Finland,
Norway, and Sweden all do.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:00:01 -0600, dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:21:15 -0600, dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
...
Just a layman here, BUT there are a lot of transport problems to be
faced in our future. Particularly trucking and train safety.
No. Spent fuel transport casks have been demonstrated experimentally to
take direct hit from 70-mph railroad locomotive followed by fire and not
leak contamination. There's no significant radioactive risk.


How does the layman trust the government for the truth on this
experiment?
...
There are tapes of the impact -- I'm sure if one looked one could find
them on the internet by now.

I'm absolutely positive one can still find the reports and look at the
pictures.


I've seen impacts provided - I'm just not totally CONvinced.

If you're worried about the black helicopters, sorry I can't help.

Nope, not at all. It's the government I worry about.

Like I say, just a laymen and non-expert.