On 12/4/2008 5:37 PM spake thus:

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

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.

Yes, please do. While doing so, keep in mind the following parts of the
nuclear fuel cycle, each with its own set of hazards (like
transportation between each step):

o Uranium mining *
o Uranium milling
o Uranium tailings disposal
o Fuel enrichment
o Fuel rod fabrication
o Nuke plant operation
o Spent fuel removal and on-site storage
o Spent fuel dismantlement (separating fuel from carrier)
o Spent fuel packaging
o Spent fuel disposal (TBD)


*Already the cause of the worst nuclear accident in the U.S. in terms of
amount of radiation released into the environment, the Rio Puerco dam
breach and tailings pond spill in New Mexico.


--
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

Oren wrote:
....

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

I don't know what the first part is intended to parse to.

What, precisely, aren't you convinced of and why based on test
documented test results? You seriously think the test results were
somehow fabricated? If that's the case it's tinfoil hat time, sorry.

--

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/4/2008 5:37 PM spake thus:

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

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.

Yes, please do. While doing so, keep in mind the following parts of the
nuclear fuel cycle, each with its own set of hazards (like
transportation between each step):
....

And, of course, to be fair, compare them to any alternative mechanism of
generating equivalent power to the grid at equivalent or lower cost and
reliability. (HINT: these life cycle studies were done exhaustively
years ago. While absolute numbers on the $$ values will change w/
inflation, the relative rankings won't. Nuclear wins overall owing to
the much smaller volume of material handled as compared to coal, on
other materials costs owing to the low density output of the alternative
sources.)

--

aemeijers wrote:
....
... you can reduce your need for electric and gas a bunch.

The key word there is "reduce". But, it ain't gonna' go away (the need
that is) and the change towards hybrid/electric vehicles is a whole new
demand arena...

--

"scorpster" wrote in
:

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!!


How may kw have you used in a $400 month?

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.

Royalty revenue from big oil companies.
Alberta has lowest provincial tax in Canada.
Swimming billions of surplus and we have heritage fund for rainiy days
as well.

Norminn wrote:

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?

1. The government didn't give money to financial institutions - they've
engineered a set of financial instruments that, in lay terms, is similar to
a loan.

2. It was the government that CAUSED the financial institutions to collapse
in the first place (see Community Redevelopment Act and subsequent
regulations under Clinton), it's only fair the government make the financial
institutions whole.

3. Better standard of living? The devil is in the details. The U.S. is a
large, diverse country with many enclaves unique unto themselves. For
example, Norway has a very high SOL ($55,000 GDP per capita compared to $39k
for the US). But. If you consider only the northeast part of the US (or
California) and compare that to Norway, Norway looks like Zimbabwe.

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!

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.

There are MANY valid alternatives - some I've mentioned here. It is
incorrect to say there are no alternatives in the disposal matrix and it is
likewise incorrect to say there is no plan. The plan is to wait until it is
time to make a decision.

Fortunately, with the new administration, the official plan becomes "Hope."
The strategy to achieve the goals of this plan is "Belive," and the
principle tactic to implement this strategy is "Yes, we can!"

On Dec 4, 5:13*pm, dpb wrote:
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.


Now your are talking about the impossible!

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


No it doesn't but it does take the one thing that seems to be
impossible to get and that is commitment to do something.

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.

For those who think the country can run on sunbeams, it's reality-check
time.

The amount of solar radiation that falls on the earth's surface is about 745
watts/sq meter. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds.

Assuming you could conjure up a solar convertor (electric, steam, etc.)
that's 40% efficient, and adjusting for latitude, 12 hours of darkness,
clouds, dust, etc., it would take a solar collector facility the size of the
Los Angeles basin (~1200 sq miles) to provide power for the state of
California (~50 Gw).

The entire Interstate Highway system is 50,000 miles. Assuming 60' of
roadway, that's 568 square miles of concrete, less than half our required
solar collector. Imagine the cost to construct such a monster and the
expense to maintains something that massive!

On the plus side, everybody in Los Angeles would be in the dark.

clipped


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.

Which bogeyman is "far more serious" than release of radioactivity into
air or water?

Norminn wrote:
clipped


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.

Which bogeyman is "far more serious" than release of radioactivity into
air or water?

That's the point -- there wouldn't be any significant release.

--

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.

--
Whoa!

Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation to support your various
SPECULATIONS????

I lived in the area at the time and your "recollections/fantasies" do
not jibe with mine or with ANY of the public documents -- the link to
one of which was provided below -- regarding Rancho Seco.

Pity that REALITY does not support ideologically-driven bias. LOL.

dpb wrote:

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."

dpb wrote:

No commercial reactor fuel or reprocessed
spent commercial fuel has been used for weapons purposes.

Where do you get this garbage you're spewing?

PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION for your assertions or STFU.

Checkout:

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/plutbomb.htm

"NOTE 3. Although the plutonium generated by a commercial nuclear power
plant is not technically "weapons grade," it has long been acknowledged
that NUCLEAR BOMBS CAN BE AND HAVE BEEN BUILT WITH REACTOR-GRADE
PLUTONIUM."

dpb wrote:

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

--

Once again, "dpb" FULL OF IT!

Big Rock Point -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
Fort St. Vrain -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
Haddam Neck -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
Maine Yankee -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
Trojan -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
Yankee Rowe -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.

Similarly:

Dresden I -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
Humboldt Bay 3 -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
Indian Point I -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
LaCrosse -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
Millstone I -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
Zion 2 -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
Zion 1 -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.

For people you are truly interested in the FACTS (not the preconceptions
of clowns like "dpb"), check out:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...issioning.html

Several of the above reactors have been shut down for more than 3
DECADES and still have fuel stored ON SITE.

Your doctor's MRI scanning machine is also stored ON-SITE but I don't think
any protesters are threatning to rip those out of the hospitals or yank
people out from underneath their radiation.

scorpster wrote:

Your doctor's MRI scanning machine is also stored ON-SITE but I don't think
any protesters are threatning to rip those out of the hospitals or yank
people out from underneath their radiation.

Hmmm.

Another "genius". LOL

MRI (MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING) does NOT involve radioactive materials.

Erma1ina wrote:

scorpster wrote:

Your doctor's MRI scanning machine is also stored ON-SITE but I don't think
any protesters are threatning to rip those out of the hospitals or yank
people out from underneath their radiation.

Hmmm.

Another "genius". LOL

MRI (MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING) does NOT involve radioactive materials.

Additionally, any radioactive medical waste is required by federal law
to be disposed of in specific designated waste management facilities NOT
"on site", i.e. NOT in the physician office or medical facility.

Erma1ina wrote:
Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation to support your various
SPECULATIONS????

Which would you care for?

The only thing I'm not certain of specifically is the referendum as I
already mentioned--the shutdown was after I had moved from the vendor to
a consulting firm and had mostly transitioned to working with fossil
utilities rather than nuclear.

The rest I know from having worked for the reactor vendor w/ the utility
including design and startup physics testing.

--

dpb wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:
Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation to support your various
SPECULATIONS????

Which would you care for?

The only thing I'm not certain of specifically is the referendum as I
already mentioned--the shutdown was after I had moved from the vendor to
a consulting firm and had mostly transitioned to working with fossil
utilities rather than nuclear.

The rest I know from having worked for the reactor vendor w/ the utility
including design and startup physics testing.

--

And I did mathematical modelling of reactors and particle detectors. SO
WHAT?

Provide links to objective materials that support you silly opinions.

Erma1ina wrote:
Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation ...
....

My recollection on the referendum portion appears correct as I thought...

The decision, in a special referendum, put an end to the operations
of the 15- year-old Rancho Seco facility ...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...957975,00.html

On August 21, 2002, Rancho Seco completed placing all 493 spent fuel
assemblies ... In accordance with the results of a public referendum on
June 6, 1989, ...
www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/rancho-seco-nuclear-generating-station.html

Spokesmen for the nuclear power industry stress that Rancho Seco is a
special case, that this is not a referendum likely to have national
reprecussions. ...
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0D6143EF93BA15756C0A96F9482 60&se...

Erma1ina wrote:

dpb wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:
Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation to support your various
SPECULATIONS????

Which would you care for?

The only thing I'm not certain of specifically is the referendum as I
already mentioned--the shutdown was after I had moved from the vendor to
a consulting firm and had mostly transitioned to working with fossil
utilities rather than nuclear.

The rest I know from having worked for the reactor vendor w/ the utility
including design and startup physics testing.

--

And I did mathematical modelling of reactors and particle detectors. SO
WHAT?

Provide links to objective materials that support you silly opinions.

And, by the way, I DOUBT that you, "dpb" have any more technical or
scientific expertise than a clerk.

I meant to say CT, Computed Tomography, which involves radiation.

A neonatal abdominal CT effective dose is 20 mSv.

Most nuclear waste has much lower surface dose rate than a CT scan!

....and the waste is kept very carefully contained, away from the public.

Yet I don't see any anti-nuclear demonstrators at the hospitals.

Anti-nuclear extremists try to frighten the general public. Scare tactics
to keep us dependent on expensive polluting coal and fossil fuels.

I see that "dpb", like a true weasel, omitted the pertinent section of
my message (including the "link" I mentioned. Here's the omitted
section:

--- Start of section ---

Oh I don't think California "electric utilities fail to take advantage
of clean nuclear power." or that "If we had nuclear power we'd only be
paying a fraction of the price and it would be good for the
environment!!"

Think: "R A N C H O S E C O" and check out:

http://www.constructionweblinks.com/...0407/laww.html

Here are some excerpts:

Regarding the specific issue of "Rancho Seco":

"If the investor-owned utilities will not build new nuclear plants, the
other possibilities are municipally-owned utilities and independent
generators. 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."

--- End of section ---

Erma1ina wrote:

Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation to support your various
SPECULATIONS????

I lived in the area at the time and your "recollections/fantasies" do
not jibe with mine or with ANY of the public documents -- the link to
one of which was provided below -- regarding Rancho Seco.

Pity that REALITY does not support ideologically-driven bias. LOL.

dpb wrote:

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."

Erma1ina have you mathematically modeled the effect on our lungs from
breathing in toxic fossil fuel particulates because we fail to leverage
clean and plentiful nuclear power?

scorpster wrote:

I meant to say CT, Computed Tomography, which involves radiation.

A neonatal abdominal CT effective dose is 20 mSv.

Most nuclear waste has much lower surface dose rate than a CT scan!

...and the waste is kept very carefully contained, away from the public.

Yet I don't see any anti-nuclear demonstrators at the hospitals.

Anti-nuclear extremists try to frighten the general public. Scare tactics
to keep us dependent on expensive polluting coal and fossil fuels.

So what?

As I explained (and you conveniently omitted quoting), radioactive
medical waste is REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO BE DISPOSED OF IN SPECIFIC
DESIGNATED FACITIES, NOT ON SITE of the medical facility.

scorpster wrote:

Erma1ina have you mathematically modeled the effect on our lungs from
breathing in toxic fossil fuel particulates because we fail to leverage
clean and plentiful nuclear power?

No.

But I may to model the effect of "idiots attempting to change the
subject when out of their depths in a debate"

On the other hand, that is, as they say, "intuitively obvious". LOL.

Yes but the 20 mSv dose is being delivered ON-SITE, at the medical facility.

The point is that low-level radiation can be managed in a safe manner.

Waste facilities and on-site storage, likewise, can be done in a SAFE
manner, just like the hospitals.

dpb wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:
Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation ...
...

My recollection on the referendum portion appears correct as I thought...

The decision, in a special referendum, put an end to the operations
of the 15- year-old Rancho Seco facility ...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...957975,00.html

On August 21, 2002, Rancho Seco completed placing all 493 spent fuel
assemblies ... In accordance with the results of a public referendum on
June 6, 1989, ...
www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/rancho-seco-nuclear-generating-station.html

Spokesmen for the nuclear power industry stress that Rancho Seco is a
special case, that this is not a referendum likely to have national
reprecussions. ...
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0D6143EF93BA15756C0A96F9482 60&se...

Again, like a weasel, "dpb" failed to quote the PERTINENT section of the
Time article:

"The Sacramento plant produced only 40% as much electricity as expected,
and its output cost twice as much as that bought on the conventional
market. One result was a doubling of electricity rates. Said Bob
Mulholland, who headed the campaign to close Rancho Seco: 'It's the
first time the debate over a nuclear plant has focused on economics
rather than safety.' "

In other words, as the article I referenced stated, RANCHO SECO was NOT
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.

Erma1ina wrote:
dpb wrote:
Erma1ina wrote:
Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation to support your various
SPECULATIONS????
Which would you care for?

The only thing I'm not certain of specifically is the referendum as I
already mentioned--the shutdown was after I had moved from the vendor to
a consulting firm and had mostly transitioned to working with fossil
utilities rather than nuclear.

The rest I know from having worked for the reactor vendor w/ the utility
including design and startup physics testing.

--

And I did mathematical modelling of reactors and particle detectors. SO
WHAT?

Provide links to objective materials that support you silly opinions.

Then you know enough to be able search the NRC licensee event reports
and can verify the incidents at Rancho Seco were nothing out of the
ordinary and mostly did have to do w/ operations. Having known and
worked with them personally as well as all other nuclear utilities of
the particular vendor's I have no difficulty in making comparisons
between the various utilities and their relative levels of expertise and
differences in operations.

Beyond that unless you have a specific question, I'll leave you to do
some investigative reporting on your own.

--

scorpster wrote:

Yes but the 20 mSv dose is being delivered ON-SITE, at the medical facility.

The point is that low-level radiation can be managed in a safe manner.

Waste facilities and on-site storage, likewise, can be done in a SAFE
manner, just like the hospitals.

And what does that have to do with the long-term storage of waste from a
nuclear power plant?

Erma1ina wrote:
I see that "dpb", like a true weasel, omitted the pertinent section of
my message (including the "link" I mentioned. Here's the omitted
section:

--- Start of section ---

Oh I don't think California "electric utilities fail to take advantage
of clean nuclear power." or that "If we had nuclear power we'd only be
paying a fraction of the price and it would be good for the
environment!!"
....

I only responded to the portion on Rancho Seco shutdown not being a SMUD
decision but a referendum (see other post follow-on).

The opinions stated were and are irrelevant to that.
--

Erma1ina wrote:
dpb wrote:
Erma1ina wrote:
Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation ...
...

My recollection on the referendum portion appears correct as I thought...

The decision, in a special referendum, put an end to the operations
of the 15- year-old Rancho Seco facility ...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...957975,00.html
On August 21, 2002, Rancho Seco completed placing all 493 spent fuel
assemblies ... In accordance with the results of a public referendum on
June 6, 1989, ...
www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/rancho-seco-nuclear-generating-station.html
Spokesmen for the nuclear power industry stress that Rancho Seco is a
special case, that this is not a referendum likely to have national
reprecussions. ...
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0D6143EF93BA15756C0A96F9482 60&se...

Again, like a weasel, "dpb" failed to quote the PERTINENT section of the
Time article:

"The Sacramento plant produced only 40% as much electricity as expected,
and its output cost twice as much as that bought on the conventional
market. One result was a doubling of electricity rates. Said Bob
Mulholland, who headed the campaign to close Rancho Seco: 'It's the
first time the debate over a nuclear plant has focused on economics
rather than safety.' "

In other words, as the article I referenced stated, RANCHO SECO was NOT
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.

I said nothing about the economics of the particular plant one way or
the other, only that it wasn't a utility district choice to shut it down.

I'll only note the overall economics of nuclear can not be assessed
simply from one poorly operated plant.

--

dpb wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:
dpb wrote:
Erma1ina wrote:
Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation to support your various
SPECULATIONS????
Which would you care for?

The only thing I'm not certain of specifically is the referendum as I
already mentioned--the shutdown was after I had moved from the vendor to
a consulting firm and had mostly transitioned to working with fossil
utilities rather than nuclear.

The rest I know from having worked for the reactor vendor w/ the utility
including design and startup physics testing.

--

And I did mathematical modelling of reactors and particle detectors. SO
WHAT?

Provide links to objective materials that support you silly opinions.

Then you know enough to be able search the NRC licensee event reports
and can verify the incidents at Rancho Seco were nothing out of the
ordinary and mostly did have to do w/ operations. Having known and
worked with them personally as well as all other nuclear utilities of
the particular vendor's I have no difficulty in making comparisons
between the various utilities and their relative levels of expertise and
differences in operations.

Beyond that unless you have a specific question, I'll leave you to do
some investigative reporting on your own.

--

"dpb", you're the one making the assertions without providing supporting
documentation.

The nuclear waste being stored long term, in many cases has a lower mSv than
a dose from the medical CT scanner.

dpb wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:
I see that "dpb", like a true weasel, omitted the pertinent section of
my message (including the "link" I mentioned. Here's the omitted
section:

--- Start of section ---

Oh I don't think California "electric utilities fail to take advantage
of clean nuclear power." or that "If we had nuclear power we'd only be
paying a fraction of the price and it would be good for the
environment!!"
...

I only responded to the portion on Rancho Seco shutdown not being a SMUD
decision but a referendum (see other post follow-on).

The opinions stated were and are irrelevant to that.
--

The quote from the article (link to which I provided) was:

Think: "R A N C H O S E C O" and check out:

http://www.constructionweblinks.com/...0407/laww.html

Here are some excerpts:

Regarding the specific issue of "Rancho Seco":

"If the investor-owned utilities will not build new nuclear plants, the
other possibilities are municipally-owned utilities and independent
generators. 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."

scorpster wrote:

The nuclear waste being stored long term, in many cases has a lower mSv than
a dose from the medical CT scanner.

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. LOL.

"DPB", LOOK AT THE "SUBJECT" OF THIS THREAD. LOL

dpb wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:
dpb wrote:
Erma1ina wrote:
Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation ...
...

My recollection on the referendum portion appears correct as I thought...

The decision, in a special referendum, put an end to the operations
of the 15- year-old Rancho Seco facility ...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...957975,00.html
On August 21, 2002, Rancho Seco completed placing all 493 spent fuel
assemblies ... In accordance with the results of a public referendum on
June 6, 1989, ...
www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/rancho-seco-nuclear-generating-station.html
Spokesmen for the nuclear power industry stress that Rancho Seco is a
special case, that this is not a referendum likely to have national
reprecussions. ...
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0D6143EF93BA15756C0A96F9482 60&se...

Again, like a weasel, "dpb" failed to quote the PERTINENT section of the
Time article:

"The Sacramento plant produced only 40% as much electricity as expected,
and its output cost twice as much as that bought on the conventional
market. One result was a doubling of electricity rates. Said Bob
Mulholland, who headed the campaign to close Rancho Seco: 'It's the
first time the debate over a nuclear plant has focused on economics
rather than safety.' "

In other words, as the article I referenced stated, RANCHO SECO was NOT
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.

I said nothing about the economics of the particular plant one way or
the other, only that it wasn't a utility district choice to shut it down.

I'll only note the overall economics of nuclear can not be assessed
simply from one poorly operated plant.

--

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!!

To re-iterate the original subject and "examine" the validity of
"scorpster"s lament regarding the lack of nuclear power's positive
influence on the price of electricity in California, be sure to check
out the experience with Rancho Seco at:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...957975,00.html

Pertinent excerpt:

"The Sacramento plant produced only 40% as much electricity as expected,
and its output cost twice as much as that bought on the conventional
market. One result was a doubling of electricity rates. Said Bob
Mulholland, who headed the campaign to close Rancho Seco: 'It's the
first time the debate over a nuclear plant has focused on economics
rather than safety.' "