It seems the Saudis are bent on a massive nuclear power programme.
http://theenergycollective.com/ansor...ergy-ambitions
They are to build initially sixteen reactors.
Now,one might ask why, when they havea large precentage of the world's
oil beneath their feet.
Or do they?
Conjecture is that there is in fact nowhere near as much oil as they
claim.
And these are the nutters that spawned 11/9.

On Aug 22, 4:14*am, harry wrote:
It seems the Saudis are bent on a massive nuclear power programme.http://theenergycollective.com/ansor...a-s-nuclear-en...
They are to build initially sixteen reactors.
Now,one might ask why, when they havea large precentage of the world's
oil beneath their feet.
Or do they?
Conjecture is that there is in fact nowhere near as much oil as they
claim.
And these are the nutters that spawned 11/9.

Gee harry, how hard is it to figure that out?
Crude is $110 a barrel and virtually no one
burns it to generate electricity because other
fuels, eg nuclear are significantly cheaper.

harry wrote:

It seems the Saudis are bent on a massive nuclear power programme.

And they're making a big mistake by not buying Canadian CANDU reactors.

They're going with the inferior US-based boiling water design, which are
inherently less safe (as we saw first-hand in Japan).

On Aug 22, 12:24*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 22, 4:14*am, harry wrote:

It seems the Saudis are bent on a massive nuclear power programme.http://theenergycollective.com/ansor...a-s-nuclear-en...
They are to build initially sixteen reactors.
Now,one might ask why, when they havea large precentage of the world's
oil beneath their feet.
Or do they?
Conjecture is that there is in fact nowhere near as much oil as they
claim.
And these are the nutters that spawned 11/9.

Gee harry, how hard is it to figure that out?
Crude is $110 a barrel and virtually no one
burns it to generate electricity because other
fuels, eg nuclear are significantly cheaper.

Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

On 8/22/2011 11:44 AM, harry wrote:
On Aug 22, 12:24 pm,
wrote:
On Aug 22, 4:14 am, wrote:

It seems the Saudis are bent on a massive nuclear power programme.http://theenergycollective.com/ansor...a-s-nuclear-en...
They are to build initially sixteen reactors.
Now,one might ask why, when they havea large precentage of the world's
oil beneath their feet.
Or do they?
Conjecture is that there is in fact nowhere near as much oil as they
claim.
And these are the nutters that spawned 11/9.
Gee harry, how hard is it to figure that out?
Crude is $110 a barrel and virtually no one
burns it to generate electricity because other
fuels, eg nuclear are significantly cheaper.
Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

I think they have figured out several ways but it always comes down to
"not in my backyard".

harry wrote:

Gee harry, how hard is it to figure that out?
Crude is $110 a barrel and virtually no one
burns it to generate electricity because other
fuels, eg nuclear are significantly cheaper.

Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

There are MANY solutions to the problem of nuclear waste (shooting it into
the sun, encasing it in molten glass and dumping it into the ocean, pumping
it into salt domes, shipping it to Nigeria, etc.). The reason none of these
has been implemented is because there is no need to choose one. We'll simply
wait until the need is urgent.

The longer we wait, the greater the chance an even better solution will
become clear.

No, the silliness of the anti-nuclear crowd, "We have no solution for the
waste", is a red herring.

On 8/22/2011 3:14 AM, harry wrote:
It seems the Saudis are bent on a massive nuclear power programme.
http://theenergycollective.com/ansor...ergy-ambitions
They are to build initially sixteen reactors.
Now,one might ask why, when they havea large precentage of the world's
oil beneath their feet.
Or do they?
Conjecture is that there is in fact nowhere near as much oil as they
claim.
And these are the nutters that spawned 11/9.


They don't produce much of the final products there do they? They ship
out the oil but have to buy back the finished products or coal to
produce electricity.

No matter. They can do anything they want and Allah will protect them.

-C-

In article ,
harry wrote:
...snipped...
Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

Nobody has figured out what to do with waste from mining and burning
coal either, but that hasn't stopped us from using a few billion tons
every year.

--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

There are MANY solutions to the problem of nuclear waste (shooting it into
the sun, encasing it in molten glass and dumping it into the ocean, pumping
it into salt domes, shipping it to Nigeria, etc.). The reason none of these
has been implemented is because there is no need to choose one. We'll simply
wait until the need is urgent.

The longer we wait, the greater the chance an even better solution will
become clear.

No, the silliness of the anti-nuclear crowd, "We have no solution for the
waste", is a red herring.

nearly every option has large downside potential.

like shoot into deep space or sun, what of launch failures

breeder reactor reprocessing has issues of its own

any of these choices have astronomical costs involved,

since japan designs tto take into account problems uncovered will make
nuke power too expensive to use

Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

Nobody has figured out what to do with waste from mining and burning
coal either, but that hasn't stopped us from using a few billion tons
every year.




mining and burning coal cant make a large area of our planet
uninhabitible for hundreds to thousands of years literally overnight

On Aug 22, 5:58*am, Home Guy wrote:
harry wrote:
It seems the Saudis are bent on a massive nuclear power programme.

And they're making a big mistake by not buying Canadian CANDU reactors.

They're going with the inferior US-based boiling water design, which are
inherently less safe (as we saw first-hand in Japan).

And your degree in engineering is from where exactly?

DD_BobK wrote in news:e8c777c2-6a93-4668-8ca4-
:

On Aug 22, 5:58*am, Home Guy wrote:
harry wrote:
It seems the Saudis are bent on a massive nuclear power programme.

And they're making a big mistake by not buying Canadian CANDU reactors.

They're going with the inferior US-based boiling water design, which are
inherently less safe (as we saw first-hand in Japan).

And your degree in engineering is from where exactly?

Read the wiki[edia on Candu


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

bob haller wrote:
There are MANY solutions to the problem of nuclear waste (shooting
it into the sun, encasing it in molten glass and dumping it into the
ocean, pumping it into salt domes, shipping it to Nigeria, etc.).
The reason none of these has been implemented is because there is no
need to choose one. We'll simply wait until the need is urgent.

The longer we wait, the greater the chance an even better solution
will become clear.

No, the silliness of the anti-nuclear crowd, "We have no solution
for the waste", is a red herring.

nearly every option has large downside potential.

like shoot into deep space or sun, what of launch failures

breeder reactor reprocessing has issues of its own

any of these choices have astronomical costs involved,

Agree, but they ARE solutions which refutes the notion that there are no
solutions. Each of the difficulties you mention can be overcome - for
example, build the lauch facility in Sudan where no one of any consequence
would object. You are correct in that the process would be expensive -
that's another reason to wait.

Perhaps someone working in his garage could perfect a method for
concentrating nuclear waste, taking the spent fuel rods and condensing the
nasty bits to something that would fit in a mayonnaise jar.

My point still stands: There is no urgency to deal with nuclear waste today
and tomorrow may bring a better solution.

bob haller wrote:
Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

Nobody has figured out what to do with waste from mining and burning
coal either, but that hasn't stopped us from using a few billion tons
every year.




mining and burning coal cant make a large area of our planet
uninhabitible for hundreds to thousands of years literally overnight

And that is bad exactly why?

Country wrote:
On 8/22/2011 3:14 AM, harry wrote:
It seems the Saudis are bent on a massive nuclear power programme.
http://theenergycollective.com/ansor...ergy-ambitions
They are to build initially sixteen reactors.
Now,one might ask why, when they havea large precentage of the
world's oil beneath their feet.
Or do they?
Conjecture is that there is in fact nowhere near as much oil as they
claim.
And these are the nutters that spawned 11/9.


They don't produce much of the final products there do they? They ship
out the oil but have to buy back the finished products or coal to
produce electricity.

No matter. They can do anything they want and Allah will protect them.


Only if Allah wills it. To the Muslim mind, anything good that happens is
the will of Allah. If anything bad happens, that is evidence sufficient of a
conspiracy.

On Aug 23, 7:36*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
bob haller wrote:
Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

Nobody has figured out what to do with waste from mining and burning
coal either, but that hasn't stopped us from using a few billion tons
every year.

mining and burning coal cant make a large area of our planet
uninhabitible for hundreds to thousands of years literally overnight


A bit of an exxageration, don't you think? At Chernobyl the whole
plant blew up with the reactor veesel totally exposed. Yet the
exclusion area is 19 miles, not what I would
call a large area of the planet.
I live 25 miles from the oldest operating nuke in the country
and I sleep OK at night. That's because I realize there are
no perfect solutions and am willing to accept reasonable
risks.

In article ,
bob haller wrote:
Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

Nobody has figured out what to do with waste from mining and burning
coal either, but that hasn't stopped us from using a few billion tons
every year.




mining and burning coal cant make a large area of our planet
uninhabitible for hundreds to thousands of years literally overnight

I can show you parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and some other states that might change your mind on that
point, except maybe for the overnight part...

--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Aug 23, 12:43*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 23, 7:36*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

bob haller wrote:
Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

Nobody has figured out what to do with waste from mining and burning
coal either, but that hasn't stopped us from using a few billion tons
every year.

mining and burning coal cant make a large area of our planet
uninhabitible for hundreds to thousands of years literally overnight

A bit of an exxageration, don't you think? * At Chernobyl the whole
plant blew up with the reactor veesel totally exposed. *Yet the
exclusion area is 19 miles, not what I would
call a large area of the planet.
I live 25 miles from the oldest operating nuke in the country
and I sleep OK at night. * That's because I realize there are
no perfect solutions and am willing to accept reasonable
risks.

Taht was/is in the ex-USSR. They don't worry if a few thousand people
have their lives signifcantly shortened. And still don't

On Aug 24, 2:12*am, harry wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:43*pm, "
wrote:





On Aug 23, 7:36*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

bob haller wrote:
Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

Nobody has figured out what to do with waste from mining and burning
coal either, but that hasn't stopped us from using a few billion tons
every year.

mining and burning coal cant make a large area of our planet
uninhabitible for hundreds to thousands of years literally overnight

A bit of an exxageration, don't you think? * At Chernobyl the whole
plant blew up with the reactor veesel totally exposed. *Yet the
exclusion area is 19 miles, not what I would
call a large area of the planet.
I live 25 miles from the oldest operating nuke in the country
and I sleep OK at night. * That's because I realize there are
no perfect solutions and am willing to accept reasonable
risks.

Taht was/is in the ex-USSR. *They don't worry if a few thousand people
have their lives signifcantly shortened. *And still don't- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How many lives has coal taken? Factor in mining, transporting it,
and air quality from burning it.

mining and burning coal cant make a large area of our planet
uninhabitible for hundreds to thousands of years literally overnight

I can show you parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and some other states that might change your mind on that
point, except maybe for the overnight part...

--

mined out coal areas can and are being restored.

with nuke power restoration will have to wait generations till
radiation levels drop.

plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup.

the backup backup worked, so the plant didnt meltdown.

but just imagine a malfunctiong melt down near new york or ther major
population center. theres no way to evacuatye all the residents
millions , general chaos will occur. people can be exposed to
radiation.

nuke plants shouldnt be built near population centers, or eartquake or
sunami zones, or a myriad of other locations for very good reasons...

coal plants can be built / upgraded to grow algea that reprocessed to
a liquid fuel like gasolne..

and lastly nuke power still has that waste problem no one has solved.

current nuke plants have waste core storage pools not in containment
overstuffed with far more hazardous waste than in working reactors
they are a perfect terrorist target.......

the nuke power industry should begin by designing a new nuke plant
model that can totally melt down but not leak at all.... keeping all
radiation safely on site

so far they havent been able

On Aug 24, 8:00*am, bob haller wrote:
mining and burning coal cant make a large area of our planet
uninhabitible for hundreds to thousands of years literally overnight

I can show you parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and some other states that might change your mind on that
point, except maybe for the overnight part...

--

mined out coal areas can and are being restored.

with nuke power restoration will have to wait generations till
radiation levels drop.

plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup.

the backup backup worked, so the plant didnt meltdown.

Can we have a link to this please?






but just imagine a malfunctiong melt down near new york or ther major
population center. theres no way to evacuatye all the residents
millions , general chaos will occur. people can be exposed to
radiation.

nuke plants shouldnt be built near population centers, or eartquake or
sunami zones, or a myriad of other locations for very good reasons...

coal plants can be built / upgraded to grow algea that reprocessed to
a liquid fuel like gasolne..

and lastly nuke power still has that waste problem no one has solved.

current nuke plants have waste core storage pools not in containment
overstuffed with far more hazardous waste than in working reactors
they are a perfect terrorist target...



You can thank Harry Reid and Obama for that. We spent tens of
billions on the Yucca Mountain storage facillity. All that nuclear
waste
that is sitting in spent fuel pools around the country would be safely
stored at Yucca, has they not halted it. So, if there is any such
terrorist attack on spent fuel, we know exactly who to blame.





the nuke power industry should begin by designing a new nuke plant
model that can totally melt down but not leak at all.... *keeping all
radiation safely on site

so far they havent been able

" wrote in news:c4e81643-
:

plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup.

the backup backup worked, so the plant didnt meltdown.

Can we have a link to this please?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3btogrl

1 of 4 "regular" backup diesels had a leak, so the backup backup was a
fifth diesel. All was fine, so far (they're checking things, as they
should). What is a bit disconcerting is that the quake was only 15 miles
away, and a 5.8 magnitude, while the plant was designed for 6.2, which (I
think) is only 5 times or so more powerful than a 5.8.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

*What is a bit disconcerting is that the quake was only 15 miles
away, and a 5.8 magnitude, while the plant was designed for 6.2, which (I
think) is only 5 times or so more powerful than a 5.8.


I think it is 40 times more. Each tenth is ten times more.

Thomas wrote:

away, and a 5.8 magnitude, while the plant was designed for 6.2,
which (I think) is only 5 times or so more powerful than a 5.8.

I think it is 40 times more. Each tenth is ten times more.

No.

=========
Because of the logarithmic basis of the scale, each whole number
increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured
amplitude; in terms of energy, each whole number increase corresponds to
an increase of about 31.6 times the amount of energy released, and each
increase of 0.2 corresponds to a doubling of the energy released.
========

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale

On Aug 24, 8:48*am, Han wrote:
" wrote in news:c4e81643-
:

plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup.

the backup backup worked, so the plant didnt meltdown.

Can we have a link to this please?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3btogrl

1 of 4 "regular" backup diesels had a leak, so the backup backup was a
fifth diesel. *All was fine, so far (they're checking things, as they
should). *What is a bit disconcerting is that the quake was only 15 miles
away, and a 5.8 magnitude, while the plant was designed for 6.2, which (I
think) is only 5 times or so more powerful than a 5.8.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid


Thanks for the link. Niow we know that what was posted
was the usual incorrect alarmist nonsense:

" plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup. the backup backup worked,
so the plant didnt meltdown."

Truth is they had 5 backup generators, only one of which had to
be shut down because of a coolant leak. That's a long
way from losing all backup power. There isn't any indication
that the 5th generator was even necessary to keep the plant
cooled.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:00:13 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

mined out coal areas can and are being restored

Except for Centralia, Pennsylvania.

The coal mine has been burring since 1962.

"...All properties in the borough were claimed under eminent domain by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1992 (and all buildings therein
were condemned), and Centralia's ZIP code was revoked by the Post
Office in 2002.[1] However, a few residents continue to reside there
in spite of the failure of a lawsuit to reverse the eminent domain
claim."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:00 am, bob haller wrote:
mining and burning coal cant make a large area of our planet
uninhabitible for hundreds to thousands of years literally overnight
I can show you parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and some other states that might change your mind on that
point, except maybe for the overnight part...
--
mined out coal areas can and are being restored.

with nuke power restoration will have to wait generations till
radiation levels drop.

plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup.

the backup backup worked, so the plant didnt meltdown.

Can we have a link to this please?

I saw in the news that it was taken offline.
No mention of power loss.

On Aug 24, 1:00*pm, bob haller wrote:
mining and burning coal cant make a large area of our planet
uninhabitible for hundreds to thousands of years literally overnight

I can show you parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and some other states that might change your mind on that
point, except maybe for the overnight part...

--

mined out coal areas can and are being restored.

with nuke power restoration will have to wait generations till
radiation levels drop.

plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup.

the backup backup worked, so the plant didnt meltdown.

but just imagine a malfunctiong melt down near new york or ther major
population center. theres no way to evacuatye all the residents
millions , general chaos will occur. people can be exposed to
radiation.

nuke plants shouldnt be built near population centers, or eartquake or
sunami zones, or a myriad of other locations for very good reasons...

coal plants can be built / upgraded to grow algea that reprocessed to
a liquid fuel like gasolne..

and lastly nuke power still has that waste problem no one has solved.

current nuke plants have waste core storage pools not in containment
overstuffed with far more hazardous waste than in working reactors
they are a perfect terrorist target.......

the nuke power industry should begin by designing a new nuke plant
model that can totally melt down but not leak at all.... *keeping all
radiation safely on site

so far they havent been able

How about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

On Aug 24, 5:26*pm, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:00:13 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

mined out coal areas can and are being restored

Except for Centralia, Pennsylvania.

The coal mine has been burring since 1962.

"...All properties in the borough were claimed under eminent domain by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1992 (and all buildings therein
were condemned), and Centralia's ZIP code was revoked by the Post
Office in 2002.[1] However, a few residents continue to reside there
in spite of the failure of a lawsuit to reverse the eminent domain
claim."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Interesting link that. :-)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:10:27 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Aug 24, 5:26*pm, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:00:13 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

mined out coal areas can and are being restored

Except for Centralia, Pennsylvania.

The coal mine has been burring since 1962.

"...All properties in the borough were claimed under eminent domain by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1992 (and all buildings therein
were condemned), and Centralia's ZIP code was revoked by the Post
Office in 2002.[1] However, a few residents continue to reside there
in spite of the failure of a lawsuit to reverse the eminent domain
claim."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Interesting link that. :-)

My guess is William Penn would be upset, given current state of
affairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn

(Penn the world’s largest private (non-royal) landowner, with over
45,000 square miles (120,000 km)

In article ,
wrote:
...snipped...
How many lives has coal taken? Factor in mining, transporting it,
and air quality from burning it.

There are more deaths in a single year from coal related injury and
illness than from the historical total from non-war use of nuclear energy.

--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

In article ,
(Larry W) wrote:

In a

There are more deaths in a single year from coal related injury and
illness than from the historical total from non-war use of nuclear energy.

Remember the bumpersticker about Ted Kennedy and nuclear energy?

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Thomas wrote in
:

*What is a bit disconcerting is that the quake was only 15 miles
away, and a 5.8 magnitude, while the plant was designed for 6.2,
which (I think) is only 5 times or so more powerful than a 5.8.


I think it is 40 times more. Each tenth is ten times more.

I just looked it up. The Richter scale is a base-10 log scale. So 6 is 10
times more powerful than 5. In terms of wave amplitude at least. It
probably means that 6 feels quite a bit more than 10 times as powerful as
5. On a log scale "1.3" is 5 times more than "1" on a linear scale.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On Aug 24, 8:48*am, Han wrote:
" wrote in
news:c4e81643-
:

plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup.

the backup backup worked, so the plant didnt meltdown.

Can we have a link to this please?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3btogrl

1 of 4 "regular" backup diesels had a leak, so the backup backup was
a fifth diesel. *All was fine, so far (they're checking things, as
they should). *What is a bit disconcerting is that the quake was only
15 mil
es
away, and a 5.8 magnitude, while the plant was designed for 6.2,
which (I think) is only 5 times or so more powerful than a 5.8.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid


Thanks for the link. Niow we know that what was posted
was the usual incorrect alarmist nonsense:

" plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup. the backup backup worked,
so the plant didnt meltdown."

Truth is they had 5 backup generators, only one of which had to
be shut down because of a coolant leak. That's a long
way from losing all backup power. There isn't any indication
that the 5th generator was even necessary to keep the plant
cooled.

I like nuclear energy and believe it is generally safe. However, when an
earthquake occurs that is only 0.4 on the Richter scale less powerfull
than what the plant was designed for, I do think that a check of the
plant is called for. I am not being alarmist, just careful. I live
close enough to Indian Point NY to not like the current state of affairs
with those plants. I believe they do not meet all the design and
management criteria that I would like them to meet in a more ideal
situation. But I'm not worried. There are coal plants closer by ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Aug 24, 12:26*pm, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:00:13 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

mined out coal areas can and are being restored

Except for Centralia, Pennsylvania.

The coal mine has been burring since 1962.

"...All properties in the borough were claimed under eminent domain by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1992 (and all buildings therein
were condemned), and Centralia's ZIP code was revoked by the Post
Office in 2002.[1] However, a few residents continue to reside there
in spite of the failure of a lawsuit to reverse the eminent domain
claim."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

centralia fire could of been put out, they came close to getting it
out and ran out of money.

It was decided it was cheaper to buy the town than put out the fire so
the area has been eft to burn.

Whats the worst than can happen if a coal fired plant has a ajor
malfunction? ash on the area, a mostly cosmetic issue.

With a nuke plant a wide are will be uninhabitible for
generations........

plese compare that for a moment and declare nuke power is safe

On Aug 25, 8:12*am, bob haller wrote:
On Aug 24, 12:26*pm, Oren wrote:





On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:00:13 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

mined out coal areas can and are being restored

Except for Centralia, Pennsylvania.

The coal mine has been burring since 1962.

"...All properties in the borough were claimed under eminent domain by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1992 (and all buildings therein
were condemned), and Centralia's ZIP code was revoked by the Post
Office in 2002.[1] However, a few residents continue to reside there
in spite of the failure of a lawsuit to reverse the eminent domain
claim."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

centralia fire could of been put out, they came close to getting it
out and ran out of money.

It was decided it was cheaper to buy the town than put out the fire so
the area has been eft to burn.

Whats the worst than can happen if a coal fired plant has a ajor
malfunction? ash on the area, a mostly cosmetic issue.

With a nuke plant a wide are will be uninhabitible for
generations........

plese compare that for a moment and declare nuke power is safe- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK. Nuke power is safe.

The problem is, everything has tradeoffs and risks.
Unfortunately, from what I've seen, the same folks
who are anti-nuke are anti everything. Sure, they
claim to be pro wind, for example. But when it
comes time to build the windmill, they are right
there objecting to that too because it will kill
birds, affect their migratory patterns, disturb
fish in the ocean, etc.

In the case of nukes, it is one source that is
available, deployable, and economical today
that has zero C02 emissions. Yet, the same
environmentalists that claim the whole planet
is going to be destroyed in a few more decades
will not allow nukes to be built. That alone
exposes their incredible hypocrisy. It's like
sitting in a desert, dying of thirst, and bitching
because some rain water from a barrel
isn't good enough.

On 8/22/2011 4:41 PM, Larry W wrote:
In ,
wrote:
...snipped...
Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

Nobody has figured out what to do with waste from mining and burning
coal either, but that hasn't stopped us from using a few billion tons
every year.


I read somewhere that burning coal puts radium into the atmosphere
because it and other radioactive compounds may be trapped in coal
deposits. I haven't researched yet but it could be an interesting
topic to look into. I'm wondering what kind of geology releases
radon gas? Perhaps someone reading this group knows? :-)

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote in
:

On 8/22/2011 4:41 PM, Larry W wrote:
In

om, wrote:
...snipped...
Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

Nobody has figured out what to do with waste from mining and burning
coal either, but that hasn't stopped us from using a few billion tons
every year.


I read somewhere that burning coal puts radium into the atmosphere
because it and other radioactive compounds may be trapped in coal
deposits. I haven't researched yet but it could be an interesting
topic to look into. I'm wondering what kind of geology releases
radon gas? Perhaps someone reading this group knows? :-)

TDD

Radon and radium are products of uranium. WHich is present in many
(all?) kinds of rocks in greater or lesser concentrations.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:27:55 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 8/22/2011 4:41 PM, Larry W wrote:
In ,
wrote:
...snipped...
Nobody has yet figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. They
always conveniently leave that out of the cost equation.

Nobody has figured out what to do with waste from mining and burning
coal either, but that hasn't stopped us from using a few billion tons
every year.


I read somewhere that burning coal puts radium into the atmosphere
because it and other radioactive compounds may be trapped in coal
deposits. I haven't researched yet but it could be an interesting
topic to look into.

Sure. Coal-fired plants release a lot more radioactivity than nukes.

I'm wondering what kind of geology releases
radon gas? Perhaps someone reading this group knows? :-)

Radon is a child of Uranium-238. Uranium is common in granite formations.

On 8/24/2011 12:45 PM, harry wrote:
On Aug 24, 1:00 pm, bob wrote:
mining and burning coal cant make a large area of our planet
uninhabitible for hundreds to thousands of years literally overnight

I can show you parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and some other states that might change your mind on that
point, except maybe for the overnight part...

--

mined out coal areas can and are being restored.

with nuke power restoration will have to wait generations till
radiation levels drop.

plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup.

the backup backup worked, so the plant didnt meltdown.

but just imagine a malfunctiong melt down near new york or ther major
population center. theres no way to evacuatye all the residents
millions , general chaos will occur. people can be exposed to
radiation.

nuke plants shouldnt be built near population centers, or eartquake or
sunami zones, or a myriad of other locations for very good reasons...

coal plants can be built / upgraded to grow algea that reprocessed to
a liquid fuel like gasolne..

and lastly nuke power still has that waste problem no one has solved.

current nuke plants have waste core storage pools not in containment
overstuffed with far more hazardous waste than in working reactors
they are a perfect terrorist target.......

the nuke power industry should begin by designing a new nuke plant
model that can totally melt down but not leak at all.... keeping all
radiation safely on site

so far they havent been able

How about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

I remember reading about that technology in either Popular Science or
Popular Mechanics Magazine some years ago and I thought it was under
consideration by The Japanese for their plants because of earthquake
safety.

TDD