In article , Roger Shoaf says...

Tell me something, why do you suggest that storing the spent fuel rods is a
bigger problem than the *tons* of radioactive material spewed forth by
burning coal?

Umm, because it's all in one place.

And unless you keep it cool, it will get really really hot
and do bad things.

Are you just trolling, or doyou really not know that?

If you do, than you can answer the following question:

What does Entergy do when it can no longer store spent fuel
on site at their Indian Point reactors? Does it a) ship the
fuel to a licensed disposal site, out of state, b) put it in
the local trash for the garbage men to pick up, c) put it
in with the rest of the spend fuel from IP numbers 1, 2, and
3, in teh spent fuel pool, d) say, 'no more room for spent
fuel, have to shut down the site and start decommisioning.

Sanity check time.

a) is no good, there *is* no such fairyland. If there was,
they'd use it in a heartbeat.

b) the local trash guys would pick up anything. So don't
think about that because they *would* pick it up.

c) no good. The spent fuel pool (actually the old IP number
one reactor site) is now full.

d) also no good. It would cost too much to do that, and that
would cut into the profits. The plant makes money for its
owners when it *runs*. There is no profit in an idle plant,
and worse, decomissioning a plant that old is going to cost
way more than they say. And they know that.

The last issue has been discussed here in this thread already.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Jim,

Any endeavor of man has benefits and costs. The United States has been
collecting a tax on all of the power generated at all of this countries
nuclear power plants for years promising to build a repository for the
waste.

As I remember it, if you were to stack all of the spent fuel rods in one
place it would fit inside an average high school gymnasium. This is not a
whole lot of stuff to store in such a way as to protect the public.

The longer we delay Yucca Mountain, the longer we delay the benefits of
building more nuclear power plants. Now you seem to have almost a religious
belief that nuclear power is bad. I however do not hold such a belief. I
feel that the advantages gained from nuclear power far outweigh the risks
and the costs.

Consider the costs of the alternatives. Coal is very polluting. Even so
called "clean burning" coal dumps tons of radioactive material and other
nasty stuff into the environment.

Natural gas is fairly clean, but the supply is limited and there is still
the CO2 released when the gas is burned.

Hydroelectric is good, but how many more dams can we build?

Solar and wind are just too inefficient to supply the quantity of power we
need when we need it.

Oil is not cheap nor can we have a reliable supply. Sooner or later our
automobiles will be run on hydrogen, but it takes energy to make the stuff.

Nuclear fusion would be great but is no where near commercial viability.
Fission we got down. We can produce massive amounts of electricity on the
cheap. Sure this produces spent rods that need to be dealt with, but that
is not an insurmountable problem.

Cheap power is good. With cheap power the price of steel drops, the price
of concrete drops, and the quality of life improves. Burning less fossil
fuel would give us cleaner air and water.


--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.


"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Shoaf says...

Tell me something, why do you suggest that storing the spent fuel rods is
a
bigger problem than the *tons* of radioactive material spewed forth by
burning coal?

Umm, because it's all in one place.

And unless you keep it cool, it will get really really hot
and do bad things.

Are you just trolling, or doyou really not know that?

If you do, than you can answer the following question:

What does Entergy do when it can no longer store spent fuel
on site at their Indian Point reactors? Does it a) ship the
fuel to a licensed disposal site, out of state, b) put it in
the local trash for the garbage men to pick up, c) put it
in with the rest of the spend fuel from IP numbers 1, 2, and
3, in teh spent fuel pool, d) say, 'no more room for spent
fuel, have to shut down the site and start decommisioning.

Sanity check time.

a) is no good, there *is* no such fairyland. If there was,
they'd use it in a heartbeat.

b) the local trash guys would pick up anything. So don't
think about that because they *would* pick it up.

c) no good. The spent fuel pool (actually the old IP number
one reactor site) is now full.

d) also no good. It would cost too much to do that, and that
would cut into the profits. The plant makes money for its
owners when it *runs*. There is no profit in an idle plant,
and worse, decomissioning a plant that old is going to cost
way more than they say. And they know that.

The last issue has been discussed here in this thread already.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:05:09 -0500, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
.. .
How much to
build Yucca Mt. and test all the other sites? How much more to build a
nuke plant vs. coal and all the mining and refining put together. How
much for the transportation technology? Plus, 10,000 yrs.+ of
watching it?

Well, we wouldn't need so damn much of that if the public weren't scared to
**** about nuclear everything. It can all be transported safely with far
less to do.. truck drivers are supposed to stop before letting their payload
get struck by a train anyway, no?

Tim

I don't know much about it , probably get alot from the Italian tile
and baking in the sun everyday. Maybe cause they lie about it all the
time. I find it hard to believe that the scientists that made the
first bomb didn't know about radiation and told the gov't. Yet they
had alot of above ground tests where the fall out went all over the
US. I'd be really surprised if the scientist that deal with it
everyday skip alot of those silly protection measures.

Would you tell me how to put links on here?

There was a truck in '97 in Kingman Az. leaking , that shouldn't be of
any concern. They epoxied the crack drove on and put it in an unlined
trench. How many more where there? They drove right by my house ,
kinda makes me think when following a leaking simi. I suppose there is
no problem with the trailers after they unload them... Tens of
thousands of them.

I wonder if they told the people in Russia that they would be dead
within a week of going into that place.

What ever the reason it sure sounds expensive to build a plant , tear
it down , and move it across the country for less $ than any other
means.

"Roger Shoaf" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Any endeavor of man has benefits and costs. The United States has been
collecting a tax on all of the power generated at all of this countries
nuclear power plants for years promising to build a repository for the
waste.

As I remember it, if you were to stack all of the spent fuel rods in one
place it would fit inside an average high school gymnasium. This is not a
whole lot of stuff to store in such a way as to protect the public.

The longer we delay Yucca Mountain, the longer we delay the benefits of
building more nuclear power plants. Now you seem to have almost a
religious
belief that nuclear power is bad. I however do not hold such a belief. I
feel that the advantages gained from nuclear power far outweigh the risks
and the costs.

Consider the costs of the alternatives. Coal is very polluting. Even so
called "clean burning" coal dumps tons of radioactive material and other
nasty stuff into the environment.

Not sure if you had this in mind but the process of extracting coal is also
very polluting.


Natural gas is fairly clean, but the supply is limited and there is still
the CO2 released when the gas is burned.

Hydroelectric is good, but how many more dams can we build?

Hydroelectric has a tremendous environmental impact in its' construction.
How many square miles of land were flooded Lake Meade was finally full?

Solar and wind are just too inefficient to supply the quantity of power we
need when we need it.

Oil is not cheap nor can we have a reliable supply. Sooner or later our
automobiles will be run on hydrogen, but it takes energy to make the
stuff.

Nuclear fusion would be great but is no where near commercial viability.
Fission we got down. We can produce massive amounts of electricity on the
cheap. Sure this produces spent rods that need to be dealt with, but that
is not an insurmountable problem.

Cheap power is good. With cheap power the price of steel drops, the
price
of concrete drops, and the quality of life improves. Burning less fossil
fuel would give us cleaner air and water.

In article , Roger Shoaf says...

Jim,

Any endeavor of man has benefits and costs. The United States has been
collecting a tax on all of the power generated at all of this countries
nuclear power plants for years promising to build a repository for the
waste.

Hmm. So now it's the government's responisibility? If this
were a discussion about education, or welfare, or product
liability, the term "nanny state" would be thrust into play
at this point.

Why shouldn't Entergy Co. be required to run its buisiness
*without* government assurances that they will be bailed out
in the end? And by 'bailed out' I mean, 'the nanny state will
step in and buy all the fuel rods and the decrepit plant, for
one dollar, at the end if it's lifetime.' Because that's the
kind of subsidy that apparently is needed to make the nuclear
power business a paying proposition.

As I remember it, if you were to stack all of the spent fuel rods in one
place it would fit inside an average high school gymnasium. This is not a
whole lot of stuff to store in such a way as to protect the public.

Yep, and if you removed all the space from inside the atoms in the
fuel rod assemblies, you could fit them all inside a teacup. My
point being, you *can't* stack them in a swimming pool, and you know
that. Saying so is deceptive. If they *could* do that, they would.
Trust me. They're having enought trouble stacking *one* plant's
spent fuel in one swimming pool right now, in Buchannan, NY. The
pool is full and for them to keep running the plan they've got to
start taking the older stuff out so the hot stuff can go in.

Otherwise Entergy corp. has to shut the plant down.

The longer we delay Yucca Mountain, the longer we delay the benefits of
building more nuclear power plants. Now you seem to have almost a religious
belief that nuclear power is bad.

NO! I don't. You mis-state my comments sir. They are factual
and true. "Bad" or 'good' in this case is not of interest. The
question is, can a company make money doing this, amortized over
the lifetime of the plant.

To put it another way, it's not fair to stockholders if a company
sticks all of it liabilies in one box, and then sticks that box
under the bed to cover it up. Then they go and tout how much
profit they make and how good a deal their stock represents. There's
been a lot of that going on lately, too. With other energy
companies - it seems to run with the business.

Unless the *full* costs are laid on the table, any discussion
of cost/benefit is a lie. Plain and simple. And it's in the
industries interests to de-emphasize the costs.

I however do not hold such a belief. I
feel that the advantages gained from nuclear power far outweigh the risks
and the costs.

OK, but be aware that the folks who are giving you the balance
sheets are lying, to some degree or another. Oh, they won't *say*
'we're lying.' They might say, it costs $36B to do a decomissioning
one day, then the next day, hey, fire sale! it costs only seven.
At the end they have a vested interest in understating their
liabilies because they are for-profit companies and it lets them
get better ROI. And this includes the spent fuel issue.

Consider the costs of the alternatives.

No. This part of the discussion isn't about how bad something
else is. It's about the real cost/benfit analysis of
nuclear power. Let's stay focussed.

Cheap power is good.

Agree! Get private companies out of the business, so the ROI issue
goes away, *or* force them to state the real costs of long term
nuclear generation, without goobermint subsidy, *or* be prepared
for the public to have to pick up the tab when the rent comes due.

I suggest you contact entergy corp and request that a few
casks be delivered to your house, straight away. They'd be
happy do comply.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Roger Shoaf says...

The Physicists do not consider disposal/storage a problem.

Most physicists cannot tie their own shoes. This problem
will not be solved by physics, because it is primarily a
political, problem. It's an engineering problem, second.

This is one reason it (the issue of spent fuel disposal)
has not been resolved yet. The politics are taking front
seat, not the engineering issues.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Shoaf says...

The Physicists do not consider disposal/storage a problem.

Most physicists cannot tie their own shoes. This problem
will not be solved by physics, because it is primarily a
political, problem. It's an engineering problem, second.

I think I would disagree with your pejoritive comment about physicists.
Science has vastly improved our lives, and I do not believe that this trend
will change.


This is one reason it (the issue of spent fuel disposal)
has not been resolved yet. The politics are taking front
seat, not the engineering issues.


Bingo. While the politicians are pandering to the fear mongers, real damage
is being done to folks health and the economy.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...

I don't know much about it , probably get alot from the Italian tile
and baking in the sun everyday. Maybe cause they lie about it all the
time.

Who are "they"?




I find it hard to believe that the scientists that made the
first bomb didn't know about radiation and told the gov't. Yet they
had alot of above ground tests where the fall out went all over the
US. I'd be really surprised if the scientist that deal with it
everyday skip alot of those silly protection measures.


Slow down here. When they made the first atomic bombs the idea was to
create massive death and destruction. This was a sucess. I for one am glad
they suceeded. My father was in the pacific during WWII and if we had to
invade Japan and slug it out I might very well have never been conceived.

As far as those "silly" protection measures, who do you think designed the
containment systems at Three Mile Island that prevented a catastrophy from
occuring?



Would you tell me how to put links on here?

There was a truck in '97 in Kingman Az. leaking , that shouldn't be of
any concern. They epoxied the crack drove on and put it in an unlined
trench. How many more where there? They drove right by my house ,
kinda makes me think when following a leaking simi. I suppose there is
no problem with the trailers after they unload them... Tens of
thousands of them.


http://www.kgoam810.com/goout.asp?u=...w.pushback.com

Scroll down to the lower right hand side and they have links to the tests of
nuckear shipping containers including slamming a locomotive into the truck
at 80 MPH and setting them on fire. Video is also included.


I wonder if they told the people in Russia that they would be dead
within a week of going into that place.



Our scientists warned them of the face that they had a **** poor design.
The Soviets ignored the warning.


What ever the reason it sure sounds expensive to build a plant , tear
it down , and move it across the country for less $ than any other
means.

Plants are built where they are needed. Waste is disposed of in places
where it is not likely to do any harm. I believe you are misinformed as to
the degree of care used in transporting nuclear material.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

In article , Roger Shoaf says...

I think I would disagree with your pejoritive comment about physicists.

Accurate my friend. Trust me on this. I work with them 365 days
a year. There's a vast number of them who I would not trust with
a stone hammer or a sharp stick. Most of those are theorists and
they would be the first to tell you this is true. They have no
illusions that their specialized knowledge, deep and profound though
it is, allows them to circumvent the rules of engineering.

There are also a select few experimentalists who are truly dangerous
because they *think* they know what they are doing.

Where I work, there's a reason why the machinists and modelmakers
are afforded such respect: they often understand engineering and
materials better than the scientists they work for.

Science has vastly improved our lives, and I do not believe that this trend
will change.

My how your mind hops about. Did somebody *say* that science was a
'bad thing?' Did I make a statement such as "boy that sience stuff
sure is bad, it's gonna kill us. We had better go back to flint
arrowheads, and stick some wooden shoes in the gears?"

You are mistaking 'science' for the economics and engineering in
the nuclear power industry. Two very, very different things.

Sure, any undergraduate physics major could tell you, the fuel rods
are made of thus and such material, with this melting point, and
after they are removed from service, they generate such and such
and amount of heat, for this amount of time. And will have to be
stored to keep their temperature below this level.

That's pretty much it. Everything after that is involved in either
a) keeping down the costs or b) PR to tell folks 'it's really not
that bad.'

Because given the political situation the stuff's *not* *going*
to *move* anywhere.

Why don't you apply your manifold expertise to this, to explaining
how this *can* change? And while you are at it, explain how they
are going to move the fuel around and store it, so the taxpayer
does not have to foot the bill? Otherwise it's just another
example of corporate welfare that is so often discussed in this ng.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 18 Jul 2004 08:16:29 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

Yep, and if you removed all the space from inside the atoms in the
fuel rod assemblies, you could fit them all inside a teacup. My
point being, you *can't* stack them in a swimming pool, and you know
that. Saying so is deceptive. If they *could* do that, they would.
Trust me. They're having enought trouble stacking *one* plant's
spent fuel in one swimming pool right now, in Buchannan, NY. The
pool is full and for them to keep running the plan they've got to
start taking the older stuff out so the hot stuff can go in.

Otherwise Entergy corp. has to shut the plant down.

Why not simply build another swimming pool?

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:37:23 GMT, Gunner wrote:


Why not simply build another swimming pool?


Your trouble, Gunner, is that you're too bloody practical G


Mark Rand
RTF

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:15:35 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
.. .

I don't know much about it , probably get alot from the Italian tile
and baking in the sun everyday. Maybe cause they lie about it all the
time.

Who are "they"?

Come on , you don't know them? The DOE , the "government", ahhh isn't
there a nuclear regulatory agency , and ahhh the DOD , ect... Do you
really think they tell the truth ? LOL


I find it hard to believe that the scientists that made the
first bomb didn't know about radiation and told the gov't. Yet they
had alot of above ground tests where the fall out went all over the
US. I'd be really surprised if the scientist that deal with it
everyday skip alot of those silly protection measures.


Slow down here. When they made the first atomic bombs the idea was to
create massive death and destruction. This was a sucess. I for one am glad
they suceeded. My father was in the pacific during WWII and if we had to
invade Japan and slug it out I might very well have never been conceived.

I don't want to be drug into a patriot game here. A step father of
mine was instrumental in loading the first one on the plane. Your
missing the point. I'm saying they should have done the very next test
in another location cause they *knew* of the radiation poisoning. I
don't like any choices of where , but maybe bikini was the best place.
And still should be as far as I'm concerned, I'm sure it won't be long
and my house will be shook again. Have you ever felt them? It is like
the building moves over about an inch and back in a spit second. When
my house was built you could see the mushroom clouds from the
property.


As far as those "silly" protection measures, who do you think designed the
containment systems at Three Mile Island that prevented a catastrophy from
occuring?

Good point , but I was talking about them ( the people who deal with
radioactive material ) skipping silly things that paranoid people have
subjected upon them (...) and that they don't where gloves or what
ever cause they (protection measures) are not necessary. Bull ****, I
bet they want more (pm's).


Would you tell me how to put links on here?

There was a truck in '97 in Kingman Az. leaking , that shouldn't be of
any concern. They epoxied the crack drove on and put it in an unlined
trench. How many more where there? They drove right by my house ,
kinda makes me think when following a leaking simi. I suppose there is
no problem with the trailers after they unload them... Tens of
thousands of them.


http://www.kgoam810.com/goout.asp?u=...w.pushback.com

Scroll down to the lower right hand side and they have links to the tests of
nuckear shipping containers including slamming a locomotive into the truck
at 80 MPH and setting them on fire. Video is also included.

So what... Look up (Kingman AZ. radioactive truck leak) The DOE said
there wasn't any radioactivity others say it was hot. I recall seeing
footage of the back of the simi leaking. Epoxy ! LOL Sure it was just
low level waist , but showed nothing on the Geiger counter? Why truck
it all the way across the country if it was just water?

Now we are running out of water and they ( ahhh GGG the Nev. gov't)
are setting up to extract water from around the NTS. Bet they say
there is nothing wrong with the water and never will be, do you
believe that? LOL


I wonder if they told the people in Russia that they would be dead
within a week of going into that place.



Our scientists warned them of the face that they had a **** poor design.
The Soviets ignored the warning.

Not that , the people who went in the plant to help somehow to contain
it, did they ( the Russian gov't) tell them they are most likely to
die before their pay check? I bet NO.


What ever the reason it sure sounds expensive to build a plant , tear
it down , and move it across the country for less $ than any other
means.

Plants are built where they are needed. Waste is disposed of in places
where it is not likely to do any harm. I believe you are misinformed as to
the degree of care used in transporting nuclear material.

I'm not informed at all. I can just imagine ! The plants are built
like a nuke bomb shelter with what 10' concrete and rebar all over?
That must cost some bucks and then tear it down while glowing and then
truck it to NV. Plus all the liquid and dirt from the site. Sounds
really ****ing expensive to me. But we are to believe its less than
$.03 a KWH. Yeah, right.

Granted we need electricity , maybe design them to be left in place ,
hell I don't know. Make bigger pools and keep it there. Read one of
these pack rat threads, its a major pain to move all the stuff little
alone hot. I bet they are still scratching their heads over what to do
with 3 mile island and that was ahhh 25 yrs. ago. BTW , from what I've
seen on TV they (TMI) dumped alot of glowing stuff and would not tell
the people about it.

Wish I could find that political cartoon about trust us. It had about
5 examples of how the gov't lies about the subject. Kinda like giving
poor blacks syphilis and letting it run its course. Don't these people
( do I have to spell it out?) swear an oath to protect and serve ect.
ect... to the citizens of the US?

Frankly I don't think I'm mis anything.

Since your so smart , I have a question. How much radiation is in
lead from say a hospital. None? A lot? Some, elaborate. How does it
stop it and where does it go?

How many nuke subs are sitting on the ocean floor ?

Got info on space nukes? Have they done it? Ya know them and
explosions not power plants.

On 18 Jul 2004 08:22:19 -0700, jim rozen
calmly ranted:

In article , Roger Shoaf says...

The Physicists do not consider disposal/storage a problem.

Most physicists cannot tie their own shoes. This problem
will not be solved by physics, because it is primarily a
political, problem. It's an engineering problem, second.

This is one reason it (the issue of spent fuel disposal)
has not been resolved yet. The politics are taking front
seat, not the engineering issues.

Well, coke tailings from the railroad industry 100 years ago
haven't been taken care of yet, either. Nor have lead, etc.
tailings from mining. So it's definitely a political problem
that nuke power hasn't replaced coal burning despite coal's
higher pollution rate.

-
Better Living Through Denial
------------
http://diversify.com Dynamic Websites, PHP Apps, MySQL databases

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Well, coke tailings from the railroad industry 100 years ago
haven't been taken care of yet, either. Nor have lead, etc.
tailings from mining. So it's definitely a political problem
that nuke power hasn't replaced coal burning despite coal's
higher pollution rate.

It's a follow the money issue. Mining and railroad companies
had/have a great deal of influence so they get rules and
legislation passed that favor them - to the point of being
nearly a public subsidy.

The nuclear industry is quite analogous to your other examples,
they take in quite a bit of public money, with fuel issues.

Do nuclear plants actually have to purchase the fuel they
burn?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

On 18 Jul 2004 08:16:29 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

Yep, and if you removed all the space from inside the atoms in the
fuel rod assemblies, you could fit them all inside a teacup. My
point being, you *can't* stack them in a swimming pool, and you know
that. Saying so is deceptive. If they *could* do that, they would.
Trust me. They're having enought trouble stacking *one* plant's
spent fuel in one swimming pool right now, in Buchannan, NY. The
pool is full and for them to keep running the plan they've got to
start taking the older stuff out so the hot stuff can go in.

Otherwise Entergy corp. has to shut the plant down.

Why not simply build another swimming pool?

They may do that too. But the 'swimming pool' in question
is the original reactor site for Indian Point number one. So
it has a nice containment building around it, and so on.

I think it's cheaper to pull the fuel rods out and store them
aboveground, if it's engineered properly. Also if they're
not relying on water for cooling, then it can't leak out
and cause a problem.

I suspect the guys running that show could not even manage to
build swimming pool that was watertight. There was quite a
flap at Brookhaven Labs about three years ago, because the
cooling water tank (swimming pool) kept requiring a lot of
make-up water.

Yep, the hot water was leaching into the ground. Hot, meaning
it had a bit more tritium in it than it should have.

I think the site director ultimately lost his position over
that event.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Sunworshipper says...

... Don't these people
( do I have to spell it out?) swear an oath to protect and serve ect.
ect... to the citizens of the US?

I think you've hit the issue here. No, they're
supposed to serve and protect the industries that
donate to their campaigns.

How many nuke subs are sitting on the ocean floor ?

Oh my. Is *that* how the military (well, the soviets anway)
decomissioned their used reactors? Say it's not so!

Got info on space nukes? Have they done it?

Sure. But those are pretty innocuous compared with
a submarine reactor hulk. Smaller, less material,
simpler. Those are thermoelectric generators.

Basically some decaying isotope that gets hot, and
runs a series of large thermocouples to generate small
amounts (100 watts IIRC) of electricity for on-board
instrumentation.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:23:47 -0700, "Lane"
lane_nospam@copperaccents_dot_com vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I don't understand this statement. What are you saying; don't use air
conditioning? Do you not use any modern conveniences? Still driving that
horse and buddy?

Lane



Ah, er... "buggy"


Scuse me friend. Could ya just stand behind this horse for a while?

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...
So what... Look up (Kingman AZ. radioactive truck leak) The DOE said
there wasn't any radioactivity others say it was hot. I recall seeing
footage of the back of the simi leaking. Epoxy ! LOL Sure it was just
low level waist , but showed nothing on the Geiger counter? Why truck
it all the way across the country if it was just water?

OK I looked it up. here is a quote:

No radioactive contamination was discovered in the almost two gallons that
leaked out of the truck in Kingman. The truck's load was repacked and
returned to Ohio from Arizona.

The leaking liquid was not a threat to public health, safety or the
environment, according to the DOE.
============= end quote =============

Two gallons and no zoomies. Sounds to me like there was no problem. I also
note that this was in December. Perhaps the water didn't originate from the
plant in Ohio, perhaps it was snow or rain that had fallen on the cargo.

The term low level waste is rather deceiving. This could mean a set of
coveralls the guy driving the forklift was wearing when he carried the hot
fuel rods to the cooling ponds, or the dirt he drove the forklift over.





Now we are running out of water and they ( ahhh GGG the Nev. gov't)
are setting up to extract water from around the NTS. Bet they say
there is nothing wrong with the water and never will be, do you
believe that? LOL

Well one thing about radiation is it is easy to test for.



Not that , the people who went in the plant to help somehow to contain
it, did they ( the Russian gov't) tell them they are most likely to
die before their pay check? I bet NO.


Perhaps they were bona fide heros. Perhaps they were worried about what
would happen if the sacrifice was not made.



I'm not informed at all. I can just imagine ! The plants are built
like a nuke bomb shelter with what 10' concrete and rebar all over?
That must cost some bucks and then tear it down while glowing and then
truck it to NV. Plus all the liquid and dirt from the site. Sounds
really ****ing expensive to me. But we are to believe its less than
$.03 a KWH. Yeah, right.

Currently 20% of the electricity generated in the US comes form just over
100 nuclear power plants. Do the math.



Granted we need electricity , maybe design them to be left in place ,
hell I don't know. Make bigger pools and keep it there. Read one of
these pack rat threads, its a major pain to move all the stuff little
alone hot. I bet they are still scratching their heads over what to do
with 3 mile island and that was ahhh 25 yrs. ago. BTW , from what I've
seen on TV they (TMI) dumped alot of glowing stuff and would not tell
the people about it.

Be careful about what you see on TV. Often the more controversy the
producers can create the better the ratings. This is often at the expense
of the truth.

If TMI had "dumped a lot of hot stuff", it would be detctable. So where is
it?




Wish I could find that political cartoon about trust us. It had about
5 examples of how the gov't lies about the subject. Kinda like giving
poor blacks syphilis and letting it run its course. Don't these people
( do I have to spell it out?) swear an oath to protect and serve ect.
ect... to the citizens of the US?

Frankly I don't think I'm mis anything.

Since your so smart , I have a question. How much radiation is in
lead from say a hospital. None? A lot? Some, elaborate. How does it
stop it and where does it go?

I am not sure, but I bet if you asked the question on alt.energy.nuclear I
bet someone there could explain it. One thing I did have personal
experience with was a large lead lined box that I helped move from an
industrial plant to the scrap yard. The box was used for some sort of
industrial process involving radiation. Before the scrap yard accepted it,
they came out to the truck with a geiger counter, adjusted it to get a
background reading and when they stuck the probe into the box the needle
fell to zero.


How many nuke subs are sitting on the ocean floor ?

I am not sure. But there doesn't seem to be a lot of sick US sailors that
lived inside of those small confined spaces, the Russian sailors I am not to
sure about. IIRC water is a good radiation shield, perhaps this might
explain why this is not an issue.



Got info on space nukes? Have they done it? Ya know them and
explosions not power plants.



I have no specific information, but there is a whole lot more radiation in
space than there is at sea level just like there is a lot more in Denver
than in Seattle.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

On 18 Jul 2004 08:16:29 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Roger Shoaf says...
Any endeavor of man has benefits and costs. The United States has been
collecting a tax on all of the power generated at all of this countries
nuclear power plants for years promising to build a repository for the
waste.

Hmm. So now it's the government's responisibility? If this
were a discussion about education, or welfare, or product
liability, the term "nanny state" would be thrust into play
at this point.

Why shouldn't Entergy Co. be required to run its buisiness
*without* government assurances that they will be bailed out
in the end? And by 'bailed out' I mean, 'the nanny state will
step in and buy all the fuel rods and the decrepit plant, for
one dollar, at the end if it's lifetime.' Because that's the
kind of subsidy that apparently is needed to make the nuclear
power business a paying proposition.

See IRS section 468A. Each utility is taxed one tenth of one cent
per kWh generated to fund the federal nuclear decommissioning
trust fund. In 1999, the trust fund contained $22,5 billion dollars,
designated by law to pay for plant decommissioning and permanent
high level waste disposal. So industry has already paid, and continues
to pay, for a service it is not receiving.

As I remember it, if you were to stack all of the spent fuel rods in one
place it would fit inside an average high school gymnasium. This is not a
whole lot of stuff to store in such a way as to protect the public.

All the spent fuel used in all commercial nuclear plants since the
beginning of the nuclear age would fit on a football field, making
a pile with a depth of 3 feet (in other words, about 5,000 cubic yards).

As Jim notes below, actually doing that wouldn't be a very good idea,
due to criticality issues. In reality you'd need to increase the volume
about 36 times (in air) in order to avoid overheating. But you're right
in essence, it isn't a huge amount of material. In fact it is miniscule
compared to the wastes produced by any other power generating
method.

More importantly, most of it isn't "spent". Only about 3% of the fissile
material in a "spent" rod has fissioned. By using reprocessing, almost
all of the remaining fissile material could be recovered and reused
(and if breeder technology were used, more fissile material would be
recovered than was originally present in the rods). That means the
amount of *real* high level waste, stuff with no commercial value, is
much smaller than the already tiny amounts we're talking about.

Yep, and if you removed all the space from inside the atoms in the
fuel rod assemblies, you could fit them all inside a teacup. My
point being, you *can't* stack them in a swimming pool, and you know
that. Saying so is deceptive. If they *could* do that, they would.
Trust me. They're having enought trouble stacking *one* plant's
spent fuel in one swimming pool right now, in Buchannan, NY. The
pool is full and for them to keep running the plan they've got to
start taking the older stuff out so the hot stuff can go in.

Correct, and they've already paid the federal government $22.5 billion
dollars to do just that. The problem is, the federal government won't
live up to their end of the bargain. The feds took the money, but they
won't deliver the service.

To add insult to injury, the NRC won't allow the utilities to dispose of
the spent fuel in any other way. If the federal government didn't prohibit
it, the utilities could simply build other cooling pools following the Safstor
protocols, or sell the fuel rods to reprocessors in France, Japan, or Korea,
or start up a reprocessing facility of their own in the US. But all that is
forbidden.

Federal law requires them to turn the spent fuel rods over to the US
government for disposal, the government has already been paid to
accept them, but the government won't obey its own laws, and is
refusing to take the rods.

This tempest in a teapot is all purely political, of course. There is no
valid scientific, engineering, or financial reason why nuclear waste disposal
should be a major issue. Since 1954, there have been 100 commercial
reactors decommissioned, 250 reseach reactors, and about a dozen fuel
processing facilities. We have a very good handle on the methodologies
required, and on their actual costs.

The trust fund was designed to cover costs higher than actual practice
has shown us to be realistic. In other words, it has a lot more money in it
than is strictly necessary to safely accomplish decommissioning and
high level waste disposal for all existing US plants.

Gary

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
More importantly, most of it isn't "spent". Only about 3% of the fissile
material in a "spent" rod has fissioned. By using reprocessing, almost
all of the remaining fissile material could be recovered and reused
(and if breeder technology were used, more fissile material would be
recovered than was originally present in the rods). That means the
amount of *real* high level waste, stuff with no commercial value, is
much smaller than the already tiny amounts we're talking about.

So why don't they reprocess it too? BS? Expense? Too much radiation?
Poisonous chemicals? (Hell, industry's been using those for centuries,
that's never been a reason...)

I don't know too much about chemicals but I bet even I could chemically
seperate uranium and plutonium from the other, dramatically different
products.

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

But Gary, did you ever believe in a government "trust" fund? Seems that the
guv types just see that a
source of more money, with the actual payout to be funded by future
taxation. Ask about the Highway Trust Fund, you get blank stares from our
politicians. Look at the Social Security "trust" fund. Etc..

John Lovallo

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On 18 Jul 2004 08:16:29 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Roger Shoaf says...
Any endeavor of man has benefits and costs. The United States has been
collecting a tax on all of the power generated at all of this countries
nuclear power plants for years promising to build a repository for the
waste.

Hmm. So now it's the government's responisibility? If this
were a discussion about education, or welfare, or product
liability, the term "nanny state" would be thrust into play
at this point.

Why shouldn't Entergy Co. be required to run its buisiness
*without* government assurances that they will be bailed out
in the end? And by 'bailed out' I mean, 'the nanny state will
step in and buy all the fuel rods and the decrepit plant, for
one dollar, at the end if it's lifetime.' Because that's the
kind of subsidy that apparently is needed to make the nuclear
power business a paying proposition.

See IRS section 468A. Each utility is taxed one tenth of one cent
per kWh generated to fund the federal nuclear decommissioning
trust fund. In 1999, the trust fund contained $22,5 billion dollars,
designated by law to pay for plant decommissioning and permanent
high level waste disposal. So industry has already paid, and continues
to pay, for a service it is not receiving.

As I remember it, if you were to stack all of the spent fuel rods in one
place it would fit inside an average high school gymnasium. This is not
a
whole lot of stuff to store in such a way as to protect the public.

All the spent fuel used in all commercial nuclear plants since the
beginning of the nuclear age would fit on a football field, making
a pile with a depth of 3 feet (in other words, about 5,000 cubic yards).

As Jim notes below, actually doing that wouldn't be a very good idea,
due to criticality issues. In reality you'd need to increase the volume
about 36 times (in air) in order to avoid overheating. But you're right
in essence, it isn't a huge amount of material. In fact it is miniscule
compared to the wastes produced by any other power generating
method.

More importantly, most of it isn't "spent". Only about 3% of the fissile
material in a "spent" rod has fissioned. By using reprocessing, almost
all of the remaining fissile material could be recovered and reused
(and if breeder technology were used, more fissile material would be
recovered than was originally present in the rods). That means the
amount of *real* high level waste, stuff with no commercial value, is
much smaller than the already tiny amounts we're talking about.

Yep, and if you removed all the space from inside the atoms in the
fuel rod assemblies, you could fit them all inside a teacup. My
point being, you *can't* stack them in a swimming pool, and you know
that. Saying so is deceptive. If they *could* do that, they would.
Trust me. They're having enought trouble stacking *one* plant's
spent fuel in one swimming pool right now, in Buchannan, NY. The
pool is full and for them to keep running the plan they've got to
start taking the older stuff out so the hot stuff can go in.

Correct, and they've already paid the federal government $22.5 billion
dollars to do just that. The problem is, the federal government won't
live up to their end of the bargain. The feds took the money, but they
won't deliver the service.

To add insult to injury, the NRC won't allow the utilities to dispose of
the spent fuel in any other way. If the federal government didn't prohibit
it, the utilities could simply build other cooling pools following the
Safstor
protocols, or sell the fuel rods to reprocessors in France, Japan, or
Korea,
or start up a reprocessing facility of their own in the US. But all that
is
forbidden.

Federal law requires them to turn the spent fuel rods over to the US
government for disposal, the government has already been paid to
accept them, but the government won't obey its own laws, and is
refusing to take the rods.

This tempest in a teapot is all purely political, of course. There is no
valid scientific, engineering, or financial reason why nuclear waste
disposal
should be a major issue. Since 1954, there have been 100 commercial
reactors decommissioned, 250 reseach reactors, and about a dozen fuel
processing facilities. We have a very good handle on the methodologies
required, and on their actual costs.

The trust fund was designed to cover costs higher than actual practice
has shown us to be realistic. In other words, it has a lot more money in
it
than is strictly necessary to safely accomplish decommissioning and
high level waste disposal for all existing US plants.

Gary

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:12:07 -0500, "Tim Williams" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
More importantly, most of it isn't "spent". Only about 3% of the fissile
material in a "spent" rod has fissioned. By using reprocessing, almost
all of the remaining fissile material could be recovered and reused
(and if breeder technology were used, more fissile material would be
recovered than was originally present in the rods). That means the
amount of *real* high level waste, stuff with no commercial value, is
much smaller than the already tiny amounts we're talking about.

So why don't they reprocess it too? BS? Expense? Too much radiation?
Poisonous chemicals? (Hell, industry's been using those for centuries,
that's never been a reason...)

I don't know too much about chemicals but I bet even I could chemically
seperate uranium and plutonium from the other, dramatically different
products.

Yes, it is relatively easy to separate Plutonium from the rods. That's why
the government won't allow industry to do it. In other words, the government
has an irrational fear of domestic nuclear proliferation. Never mind that
*other countries* do it routinely, our government has seen fit to deny the
technology to our *domestic* nuclear power industry.

This policy makes no sense at all, of course, but it is all too typical of the
way government operates.

Gary

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:44:12 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

In 1999, the trust fund contained $22,5 billion dollars,
designated by law to pay for plant decommissioning and permanent
high level waste disposal. So industry has already paid, and continues
to pay, for a service it is not receiving.

Current estimates for the cost of Yucca (and only partisans believe it
would have been the final price) are $60 billion. Given that the price
of white elephants always rises, and that no one can know the eventual
total fund contribution from the plants without knowing how long
they'll last, there's no way to put a number on the fund's
shortfall.... except to say that it would have been mind boggling.

This tempest in a teapot is all purely political, of course. There is no
valid scientific, engineering, or financial reason why nuclear waste disposal
should be a major issue.

It's science and finances that have doomed Yucca. They tried to trump
both with politics, but it didn't work. The $6 billion spent so far
has only bought a couple decades of delay in having to face up to the
reality of waste storage.

Wayne

In article , Gary Coffman says...

Why shouldn't Entergy Co. be required to run its buisiness
*without* government assurances that they will be bailed out
in the end? And by 'bailed out' I mean, 'the nanny state will
step in and buy all the fuel rods and the decrepit plant, for
one dollar, at the end if it's lifetime.' Because that's the
kind of subsidy that apparently is needed to make the nuclear
power business a paying proposition.

See IRS section 468A. Each utility is taxed one tenth of one cent
per kWh generated to fund the federal nuclear decommissioning
trust fund. In 1999, the trust fund contained $22,5 billion dollars,
designated by law to pay for plant decommissioning and permanent
high level waste disposal. So industry has already paid, and continues
to pay, for a service it is not receiving.

Sounds to me like they should be taxed *ten* cents per kWh instead.
Then there might be enough cash to actually do the job. Consider
that it might *not* be goverment inefficiency that's plugging up
the works - but rather technical issues.

More importantly, most of it isn't "spent". Only about 3% of the fissile
material in a "spent" rod has fissioned. By using reprocessing, almost
all of the remaining fissile material could be recovered and reused
(and if breeder technology were used, more fissile material would be
recovered than was originally present in the rods). That means the
amount of *real* high level waste, stuff with no commercial value, is
much smaller than the already tiny amounts we're talking about.

Ah but that's a no-no. Because then you are increasing the
chances that somebody will get ahold of this stuff and build
weapons.

Correct, and they've already paid the federal government $22.5 billion
dollars to do just that. The problem is, the federal government won't
live up to their end of the bargain. The feds took the money, but they
won't deliver the service.

What service? Nobody's figured this out yet. Because it's never
been done, NOBODY knows how much it costs.

To add insult to injury, the NRC won't allow the utilities to dispose of
the spent fuel in any other way. If the federal government didn't prohibit
it, the utilities could simply build other cooling pools following the Safstor
protocols, or sell the fuel rods to reprocessors in France, Japan, or Korea,
or start up a reprocessing facility of their own in the US. But all that is
forbidden.

Oooh. No swimming pool for gunner then.

Federal law requires them to turn the spent fuel rods over to the US
government for disposal, the government has already been paid to
accept them, but the government won't obey its own laws, and is
refusing to take the rods.

Sounds like par for the goobermint business. No suprises.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article ,
Tim Williams wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
More importantly, most of it isn't "spent". Only about 3% of the fissile
material in a "spent" rod has fissioned. By using reprocessing, almost
all of the remaining fissile material could be recovered and reused
(and if breeder technology were used, more fissile material would be
recovered than was originally present in the rods). That means the
amount of *real* high level waste, stuff with no commercial value, is
much smaller than the already tiny amounts we're talking about.

So why don't they reprocess it too? BS? Expense? Too much radiation?
Poisonous chemicals? (Hell, industry's been using those for centuries,
that's never been a reason...)

I don't know too much about chemicals but I bet even I could chemically
seperate uranium and plutonium from the other, dramatically different
products.

Tim


Probably politics. Someone somewhere probably passed a law that says only
the government can do that and they won't do it because the general public
is so ill informed that any move that brings nookular stuff into the
spotlight will cause outrage and cost votes.

Likewise, I wonder what would happen if some little country out there were
to build and run breeder reactors to make plutonium and then make power
plants that ran on the plutonium. It would go a long way to break the
plutonium == bomb mindset and intorduce the idea that all this "waste"
isn't, yet.

-- Joe

--
Joseph M. Krzeszewski Mechanical Engineering and stuff
Jack of All Trades, Master of None... Yet

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:44:12 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:


Correct, and they've already paid the federal government $22.5 billion
dollars to do just that. The problem is, the federal government won't
live up to their end of the bargain. The feds took the money, but they
won't deliver the service.


This tempest in a teapot is all purely political, of course. There is no
valid scientific, engineering, or financial reason why nuclear waste disposal
should be a major issue. Since 1954, there have been 100 commercial
reactors decommissioned, 250 reseach reactors, and about a dozen fuel
processing facilities. We have a very good handle on the methodologies
required, and on their actual costs.

The trust fund was designed to cover costs higher than actual practice
has shown us to be realistic. In other words, it has a lot more money in it
than is strictly necessary to safely accomplish decommissioning and
high level waste disposal for all existing US plants.

Gary

Doesn't that come to 22.5 million per commercial reactor? Sounds like
they are going to need more $. Or 6 million each for all of them?

On 19 Jul 2004 07:30:12 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

In article , Gary Coffman says...

snip

Correct, and they've already paid the federal government $22.5 billion
dollars to do just that. The problem is, the federal government won't
live up to their end of the bargain. The feds took the money, but they
won't deliver the service.

What service? Nobody's figured this out yet. Because it's never
been done, NOBODY knows how much it costs.

snip

But it _has_ been done. The UK do it commercially (Even if BNFL have made a
bit of a dog's dinner of the Mixed Oxide reprocessing plant), France do it
commercially. Transport, re-processing and storage of used fuel are not black
arts, they are mature engineering techniques.


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:44:12 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:


Correct, and they've already paid the federal government $22.5 billion
dollars to do just that. The problem is, the federal government won't
live up to their end of the bargain. The feds took the money, but they
won't deliver the service.


This tempest in a teapot is all purely political, of course. There is no
valid scientific, engineering, or financial reason why nuclear waste
disposal
should be a major issue. Since 1954, there have been 100 commercial
reactors decommissioned, 250 reseach reactors, and about a dozen fuel
processing facilities. We have a very good handle on the methodologies
required, and on their actual costs.

The trust fund was designed to cover costs higher than actual practice
has shown us to be realistic. In other words, it has a lot more money in
it
than is strictly necessary to safely accomplish decommissioning and
high level waste disposal for all existing US plants.

Gary

Doesn't that come to 22.5 million per commercial reactor? Sounds like
they are going to need more $. Or 6 million each for all of them?

First of all 22.5 million dollars is a lot of money. Second 1/100 of 22.5
billion is 225 million.

To give you an idea of this amount of money, if you were to lay 22.5 billion
in $100 bills end to end it would stretch for 21,306.818 miles. The
circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901.55 miles.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

On 19 Jul 2004 11:42:49 -0400, wrote:
In article ,
Tim Williams wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
. ..
More importantly, most of it isn't "spent". Only about 3% of the fissile
material in a "spent" rod has fissioned. By using reprocessing, almost
all of the remaining fissile material could be recovered and reused
(and if breeder technology were used, more fissile material would be
recovered than was originally present in the rods). That means the
amount of *real* high level waste, stuff with no commercial value, is
much smaller than the already tiny amounts we're talking about.

So why don't they reprocess it too? BS? Expense? Too much radiation?
Poisonous chemicals? (Hell, industry's been using those for centuries,
that's never been a reason...)

I don't know too much about chemicals but I bet even I could chemically
seperate uranium and plutonium from the other, dramatically different
products.

Tim


Probably politics. Someone somewhere probably passed a law that says only
the government can do that and they won't do it because the general public
is so ill informed that any move that brings nookular stuff into the
spotlight will cause outrage and cost votes.

Yep, Jimmy Carter ordered our commercial breeder program, and the
associated reprocessing and MOX facilities, shut down for *political*
reasons.

Likewise, I wonder what would happen if some little country out there were
to build and run breeder reactors to make plutonium and then make power
plants that ran on the plutonium. It would go a long way to break the
plutonium == bomb mindset and intorduce the idea that all this "waste"
isn't, yet.

You mean a little country like France, or Japan, or South Korea, or Taiwan?
They all have active fuel reprocessing facilities which produce MOX fuel for
power reactors. BTW, MOX can't easily be diverted to a weapons program
(too much Pu240 contamination).

AFAIK none of those countries are actually operating commercial fuel
breeders at present. They're just reprocessing spent rods from ordinary
PWR plants.

The only breeders I know about which are currently running are being run
as military programs to produce weapons grade nuclear material (that
uses a different operating cycle from a commercial fuel production reactor
to avoid the Pu240 contamination problem). Some 23 countries are doing
that.

The US *used* to be one of them, but we've shut all of our military production
reactors down. I don't disagree with that, BTW. Our production reactors were
very old, and very expensive to keep running. We've got plenty of weapons
grade material already on hand anyway.

Gary

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:38:33 -0000, "John Lovallo" wrote:
But Gary, did you ever believe in a government "trust" fund? Seems that the
guv types just see that a source of more money, with the actual payout to be
funded by future taxation. Ask about the Highway Trust Fund, you get blank
stares from our politicians. Look at the Social Security "trust" fund. Etc..

Yes, John, I am aware of the flim-flam the politicians play with "trust" funds.
But nonetheless, they were *paid*, now it is their responsibility to deliver the
services they're obligated by law to provide.

Gary

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:21:35 -0700, Sunworshipper wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:44:12 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:


Correct, and they've already paid the federal government $22.5 billion
dollars to do just that. The problem is, the federal government won't
live up to their end of the bargain. The feds took the money, but they
won't deliver the service.


This tempest in a teapot is all purely political, of course. There is no
valid scientific, engineering, or financial reason why nuclear waste disposal
should be a major issue. Since 1954, there have been 100 commercial
reactors decommissioned, 250 reseach reactors, and about a dozen fuel
processing facilities. We have a very good handle on the methodologies
required, and on their actual costs.

The trust fund was designed to cover costs higher than actual practice
has shown us to be realistic. In other words, it has a lot more money in it
than is strictly necessary to safely accomplish decommissioning and
high level waste disposal for all existing US plants.

Gary

Doesn't that come to 22.5 million per commercial reactor? Sounds like
they are going to need more $. Or 6 million each for all of them?

No, you've slipped a decimal point. It comes to $225 million per reactor.
(The US currently has 100 operating commercial power reactors.)

Past experience with decommissioning commercial reactors (100 worldwide
since 1954) has shown us that it costs roughly $200 per kWe (2004 dollars)
to decommission and dispose of the hot parts of the plant. For the typical
1000 MWe commercial power reactor, that comes to $200 million per plant,
leaving $25 million per plant to spare at the funding level which existed in
1999. It is 5 years later now, and the fund has grown by another $500
million since then.

Note, the fund was not designed to pay for demolition of the conventional
parts of plants. That's the utility's responsibility. Nor does it foresee
reprocessing and reuse of the spent fuel, which could be operated as a
money making enterprise under any sane nuclear policy.

Nor was the fund designed to pay for a political boondoggle like Yucca
Mountain, which was designed to meet political rather than engineering
requirements. The costs for *rational* disposal are orders of magnitude
less.

Gary

In article , Roger Shoaf says...

First of all 22.5 million dollars is a lot of money.

Not if you need 50 million dollars to do the job.

In that case, 22.5 comes under the heading of 'nice
try, thanks for playing.'

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Mark Rand says...

What service? Nobody's figured this out yet. Because it's never
been done, NOBODY knows how much it costs.

But it _has_ been done. The UK do it commercially (Even if BNFL have made a
bit of a dog's dinner of the Mixed Oxide reprocessing plant), France do it
commercially. Transport, re-processing and storage of used fuel are not black
arts, they are mature engineering techniques.

And yet we're really talking about the political
issues here, not the technical ones. When I say
'never been done' I mean, never been done in the US
because of all the politics involved.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:11:05 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:21:35 -0700, Sunworshipper wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:44:12 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:


Correct, and they've already paid the federal government $22.5 billion
dollars to do just that. The problem is, the federal government won't
live up to their end of the bargain. The feds took the money, but they
won't deliver the service.


This tempest in a teapot is all purely political, of course. There is no
valid scientific, engineering, or financial reason why nuclear waste disposal
should be a major issue. Since 1954, there have been 100 commercial
reactors decommissioned, 250 reseach reactors, and about a dozen fuel
processing facilities. We have a very good handle on the methodologies
required, and on their actual costs.

The trust fund was designed to cover costs higher than actual practice
has shown us to be realistic. In other words, it has a lot more money in it
than is strictly necessary to safely accomplish decommissioning and
high level waste disposal for all existing US plants.

Gary

Doesn't that come to 22.5 million per commercial reactor? Sounds like
they are going to need more $. Or 6 million each for all of them?

No, you've slipped a decimal point. It comes to $225 million per reactor.
(The US currently has 100 operating commercial power reactors.)

Past experience with decommissioning commercial reactors (100 worldwide
since 1954) has shown us that it costs roughly $200 per kWe (2004 dollars)
to decommission and dispose of the hot parts of the plant. For the typical
1000 MWe commercial power reactor, that comes to $200 million per plant,
leaving $25 million per plant to spare at the funding level which existed in
1999. It is 5 years later now, and the fund has grown by another $500
million since then.

Note, the fund was not designed to pay for demolition of the conventional
parts of plants. That's the utility's responsibility. Nor does it foresee
reprocessing and reuse of the spent fuel, which could be operated as a
money making enterprise under any sane nuclear policy.

Nor was the fund designed to pay for a political boondoggle like Yucca
Mountain, which was designed to meet political rather than engineering
requirements. The costs for *rational* disposal are orders of magnitude
less.

Gary

I just knew I should have used that EXP button instead of counting
zeros. Oh well, you did answer a lot of my questions in the above
post. Spent the money as usual did they?

When they started Yucca I thought it was a bad site except that it's
on the NTS. From what I understand this is a new mountain range and
very active. I always thought the salt mines would be better place
even though it would be crushed. But isn't it way below the water
table and very stable?

Care to explain the lead contamination question? How does lead "block"
radiation , does it reflect it , absorb it, or hmmm? I was just
asking Roger cause years ago I was melting some lead from the
recycling place and it hit me, I don't know where this came from and
out here you can never tell. If your on a roll , how does any material
become radioactive? Is it cause lead stabilizes quickly from loosing
atomic particles ? Sorry, I couldn't afford to stay in school and got
pulled out of physics for more important prerequisites like government
and psychology.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:17:18 -0700, Sunworshipper wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:11:05 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:
No, you've slipped a decimal point. It comes to $225 million per reactor.
(The US currently has 100 operating commercial power reactors.)

Past experience with decommissioning commercial reactors (100 worldwide
since 1954) has shown us that it costs roughly $200 per kWe (2004 dollars)
to decommission and dispose of the hot parts of the plant. For the typical
1000 MWe commercial power reactor, that comes to $200 million per plant,
leaving $25 million per plant to spare at the funding level which existed in
1999. It is 5 years later now, and the fund has grown by another $500
million since then.

Note, the fund was not designed to pay for demolition of the conventional
parts of plants. That's the utility's responsibility. Nor does it foresee
reprocessing and reuse of the spent fuel, which could be operated as a
money making enterprise under any sane nuclear policy.

Nor was the fund designed to pay for a political boondoggle like Yucca
Mountain, which was designed to meet political rather than engineering
requirements. The costs for *rational* disposal are orders of magnitude
less.

Gary

I just knew I should have used that EXP button instead of counting
zeros. Oh well, you did answer a lot of my questions in the above
post. Spent the money as usual did they?

Yes, it is the usual "trust us" government fraud.

When they started Yucca I thought it was a bad site except that it's
on the NTS. From what I understand this is a new mountain range and
very active. I always thought the salt mines would be better place
even though it would be crushed. But isn't it way below the water
table and very stable?

Yucca is a bad location, and a bad design. Realize that most of what
they want to put there is actually very valuable, yet they've provided
no easy or safe way to get it *back out* when (or if) people ever come
to their senses. Dumb.

There's really no reason to *bury* the spent fuel at all. Better would
be to simply place the rods, in their shipping casks, in a dry exterior
location. Put a fence around them, maybe post a few guards. That way,
in a few years when people are sitting in the cold and dark, they may
decide nuclear power isn't such an evil thing after all, and those rods
can easily be recovered and reprocessed to make more power.

The French are storing their high level wastes in easily accessable
containers in natural dry caves. That way they can retrieve it at need.
We don't have to bother with caves, since we have enough barren
desert area to spare to simply store the containers in the open.

Care to explain the lead contamination question? How does lead "block"
radiation , does it reflect it , absorb it, or hmmm? I was just
asking Roger cause years ago I was melting some lead from the
recycling place and it hit me, I don't know where this came from and
out here you can never tell. If your on a roll , how does any material
become radioactive? Is it cause lead stabilizes quickly from loosing
atomic particles ? Sorry, I couldn't afford to stay in school and got
pulled out of physics for more important prerequisites like government
and psychology.

Lead is a stable end point of nuclear decay. That's how all lead that
now exists was formed. There are a number of isotopes of lead. All but
3 of them have *very* short half lives, ie they *very* rapidly decay to a
stable isotope of lead. So for all intents and purposes, any lead you
encounter that's been out of a neutron flux for more than a few days
will be stable, ie not itself radioactive.

Lead *can* be contaminated by radioactive materials with which it has
had contact (in the same way your shoes become dirty when you walk
across a muddy field). Unless they've been melted together, however,
any contamination would only be on the surface of the piece of lead.

As to why lead blocks radiation, it is a very dense material. Gamma
radiation is just a higher frequency of light (as are X-rays), so a
sufficient thickness of any material can block it. Lead just happens
to be particularly dense, so it doesn't take as thick a piece of lead
to block it as it would dirt, or water, or brick. (A foot of lead is roughly
equivalent to 12 feet of water, 8 feet of dirt, or about 5 feet of brick.)

Alpha is just a rapidly moving helium nucleus, and lead will stop that
same as it would stop a thrown ball (in fact even your skin would stop
alpha). Beta is just a rapidly moving electron, lead stops that too.

In all cases, the kinetic energy of the radiation is converted to thermal
energy (heat) in the material blocking it. Since gamma is pure electromagnetic
energy, you could say it is absorbed. Since beta is a rapidly moving electron,
it just becomes another thermal electron in the lead after it is slowed down.
Alpha is a rapidly moving helium nucleus, and after it slows, it grabs any
handy loose thermal electrons to make ordinary inert helium gas.

Now there's one other form of radiation, that's a neutron flux. Fissioning
atoms often energetically eject a neutron during fission (not all species do,
but some, in particular the ones we use as nuclear fuels, do). If this neutron
strikes the nucleus of another atomic species, it *can* (number of factors
involved) transmute that atomic species into a different isotope (same
number of protons, different number of neutrons). The latter isotope *may*
be radioactive (again several factors are involved), in other words it may
also be unstable.

The fact that certain fission reactions produce a neutron flux, and that
flux can then transmute certain other fissionable materials in such a way
that they too immediately fission, is why we can have a nuclear chain
reaction in the first place.

Lead isn't very interesting in this regard because the unstable isotopes
have such extremely short half lives, and their decay doesn't produce a
neutron flux. In other words, any transmuted lead *very quickly* decays
(via beta decay) to ordinary stable lead. Other elements, however, can
be *activated* by a neutron flux, and converted to longer lived radioactive
isotopes. One of particular concern is cobalt, another is strontium. You
really don't want to expose either to a neutron flux, and if you do, you'll
need to isolate the product from the environment for up to 10,000 years.

Fortunately, nuclear engineers know this, so for the most part they don't
design reactors which contain atomic species which can be transmuted
by the neutron flux inside the reactor into particularly hazardous species.
(OTOH, bomb makers may choose to use some of these nasties on purpose
to enhance the fallout effects of the bomb.)

The main things inside a reactor, other than the fuel, are water and the
steel housing of the reactor. Steel is mostly iron, and iron is at the bottom
of the curve of binding energy, so all of its isotopes are stable. Some of
the alloying elements, and the carbon, in steel *can* become activated,
though.

So you have to treat the steel reactor vessel (and primary cooling loop
piping) as a radioactive material which must be properly disposed. (It
isn't intensely radioactive, but you wouldn't want to reuse the scrap for
non-nuclear purposes.) This is the one part of a decommissioned nuclear
reactor you might want to bury.

One approved method of doing that is to simply fill the containment
building housing the reactor vessel with concrete after the reactor
has been defueled. That's what was done to the Fermi plant in Detroit.
By the time the concrete erodes away, the radioactivity of the activation
products trapped in the steel will have decayed to a negligible level.

Most other nuclear wastes (not counting military wastes or nuclear
medicine wastes, which present special problems because they are
designed to interact with biological systems) are *low level* wastes.
Our regulation of this is so strict that the concrete blocks that make
up the foundation of your house are more radioactive. Yet, unlike
those concrete blocks, we are required to perpetually isolate low level
nuclear waste from the environment.

For the most part, this is nonsense political science, but to the extent
it isn't, simply stuffing this waste into the abandoned tunnels of the
original uranium mines would be sufficient disposal, since that natural
ore was *at least* as radioactive, and had been so for millions of years.
No need for an elaborately engineered thing like Yucca Mtn.

Gary

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
Lead isn't very interesting in this regard because the unstable isotopes
have such extremely short half lives...

Now, does this mean lead with extra neutrons, or lead having been transmuted
to bismuth?

In other words, any transmuted lead *very quickly* decays
(via beta decay) to ordinary stable lead.

By conservation of charge, a neutron splits into an electron and proton as I
recall. So you'd have bismuth with one less neutron than the lead before.
After that... it could drop an alpha to thallium (which I've never heard of
before), or um another neutron I suppose. Or some chunky gamma ray?

For the most part, this is nonsense political science, but to the extent
it isn't, simply stuffing this waste into the abandoned tunnels of the
original uranium mines would be sufficient disposal, since that natural
ore was *at least* as radioactive, and had been so for millions of years.
No need for an elaborately engineered thing like Yucca Mtn.

Except for the fact that now you have a whole bunch of other elements in it
that'll leech out and whatnot.

Which reminds me, could you take U235 or Pu239, fission the hell out of it
and chemically seperate the products into usefulness? Would they be too
radioactive to be useful? Would a few days/years/centuries/millenia clean
that up and retain the uh chemical usefulness?

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:05:55 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:


Yucca is a bad location, and a bad design. Realize that most of what
they want to put there is actually very valuable, yet they've provided
no easy or safe way to get it *back out* when (or if) people ever come
to their senses. Dumb.

Agree.

There's really no reason to *bury* the spent fuel at all. Better would
be to simply place the rods, in their shipping casks, in a dry exterior
location. Put a fence around them, maybe post a few guards. That way,
in a few years when people are sitting in the cold and dark, they may
decide nuclear power isn't such an evil thing after all, and those rods
can easily be recovered and reprocessed to make more power.

The French are storing their high level wastes in easily accessable
containers in natural dry caves. That way they can retrieve it at need.
We don't have to bother with caves, since we have enough barren
desert area to spare to simply store the containers in the open.

Yeah, but now you're back to two of the biggest problems with Yucca -
transporting the waste, and inflicting it on others. The real risk is
almost irrelevant, because any policy that includes those two problems
is bound to be bogged down forever in political wrangling.

There are two main reasons people don't want to store waste in the
open next to the plants - they can't wait to get rid of it (and they
really don't care where it goes so long as it's somewhere else), and
cost. How do you even predict the cost of monitoring, potential cask
replacement decades down the road, etc.?

All that said, it's time for folks who are favor of having nuke power,
to take responsibility for their waste. That means on-site storage,
for a very long time.

Wayne

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Shoaf says...

First of all 22.5 million dollars is a lot of money.

Not if you need 50 million dollars to do the job.

In that case, 22.5 comes under the heading of 'nice
try, thanks for playing.'


So Jim, why should it cost so much? When a plant is up and running,
employees are walking around and they don't seem to be dropping like
canaries in a mine, so I would assume that most of the place can be disposed
of without much expense over what a regular building could be disposed of.

Of the parts that are the glow in the dark nasties, it would seem to me that
these can be disassembled and disposed of with reasonable care without
astronomical expenditure.


--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

In article , Roger Shoaf says...

So Jim, why should it cost so much?

Now that question I honestly cannot answer. Maybe you could look
at Shoreham as an example. That plant wasn't even supposed to
run, but the unions forced the issue to have it run at full power
for a week, so that they could then rake in big money to dismantle
it.

I cannot answer 'why' questions, only 'how' ones.

Consider how much profit a plant makes over its lifetime.

I would suspect the dismantling costs to amount to maybe
one or five percent of the total profit generated over the
plant's lifetime. How much money did indian points one, two
and three create for their owners over their lifetime?

I don't know that number. It would be interesting to find
it out.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:05:55 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

That was really great Gray , thanks. Some of it went over my head ,
but I got most of it. Putting it in the uranium mines occurred to me
long ago , but I discounted it cause I thought most of them where
outside of the continental US.

I agree , that or park them around area 51. If anyone has flown over
this state they would get the idea. I just love the stop building
thing cause the desert tortoise won't have anywhere to live. Or the
very expensive environmental impact studies for solar energy on the
NTS when they already nuked the poor turtles.