"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:17:18 -0700, Sunworshipper
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:11:05 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

As to why lead blocks radiation, it is a very dense material.

Excellent explanation Gary. I would only add to your explanation that
materials used to shield radiation do not "block" it, as in completely stop
all of it, they attenuate it. Now for all practical purposes, if you put
enough of anything between you and a source, there will be so much
attenuation that you would probably never be able to measure any amount of
radiation but one or two of those little zoomies will still make it thru.

Shawn

On 22 Jul 2004 12:21:24 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
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.

At least in the days before rampant deregulation, the state
PSC (I'm using Georgia as representative) would normally set
rates so that plant investment ROI would average prime + 2%.
So look at the prime interest rate for each year over the life of
the plant, average ,then add 2%. That's the percentage of the
investment in plant and equipment the utility was allowed to
make per year.

Note this won't be exact, since the PSC doesn't have a crystal
ball and can't know what the prime rate is going to be in the future.
So what they did was make adjustments periodically to the rates
so that they converged to this formula value. The rates could be
high or low for any given year.

Example, say the prime rate averaged 10% over a 30 year
plant operating life. Assume the up front capital investment
in plant was $5 billion. The PSC would apply their formula and
set the utility's rates so that they would receive 12% of $5 billion
($600 million) ROI each year. Over the 30 year life of the plant,
that's $18 billion dollars. Note that over that same period the
utility gets to write down (depreciate) the original $5 billion
to reduce their tax liability.

Note that this formula provides no incentive to minimize costs.
The more the plant costs, the more money the utility can recover
via the rate structure. That's why the utilities didn't fight very hard
against all the cost increasing measures the government forced
on them.

*Theoretically*, deregulation changes all that. By letting rates float
competitively against market demand, there's no longer any advantage
for the utility to inflate the size of its capital investment, ie it gets no
rate boost from the PSC to cover extra costs. Rather, it is to the utility's
advantage to minimize up front costs.

That's why utilities like building natural gas fired plants today. They
are quick and cheap to build. Never mind that known reserves of
natural gas will be depleted in 40 years, never mind that they're
spewing megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Under today's
political and economic rules, it makes the utilities more money
than building a clean and economical to operate nuclear plant.

There is a *great deal* which can be done to lower the cost per
installed kWh of nuclear plant capacity, *without* compromising
safety. In fact some of the efficiencies would actually *improve*
plant safety.

There wasn't any great push to do this in the past, because up
until now it didn't make the utility any money. But today, modular
standardized plant makes a lot of economic sense.

Standard modules (50 to 100 MW in size, ie similar to naval nuclear
reactors) can be added to the plant incrementally as demand increases.
Installed modules can be scheduled on and off line as demand varies
over a day, increasing overall plant operating efficiency. Modules can
be individually taken off line and serviced without having to shut down
the entire plant. Etc.

But most importantly, a module would only have to be approved and
licensed *once*, and that blanket approval would then apply to every
other module built and installed at that plant, or any other plant in
the US. This would represent a *huge* cost and time savings.

The biggest part of any US nuclear plant's up front cost is the time
value of money during the period between when ground is broken for
a plant and when the plant starts generating bussbar power. In the
US, just before TMI, that time averaged 12 years due to regulatory
foot dragging, frivolous lawsuits, etc. So the borrowed money which
built the plant required interest payments for 12 years before *any*
income was generated by the plant.

By contrast, in Japan, the licensing delay has averaged only 2 years.
That represents a huge savings, and makes nuclear power a much
more attractive option. (The situation is similar for Taiwan, France,
South Korea, etc.) They've all gone nuclear in a big way. It makes
sense, because it sharply reduces their need for imported fossil fuels,
virtually eliminates utility generated air pollution, and gives them a
clean, stable, and low cost electrical supply.

Gary

In article , Gary Coffman says...

Example, say the prime rate averaged 10% over a 30 year
plant operating life. Assume the up front capital investment
in plant was $5 billion. The PSC would apply their formula and
set the utility's rates so that they would receive 12% of $5 billion
($600 million) ROI each year. Over the 30 year life of the plant,
that's $18 billion dollars. Note that over that same period the
utility gets to write down (depreciate) the original $5 billion
to reduce their tax liability.

Granted indian point's been running since the early 60s, so that
may change things. But if my guess is correct, five or ten percent
of profit would wind up being $0.1 billion or so, to close out the
plant.

That's a hundred million, not twenty million.

Jim

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

"Shawn" shawn_75ATcomcastDOTnet wrote in message
...
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:17:18 -0700, Sunworshipper
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:11:05 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

As to why lead blocks radiation, it is a very dense material.

Excellent explanation Gary. I would only add to your explanation that
materials used to shield radiation do not "block" it, as in completely
stop
all of it, they attenuate it. Now for all practical purposes, if you put
enough of anything between you and a source, there will be so much
attenuation that you would probably never be able to measure any amount of
radiation but one or two of those little zoomies will still make it thru.

Shawn



So how many zoomies make it through the atmosphere or for that matter shoot
out of the marble and granite used on the US Capitol?

Myself I am not worried about 1 or 2 zoomies, I worry more about all of the
zoomies released from the tons of radioactive material released by burning
coal. this exposes the population to a lot more than 1 or 2 zoomies, it is
probably killing hundreds or thousands of folks per year from there
continued exposure.

--

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...

Myself I am not worried about 1 or 2 zoomies, I worry more about all of the
zoomies released from the tons of radioactive material released by burning
coal. this exposes the population to a lot more than 1 or 2 zoomies, it is
probably killing hundreds or thousands of folks per year from there
continued exposure.

Sounds like you have a near-religious hatred of coal-burning
power plants. Doesn't this get in the way of a rational discussion?

Jim

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

I think he just hates that the public thinks nuclear power is unsafe
and dangerous and has no idea of how many deaths are caused by other
sources of power. My own thing is how many people are killed by
medical x-rays. The radiation from cross country flights at northern
latitudes is also a significant radiation hazard that the public
ignores. I think flight crews are limited in the number of such
flights that they can make per year.

Dan



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

Myself I am not worried about 1 or 2 zoomies, I worry more about all of the
zoomies released from the tons of radioactive material released by burning
coal. this exposes the population to a lot more than 1 or 2 zoomies, it is
probably killing hundreds or thousands of folks per year from there
continued exposure.

Sounds like you have a near-religious hatred of coal-burning
power plants. Doesn't this get in the way of a rational discussion?

Jim

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

In article , Dan Caster says...

I think he just hates that the public thinks nuclear power is unsafe
and dangerous and has no idea of how many deaths are caused by other
sources of power.

Well he's right there. *Everything* is unsafe or dangerous to
some degree. More folks get injured in peekskill chasing
black cats in their driveways than get hurt by the power plants.

He's right that nuclear power has a scare factor. I guess my
concern isn't that, but the fact that nuclear power may not
be as economical as one thinks it is, once the decomissioning
costs and fuel storage costs, and other governemt subsidies
are factored in.

Part of this has to do with the way the US has regulated
power plants, as has been commented already, in relation to
spent fuel re-processing.

On another note, I figure that Vincent is now a two time
winner in the baby lottery?

Best - Jim

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

On 23 Jul 2004 07:10:37 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gary Coffman says...

Example, say the prime rate averaged 10% over a 30 year
plant operating life. Assume the up front capital investment
in plant was $5 billion. The PSC would apply their formula and
set the utility's rates so that they would receive 12% of $5 billion
($600 million) ROI each year. Over the 30 year life of the plant,
that's $18 billion dollars. Note that over that same period the
utility gets to write down (depreciate) the original $5 billion
to reduce their tax liability.

Granted indian point's been running since the early 60s, so that
may change things. But if my guess is correct, five or ten percent
of profit would wind up being $0.1 billion or so, to close out the
plant.

That's a hundred million, not twenty million.

With the figures I gave above, net ROI on a 1000 MWe plant is
greater than $13 billion dollars.

I don't know where you got the 5% to 10% of total profit figure,
but experience with decommissioning 350 commercial and research
reactors since 1954 tells us the decommissioning cost averages
$200 per kWe of plant capacity. (2004 dollars)

So a 1000 MWe plant should cost $200 million to decommission.
The federal decommissioning fund has more than $225 million per
reactor in it now. (The fund gets its money from a 0.1 cent per kWh
tax on bussbar nuclear power.)

Gary

In article , Gary Coffman says...

I don't know where you got the 5% to 10% of total profit figure,

Obviously a SWAG on my part. I was unaware of the existing
statistics on decomissioning - but I'm sure that that cost
will only be going up.

It seems reasonable to me that for nuclear power to be
economically viable, the five or ten percent number would
be an upper bound. I'm also sure that utilities want to
have the costs understated so they can keep more of the
money back as profits.

Maybe they should be required to withhold at the ten
percent rate, and once the plant is fully decomissioned
then they get their 'deposit' back.

:^)

Jim

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

On 24 Jul 2004 09:01:30 -0700, jim rozen
calmly ranted:

In article , Dan Caster says...

I think he just hates that the public thinks nuclear power is unsafe
and dangerous and has no idea of how many deaths are caused by other
sources of power.

Well he's right there. *Everything* is unsafe or dangerous to
some degree. More folks get injured in peekskill chasing
black cats in their driveways than get hurt by the power plants.

He's right that nuclear power has a scare factor. I guess my

Scare factor? I repeat from http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm

--snip--
There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil
nuclear power - Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. One was contained and
the other had no provision for containment.

These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 11 000
cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries.
--snip--

Odds of being killed in a car are a LOT lower. It's simple
hysteria. Fear about terrorism and gun ownership are at the
same stupid level. sigh


concern isn't that, but the fact that nuclear power may not
be as economical as one thinks it is, once the decomissioning
costs and fuel storage costs, and other governemt subsidies
are factored in.

What do the acid rain and air pollution from coal cost to
clean up? Is it cheaper than decommissioning? Nothing's
cheap.


- Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag? -
http://diversify.com Full Service Web Application Programming

On 23 Jul 2004 12:08:49 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Roger Shoaf says...

Myself I am not worried about 1 or 2 zoomies, I worry more about all of the
zoomies released from the tons of radioactive material released by burning
coal. this exposes the population to a lot more than 1 or 2 zoomies, it is
probably killing hundreds or thousands of folks per year from there
continued exposure.

Sounds like you have a near-religious hatred of coal-burning
power plants. Doesn't this get in the way of a rational discussion?

I think he is just being rational. Coal fired plant was the best technology
we had 100 years ago, but today we have a much better alternative
which doesn't *routinely* spew all those nasties into the air.

The radioactive emissions of coal fired plant are the least of the nasties
emitted. Megatons of CO2, SO2, fly ash, etc are also *routinely* emitted
by coal fired plants. Then there is the environmental damage caused by
mining all the coal, disposing of the ash, etc. It is a very dirty way to
generate electricity. It has very real health and environmental consequences
that we're suffering *routinely* every day.

Burning oil or gas instead gets rid of the ash problem, but everything else
is the same. You're still releasing megatons of CO2, you're still releasing
radioactive particulates into the atmosphere (not quite so much, but still
some), etc. Adding insult to injury, we don't have nearly as much oil and
gas as we have coal, so at best burning them is only a temporary expedient.

(And besides, we have more important uses for oil and gas as transport
fuels. We really have no viable alternatives there until we have enough
excess capacity non-fossil fuel generated electric power to allow us to
produce hydrogen as a transport fuel, or to electrify our roadways.)

Long term, we have to have a better way to generate electricity. Fortunately,
we already have such a technology, nuclear power. It emits *zero* CO2,
*zero* SO2, no fly ash, the volume of mining activity is *several* orders of
magnitude less, etc.

In normal routine operation, the amount of radioactivity released to the
environment is truly negligible. It is true that there is a *possibility* of
catastrophic accident. But western designed reactors have many safeguards
and passive protection systems to prevent uncontrolled radioactive releases.

Our Fermi plant had a core meltdown, an experimental reactor at the Idaho
test lab had a steam explosion which blew off the top cap, TMI had a partial
core melt. *None* of them released significant amounts of radioactivity to
the environment. That's because our passive engineering safeguards *work*.

Unlike the Soviets, we do *not* design commercial power reactors with
positive void coefficients, and we do *not* house them in tin roofed
buildings. But even if we did, a Chernobyl style accident has health and
environmental consequences no greater than what we *routinely* suffer
globally every day due to the *routine* operations of coal fired electric
plants (measured in terms of global premature deaths per kWe generated).

If people behaved rationally (unfortunately too many do not), they'd be
storming the barricades to shut down fossil fuel fired plants, and demanding
that they be replaced by safer, cleaner, and more economical nuclear
power plants.

Global energy demand is rising every day. There's no viable way of stopping
that rise without requiring billions of people to die. We've long passed the
point where the global population can survive as hunter-gatherers or subsistence
farmers. Most of the people alive today would not be here if we did not have
a high energy civilization. Which members of *your* family are you willing to
see die in order to reduce our energy demand?

Conservation is not an answer, it is a death sentence. We *must* have
gigawatts of power to support a global population. Coal is too dirty. Oil
and gas will soon (40 to 200 years) run out as a cheap alternative. Hydro
is nearly fully tapped. Wind and geothermal are limited in *practical*
application to less than 5% of demand. Biofuels require a fossil fuel
subsidy to be economically viable. Etc.

There really is only one long term choice to meet our base load demand,
nuclear power. We need to accept this, and embrace it. The sooner the
better. We don't have a lot of time. Within the lifetimes of some of the
people here, we won't have any alternatives. When the oil and gas crash
comes, it will be relatively sudden (over a period of no more than a couple
of years oil and gas will go from expensive but affordable to simply not
enough to go around).

We must start preparing now, because when the crunch comes, there may
not be enough time or resources to build the necessary nuclear plants and
support infrastructure. Our civilization may find itself in a death spiral from
which it cannot recover.

Gary

Read that Soft Coal delivers radioactive material from Thorium.
Hard Coal is free of the material.
Years ago the fly ash and SO2 and CO2 was abated - the latter the least.
Massive scrubbers where put into place.

Look at the Tenn. valley - you can see the mountains now. In the early 70's
you could not see much beyond the road system - e.g. 2-300 feet.

Martin [ once a consultant in Utility Load Management ]

Gary Coffman wrote:
On 23 Jul 2004 12:08:49 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

In article , Roger Shoaf says...


Myself I am not worried about 1 or 2 zoomies, I worry more about all of the
zoomies released from the tons of radioactive material released by burning
coal. this exposes the population to a lot more than 1 or 2 zoomies, it is
probably killing hundreds or thousands of folks per year from there
continued exposure.

Sounds like you have a near-religious hatred of coal-burning
power plants. Doesn't this get in the way of a rational discussion?


I think he is just being rational. Coal fired plant was the best technology
we had 100 years ago, but today we have a much better alternative
which doesn't *routinely* spew all those nasties into the air.

The radioactive emissions of coal fired plant are the least of the nasties
emitted. Megatons of CO2, SO2, fly ash, etc are also *routinely* emitted
by coal fired plants. Then there is the environmental damage caused by
mining all the coal, disposing of the ash, etc. It is a very dirty way to
generate electricity. It has very real health and environmental consequences
that we're suffering *routinely* every day.

Burning oil or gas instead gets rid of the ash problem, but everything else
is the same. You're still releasing megatons of CO2, you're still releasing
radioactive particulates into the atmosphere (not quite so much, but still
some), etc. Adding insult to injury, we don't have nearly as much oil and
gas as we have coal, so at best burning them is only a temporary expedient.

(And besides, we have more important uses for oil and gas as transport
fuels. We really have no viable alternatives there until we have enough
excess capacity non-fossil fuel generated electric power to allow us to
produce hydrogen as a transport fuel, or to electrify our roadways.)

Long term, we have to have a better way to generate electricity. Fortunately,
we already have such a technology, nuclear power. It emits *zero* CO2,
*zero* SO2, no fly ash, the volume of mining activity is *several* orders of
magnitude less, etc.

In normal routine operation, the amount of radioactivity released to the
environment is truly negligible. It is true that there is a *possibility* of
catastrophic accident. But western designed reactors have many safeguards
and passive protection systems to prevent uncontrolled radioactive releases.

Our Fermi plant had a core meltdown, an experimental reactor at the Idaho
test lab had a steam explosion which blew off the top cap, TMI had a partial
core melt. *None* of them released significant amounts of radioactivity to
the environment. That's because our passive engineering safeguards *work*.

Unlike the Soviets, we do *not* design commercial power reactors with
positive void coefficients, and we do *not* house them in tin roofed
buildings. But even if we did, a Chernobyl style accident has health and
environmental consequences no greater than what we *routinely* suffer
globally every day due to the *routine* operations of coal fired electric
plants (measured in terms of global premature deaths per kWe generated).

If people behaved rationally (unfortunately too many do not), they'd be
storming the barricades to shut down fossil fuel fired plants, and demanding
that they be replaced by safer, cleaner, and more economical nuclear
power plants.

Global energy demand is rising every day. There's no viable way of stopping
that rise without requiring billions of people to die. We've long passed the
point where the global population can survive as hunter-gatherers or subsistence
farmers. Most of the people alive today would not be here if we did not have
a high energy civilization. Which members of *your* family are you willing to
see die in order to reduce our energy demand?

Conservation is not an answer, it is a death sentence. We *must* have
gigawatts of power to support a global population. Coal is too dirty. Oil
and gas will soon (40 to 200 years) run out as a cheap alternative. Hydro
is nearly fully tapped. Wind and geothermal are limited in *practical*
application to less than 5% of demand. Biofuels require a fossil fuel
subsidy to be economically viable. Etc.

There really is only one long term choice to meet our base load demand,
nuclear power. We need to accept this, and embrace it. The sooner the
better. We don't have a lot of time. Within the lifetimes of some of the
people here, we won't have any alternatives. When the oil and gas crash
comes, it will be relatively sudden (over a period of no more than a couple
of years oil and gas will go from expensive but affordable to simply not
enough to go around).

We must start preparing now, because when the crunch comes, there may
not be enough time or resources to build the necessary nuclear plants and
support infrastructure. Our civilization may find itself in a death spiral from
which it cannot recover.

Gary


--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Nuclear power can be economical, but it isn't easy in the United
States. France uses the same design for many power plants. So the
cost of the design and approval is spread over many plants. Here we
seem to reinvent the power plant every time.

Yes, there is a new baby girl in Peekskill. Julia Blanche, everyone
doing well.

Dan



jim rozen wrote in message

He's right that nuclear power has a scare factor. I guess my
concern isn't that, but the fact that nuclear power may not
be as economical as one thinks it is, once the decomissioning
costs and fuel storage costs, and other governemt subsidies
are factored in.

Part of this has to do with the way the US has regulated
power plants, as has been commented already, in relation to
spent fuel re-processing.

On another note, I figure that Vincent is now a two time
winner in the baby lottery?

Best - Jim

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

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:10:13 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

Which members of *your* family are you willing to
see die in order to reduce our energy demand?
Conservation is not an answer, it is a death sentence.

Oh please. Three homes ago we had a 400A service, now we live better
with an 8kW off-grid setup. Nobody has to die to cut their energy
demand by 30%. Some could trim even more if they had the same
dedication to conservation as they have to say, super low-profile
tires, or plasma TVs. As difficult as it is to get people to
understand how much energy they waste, that's going to be easier than
getting them to agree to host a new nuke.

Wind and geothermal are limited in *practical*
application to less than 5% of demand.

Wind might be able to supply 20% of electric demand. Too bad the
carrot of cheap (yeah sure) nukes (in somebody else's back yard) slows
the acceptance of alternatives.

Wayne

In article , Dan Caster says...

Yes, there is a new baby girl in Peekskill. Julia Blanche, everyone
doing well.

Dan

Outstanding, congratulations!

I hope they have air conditioning in this weather!!



Jim

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

On 24 Jul 2004 13:16:53 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gary Coffman says...

I don't know where you got the 5% to 10% of total profit figure,

Obviously a SWAG on my part. I was unaware of the existing
statistics on decomissioning - but I'm sure that that cost
will only be going up.

Actually, no. The costs have gone down as more experience
has been gained, and better remote manipulator technology
has been developed. It took years to decommission the first
plants, today it takes months.

It could be done in days, but the nuclear industry is very
conservative, and there are government mandated approvals
which have to be obtained at each step. This is another case
where standardized modular plant would speed the process
and further lower the costs.

Gary

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 04:08:23 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote:
Read that Soft Coal delivers radioactive material from Thorium.
Hard Coal is free of the material.

The major radioactive components of coal are due to uranium decay,
ie radon and other daughter products, and beta emissions from thorium.
Both are pervasive in coal because all coal forms with sedimentary rock,
which contains both uranium and thorium washed down from the granites
and basalts of primeval mountains.

Years ago the fly ash and SO2 and CO2 was abated - the latter the least.
Massive scrubbers where put into place.

CO2 is an inevitable byproduct of the combustion of a carbon containing
fuel. It can't be abated except by not burning carbon containing fuels.
This is the sticking point for all fossil fuel combustion. CO2 levels are
rising, and are approaching the levels they reached just before the last
Ice Age. This worries activists (perhaps more than it should). They're
worried the climate may shift, as it has many times before, with
consequences for the now very large human population of the Earth.

The plants do use scrubbers and bag houses to control SO2 and fly ash.
Those are better than they were in years past, but they still don't give
complete control (that would essentially be impossible because complete
control would choke the furnaces).

Higher efficiency furnaces also emit an increased amount of nitrous oxides.
That's an issue with regard to photochemical smog. So that's one of those
damned if you do, damned if you don't things. Higher efficiency means less
fuel has to be burned, yielding less CO2, SO2, and fly ash, but it also means
higher N20 emissions, and larger amounts of photochemical smog.

Look at the Tenn. valley - you can see the mountains now. In the early 70's
you could not see much beyond the road system - e.g. 2-300 feet.

The government just released a report which says that air pollution in the
Great Smokie Mtns is increasing. That's not primarily due to power plants,
however. Smog is a natural condition in the Smokies. (Ever wonder how
they got that name, well *before* the Industrial Revolution?)

The major cause is turpene emissions from pine trees. As the character of
the forests have changed, with monocultured pines replacing much of the
previous climax forest, and populating previously cleared, now abandoned,
farmland, turpene emissions are increasing. Warming of the climate is also
suspected to be a contributing factor since higher average temperatures
also produce higher turpene emissions.

*Manmade* smog is lower today than in the 70s, but Nature makes its own
smog, and that is increasing.

Gary

In article , Gary Coffman says...

- but I'm sure that that cost
will only be going up.

Actually, no. The costs have gone down as more experience
has been gained,

Well there's that. But I was getting at the fact that some of
the tax money for decomissioning was collected in 1960s
dollars, and has to be spend in 20xx dollars.

I don't thing the government's been putting that money
into mutual funds or something.

Jim

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

On 25 Jul 2004 16:08:37 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gary Coffman says...

- but I'm sure that that cost
will only be going up.

Actually, no. The costs have gone down as more experience
has been gained,

Well there's that. But I was getting at the fact that some of
the tax money for decomissioning was collected in 1960s
dollars, and has to be spend in 20xx dollars.

I don't thing the government's been putting that money
into mutual funds or something.

That's the government's problem isn't it? If they haven't
been fiscally sound in their handling of the *trust fund*,
then they're liable for any shortfall. It is after all their
fiduciary responsibility as the fund trustee.

But as I've noted at least twice now in replies to you,
the cost figures I've given are expressed in 2004 dollars.
The fund handily exceeds that value today, so it appears
the government actually got the funding formula right.

Because the government has actually spent the money
as fast as they collected the taxes, it has offset to some
degree the need for the government to issue treasury
bonds to cover its annual deficits. So in effect, the
government *has* been investing the money, and really
should augment the fund by the amount they've saved
in bond interest all these years.

That they don't need to do so to cover decommissioning
costs at today's value of the dollar shows the fund has been
oversubscribed all these years.

Gary

In article , Gary Coffman says...

I don't thing the government's been putting that money
into mutual funds or something.

That's the government's problem isn't it? If they haven't
been fiscally sound in their handling of the *trust fund*,
then they're liable for any shortfall.

If it were anybody else with the obligation, you would
be correct. But it isn't anyone else. Like the SS
'trust fund' that money goes out as fast as it goes in.

And when the rent comes due, all they have to do is say,
"so sorry." With a system like that in place, it's no
wonder nuclear power is doomed to fail in the US.

Jim

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

On 26 Jul 2004 07:14:05 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gary Coffman says...

I don't thing the government's been putting that money
into mutual funds or something.

That's the government's problem isn't it? If they haven't
been fiscally sound in their handling of the *trust fund*,
then they're liable for any shortfall.

If it were anybody else with the obligation, you would
be correct. But it isn't anyone else. Like the SS
'trust fund' that money goes out as fast as it goes in.

It is true that no one else has a big enough army to force
the government to pay its debts. The utilities can't even
get away with turning the government's lights out for
non-payment. But the government hasn't defaulted yet.

As I've now told you 3 times, there has been an excess of
funds paid into the "trust fund" to cover the decommissioning
of all the commercial power reactors currently operating in
this country. Unlike Social Security, the decommissioning
trust fund has been actuarially sound from day one.

The electric power industry has not been irresponsible.
They've sent in the checks when due. Now it is up to the
government to be responsible and provide the service it
contracted to provide. They can *not* legitimately claim
that they haven't been paid in full.

If the government has embezzled the money (and they
have, from every "trust fund" they've set up under law)
then they've got to pay it back out of current general tax
revenues, or con someone else to loan them the money
to cover it. That's the way they've operated since FDR.

Now Ed, and other tax and spend liberals, will tell you
what the government has done with the trust funds is
legitimate. I'm not going to argue about that here. But
I am telling you that they accepted the money for a
particular purpose, and the money was more than
sufficient to cover that purpose.

Even if the utilities were willing to write off the $22.5
billion dollars in decommissioning tax money they've
paid as a bad debt, and even if the utilities were willing
to accept responsibility for disposing of the waste they've
already paid the government to handle, they couldn't
legally do it. The government set things up by law so
that only the government is legally allowed to dispose
of high level waste.

The only remaining open question is will the government
obey its own laws? This is always an open question with
governments. If they won't, then our only recourse is to
take the rifle down from over the mantle and join the
revolution.

Gary

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:19:31 GMT, wmbjk wrote:
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.

The real risks of transporting the material are miniscule, and there is
no one in the disposal area on which to "inflict" the waste. It is already
a national sacrifice zone. That's why it was chosen. If there is anyone
in the sacrifice zone, then the government can simply buy them out,
using eminent domain. If they could do it for TVA, they can do it for
this purpose too. Anyone who seriously claims otherwise is just
posturing.

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.

If the nuclear industry were *allowed* to dispose of its own high level
"wastes", a brisk trade in that valuable commodity would immediately
spring up. But the government forbids reprocessing, reuse, or resale
of spent fuel. That's the real issue here, the government insists by law
on maintaining ownership control of the materials, but refuses to assume
the responsibilities which go with that sort of ownership. Blaming the
nuclear industry for a problem created and maintained by government
is disingenuous at best.

Gary

In article , Gary Coffman says...

Even if the utilities were willing to write off the $22.5
billion dollars in decommissioning tax money they've
paid as a bad debt, and even if the utilities were willing
to accept responsibility for disposing of the waste they've
already paid the government to handle, they couldn't
legally do it. The government set things up by law so
that only the government is legally allowed to dispose
of high level waste.

The only remaining open question is will the government
obey its own laws?

Ha ha. This is a tautology.

This is always an open question with
governments. If they won't, then our only recourse is to
take the rifle down from over the mantle and join the
revolution.

Oh dear. Another gun thread.

Jim

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

In article , Gary Coffman says...

If the nuclear industry were *allowed* to dispose of its own high level
"wastes", a brisk trade in that valuable commodity would immediately
spring up. But the government forbids reprocessing, reuse, or resale
of spent fuel. That's the real issue here, the government insists by law
on maintaining ownership control of the materials, but refuses to assume
the responsibilities which go with that sort of ownership. Blaming the
nuclear industry for a problem created and maintained by government
is disingenuous at best.

Disingenous yes. But also pragmatic. The nuclear power
industry labors under a number of difficulties when it
tries to build and operate plants. This (govenment regulation)
is just one more that they have to deal with.

There's lots of other industries which would otherwise be
profitable, except they're regulated by the government.

Jim

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

"wmbjk" wrote in message
...


Wind might be able to supply 20% of electric demand.

I think this is a pipe dream. How do you get your numbers? Also how many
acres of real estate would be dedicated to wind farms?


Too bad the
carrot of cheap (yeah sure) nukes

They are cheap.
They are clean.


(in somebody else's back yard) slows
the acceptance of alternatives.


They can build one in my back yard

--

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...

Myself I am not worried about 1 or 2 zoomies, I worry more about all of
the
zoomies released from the tons of radioactive material released by
burning
coal. this exposes the population to a lot more than 1 or 2 zoomies, it
is
probably killing hundreds or thousands of folks per year from there
continued exposure.

Sounds like you have a near-religious hatred of coal-burning
power plants. Doesn't this get in the way of a rational discussion?


Religious hatred? No. I just think it is a monumental stupidity to ignore
the science, and the numbers and the reality that dictates that nuclear
power is the only thing we got to make the electrical power we need and
want.

Uranium is abundant. Without, reprocessing the uranium used to produce all
the electrical power a family of four needs for 20 years would fit inside a
shoe box.

If we were to reprocess the spent fuel rods, the same amount of power would
result in waste that would fit into a pill bottle.

This is not a lot of material to mine and process for the benefits of 20
years of power. Now when you consider the giant pile of ash and the smoke
and the all the other crud that is produced to produce the same amount of
power from coal.

I don't think a recognition of these facts in any way inhibits a rational
discussion.

--

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...

Religious hatred? No. I just think it is a monumental stupidity to ignore
the science, and the numbers and the reality that dictates that nuclear
power is the only thing we got to make the electrical power we need and
want.

OK, but what you *are* ignoring is the political and PR reality
that is standing in the way of achieving an economically viable
nuclear power industry.

Gary's been pretty good at keeping a broad view of the situation,
and from what he says, nothing is going to change until the
government changes their ways. Stupidity? Yes. Can be
changed? No.

Or at least not until we're sitting in the dark for longer
than we ever have.

Jim

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

On 26 Jul 2004 12:13:30 -0700, jim rozen
calmly ranted:

In article , Gary Coffman says...

If the nuclear industry were *allowed* to dispose of its own high level
"wastes", a brisk trade in that valuable commodity would immediately
spring up. But the government forbids reprocessing, reuse, or resale
of spent fuel. That's the real issue here, the government insists by law
on maintaining ownership control of the materials, but refuses to assume
the responsibilities which go with that sort of ownership. Blaming the
nuclear industry for a problem created and maintained by government
is disingenuous at best.

Disingenous yes. But also pragmatic. The nuclear power
industry labors under a number of difficulties when it
tries to build and operate plants. This (govenment regulation)
is just one more that they have to deal with.

What's pragmatic about -not- reprocessing reprocessable
"spent" fuel? Sitting on it is pragmatic?!?


There's lots of other industries which would otherwise be
profitable, except they're regulated by the government.

And some of us have taken the first step in doing something about it.
We've bailed from the 2 corrupt parties and are supporting the parties
who wish to do more. Join us!

-
The advantage of exercising every day is that you die healthier.
------------
http://diversify.com Dynamic Websites, PHP Apps, MySQL databases

On 26 Jul 2004 17:48:42 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Roger Shoaf says...

Religious hatred? No. I just think it is a monumental stupidity to ignore
the science, and the numbers and the reality that dictates that nuclear
power is the only thing we got to make the electrical power we need and
want.

OK, but what you *are* ignoring is the political and PR reality
that is standing in the way of achieving an economically viable
nuclear power industry.

Nuclear power *is* economically viable, even in today's regulatory
climate. Duke Power, Georgia Power, Jackson EMC (my co-op,
which, with a number of other Georgia EMCs, owns a nuclear
plant) are all profitable, and have among the lowest power rates
in the South. (Well, the co-op can't legally turn a profit, but the
members get nice rebate checks each December.)

Politics and PR are a problem for the future, since no new plants
are being built because of anti-nuclear hysteria, but that isn't a
problem with respect to the economic viability of existing plant.
With essentially no fuel costs, they are cheap to operate. They
aren't subject to the whims of a foreign dominated fossil fuel
market. If governments actually start to pay attention to the
environmental costs of fossil fuel generation, nuke plants won't
be hurt. Etc.

Gary's been pretty good at keeping a broad view of the situation,
and from what he says, nothing is going to change until the
government changes their ways. Stupidity? Yes. Can be
changed? No.

Or at least not until we're sitting in the dark for longer
than we ever have.

Unfortunately, I believe that is true. Too many members of the
public are being willfully stupid on the issue of nuclear power,
and too many politicians pander to that stupidity.

Attempting to educate the public, and correct their misperceptions,
has largely failed. Even rolling blackouts, brownouts, skyrocketing
rates, foreign wars to secure fossil fuel supplies, etc haven't done
much to shock the public to reality. While they've been vilifying the
"evil corporations", they've ignored the real problems looming on
the near horizon.

(Government has made matters much worse, of course, with its
ridiculous "deregulation" schemes which have actively promoted
corporate malfeasance through inane attempts to force a natural
monopoly into a pseudo-free market mold. In other words, the
government set up conditions which virtually guaranteed that
there'd be an Enron type scandal.)

Perhaps an entire season without power would finally shock the public
enough to make them throw off their misperceptions and prejudices
and allow us to start to rectify the real problems. But the economic
cost of that sort of blackout would be staggering. And once there
isn't enough power to go around, it won't just be for a season. Even
with accelerated work, it'll take years to build the nuclear plants to
meet the shortfall. Our economy could well collapse before it could
be done.

The French, Taiwanese, Koreans, et al will be laughing, of course,
but not for long. They need the American economy to fuel their
own economies. When we go down, they suffer too. At least they'll
have lights, so they won't suffer in the dark as Americans will.

Actually, the picture I've painted above is likely too dramatic for
reality. Most likely what we will see in the near term is rapidly
increasing electric rates, an increasing number of short term
power disruptions, and a slow but sure economic disadvantage
for our country as our costs of electric power force our businesses
to be at a disadvantage to the businesses of countries who have
intelligently ensured a continued stable (both economically and
physically) source of electric power for its industries and homes.

But longer term, the picture is stark, dramatic, and very bleak. We
simply *must* convert away from fossil fuels this century. The supply
is finite, much of it isn't under our control, and the environmental costs
of fossil fuel use are high. Long term, there really is no other viable
option than nuclear power to meet the base load demands of a high
energy civilization (and the size and urbanization of the world's
population permits no other kind unless we're willing to accept a
large scale die off of humanity).

Gary

In article , Roger Shoaf says...

Nuclear power is economically viable.

Not really, at the momement. Until the regulatory
climate changes, it's a 'just barely' kind of thing.
The plants have to cut all kinds of corners to make
a go of it.

Jim

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

In article , Gary Coffman says...

Politics and PR are a problem for the future, since no new plants
are being built because of anti-nuclear hysteria, but that isn't a
problem with respect to the economic viability of existing plant.
With essentially no fuel costs, they are cheap to operate.

The fuel is however, taxpayer subsidised. It has to come from
somewhere.


Or at least not until we're sitting in the dark for longer
than we ever have.

Unfortunately, I believe that is true. Too many members of the
public are being willfully stupid on the issue of nuclear power,
and too many politicians pander to that stupidity.

That's their job. Find the lowest common denominator, and
play to it. Votes votes votes. If the truth happens to get
trampled in the meantime, well so be it.

Attempting to educate the public, and correct their misperceptions,
has largely failed. Even rolling blackouts, brownouts, skyrocketing
rates, foreign wars to secure fossil fuel supplies, etc haven't done
much to shock the public to reality. While they've been vilifying the
"evil corporations", they've ignored the real problems looming on
the near horizon.

(Government has made matters much worse, of course, with its
ridiculous "deregulation" schemes which have actively promoted
corporate malfeasance through inane attempts to force a natural
monopoly into a pseudo-free market mold. In other words, the
government set up conditions which virtually guaranteed that
there'd be an Enron type scandal.)

You have that the wrong way round. The de-regulation was
pushed by the industries themselves, and carried through
by their donations to politicians willing to sell out for
campaing contributions. Those scheme were not 'ridiculous'
for the folks who were raking in the money. No right minded
public servant would *ever* believe that what they did was
in the interests of the general public. The scandle is,
they got away with it!

But longer term, the picture is stark, dramatic, and very bleak. We
simply *must* convert away from fossil fuels this century. The supply
is finite, much of it isn't under our control, and the environmental costs
of fossil fuel use are high. Long term, there really is no other viable
option than nuclear power to meet the base load demands of a high
energy civilization (and the size and urbanization of the world's
population permits no other kind unless we're willing to accept a
large scale die off of humanity).

Malthus here we come.

Jim

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

Great, I suggest you apply to the NRC for a permit. While you're
waiting a couple decades for your paperwork to be denied, others will
be building wind farms, sometimes in as little as a year between
planning and startup. See

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/...ce01-13-04.pdf

And some won't bother with waiting or jawboning. Most DIY homeowners
can power their place independently in weeks, usually for less than
the cost of a second car.

Not if they want to be grid connected (for backup). But that's a different
story. Check out:
http://www.homepower.org/
You can download current issue for free.
http://www.homepower.org/magazine/do...rent_issue.cfm

Wind and energy maps:
http://www.homepower.org/education/wind.cfm#

Personally I like the idea of covered parking. Every shopping mall,
business location and school parking lots could be covered with solar panels
providing shaded parking down here.

Joel. phx

Towers and solar panel supports are generally made out of metal and built by
metalworking (small ray of on-topic conversation).


Wayne

On 27 Jul 2004 08:35:01 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Roger Shoaf says...

Nuclear power is economically viable.

Not really, at the momement. Until the regulatory
climate changes, it's a 'just barely' kind of thing.

Even that depends on your definition of "just barely". Think about
this - a friend wanted to start a business renting hot rods. He found
out pretty quick that he couldn't get insurance. Most would say that
the business was therefore not economically viable. Compare to the
nuke industry - without the public backstopping the investors
liability, those investors wouldn't put up a nickel. So do we call the
nuke industry economically viable or not?
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/PressRel...LOTNUCLEAR.htm

The plants have to cut all kinds of corners to make
a go of it.

Most renewkables :-) will claim that the industry is the most heavily
regulated in history. But check this out for the reality of plant
maintenance, oversight, and exactly where safety rates compared to
profit.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...WS17/405190340


Wayne

"wmbjk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:57:22 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:

"wmbjk" wrote in message
.. .

Wind might be able to supply 20% of electric demand.

I think this is a pipe dream. How do you get your numbers?

That's a number often quoted for the maximum wind power contribution
to the grid without additional storage. If it ever gets to 10%, then
it might be possible to know if 20 can be attained.

So who is doing the quoting?

"In 1998, wind turbines in the US produced 3.5 billion kWh. The US
produced a total of 3,367 billion kWh, so the fraction from wind was 0.10
percent --- one part out of a thousand."
scorce"
http://www.energyadvocate.com/big_trbn.htm



Also how many
acres of real estate would be dedicated to wind farms?

Wind towers co-exist nicely with farming and grazing. And a sizeable
number can be off-shore.

"Wind farms in the US produce power at the average rate of about 1.2 watts
per square meter (about 5000 watts per acre). In order to produce an
average of 1000 MW --- the power produced by any large conventional (coal,
oil nuclear, gas) power plant --- would require about 833 square kilometers
(300 square miles) of wind turbines. That's the area of a mile-wide swath
of land extending from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Multiply that by about
30 and you have California's electricity. " scorce :
http://www.energyadvocate.com/big_trbn.htm

Then you still only get power when the wind blows.

First of all each wind turbine would require a concrete base and a steel
tower. then you would need to connect each of these with wire and have a
large bank of transformers servicing them. putting these off shore would
expotentially increase the cost.





Too bad the
carrot of cheap (yeah sure) nukes

They are cheap.

Since when? The existing ones couldn't have been built without massive
subsidy. Investment in new ones will not happen unless the public
agrees to pay a much higher price for the power. Which would still
make them useful IMO. But the nuke industry knows it's game over if
they ever admit that their product is more expensive than it looks.

Consider France.
===============begin quote=======================
Economic Factors

France's nuclear power program has cost some FF 400 billion in 1993
currency, excluding interest during construction. Half of this was
self-financed by Electricité de France, 8% (FF 32 billion) was invested by
the state but discounted in 1981, and 42% (FF 168 billion) was financed by
commercial loans. In 1988 medium and long-term debt amounted to FF 233
billion, or 1.8 times EdF's sales revenue. However, by the end of 1998 EdF
had reduced this to FF 122 billion, about two thirds of sales revenue (FF
185 billion) and less than three times annual cash flow. Net interest
charges had dropped to FF 7.7 billion (4.16% of sales) by 1998.

The cost of nuclear-generated electricity fell by 7% from 1998 to 2001 and
is now about EUR 3 cents/kWh, which is very competitive in Europe.

From being a net electricity importer through most of the 1970s, France now
has steadily growing net exports of electricity, which amounted to 63
billion kWh and EUR 2.6 billion in 1999. France is thus the world's largest
net electricity exporter, and electricity is France's fourth largest export.
(Next door is Italy, without any operating nuclear power plants. It is
Europe's largest importer of electricity, most coming ultimately from
France.) The UK has also become a major customer for French electricity.
==================end quote=========================
From: http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm



They are clean.

People have been making that overly simplistic claim for decades. Talk
is cheap, but what's the point if you can't get anyone to agree to
take the waste?

You have not been reading this tread have you?

Notice the number of new plants? That's the reality.

We have not built any new plants in the US, but new plants have been built
overseas. As far as reality goes, politics is the reason we have not built
any nukes recently. Politics can and does change.





(in somebody else's back yard) slows
the acceptance of alternatives.

They can build one in my back yard

Great, I suggest you apply to the NRC for a permit. While you're
waiting a couple decades for your paperwork to be denied, others will
be building wind farms, sometimes in as little as a year between
planning and startup.

I agree that the process to comission new nuclear plants should be
streamlined. By standardizing the dedign, the plant itself could be
preapproved, the only decision would be the site selection. As Gary pointed
out, my making the plants modular they could be easily scaled up just by
plugging in another module. Great economy of scale would result.


--

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...

Nuclear power is economically viable.

Not really, at the momement. Until the regulatory
climate changes, it's a 'just barely' kind of thing.
The plants have to cut all kinds of corners to make
a go of it.

Jim

How do you figure?

--

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...

The plants have to cut all kinds of corners to make
a go of it.

How do you figure?

Well, at least, by watching what goes on in the neighborhood.

Buchannan NY is near where I live, and indian points 1 and 2
are in the news a lot.

They failed a bunch of tests recently because the backup
gensets would not come on line during the tests. So the
utility said OK, and put in new ones. They were scrimping
there, it was obvious.

Then they had a bunch of cases of primary cooling water
getting into the secondary loop because of failed heat
exchangers. They tried to force them to replace the
echangers, but Entergy said 'no dice, too expensive.
We'll just plug off the leaking tubes and wait for
some more of them to open up."

Two examples of how those private, for profit plants
are run near the ragged edge to make them turn some
ROI.

Jim

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

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Roger Shoaf says...


The plants have to cut all kinds of corners to make
a go of it.


How do you figure?


Well, at least, by watching what goes on in the neighborhood.

Buchannan NY is near where I live, and indian points 1 and 2
are in the news a lot.

They failed a bunch of tests recently because the backup
gensets would not come on line during the tests. So the
utility said OK, and put in new ones. They were scrimping
there, it was obvious.

They found a failure point and repaired it. This is evidence of
scrimping? Sounds like they might have attempted some repairs and found
it more economical to do a replacement instead.

Then they had a bunch of cases of primary cooling water
getting into the secondary loop because of failed heat
exchangers. They

Who is "they"?

tried to force them to replace the
echangers, but Entergy said 'no dice, too expensive.
We'll just plug off the leaking tubes and wait for
some more of them to open up."

Standard procedure. The heat exchanges are built with excess capacity
so a number of tubes can be blocked off.

Howard (I ran nukes) Garner

In article , Howard R Garner says...

Then they had a bunch of cases of primary cooling water
getting into the secondary loop because of failed heat
exchangers. They

Who is "they"?

The county government. They tried to do some
arm twisting but obviously they have no influence
over what goes on in that plant.

Basically they all get together ever so often and
pass all kinds of resolutions and plans about how the
plant should be run. And Entergy gives them
the finger.

The latest is the requirements for 'disaster drills'
in the local area. They put up all kinds of emergency
evacuation bus stop signs on every local road. With
the idea being if the plant blew up they's somehow
put a bunch of busses on the road and folks would
climb into them and go somewhere.

The laugh is, all it takes is a few inches of snow,
or a truck getting jammed under an overpass in the
local area, to produce a giant case of gridlock that
takes hours to undo.

If indian point lights up, the roads will be solid,
wall to wall cars for miles around, and it will stay
that way for three days.

Jim

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

On 27 Jul 2004 08:51:18 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gary Coffman says...

Politics and PR are a problem for the future, since no new plants
are being built because of anti-nuclear hysteria, but that isn't a
problem with respect to the economic viability of existing plant.
With essentially no fuel costs, they are cheap to operate.

The fuel is however, taxpayer subsidised. It has to come from
somewhere.

Actually, it isn't. The enrichment plants are owned by the government,
but the government doesn't sell the enriched product to the fuel rod
packagers below cost. The fuel rod packagers are private companies,
and they don't sell to the power companies at a loss either.

Gary

On 27 Jul 2004 14:31:03 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Howard R Garner says...
Who is "they"?

The county government. They tried to do some
arm twisting but obviously they have no influence
over what goes on in that plant.

Basically they all get together ever so often and
pass all kinds of resolutions and plans about how the
plant should be run. And Entergy gives them
the finger.

As well they should. The NRC has exclusive jurisdiction
for the regulation of nuclear plant operations.

Gary