http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/


Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

--
Steve W.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/


Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite, metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.


SW

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/


Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

--
Steve W.

I appreciate someone tries to provide a technical explanation of what has
happened free from errors in the major media. I do not appreciate a his
apologists tone of "everything is under control now."

This piece was written on 3/12 apparently just before the second explosion
that injured 11 workers:
"The plant is safe now and will stay safe."
(that was the first bullet point in his summary)

Also there is major discrepancy between this following statement of his and
other reports of the radiation level on the ground and the report that
workers were treated for radiation sickness:

Quote
There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.

By "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would
receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that
comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.
Unquote

I am not against nuclear power, but these sorts of statements which
essentially say "trust us - every thing is hunky dory" are what make people
deeply suspicious and antagonistic (especially when the plant explodes that
same day and a third gets into trouble).

anorton wrote:

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/


Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

--
Steve W.

I appreciate someone tries to provide a technical explanation of what has
happened free from errors in the major media. I do not appreciate a his
apologists tone of "everything is under control now."

This piece was written on 3/12 apparently just before the second explosion
that injured 11 workers:
"The plant is safe now and will stay safe."
(that was the first bullet point in his summary)

Also there is major discrepancy between this following statement of his and
other reports of the radiation level on the ground and the report that
workers were treated for radiation sickness:

Quote
There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.

By "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would
receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that
comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.
Unquote

I am not against nuclear power, but these sorts of statements which
essentially say "trust us - every thing is hunky dory" are what make people
deeply suspicious and antagonistic (especially when the plant explodes that
same day and a third gets into trouble).

You're reading too much into the second explosion. One thing with
Japanese culture is that they are very focused on following their
procedures to the letter, and if the procedure said to vent the
steam/hydrogen/oxygen into the reactor building vs. outside, that is
what they would do, despite the fact that the procedure blew up the
building on another reactor a couple days prior.

I've not read any reports about anyone being treated for radiation
sickness. I have read reports of people being checked for radioactive
contamination and being given prophylactic stable iodine tablets to
prevent uptake of any radioactive iodine that they might be exposed to.
Reports I've read have indicated radiation levels well over background
but far below any danger level at their peaks and those levels dropping
rapidly.

On 03/14/2011 02:16 PM, Pete C. wrote:

anorton wrote:

"Steve wrote in message
...
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/


Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

--
Steve W.

I appreciate someone tries to provide a technical explanation of what has
happened free from errors in the major media. I do not appreciate a his
apologists tone of "everything is under control now."

This piece was written on 3/12 apparently just before the second explosion
that injured 11 workers:
"The plant is safe now and will stay safe."
(that was the first bullet point in his summary)

Also there is major discrepancy between this following statement of his and
other reports of the radiation level on the ground and the report that
workers were treated for radiation sickness:

Quote
There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.

By "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would
receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that
comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.
Unquote

I am not against nuclear power, but these sorts of statements which
essentially say "trust us - every thing is hunky dory" are what make people
deeply suspicious and antagonistic (especially when the plant explodes that
same day and a third gets into trouble).

You're reading too much into the second explosion. One thing with
Japanese culture is that they are very focused on following their
procedures to the letter, and if the procedure said to vent the
steam/hydrogen/oxygen into the reactor building vs. outside, that is
what they would do, despite the fact that the procedure blew up the
building on another reactor a couple days prior.

I've not read any reports about anyone being treated for radiation
sickness. I have read reports of people being checked for radioactive
contamination and being given prophylactic stable iodine tablets to
prevent uptake of any radioactive iodine that they might be exposed to.
Reports I've read have indicated radiation levels well over background
but far below any danger level at their peaks and those levels dropping
rapidly.

And besides -- his "significant" probably means "massive fish die-offs,
people not allowed to return to their homes, etc.", not "a few people
get seriously crapped up".

Even including Chernobyl, I suspect that fewer people have died from
disease caused by nuclear power than have died from disease caused by
fossil fuels. Even if you normalize by Joule of useful energy, I
_still_ think that nuclear power does better.

It's only when you normalize by "words out of Jane Fonda's mouth" that
nuclear starts looking _really bad_.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

On Mar 14, 3:34*pm, "Steve W." wrote:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

--
Steve W.

One positive thing which might come out this would be to get more
people thinking about the safety, fuel cost, and low rad. waste
advantages of LFTR vs present uranium fueled reactors. LFTR system
design work certainly needs a boost to at least pilot scale, and may
even justify a Manhatten Project level of support if pilot scale
results support it. Combined with a large scale liquid fuels plants,
(ala Los Alamos Green Freedom), pulling CO2 from the air or other
carbon sources, we could make a big dent in our oil imports. The net
zero CO2 fuels thus produced could be used with our existing
infrastructure. Enough domestic thorium exists to fuel our country
for 1000 years.

Solar and Wind power are not likely to make up more than 5-10% of our
electrical power generation unless we go back to pre industrial levels
on power consumption. Electric cars are great for tree hugger types,
but if the power to run them comes from a coal, or even a natural gas
powered grid, they may emit more CO2 than a Hybrid of similar size. If
you get less than 25% of the power plants thermal input out in the
form of electricity to your power outlet, and then lose some more in
AC to DC conversion, battery charging, and I2R losses how does this
beat a hybrid with a 25% eff. gasoline engine let alone a 30% eff
diesel Hybrid? (UhOh if forgot diesel is a dirty word with our EPA).

Given the huge potential impact LFTR and liquid fuels generation could
have on our economy I can not understand why I have not heard one iota
about either from any mainstream "news" source or "alternative" energy
show. I doubt 1 in 100 people in the US have ever even heard about
LFTR. India and China are already putting money into research for
LFTR's.

Hopefully the containment vessels were undamaged in this quake, (which
was 7X stronger than the design basis), and still do their job. In my
experience, the Japanese do not scrimp on concrete or steel when
designing for earthquakes.

On 2011-03-14, anorton wrote:

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/


Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....


I appreciate someone tries to provide a technical explanation of what has
happened free from errors in the major media. I do not appreciate a his
apologists tone of "everything is under control now."

This piece was written on 3/12 apparently just before the second explosion
that injured 11 workers:
"The plant is safe now and will stay safe."
(that was the first bullet point in his summary)

Also there is major discrepancy between this following statement of his and
other reports of the radiation level on the ground and the report that
workers were treated for radiation sickness:

Quote
There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.

By "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would
receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that
comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.
Unquote

I am not against nuclear power, but these sorts of statements which
essentially say "trust us - every thing is hunky dory" are what make people
deeply suspicious and antagonistic (especially when the plant explodes that
same day and a third gets into trouble).





A good point was made, that the "simple explanation" failed to
anticipate the second building exploding. Secondly, ability to cool
the steel enclosure with seawater, assumes that it is able to hold
said water. That is a very questionable assumption, since piping that
leads into it, has been damaged by the explosion.

Thirdly, ability to pump water into or on the reactors, assumes,
implicitly, that people can be there and work not too far from the
reactors. As soon as something serious happens, and much more
radiation is released, this will no longer be the case. People have to
leave the area.

Fourth, I really have to wonder, about the story mentioned in the
explanation with mobile generators that were brought in and could not
be used because "plugs did not fit". I just had a cable at home, where
I had to fit a plug. I happened to have a box knife, which I used to
strip the cable and fit the plug. I understand that the portable is
probably a megawatt sized generator, 20 times bigger than my
MEP-006A. Probably at least 200 amp, 7 kV, 3 phase cable. Or something
like that. But come on, they could not fit a plug for hours? WTF?

Nw I hear that the water pumps that pump that seawater, are failing
for some strange reason.

I am, personally, hopeful that we will be able to use nuclear energy
and show the Arabs the middle finger. I am also assured that newer
designs are better than those 40 year old designs.

That said, I am not going to turn into a second Gunner or Tom and make
stuff up, or put my head in the ass, just because it fits my belief
system. As far as I can tell, to prevent a serious radiation release,
several things have to be just right and done on time. That does not
seem very likely here.

i

On 2011-03-14, Tim Wescott wrote:
On 03/14/2011 02:16 PM, Pete C. wrote:

anorton wrote:

"Steve wrote in message
...
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/


Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....


I appreciate someone tries to provide a technical explanation of what has
happened free from errors in the major media. I do not appreciate a his
apologists tone of "everything is under control now."

This piece was written on 3/12 apparently just before the second explosion
that injured 11 workers:
"The plant is safe now and will stay safe."
(that was the first bullet point in his summary)

Also there is major discrepancy between this following statement of his and
other reports of the radiation level on the ground and the report that
workers were treated for radiation sickness:

Quote
There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.

By "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would
receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that
comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.
Unquote

I am not against nuclear power, but these sorts of statements which
essentially say "trust us - every thing is hunky dory" are what make people
deeply suspicious and antagonistic (especially when the plant explodes that
same day and a third gets into trouble).

You're reading too much into the second explosion. One thing with
Japanese culture is that they are very focused on following their
procedures to the letter, and if the procedure said to vent the
steam/hydrogen/oxygen into the reactor building vs. outside, that is
what they would do, despite the fact that the procedure blew up the
building on another reactor a couple days prior.

I've not read any reports about anyone being treated for radiation
sickness. I have read reports of people being checked for radioactive
contamination and being given prophylactic stable iodine tablets to
prevent uptake of any radioactive iodine that they might be exposed to.
Reports I've read have indicated radiation levels well over background
but far below any danger level at their peaks and those levels dropping
rapidly.

And besides -- his "significant" probably means "massive fish die-offs,
people not allowed to return to their homes, etc.", not "a few people
get seriously crapped up".

Even including Chernobyl, I suspect that fewer people have died from
disease caused by nuclear power than have died from disease caused by
fossil fuels. Even if you normalize by Joule of useful energy, I
_still_ think that nuclear power does better.

It's only when you normalize by "words out of Jane Fonda's mouth" that
nuclear starts looking _really bad_.


The big plus of the Japan situation, is that even if the worst happens
-- the fuel waste rods catch on fire due to the waste fuel pond
draining, and the reactors blow up, releasing hot fuel -- the station
is on the Eastern coast of Japan and the stuff will likely just settle
in the Pacific ocean.

i

anorton wrote:

This piece was written on 3/12 apparently just before the second explosion
that injured 11 workers:
"The plant is safe now and will stay safe."
(that was the first bullet point in his summary)

I wonder why there's so much hype and hoopla about such a non-issue when
there are hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes,
without food or clean water, that have nothing to do with the power plants

- IT'S AN EARTHQUAKE AND A TSUNAMI, FOLKS!

I like the line, "An informed public is key to acceptance of nuclear
energy."

Well, we won't get this until we break the liberal/union deathgrip on
our children's minds and the taxpayers' wallets.

Thanks,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

Pete C. wrote:

I've not read any reports about anyone being treated for radiation
sickness. I have read reports of people being checked for radioactive
contamination and being given prophylactic stable iodine tablets to
prevent uptake of any radioactive iodine that they might be exposed to.
Reports I've read have indicated radiation levels well over background
but far below any danger level at their peaks and those levels dropping
rapidly.

True, but the NIMBY mind is as impervious to facts as the Church of
Warmingism is.

I find it troubling that the warmingists are so dead-set against a power
source that produces ZERO - count 'em - ZERO CO2 emissions. Isn't this
also called "cognitive dissonance?"

(now watch the flames and name-calling from the left wing...)


Thanks,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

Tim Wescott wrote:

And besides -- his "significant" probably means "massive fish die-offs,
people not allowed to return to their homes, etc.", not "a few people
get seriously crapped up".

So, now you're a mind-reader too?

Did you even read the article?

Thanks,
Rich

Sunworshipper wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite, metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Or at least, if you did,
you obviously didn't grasp the facts.

Yeah, nuclear power has risks - so do solar panels and wind turbines
and cars. Cars kill 50,000 people every year - should we ban them too?

Thanks,
Rich

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Sunworshipper wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite, metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Or at least, if you did,
you obviously didn't grasp the facts.

Yeah, nuclear power has risks - so do solar panels and wind turbines
and cars. Cars kill 50,000 people every year - should we ban them too?

There is a big difference Rich.
Automobiles are low risk / small consequence propositions. No car accident
will ever pose a threat to an economy.
Nuclear generating facilities are tiny risk / HUGE consequence operations.
Even a single catastrophe can have large and long lasting impact.

Commercial nuclear power has never had a single mass casualty event in
it's decades of operation. It has not even had a small scale civilian
casualty event. Opposition to nuclear power is based on ignorance and
paranoia, not any science or rational thought.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote:


snipped

Some add-ons to your proposals:

- Define a standard for EV battery packs that are bottom accessible from
the vehicles to allow for automated physical battery pack exchange at
neighborhood EV "gas stations". This will allow an EV to fully "refuel"
in the same time frame as a conventional liquid fueled auto, thus making
the EVs vastly more useable and acceptable to the general public.

Larger EVs i.e. light trucks can simply use two of the standard packs
providing the same advantages. By putting all the standard batteries in
a common pool, the issues of battery life to the consumer are eliminated
and the service costs are spread across the entire pool, much like in
the BBQ propane tank exchange or welding gas cylinder exchange models.

- Provide free electricity from the new clean, green nuclear power
sources to charge the battery packs at the neighborhood service
stations, allowing the "fueling" cost to be limited to a cost similar to
refueling a conventional vehicle. This will further encourage the use of
EVs by a larger segment of the population. Subsidizing the purchase cost
of the EVs is not recommended.

- Provide discounted electricity from a separate power meter for both
home EV charging and operation of high efficiency heat pumps. This will
encourage replacement of oil and gas furnaces with more efficient and
non polluting heat pumps, further reducing dependency on petroleum
product.

- Provide discounted electricity to encourage railroads to electrify
more of their rail lines in the vicinity of densely populated areas.
This will further reduce petroleum reliance as well as reduce pollution
in denser areas.

Reducing petroleum dependence and demand in these ways will also have
the effect of reducing petroleum prices, which will help our economy by
reducing shipping costs for goods since they all ultimately are shipped
by semi at some point and EV semis won't be practical for some time.
This will also serve to lower the profits of unfriendly petroleum
friendly countries.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:15:04 -0700 (PDT), oldjag
wrote:
snip
Given the huge potential impact LFTR and liquid fuels generation could
have on our economy I can not understand why I have not heard one iota
about either from any mainstream "news" source or "alternative" energy
show.
snip
so include some links. My email below include several.

FWIW -- an email I sent to my congressional representatives
on this follows. Feel free to use all or any part of it if
you wish to write your own congresspeople.

You can get their names and webmail URLS at
http://senate.gov/ and
http://house.gov/

Be sure and bookmark for easy future nagging.

----- start of email -----
Dear Senator (Representative):

As I am sure you are too well aware, the economic recovery
of the United States has been significantly retarded by a
number of dubious "make-work" projects that have diverted
money, manpower and attention away from productive and
efficient/effective activities. Rather than simply complain
about this, I have three proposals to both help insure
American energy independence and to provide meaningful
employment through domestic infrastructure improvement and
basic industrial capacity expansion.

Any one of these proposals is "stand alone," but if all
three are implemented these should be highly synergistic.
It is highly suggested that these projects be done through
new limited life authorities or GSEs [government sponsored
enterprises] with limited input from existing government
agencies and private companies because the existing
governmental Departments, Agencies, Administrations, etc.,
and the large, nominally American corporations, that should
be promoting these activities are overly committed to the
status quo, and are prone to obstructionism, timidity,
obfuscation and delay, to protect on the one hand their
bureaucratic "turf," and on the other hand their profits and
the perceived value of their obsolescent
processes/products/expertise. Because of the current
"budget crunch," and a historical lack of any measurable
results from its founding in 1977 to the present, it is
further suggested that the funds currently allocated to the
Department of Energy be redirected to these projects.
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/10budg...Highlights.pdf
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/10budget/start.htm


In no particular order:

· Contract with SASOL [a large South African corporation]
to construct and initially operate several domestic US
medium sized coal to petroleum conversion plants. These
plants should be sited as close as possible to existing high
production coal mines to minimize transportation costs.
These plants will produce not only liquid fuels such as
gasoline, diesel and JP4 jet fuel, but also feed stocks for
our petrochemical industries. Note that the waste from this
process will provide feedstock for the next suggested
project. Coal to oil conversion is economically viable when
the price exceeds about 50$US per bbl. The world price is
currently about twice this.
http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/...vid=1&rootid=1

· Commercialize one or more of the existing processes to
extract uranium, thorium and the so-called rare earths from
what are currently waste products such as power station fly
ash and copper processing liquids. If the radionuclides are
extracted, a public health benefit may also result, and a
domestic source of rare earths is strategically important.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html
http://www.indmin.com/Article/236289...rom-waste.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g64832528l7l5682/
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71797664...YL-PHOSPHONATE

· Design for serial production and construct prototypes of
moderate size molten salt cooled/moderated THORIUM fusion
reactors. Because of safety concerns it is suggest that the
working reactors and generators be sited far underground but
close or even in [under] the major metro areas where the
generated power is to be consumed to minimize power
transmission losses. A thorium reactor generates very
little nuclear waste, and this can be [re] processed on site
eliminating any need for transportation or long-term storage
of high-level nuclear wastes. Indeed, a molten salt thorium
reactor can be used to dispose of much of the existing
high-level nuclear waste, while extracting the considerable
amount of energy this waste still contains, thus eliminating
some contentious nuclear power issues such as the Yucca
Mountain storage facility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
http://energyfromthorium.com/joomla/...64&It emid=63

Even here it will be possible to contract with the current
industry leaders in China and India for the construction of
one or more domestic US prototype reactors. The US
pioneered this technology at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratories, but terminated/abandoned this work/technology
in the late 1960s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5DiTPw3dk
http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/2...1051780100.htm

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/chi...nd-japans.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...thorium-power/
http://www.climateactionprogramme.or..._t echnology/

http://amrminerals.co.uk/assets/file...%202010%20.pdf
http://amrminerals.co.uk/assets/file...oject-2011.pdf

There is at least one domestic US private sector company
engaged in thorium reactor research.
http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-can-t...nuclear-energy
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...s-of-reactors/

I would be pleased to discuss these suggestions in greater
detail with you or your staff.

----- end of email -----

As a general rule, unless you have some positive suggestions
or alternatives to a problem, complaining is useless and
even counter-productive.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:49:58 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

Some add-ons to your proposals:
Reducing petroleum dependence and demand in these ways will also have
the effect of reducing petroleum prices, which will help our economy by
reducing shipping costs for goods since they all ultimately are shipped
by semi at some point and EV semis won't be practical for some time.
This will also serve to lower the profits of unfriendly petroleum
friendly countries.

There are at least some who believe the petroleum dependence of the US
is the result of a secret agreement cooked up between Henry Kissinger
when he was acting as SoS and the Arab oil producing countries.

We....the US...will not develop our oil, but will buy it from
you....the Arab counties....as long as you....the Arab
counties....promise to keep oil sales denominated in dollars and to
reinvest some of your oil proceeds in US Government Treasury bills,
i.e., finance the public debt of the US.

This is theorized to be a part of a giant financial double-cross that
will be perpetrated against the Arab nations when the value of US
T-Bills eventually crashes to worthlessness.

Alaska is thought to have more crude the Saudi by persons of this
persuasion. I am sort of prone to agree with this theory of US oil
production. There are known reserves up there, and yet, nobody puts
any taps in the ground. Why?

Further, is oil a "fossil fuel" at all? Did all the dinosaurs go to
Saudi Arabia, die, get covered with sand, and turn into oil? I doubt
that. Oil is thought by many to be an abiotic resource created by
microbes living deep in the Earth's crust and seeping up close to the
surface in the various areas wherein oil is found. The Russians have
done many deep deep wells in Siberia which seems to give credence to
this theory of oil creation.

Oil may, in fact, be a non-depletable resource.
Dave

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

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Sunworshipper wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite, metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Or at least, if you did,
you obviously didn't grasp the facts.

Yeah, nuclear power has risks - so do solar panels and wind turbines
and cars. Cars kill 50,000 people every year - should we ban them too?

There is a big difference Rich.
Automobiles are low risk / small consequence propositions. No car
accident
will ever pose a threat to an economy.
Nuclear generating facilities are tiny risk / HUGE consequence
operations.
Even a single catastrophe can have large and long lasting impact.

Commercial nuclear power has never had a single mass casualty event in
it's decades of operation.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter6.html

"How many people died of radiation? No one knows - not even approximately.
The official casualty reports range from 300 to 300,000 and many unofficial
sources put the toll over 400,000.

The final toll will not be known in our lifetime, and maybe not our
childrens either. "


It has not even had a small scale civilian
casualty event. Opposition to nuclear power is based on ignorance and
paranoia, not any science or rational thought.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:03:34 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

Sunworshipper wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite, metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Or at least, if you did,
you obviously didn't grasp the facts.

Yeah, nuclear power has risks - so do solar panels and wind turbines
and cars. Cars kill 50,000 people every year - should we ban them too?

Thanks,
Rich

How do you figure? What did I get wrong? Sounds like you didn't
understand it. Who said anything about banning them?


SW

lid wrote:




Alaska is thought to have more crude the Saudi by persons of this
persuasion. I am sort of prone to agree with this theory of US oil
production. There are known reserves up there, and yet, nobody puts
any taps in the ground. Why?

Is that an attempt at a pun? The Trans Alaska Pipelne (TAPS) Has been
carrying oil from the North slope of Alaska for 30 years. The field is
already in decline. Even if the restricted wildlife area was included
half the oil has already been extracted. The size of the entire Alaskan
North slope oil is at most maybe 5% of the Arabian oil fields.

Rich Grise wrote:


Well, we won't get this until we break the liberal/union deathgrip on
our children's minds and the taxpayers' wallets.


You want the taxpayers to finance nuclear energy?
Private investors won't put their money down

And I'm curious how unions grip children's minds
and how that ties into nuclear energy
Are you expecting children to build nuclear power plants?


Thanks,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

sounds more like richard the socialist.

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

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

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Sunworshipper wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite, metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Or at least, if you did,
you obviously didn't grasp the facts.

Yeah, nuclear power has risks - so do solar panels and wind turbines
and cars. Cars kill 50,000 people every year - should we ban them too?

There is a big difference Rich.
Automobiles are low risk / small consequence propositions. No car
accident
will ever pose a threat to an economy.
Nuclear generating facilities are tiny risk / HUGE consequence
operations.
Even a single catastrophe can have large and long lasting impact.

Commercial nuclear power has never had a single mass casualty event in
it's decades of operation.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter6.html

"How many people died of radiation? No one knows - not even approximately.
The official casualty reports range from 300 to 300,000 and many unofficial
sources put the toll over 400,000.

The final toll will not be known in our lifetime, and maybe not our
childrens either. "

It has not even had a small scale civilian
casualty event. Opposition to nuclear power is based on ignorance and
paranoia, not any science or rational thought.

Again, commercial nuclear power generation has never had a single mass
casualty event in it's decades of operation. Chernobyl *was not* a
commercial power reactor.

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

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

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

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Sunworshipper wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."


http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite,
metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots
wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Or at least, if you
did,
you obviously didn't grasp the facts.

Yeah, nuclear power has risks - so do solar panels and wind turbines
and cars. Cars kill 50,000 people every year - should we ban them
too?

There is a big difference Rich.
Automobiles are low risk / small consequence propositions. No car
accident
will ever pose a threat to an economy.
Nuclear generating facilities are tiny risk / HUGE consequence
operations.
Even a single catastrophe can have large and long lasting impact.

Commercial nuclear power has never had a single mass casualty event in
it's decades of operation.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter6.html

"How many people died of radiation? No one knows - not even
approximately.
The official casualty reports range from 300 to 300,000 and many
unofficial
sources put the toll over 400,000.

The final toll will not be known in our lifetime, and maybe not our
childrens either. "

It has not even had a small scale civilian
casualty event. Opposition to nuclear power is based on ignorance and
paranoia, not any science or rational thought.

Again, commercial nuclear power generation has never had a single mass
casualty event in it's decades of operation. Chernobyl *was not* a
commercial power reactor.

Whether it was commercial or not has almost zero statistical significance.

--

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:15:04 -0700 (PDT), oldjag
wrote:
snip
Given the huge potential impact LFTR and liquid fuels generation could
have on our economy I can not understand why I have not heard one iota
about either from any mainstream "news" source or "alternative" energy
show.
snip
so include some links. My email below include several.

FWIW -- an email I sent to my congressional representatives
on this follows. Feel free to use all or any part of it if
you wish to write your own congresspeople.

You can get their names and webmail URLS at
http://senate.gov/ and
http://house.gov/

Be sure and bookmark for easy future nagging.

----- start of email -----
Dear Senator (Representative):

As I am sure you are too well aware, the economic recovery
of the United States has been significantly retarded by a
number of dubious "make-work" projects that have diverted
money, manpower and attention away from productive and
efficient/effective activities. Rather than simply complain
about this, I have three proposals to both help insure
American energy independence and to provide meaningful
employment through domestic infrastructure improvement and
basic industrial capacity expansion.

Any one of these proposals is "stand alone," but if all
three are implemented these should be highly synergistic.
It is highly suggested that these projects be done through
new limited life authorities or GSEs [government sponsored
enterprises] with limited input from existing government
agencies and private companies because the existing
governmental Departments, Agencies, Administrations, etc.,
and the large, nominally American corporations, that should
be promoting these activities are overly committed to the
status quo, and are prone to obstructionism, timidity,
obfuscation and delay, to protect on the one hand their
bureaucratic "turf," and on the other hand their profits and
the perceived value of their obsolescent
processes/products/expertise. Because of the current
"budget crunch," and a historical lack of any measurable
results from its founding in 1977 to the present, it is
further suggested that the funds currently allocated to the
Department of Energy be redirected to these projects.
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/10budg...Highlights.pdf
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/10budget/start.htm


In no particular order:

· Contract with SASOL [a large South African corporation]
to construct and initially operate several domestic US
medium sized coal to petroleum conversion plants. These
plants should be sited as close as possible to existing high
production coal mines to minimize transportation costs.
These plants will produce not only liquid fuels such as
gasoline, diesel and JP4 jet fuel, but also feed stocks for
our petrochemical industries. Note that the waste from this
process will provide feedstock for the next suggested
project. Coal to oil conversion is economically viable when
the price exceeds about 50$US per bbl. The world price is
currently about twice this.
http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/...vid=1&rootid=1


This project is sitting about 20 miles south of me in Manahoy City, PA.
The project has been stopped in its tracks when the government pulled
the committed funds from the project. This area is sitting on the
largest antricite hard coal deposit in the world. If these projects
would get set up the oil industry would have some competition and that
sure would be a problem for them.




http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&c...pi&btnG=Search




John




· Commercialize one or more of the existing processes to
extract uranium, thorium and the so-called rare earths from
what are currently waste products such as power station fly
ash and copper processing liquids. If the radionuclides are
extracted, a public health benefit may also result, and a
domestic source of rare earths is strategically important.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html
http://www.indmin.com/Article/236289...rom-waste.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g64832528l7l5682/
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71797664...YL-PHOSPHONATE

· Design for serial production and construct prototypes of
moderate size molten salt cooled/moderated THORIUM fusion
reactors. Because of safety concerns it is suggest that the
working reactors and generators be sited far underground but
close or even in [under] the major metro areas where the
generated power is to be consumed to minimize power
transmission losses. A thorium reactor generates very
little nuclear waste, and this can be [re] processed on site
eliminating any need for transportation or long-term storage
of high-level nuclear wastes. Indeed, a molten salt thorium
reactor can be used to dispose of much of the existing
high-level nuclear waste, while extracting the considerable
amount of energy this waste still contains, thus eliminating
some contentious nuclear power issues such as the Yucca
Mountain storage facility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
http://energyfromthorium.com/joomla/...64&It emid=63

Even here it will be possible to contract with the current
industry leaders in China and India for the construction of
one or more domestic US prototype reactors. The US
pioneered this technology at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratories, but terminated/abandoned this work/technology
in the late 1960s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5DiTPw3dk
http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/2...1051780100.htm

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/chi...nd-japans.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...thorium-power/
http://www.climateactionprogramme.or..._t echnology/

http://amrminerals.co.uk/assets/file...%202010%20.pdf
http://amrminerals.co.uk/assets/file...oject-2011.pdf

There is at least one domestic US private sector company
engaged in thorium reactor research.
http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-can-t...nuclear-energy
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...s-of-reactors/

I would be pleased to discuss these suggestions in greater
detail with you or your staff.

----- end of email -----

As a general rule, unless you have some positive suggestions
or alternatives to a problem, complaining is useless and
even counter-productive.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:10:55 -0500, jim
wrote:

SNIP
You want the taxpayers to finance nuclear energy?
Private investors won't put their money down
SNIP

The unstated assumption is that this is the "free market" at
work {that the "free market" is always right...} and the
"investors" are carefully calculating risk v reward.
Because of the excessively high concentrations of
wealth/income, disfunctional banks with toxic assets,
financial/credit distortions because of the "carry trade,"
and the fact that many of the potential players have vested
interests in existing technology such as coal, and the
status quo, this does not appear to be the case.

On the other hand attempts by government to operate anything
on a continuing basis from the post office to Freddy and
Fanny do not inspire much confidence either. However, the
early years of some governmental authorities, such as the
TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority[, GRDA [Grand River Dam
Authority in Oklahoma], and the early decades of
Freddy/Fanny do appear to have resulted in genuine economic
advances for the bulk of the American people.

One possible alternative is the creation of limited lifespan
authorities or government sponsored enterprises [GSEs] to
construct and operate a number of full scale pilot plants
for coal liquifacation/synthetic petroleum, thorium molten
salt fission reactors, and fissile material/rare earth
recovery operations from [currently] industrial wastes such
as fly ash, etc. to demonstrate the economic viability and
safety of these processes. IMNSHO a very useful partnership
with a thorium reactor authority would be with a proven
record of successful operation of their municipal power
system such as Los Angeles, with one or more of the reactors
buried deeply underground for safety, but within the city
limits, minimizing transmission losses and costs. Another
possibility for coastal cities such as Los Angeles and New
York with the availability of cheap nuclear power is
desalinization of sea water, eliminating an enormous
continuing municipal/state expense to impound and transport
potable water long distances. As soon as profits begin to
be generated, there will be a huge demand to privatize and
expand these operations.

When pigs fly...


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

lid wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:49:58 -0600, "Pete
wrote:

Some add-ons to your proposals:
Reducing petroleum dependence and demand in these ways will also have
the effect of reducing petroleum prices, which will help our economy by
reducing shipping costs for goods since they all ultimately are shipped
by semi at some point and EV semis won't be practical for some time.
This will also serve to lower the profits of unfriendly petroleum
friendly countries.

There are at least some who believe the petroleum dependence of the US
is the result of a secret agreement cooked up between Henry Kissinger
when he was acting as SoS and the Arab oil producing countries.

We....the US...will not develop our oil, but will buy it from
you....the Arab counties....as long as you....the Arab
counties....promise to keep oil sales denominated in dollars and to
reinvest some of your oil proceeds in US Government Treasury bills,
i.e., finance the public debt of the US.

This is theorized to be a part of a giant financial double-cross that
will be perpetrated against the Arab nations when the value of US
T-Bills eventually crashes to worthlessness.

Alaska is thought to have more crude the Saudi by persons of this
persuasion. I am sort of prone to agree with this theory of US oil
production. There are known reserves up there, and yet, nobody puts
any taps in the ground. Why?

Further, is oil a "fossil fuel" at all? Did all the dinosaurs go to
Saudi Arabia, die, get covered with sand, and turn into oil? I doubt
that. Oil is thought by many to be an abiotic resource created by
microbes living deep in the Earth's crust and seeping up close to the
surface in the various areas wherein oil is found. The Russians have
done many deep deep wells in Siberia which seems to give credence to
this theory of oil creation.

Oil may, in fact, be a non-depletable resource.
Dave


The same process that converts coal or carbon into oil using the Fischer
Tropich process occurs naturally in the ground. Carbon, steam under
high pressure, and a catalyst being iron is about all that is needed
to make oil. Or the world was once wall to wall dinosaurs.

John

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

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

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

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

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Sunworshipper wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."


http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite,
metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots
wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Or at least, if you
did,
you obviously didn't grasp the facts.

Yeah, nuclear power has risks - so do solar panels and wind turbines
and cars. Cars kill 50,000 people every year - should we ban them
too?

There is a big difference Rich.
Automobiles are low risk / small consequence propositions. No car
accident
will ever pose a threat to an economy.
Nuclear generating facilities are tiny risk / HUGE consequence
operations.
Even a single catastrophe can have large and long lasting impact.

Commercial nuclear power has never had a single mass casualty event in
it's decades of operation.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter6.html

"How many people died of radiation? No one knows - not even
approximately.
The official casualty reports range from 300 to 300,000 and many
unofficial
sources put the toll over 400,000.

The final toll will not be known in our lifetime, and maybe not our
childrens either. "

It has not even had a small scale civilian
casualty event. Opposition to nuclear power is based on ignorance and
paranoia, not any science or rational thought.

Again, commercial nuclear power generation has never had a single mass
casualty event in it's decades of operation. Chernobyl *was not* a
commercial power reactor.

Whether it was commercial or not has almost zero statistical significance.

It has tremendous statistical significance. Chernobyl had a poor reactor
design that was never used in any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl
had a non-existant containment design that was never used in any
commercial power reactor. Chernobyl was poorly maintained, far below the
maintenance level of any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl only failed
when some idiots were allowed to play with the reactor, something that
does not happen at any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl has no
relation to commercial power reactors.

On 2011-03-15, Pete C. wrote:

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

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

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

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

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Sunworshipper wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."


http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite,
metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots
wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Or at least, if you
did,
you obviously didn't grasp the facts.

Yeah, nuclear power has risks - so do solar panels and wind turbines
and cars. Cars kill 50,000 people every year - should we ban them
too?

There is a big difference Rich.
Automobiles are low risk / small consequence propositions. No car
accident
will ever pose a threat to an economy.
Nuclear generating facilities are tiny risk / HUGE consequence
operations.
Even a single catastrophe can have large and long lasting impact.

Commercial nuclear power has never had a single mass casualty event in
it's decades of operation.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter6.html

"How many people died of radiation? No one knows - not even
approximately.
The official casualty reports range from 300 to 300,000 and many
unofficial
sources put the toll over 400,000.

The final toll will not be known in our lifetime, and maybe not our
childrens either. "

It has not even had a small scale civilian
casualty event. Opposition to nuclear power is based on ignorance and
paranoia, not any science or rational thought.

Again, commercial nuclear power generation has never had a single mass
casualty event in it's decades of operation. Chernobyl *was not* a
commercial power reactor.

Whether it was commercial or not has almost zero statistical significance.

It has tremendous statistical significance. Chernobyl had a poor reactor
design that was never used in any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl
had a non-existant containment design that was never used in any
commercial power reactor. Chernobyl was poorly maintained, far below the
maintenance level of any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl only failed
when some idiots were allowed to play with the reactor, something that
does not happen at any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl has no
relation to commercial power reactors.

It has some relation, but I agree.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:48 -0500, jim
wrote:

wrote:




Alaska is thought to have more crude the Saudi by persons of this
persuasion. I am sort of prone to agree with this theory of US oil
production. There are known reserves up there, and yet, nobody puts
any taps in the ground. Why?

Is that an attempt at a pun? The Trans Alaska Pipelne (TAPS) Has been
carrying oil from the North slope of Alaska for 30 years. The field is
already in decline. Even if the restricted wildlife area was included
half the oil has already been extracted. The size of the entire Alaskan
North slope oil is at most maybe 5% of the Arabian oil fields.

Apparently, much exploration was done in Alaska, many oil deposits
discovered, and said discoveries were stamped "Classified" and not
developed due to the Henry K. agreement with the OPEC countries.

Much of this is detailed in a book called "The Energy Non-Crisis"
written by Lindsey Williams.

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

The supplies of oil are being manipulated by the globalist one world
government crowd and used as a tool to carry out their agenda. This
makes sense to me. Your mileage may vary.
Dave

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:15:50 -0400, John
wrote:
snip
· Contract with SASOL [a large South African corporation]
to construct and initially operate several domestic US
medium sized coal to petroleum conversion plants. These
plants should be sited as close as possible to existing high
production coal mines to minimize transportation costs.
These plants will produce not only liquid fuels such as
gasoline, diesel and JP4 jet fuel, but also feed stocks for
our petrochemical industries. Note that the waste from this
process will provide feedstock for the next suggested
project. Coal to oil conversion is economically viable when
the price exceeds about 50$US per bbl. The world price is
currently about twice this.
http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/...vid=1&rootid=1


This project is sitting about 20 miles south of me in Manahoy City, PA.
The project has been stopped in its tracks when the government pulled
the committed funds from the project. This area is sitting on the
largest antricite hard coal deposit in the world. If these projects
would get set up the oil industry would have some competition and that
sure would be a problem for them.




http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&c...pi&btnG=Search

snip
========
Thanks for the information and the link. Another item to
write my congresspersons on.

Evidence continues to mount that the so called US energy
shortage is totally a created artifact to maintain the price
of imported oil and the market position of the
importers/speculators.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

The group may find it interesting to review the history of
steam explosions/disasters.

Of course, nuclear plants are steam plants but heated by the
reactor rather than coal, but downstream from the reactor
the problems/challanges are the same. It is sobering to
realize just how many of today's problems are due to
carelessness in applying old technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiler_explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Ne...team_explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boiler_explosions
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...D95F44 8684F9
http://www.google.com/search?q=histo...&ved=0COIBEKsE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_explosion
http://trade-metal.com/steam-explosi...orp-p6773.html
http://www.engineeringexpert.net/Eng...team-explosion
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_94666562/



some nuclear specific steam explosion articles
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...ifs=yes&ref=no
http://stresa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sarne...ic/fzk/ECO.pdf



-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

I wonder how many honor suicides will be performed?
Hari-Kari, did they call it?

Muslims, do honor killings. Japanese, honor suicides.

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


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


You're reading too much into the second explosion. One thing
with
Japanese culture is that they are very focused on following
their
procedures to the letter,

Ignoramus1540 wrote:

On 2011-03-15, Pete C. wrote:

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

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

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

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

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Sunworshipper wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."


http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite,
metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots
wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Or at least, if you
did,
you obviously didn't grasp the facts.

Yeah, nuclear power has risks - so do solar panels and wind turbines
and cars. Cars kill 50,000 people every year - should we ban them
too?

There is a big difference Rich.
Automobiles are low risk / small consequence propositions. No car
accident
will ever pose a threat to an economy.
Nuclear generating facilities are tiny risk / HUGE consequence
operations.
Even a single catastrophe can have large and long lasting impact.

Commercial nuclear power has never had a single mass casualty event in
it's decades of operation.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter6.html

"How many people died of radiation? No one knows - not even
approximately.
The official casualty reports range from 300 to 300,000 and many
unofficial
sources put the toll over 400,000.

The final toll will not be known in our lifetime, and maybe not our
childrens either. "

It has not even had a small scale civilian
casualty event. Opposition to nuclear power is based on ignorance and
paranoia, not any science or rational thought.

Again, commercial nuclear power generation has never had a single mass
casualty event in it's decades of operation. Chernobyl *was not* a
commercial power reactor.

Whether it was commercial or not has almost zero statistical significance.

It has tremendous statistical significance. Chernobyl had a poor reactor
design that was never used in any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl
had a non-existant containment design that was never used in any
commercial power reactor. Chernobyl was poorly maintained, far below the
maintenance level of any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl only failed
when some idiots were allowed to play with the reactor, something that
does not happen at any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl has no
relation to commercial power reactors.

It has some relation, but I agree.

It relates the same way a Model T relates to a Ferrari.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:10:55 -0500, jim
wrote:

SNIP
You want the taxpayers to finance nuclear energy?
Private investors won't put their money down
SNIP

The unstated assumption is that this is the "free market" at
work {that the "free market" is always right...} and the
"investors" are carefully calculating risk v reward.
Because of the excessively high concentrations of
wealth/income, disfunctional banks with toxic assets,
financial/credit distortions because of the "carry trade,"
and the fact that many of the potential players have vested
interests in existing technology such as coal, and the
status quo, this does not appear to be the case.

There is no doubt that it is not a free market,
but that doesn't mean market forces have disappeared.

The lesson that wall street learned from 3 mile island incident is that
the operators of a nuclear plant can turn a 1 billion dollar investment
into a 2 billion dollar liability in just a couple hours.




On the other hand attempts by government to operate anything
on a continuing basis from the post office to Freddy and
Fanny do not inspire much confidence either. However, the
early years of some governmental authorities, such as the
TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority[, GRDA [Grand River Dam
Authority in Oklahoma], and the early decades of
Freddy/Fanny do appear to have resulted in genuine economic
advances for the bulk of the American people.

The only way Nuclear power plants will be built in the US is if the
government is the party responsible to clean up the type of mess that is
now happening in Japan. But that sort of arrangement isn't going to sit
well with the majority of the US public.

If the arrangement is that as long as things go well
the investors take their profits, but as soon as things go wrong
the investors walk away and the govt. steps in
and spends the billions to clean up and contain the mess
then under that arrangement yes many power plants would be built.

But if the investors are held responsible for
cleaning up any mess thaty may occur
they simply aren't going to build in the first place.



One possible alternative is the creation of limited lifespan
authorities or government sponsored enterprises [GSEs] to
construct and operate a number of full scale pilot plants
for coal liquifacation/synthetic petroleum, thorium molten
salt fission reactors, and fissile material/rare earth
recovery operations from [currently] industrial wastes such
as fly ash, etc. to demonstrate the economic viability and
safety of these processes.

Sure but that is socialism.
You want the government competing directly against
the oil companies
and immediately half the population of the US
gets the image in their head that the oil companies
are wounded baby birds that big bad government
has knocked from their warm cozy nests.



IMNSHO a very useful partnership
with a thorium reactor authority would be with a proven
record of successful operation of their municipal power
system such as Los Angeles, with one or more of the reactors
buried deeply underground for safety, but within the city
limits, minimizing transmission losses and costs. Another
possibility for coastal cities such as Los Angeles and New
York with the availability of cheap nuclear power is
desalinization of sea water, eliminating an enormous
continuing municipal/state expense to impound and transport
potable water long distances. As soon as profits begin to
be generated, there will be a huge demand to privatize and
expand these operations.

You are beginning to sound like Gadaffi

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



When pigs fly...


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:46:46 -0400, lid wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:48 -0500, jim
wrote:

wrote:




Alaska is thought to have more crude the Saudi by persons of this
persuasion. I am sort of prone to agree with this theory of US oil
production. There are known reserves up there, and yet, nobody puts
any taps in the ground. Why?

Is that an attempt at a pun? The Trans Alaska Pipelne (TAPS) Has been
carrying oil from the North slope of Alaska for 30 years. The field is
already in decline. Even if the restricted wildlife area was included
half the oil has already been extracted. The size of the entire Alaskan
North slope oil is at most maybe 5% of the Arabian oil fields.

Apparently, much exploration was done in Alaska, many oil deposits
discovered, and said discoveries were stamped "Classified" and not
developed due to the Henry K. agreement with the OPEC countries.

Much of this is detailed in a book called "The Energy Non-Crisis"
written by Lindsey Williams.

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

The supplies of oil are being manipulated by the globalist one world
government crowd and used as a tool to carry out their agenda. This
makes sense to me. Your mileage may vary.
Dave

That is basically what I over heard from a oil/geologist back around
'69-'70. Book marked to start reading later.


SW

On 3/15/2011 9:38 AM, jim wrote:
The only way Nuclear power plants will be built in the US is if the
government is the party responsible to clean up the type of mess that is
now happening in Japan. But that sort of arrangement isn't going to sit
well with the majority of the US public.

If the arrangement is that as long as things go well
the investors take their profits, but as soon as things go wrong
the investors walk away and the govt. steps in
and spends the billions to clean up and contain the mess
then under that arrangement yes many power plants would be built.

Gee, socialism for corporations? That'll never happen here, lol....

--
:3 )~

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:15:50 -0400, John
wrote:

This project is sitting about 20 miles south of me in Manahoy City, PA.
The project has been stopped in its tracks when the government pulled
the committed funds from the project. This area is sitting on the
largest antricite hard coal deposit in the world. If these projects
would get set up the oil industry would have some competition and that
sure would be a problem for them.


I know that area. Was extensively mined and towns with eery lack of
people. It was like yesterday that I remember being chauffeured past
miles of strip mining and my major tree hugging girl friend was
bitching about how they just raped the land and left. She recently
****ed me off so I jokingly took the devils advocate side and she flew
off into a fit until she was so hot that I just let it go. Her other
button was just as hot ! They could have at least contoured the land
so it wouldn't look like a mine. We went to a ghost town that use to
be a mining town where the mine owned the land and stores.


SW

"Sunworshipper" SW@GWNTUNDRA wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:15:50 -0400, John
wrote:

This project is sitting about 20 miles south of me in Manahoy City, PA.
The project has been stopped in its tracks when the government pulled
the committed funds from the project. This area is sitting on the
largest antricite hard coal deposit in the world. If these projects
would get set up the oil industry would have some competition and that
sure would be a problem for them.


I know that area. Was extensively mined and towns with eery lack of
people. It was like yesterday that I remember being chauffeured past
miles of strip mining and my major tree hugging girl friend was
bitching about how they just raped the land and left. She recently
****ed me off so I jokingly took the devils advocate side and she flew
off into a fit until she was so hot that I just let it go. Her other
button was just as hot ! They could have at least contoured the land
so it wouldn't look like a mine. We went to a ghost town that use to
be a mining town where the mine owned the land and stores.


SW

Did you see the town of Centralia? I used to play Little League ball against
their team, when I lived in Bloomsburg. Nice town. Now is has, I think, 5
residents. The seam under it has been burning since 1962. Heating a house
there must be cheap.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:29:15 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Sunworshipper" SW@GWNTUNDRA wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:15:50 -0400, John
wrote:

This project is sitting about 20 miles south of me in Manahoy City, PA.
The project has been stopped in its tracks when the government pulled
the committed funds from the project. This area is sitting on the
largest antricite hard coal deposit in the world. If these projects
would get set up the oil industry would have some competition and that
sure would be a problem for them.


I know that area. Was extensively mined and towns with eery lack of
people. It was like yesterday that I remember being chauffeured past
miles of strip mining and my major tree hugging girl friend was
bitching about how they just raped the land and left. She recently
****ed me off so I jokingly took the devils advocate side and she flew
off into a fit until she was so hot that I just let it go. Her other
button was just as hot ! They could have at least contoured the land
so it wouldn't look like a mine. We went to a ghost town that use to
be a mining town where the mine owned the land and stores.


SW

Did you see the town of Centralia? I used to play Little League ball against
their team, when I lived in Bloomsburg. Nice town. Now is has, I think, 5
residents. The seam under it has been burning since 1962. Heating a house
there must be cheap.


Not if it was burning in the late 80's, but all those names ring a
bell. I wasn't driving that day or I could tell you. There were only
about 3 buildings where we went and no smoke, I would have wanted to
see that. One thing for sure is that google earth is scary cause I
know my way around there and stayed a week, plus I think I've been
captured a number of times on ge. What would be really cool is an up
to date satellite images.

Small world, eh? I don't think I spent more than three years in one
place until I was 30+ and 2-4k a year average till 21. I found the
area very relaxing, but the lack of people kinda got to me. Surely
didn't feel like being watched though. There was a big school in the
town I was at and gave me a weird time travel feeling or like The
Children of Men movie where mankind went sterile. There is another
town like that in NM or west Texas some say Sonora Tx. that is right
out of Twilight Zone show. Even the newspapers blown down the road are
in slow motion.


SW

John R. Carroll wrote:

The probability of a car causing a big mess is zero.

I guess that depends how you define "big mess." Crashing head-on into
a school bus and killing a bunch of kids qualifies as a "big mess" in my
book.

Thanks,
Rich

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message

Again, commercial nuclear power generation has never had a single mass
casualty event in it's decades of operation. Chernobyl *was not* a
commercial power reactor.

Whether it was commercial or not has almost zero statistical significance.

Don't forget it was build and maintained by drunken Russians under a
Communist regime.

Thanks,
Rich