Subject

It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.

In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
tsunamis.

So much for that back up.

Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right
on the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.

This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate
less than 2 miles away.

It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
during emergency reactor shut down.

Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.

Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in
recent years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and
underground diesel storage tanks.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
flywheel approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are
they depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?

Cranking motor and battery is less costly.

2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.

3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
earthquake country?

As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
territory out there.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
b.com...


Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.

Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
diesel storage tanks.

Tonight on the BBC there was video of what is left of the *massive* walls
meant to protect a particular Japanese town from tsunami damage. These
enormous steel-reinforced concrete structures, as thick as they are high
(think yards, not feet), were broken up into gigantic chunks that completely
failed to protect the town which for all purposes no longer exists. A 30 ft
wall? Talk about false security.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
b.com...
Subject

It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.

In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the tsunamis.

So much for that back up.

Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right on
the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.

This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
than 2 miles away.

It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during
emergency reactor shut down.

Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.

Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
diesel storage tanks.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning flywheel
approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?

Cranking motor and battery is less costly.

2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.

3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
earthquake country?

As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
territory out there.

I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.

So much for that back up.

At Chernobyl, the nuke reacto'rs controls ran on electricity FROM THE
GRID. That boggles my mind, that a nuke plant used to generate huge
amounts of electricity ran on electricity off the grid. The backup
generators took over 1 minute after grid failure to generate power,
which was too long. So they were doing an experiment to see if the
turbines had enough angular momentum after shutdown to produce enough
power to run the controls to bridge the one-minute gap. They botched
the experiment, the rest is history.

Hurricane Katrina caused a a surge of water in Lake Pontchetrain that
pushed the retaining walls some 30 ft backwards, like pushing a throw
rug on a slick floor. Of course they failed.

Mother Nature bats last, every game.

Here's a few good reads:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individ...nobyl_disaster
(Brutal descriptions of the effects of radiation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_K._Daghlian,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin (They did experiments on
"critical mass" using a lump of plutonium, a hand-held lid and a
screwdriver)

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...
Subject

It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.

In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the tsunamis.

So much for that back up.

Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right on
the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.

This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
than 2 miles away.

It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during
emergency reactor shut down.

Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.

Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
diesel storage tanks.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning flywheel
approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?

Cranking motor and battery is less costly.

2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.

3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
earthquake country?

As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
territory out there.

I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.

Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
operating.

Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
them.

Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

On 03/17/2011 08:01 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500,
wrote:


"Lew wrote in message
b.com...
Subject

It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.

In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the tsunamis.

So much for that back up.

Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right on
the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.

This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
than 2 miles away.

It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during
emergency reactor shut down.

Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.

Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
diesel storage tanks.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning flywheel
approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?

Cranking motor and battery is less costly.

2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.

3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
earthquake country?

As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
territory out there.

I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.

Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
operating.

Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
them.

Rain? Arizona?


Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

On 3/17/2011 8:01 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500,
wrote:


"Lew wrote in message
b.com...
Subject

It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.

In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the tsunamis.

So much for that back up.

Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right on
the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.

This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
than 2 miles away.

It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during
emergency reactor shut down.

Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.

Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
diesel storage tanks.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning flywheel
approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?

Cranking motor and battery is less costly.

2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.

3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
earthquake country?

As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
territory out there.

I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.

Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
operating.

Coal-fired power plants already produce half of USA's electricity.
EPA-mandated scrubbers make the plants low polluters. They are already
running near capacity. They, and all other sources for generating
electricity combined, don't have enough reserve capacity to pick up the
slack if the nuclear power plants were all taken off line. And it takes
years not months to build new plants.

One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.

Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
them.

Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

On 3/17/2011 1:37 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/17/2011 8:01 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500,
wrote:


"Lew wrote in message
b.com...
Subject

It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.

In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
tsunamis.

So much for that back up.

Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station
right on
the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.

This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate
less
than 2 miles away.

It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
during
emergency reactor shut down.

Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.

Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in
recent
years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
diesel storage tanks.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
flywheel
approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?

Cranking motor and battery is less costly.

2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.

3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
earthquake country?

As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
territory out there.

I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go
back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a
matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all
of the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.

Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
operating.

Coal-fired power plants already produce half of USA's electricity.
EPA-mandated scrubbers make the plants low polluters. They are already
running near capacity. They, and all other sources for generating
electricity combined, don't have enough reserve capacity to pick up the
slack if the nuclear power plants were all taken off line. And it takes
years not months to build new plants.

One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.

Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
them.

Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

One thing people do not realize is they can not get away from natural
radiation. Radiation comes from concrete, stone, and many other
sources. Then don't forget we are bombarded by radiation of the sun
and other sources every minute of our lives.

There is probably more radiation from the Containment vessel of a Nuke
plant than from the reaction that is contained in side.

Live with it there as there is no way to live with out it.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...


One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.


What? That's pretty misleading. A bit like saying a smoky old diesel is
environmentally sound because it doesn't give you any problem with
radioactive waste that has to be stored securely for several hundred years
because it is so dangerous for the environment.

Tim W

"k-nuttle" wrote in message
...

One thing people do not realize is they can not get away from natural
radiation. Radiation comes from concrete, stone, and many other sources.
Then don't forget we are bombarded by radiation of the sun and other
sources every minute of our lives.

There is probably more radiation from the Containment vessel of a Nuke
plant than from the reaction that is contained in side.


Staggeringly wrong.

Tim W

On Mar 17, 2:19*pm, Stuart wrote:
In article m,
* *Lew Hodgett wrote:

1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
flywheel approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are
they depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?

Big standby diesels often use compressed air start.

--
Stuart Winsor

Midland RISC OS show - Sat July 9th 2011

The really big ones cannot be started any other way.

On Mar 17, 12:35*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Subject

It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.

In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
tsunamis.

So much for that back up.

Want some really scary stuff?

http://tinyurl.com/4tvxwgs

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...


Coal-fired power plants already produce half of USA's electricity.
EPA-mandated scrubbers make the plants low polluters.

Low by whose standards? The mercury accumulating in our food chain is not
exactly healthy stuff, and one in six American babies has been exposed to
dangerous levels of mercury in utero.

One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.

Until there is an accident, then the nuke plant catches up, including the
ones the Navy has had a few little accidents with resulting in things like
contaminated water being released into harbors. The Navy took one of its
early and unsuccessful submarine reactors, encased it in stainless steel,
and sunk it in the ocean. They went looking for it years later, couldn't
find it.

And then there is the issue of what to do with the spent fuel....

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
web.com...
Subject

It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.

In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
tsunamis.

So much for that back up.

Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right
on
the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.

This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
than 2 miles away.

It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
during
emergency reactor shut down.

Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.

Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
diesel storage tanks.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
flywheel
approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?

Cranking motor and battery is less costly.

2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.

3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
earthquake country?

As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
territory out there.

I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of
the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.

Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
operating.

Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
them.

Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!

I believe they would prefer that than a scenario like Japan has right now.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
On 3/17/2011 8:01 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500,
wrote:


"Lew wrote in message
b.com...
Subject

It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.

In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
tsunamis.

So much for that back up.

Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right
on
the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.

This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate
less
than 2 miles away.

It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
during
emergency reactor shut down.

Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.

Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in
recent
years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
diesel storage tanks.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
flywheel
approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?

Cranking motor and battery is less costly.

2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.

3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
earthquake country?

As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
territory out there.

I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back
to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a
matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of
the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.

Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
operating.

Coal-fired power plants already produce half of USA's electricity.
EPA-mandated scrubbers make the plants low polluters. They are already
running near capacity. They, and all other sources for generating
electricity combined, don't have enough reserve capacity to pick up the
slack if the nuclear power plants were all taken off line. And it takes
years not months to build new plants.

One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.

Even your granite counter tops emit radiation but as far as releasing
radiation from the oil fired plants your statement is not true when compared
to 3 mile island, Chernoble and or the Japan facility and that is the
problem.

On 3/17/2011 3:02 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
....

They're heading towards $1/watt capacity which makes solar competitive
with any other power source.

Only when the sun's shining--I want my lights on at night, too!

--

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:54:17 -0000, "Tim W"
wrote:


"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...


One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.


What? That's pretty misleading. A bit like saying a smoky old diesel is
environmentally sound because it doesn't give you any problem with
radioactive waste that has to be stored securely for several hundred years
because it is so dangerous for the environment.

A smoky old diesel is safer than a smokeless new diesel becaust the
old one put bigass particulates (aka: soot) into the air which
immediately fell to the ground and stayed there. Now, with pollution
controls and low-sulfur fuel (at nearly twice the price as old), the
output from the diesel exhaust is more deadly because it stays in the
air. It _became_ an air pollution problem when it was just an eyesore
before. A truckdrivin' friend of mine is ****ed over that.

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:54:51 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
aweb.com...
Subject

It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.

In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
tsunamis.

So much for that back up.

Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right
on
the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.

This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate less
than 2 miles away.

It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
during
emergency reactor shut down.

Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.

Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in recent
years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
diesel storage tanks.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
flywheel
approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?

Cranking motor and battery is less costly.

2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.

3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
earthquake country?

As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
territory out there.

I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of
the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.

Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
operating.

Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
them.

Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!

I believe they would prefer that than a scenario like Japan has right now.

Prefer which, the hysteria over radiation or the actual losses from
the earthquake AND the tsunami?

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
"Just wrote in message
...


One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.


What? That's pretty misleading. A bit like saying a smoky old diesel is
environmentally sound because it doesn't give you any problem with
radioactive waste that has to be stored securely for several hundred years
because it is so dangerous for the environment.


You're being misleading yourself by selectively clipping the prior
posts. I was responding to "Leon"'s comment where he said, "I think
California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity." I don't see how it's
misleading to point out a couple of fallacies in that statement.

Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far less
radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?

On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
"Just wrote in message
...


One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.


What? That's pretty misleading. A bit like saying a smoky old diesel is
environmentally sound because it doesn't give you any problem with
radioactive waste that has to be stored securely for several hundred years
because it is so dangerous for the environment.


From December 13, 2007 Scientific American article, "Coal Ash Is More
Radioactive than Nuclear Waste",

.... the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than
that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash
emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for
electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more
radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
....
The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are
slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat
higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion
for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million
to one in a hundred million for coal plants."
....
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a
power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via
water or dry cask storage.

The whole article can be read at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

On 3/17/2011 1:02 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article9uidnW7sGfDNmh_QnZ2dnUVZ5tadnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:


I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.

We're working on it. Wind, solar, geothermal. All under development.
All clean. All using free fuel.


The "fuel" may be free, but the technology to harness and distribute the
energy is still very expensive. Moreover:

1. Wind power is dependent on the wind. There are very few locations
with a dependable wind source. And there's not enough wind power
available, even if used 100%, to make much of a dent in a nation's
energy needs.

2. Solar power works only when the sun is shining. It would be
possible to build huge solar power farms, and use excess daytime
capacity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn the
hydrogen when the sun isn't available. Until solar can be made more
efficient, that solution is cost prohibitive. The inventor who makes it
cost-effective may become the richest man on the planet.

3. As with wind power, there are few geothermal heat sources available.
As with solar power, the technology to use geothermal for wholesale
electricity generation, as opposed to heating a building, is inefficient
and cost prohibitive.

One could even harness the tides and ocean currents. There are any
number of other means of obtaining energy from the environment. All are
inefficient and expensive, and will remain so for the near future.
There is no cost-effective alternative to current technologies on the
near horizon. While development of those alternative technologies
should certainly be encouraged, the fact remains that for the reasonable
foreseeable future we are going to have to meet our energy needs
primarily through nuclear power and fossil fuels.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:54:51 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:06:23 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
raweb.com...
Subject

It appears that one of the back up safety controls is to use back up
diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power during emergency
reactor shut downs.

In Japan, these engine/generator sets have been wiped out by the
tsunamis.

So much for that back up.

Here in SoCal, we have the San Onofre nuclear generating station right
on
the shore line about half way between Los Angeles and San Diego.

This is residential country with some high priced SoCal real-estate
less
than 2 miles away.

It also has a diesel engine/generator sets to provide control power
during
emergency reactor shut down.

Earlier this week the plant mgr was interviewed one of the local TV
stations.

Plant mgr was very proud of the San Onofre design improvements in
recent
years including the construction of a 30 ft high wall and underground
diesel storage tanks.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Are the diesels automatically started by a clutch and spinning
flywheel
approach used by the Las Vegas casinos 50+ years ago, or are they
depending on a standard cranking motor and battery?

Cranking motor and battery is less costly.

2) I personally question whether a 30 ft retaining wall is enough,
probably needs at least another 5-7 ft.

3) How do you build a safe diesel fuel storage vessel underground in
earthquake country?

As we are finding out, there is a lot of uncharted nuclear energy
territory out there.

I think California should shut down all nuclear facilities and go back
to
conventional ways of generating elecricity. I suspect it is only a
matter
of time before this polution cutter will bite you in the ass like all of
the
others have. California seems to believe it can live in a cleaner
environment than the rest of the country but obviousely cannot afford or
engeneer methods support those wishes.

Yeah, let's see how those idiot greenies like living with coalfired
plants spewing godawful amounts of heat and pollution all over them
while mile-long trains of coal run hourly to the plants to keep them
operating.

Let's see how long Arizona and Nevada put up with the acid rain from
them.

Boy, howdy! This oughta be _good_!

I believe they would prefer that than a scenario like Japan has right now.

Prefer which, the hysteria over radiation or the actual losses from
the earthquake AND the tsunami?

Wait and see what happens from the fall out and the hysteria from fall out
that is going to happen.

On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
"Just wrote in message
...


One thing most people don't realize is that radioactive materials are
present in fossil fuels. Coal and oil fired power plants release more
radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant does.


What? That's pretty misleading. A bit like saying a smoky old diesel is
environmentally sound because it doesn't give you any problem with
radioactive waste that has to be stored securely for several hundred
years
because it is so dangerous for the environment.


From December 13, 2007 Scientific American article, "Coal Ash Is More
Radioactive than Nuclear Waste",

... the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than
that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash
emitted by a power plant€”a by-product from burning coal for
electricity€”carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more
radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
...
The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are
slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants€”they're just somewhat
higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion
for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million
to one in a hundred million for coal plants."
...
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a
power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via
water or dry cask storage.

The whole article can be read at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.

It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install a
low volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires you to flush
it twice using more water than the old ones.

I wonder if we could increase the volume of facts to flush the nonsense
about the nuclear power plants down the drain with the other stuff.

"k-nuttle" wrote in message
...
On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
"Just wrote in message
...

By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.

It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install a low
volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires you to flush it
twice using more water than the old ones.

Just what are you trying to flush down your toilet that it takes two
flushes? ;~) I was skeptical about the double flush from what I had heard
about until we moved into our new home in December. So far 1 flush is all
that has been necessary althought I was on edge for no reason a time or two.

Since there was a mention of wind energy, take a look at this.

I read about this guy. His approach is very different. He is not going to
solve our overall problems, but he is doing his best to help. Some folks
think Sauer Energy is a hot investment opportunity.

http://www.sauerenergy.com

Just Wondering wrote:


From December 13, 2007 Scientific American article, "Coal Ash Is More
Radioactive than Nuclear Waste",

... the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive
than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly
ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for
electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more
radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of
energy. ...
The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are
slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just
somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance
in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's
one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."
...
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a
power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via
water or dry cask storage.


Context is everything. The article is talking about radiation in normal
use - which for both fuels is miniscule. Others here have been talking
about nukes versus other technologies when things go wrong. The above
article and the previous comment you made which this attempts to defend are
true - but meaningless in context. The better analogy would be to compare
the radiological results of a train full of fly ash derailing and spilling
all its contents, and a nuke station going through what is happening in
Japan right now. Make that every train car in America on any given day,
derailing, full of fly ash. When it goes wrong - it goes wrong in a much
bigger way with nukes. Maybe Scientific American has an article you can
post on the environmental affects of a melt down.

--

-Mike-

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:26:41 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


Wait and see what happens from the fall out and the hysteria from fall out
that is going to happen.

IF that happens. Don't count your chickens...

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

In article m, "Lee
Michaels" says...

Since there was a mention of wind energy, take a look at this.

I read about this guy. His approach is very different. He is not going to
solve our overall problems, but he is doing his best to help. Some folks
think Sauer Energy is a hot investment opportunity.

http://www.sauerenergy.com

Yeah, I'm sure they think it's a hot investment since it is clear that
that is what he's trying to make it. Read his applications page and
consider the First Law of Thermodynamics and you'll realize that he
failed high school physics.

On 3/18/2011 2:58 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
....

Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far less
radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?

Primarily we never got started because Mista' Ca-ahter (peanut farmer,
nuclear Navy, fairly decent woodworker to keep us on topic ) couldn't
distinguish (didn't understand) the difference between reprocessing for
weapons (nuclear proliferation) and commercial nuclear power and made
two sweeping edicts part of his policy platform --

1) Canceled the Breeder Demonstration project at Oak Ridge, and

2) Executive order that NRC would not consider the application of GE for
licensing a facility at Barnwell for reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel.

We're still paying the consequences for both...

(BS NucE/MS NucSci, retired, w/ 30+ years w/ reactor vendor and
consultant to utilities, various US national laboratories, DOE and
commercial clients...)

--

On 3/18/2011 9:45 AM, dpb wrote:
On 3/18/2011 2:58 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
...

Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far less
radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?

Primarily we never got started because Mista' Ca-ahter (peanut farmer,
nuclear Navy, fairly decent woodworker to keep us on topic ) couldn't
distinguish (didn't understand) the difference between reprocessing for
weapons (nuclear proliferation) and commercial nuclear power and made
two sweeping edicts part of his policy platform --

1) Canceled the Breeder Demonstration project at Oak Ridge, and

2) Executive order that NRC would not consider the application of GE for
licensing a facility at Barnwell for reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel.

We're still paying the consequences for both...

As in it accomplished nothing regarding nuclear proliferation (N Korea,
Iran as prime examples) and we still have no coherent spent nuclear fuel
policy (other than continue to let it accumulate up at the reactors in
the spent fuel pools).

(BS NucE/MS NucSci, retired, w/ 30+ years w/ reactor vendor and
consultant to utilities, various US national laboratories, DOE and
commercial clients...)

--

On Mar 18, 12:56*pm, dpb wrote:
On 3/18/2011 9:45 AM, dpb wrote:





On 3/18/2011 2:58 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
...

Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far less
radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?

Primarily we never got started because Mista' Ca-ahter (peanut farmer,
nuclear Navy, fairly decent woodworker to keep us on topic ) couldn't
distinguish (didn't understand) the difference between reprocessing for
weapons (nuclear proliferation) and commercial nuclear power and made
two sweeping edicts part of his policy platform --

1) Canceled the Breeder Demonstration project at Oak Ridge, and

2) Executive order that NRC would not consider the application of GE for
licensing a facility at Barnwell for reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel.

We're still paying the consequences for both...

As in it accomplished nothing regarding nuclear proliferation (N Korea,
Iran as prime examples) and we still have no coherent spent nuclear fuel
policy (other than continue to let it accumulate up at the reactors in
the spent fuel pools).



(BS NucE/MS NucSci, retired, w/ 30+ years w/ reactor vendor and
consultant to utilities, various US national laboratories, DOE and
commercial clients...)

--

We don't really know about Iran's capabilities. BUT... if you lived
next door to Israel, who does have nuclear capability without ever
having signed on to any non proliferation treaties, wouldn't you want
to be able to deter an aggressor with weapons of similar ilk? Only
countries with nuclear capability don't get bullied, so who can blame
any nation for wanting those weapons? Aimadinnerjacket might be a
nutbar, but he knows what he needs.
North Korea? They haven't proven conclusively to possess The Bomb....
sure a big bang in a mine and a little radiation 'seed'... a whole ot
of smoke and mirrors...but HEY, we got to keep the little people in
the Homeland scared of the boogie man, and Iran and NKorea sure come
in handy for that....

On 3/18/2011 1:07 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Mar 18, 12:56 pm, wrote:
On 3/18/2011 9:45 AM, dpb wrote:





On 3/18/2011 2:58 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
...

Other countries recycle their spent nuclear rods, resulting in far less
radioactive waste. Why doesn't the USA?

Primarily we never got started because Mista' Ca-ahter (peanut farmer,
nuclear Navy, fairly decent woodworker to keep us on topic ) couldn't
distinguish (didn't understand) the difference between reprocessing for
weapons (nuclear proliferation) and commercial nuclear power and made
two sweeping edicts part of his policy platform --

1) Canceled the Breeder Demonstration project at Oak Ridge, and

2) Executive order that NRC would not consider the application of GE for
licensing a facility at Barnwell for reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel.

We're still paying the consequences for both...

As in it accomplished nothing regarding nuclear proliferation (N Korea,
Iran as prime examples) and we still have no coherent spent nuclear fuel
policy (other than continue to let it accumulate up at the reactors in
the spent fuel pools).



(BS NucE/MS NucSci, retired, w/ 30+ years w/ reactor vendor and
consultant to utilities, various US national laboratories, DOE and
commercial clients...)

--

We don't really know about Iran's capabilities. BUT... if you lived
next door to Israel, who does have nuclear capability without ever
having signed on to any non proliferation treaties, wouldn't you want
to be able to deter an aggressor with weapons of similar ilk? Only
countries with nuclear capability don't get bullied, so who can blame
any nation for wanting those weapons? Aimadinnerjacket might be a
nutbar, but he knows what he needs.
North Korea? They haven't proven conclusively to possess The Bomb....
sure a big bang in a mine and a little radiation 'seed'... a whole ot
of smoke and mirrors...but HEY, we got to keep the little people in
the Homeland scared of the boogie man, and Iran and NKorea sure come
in handy for that....

I wasn't saying anything specific about my judgment on who
should/shouldn't have nuclear capability but sure; I personally am much
more comfortable w/ the Israeli's possible ( ) abilities in that
regard than I am w/ either DPRK or Iran (or Pakistan/India or most of
the former USSR satellites, for that matter).

OTOH, as events demonstrated, what the US chose to do wrt commercial
nuclear power (or, in this case, chose _not_ to do) in not reprocessing
spent commercial fuel had no bearing whatsoever on the decisions of
outside governments as to what course to follow in their own best
interests as they perceived those to be.

I only brought it up as the demonstration that the directives of Mr
Carter didn't produce the desired result on the one front and completely
stopped the handling of spent commercial nuclear fuel on the other.
Clearly, a "lose-lose".

AFAIK, the IAEA and others concluded that the DPRK tests were, in fact,
legitimate albeit relatively small based on seismology and radiation
signatures afterward.

--

Leon wrote:
"k-nuttle" wrote in message
...
On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
"Just wrote in message
...

By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.

It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install
a low volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires you to
flush it twice using more water than the old ones.

Just what are you trying to flush down your toilet that it takes two
flushes? ;~) I was skeptical about the double flush from what I had
heard about until we moved into our new home in December. So far 1
flush is all that has been necessary althought I was on edge for no
reason a time or two.

You shouldn't have been worried. With a low-flow toilet, there is no chance
of overflow during a blockage.

Unless you flush twice...

On Mar 18, 5:34*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Leon wrote:
"k-nuttle" wrote in message
...
On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
"Just wrote in message
...

By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.

It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install
a low volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires *you to
flush it twice using more water than the old ones.

Just what are you trying to flush down your toilet that it takes two
flushes? *;~) *I was skeptical about the double flush from what I had
heard about until we moved into our new home in December. *So far 1
flush is all that has been necessary althought I was on edge for no
reason a time or two.

You shouldn't have been worried. With a low-flow toilet, there is no chance
of overflow during a blockage.

Unless you flush twice...

....and don't use MIL's cheese-cake recipe....

On Mar 18, 5:06*pm, dpb wrote:


I wasn't saying anything specific about my judgment on who
should/shouldn't have nuclear capability but sure; I personally am much
more comfortable w/ the Israeli's possible ( ) abilities in that
regard than I am w/ either DPRK or Iran (or Pakistan/India or most of
the former USSR satellites, for that matter).

I agree with your assessment Israel managing an arsenal of bombs.
My point was that I understand why Iamadinnerjacket wants some too. If
you have a capable nuclear weapons program, you are much less likely
to get bullied...IOW, don't **** off the guy who has a pistol when you
don't have one.

On 3/18/2011 7:19 PM, Robatoy wrote:
....

I agree with your assessment Israel managing an arsenal of bombs.
My point was that I understand why Iamadinnerjacket wants some too. If
you have a capable nuclear weapons program, you are much less likely
to get bullied...IOW, don't **** off the guy who has a pistol when you
don't have one.

Of course...but that seems to miss the initial point I was making
initially that it was obvious to anybody (or at least to me ) that
the unilateral decision by Carter that the US would not reprocess
commercial nuclear fuel would have absolutely no influence upon the
nutjobs running the places in which he was so interested in trying to
prevent proliferation; they didn't care what the US did (and, for the
most part, still don't) and were going to do whatever they thought was
in their interest irregardless whether that was to pretend to agree or
be blatant about it or waffle back and forth or use promises of future
good behavior as a carrot for goodies or ...

In the end, all it did was harm the US commercial power industry and
leave us saddled w/ all the spent fuel piling up at the reactors while
Harry R plays (like Nero w/ a fiddle) similar populist politics w/ Yucca
Mtn in Nevada.

It was misguided policy then and arose simply because Mr Carter (as nice
a human being as he is as a person) was woefully ignorant of anything
"nucular" outside the Navy training and could never in his heart (and
therefore, mind) separate commercial from weapons material. Thus, any
and all talk of reprocessing was bad. I was in discussions w/ White
House staff at the time who were responsible for passing on this
nonsense and trying to explain the reasoning behind it--the ones who had
any real knowledge allowed it was nonsense but "he's the boss and calls
the shots".

--

On 3/18/2011 8:07 PM, dpb wrote:
On 3/18/2011 7:19 PM, Robatoy wrote:
...

I agree with your assessment Israel managing an arsenal of bombs.
My point was that I understand why Iamadinnerjacket wants some too. If
you have a capable nuclear weapons program, you are much less likely
to get bullied...IOW, don't **** off the guy who has a pistol when you
don't have one.

Of course...but that seems to miss the initial point I was making
initially...

And, that was specifically aimed at the question of why the US doesn't
reprocess raised; the basic reason is that there is still that edict in
place so we can't.

NB: That's not to say that we would necessarily be reprocessing without
it even if GE had gotten their licensing application approved; TMI
occurred not too long after and what w/ the furor over it and 18-20%
interest rates it's not at all clear GE could have managed to get the
plant built, anyway.

And, of course, many of those who envisioned reprocessing initially or
did at one time have also quit simply owing to the economics; at present
demand and prices, it's cheaper to not. That's particularly true w/ the
large quantities of HEU returned from the former USSR that is gradually
being blended down that saves all the SWUs required for enrichment.

We'll just have to "hide and watch" and see what shakes out politically
from the current mess in Japan; it's going to throw a spanner in the
works everywhere, justified or not (and some may well be but it'll gum
up everything far beyond the necessary/commensense point; that's just
the way we do things here).

--

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Leon wrote:
"k-nuttle" wrote in message
...
On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
"Just wrote in message
...

By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.

It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install
a low volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires you to
flush it twice using more water than the old ones.

Just what are you trying to flush down your toilet that it takes two
flushes? ;~) I was skeptical about the double flush from what I had
heard about until we moved into our new home in December. So far 1
flush is all that has been necessary althought I was on edge for no
reason a time or two.

You shouldn't have been worried. With a low-flow toilet, there is no
chance of overflow during a blockage.

Unless you flush twice...

Actually there has been no problem with a single flush, even with the
sizeable loads. ;~)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:38:49 -0500, "Leon" wrote:


"k-nuttle" wrote in message
...
On 3/18/2011 4:06 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/17/2011 11:54 AM, Tim W wrote:
"Just wrote in message
...

By presenting facts on radiation you are confusing the issue.

It is like the double flush toilet, they feel good when they install a low
volume toilet, even though the lack of flow requires you to flush it
twice using more water than the old ones.

Just what are you trying to flush down your toilet that it takes two
flushes? ;~) I was skeptical about the double flush from what I had heard
about until we moved into our new home in December. So far 1 flush is all
that has been necessary althought I was on edge for no reason a time or two.

New homes are designed to be one-flush with low-flow toilets. 3" waste lines
and rat's nest plumbing are no longer used. OTOH, retrofitting a low-flow
toilet into an older home can be a problem. We don't have a problems (well,
not much[*]) with our new home, either, but I know a lot of people with older
homes that do.
[*] They don't seem to stay as clean as the older toilets.

On 2011-03-17 11:01:13 -0400, Larry Jaques
said:

A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

More than a little truth there!