dpb wrote:


That many other places are sited where they ought not to be or, in
many instances that folks built residential areas around already
existing industrial facilities doesn't change the fact that the
juxtapostion of same is/was not wise. I'd presume that in siting any
new facility one would take into account past experience in other
areas as well.

Though I won't disagree with the basic reasoning of your statement, it just
does not wash in the real world. For a number of reasons which all made
sense at some point in time, reality prevailed and that juxtaposition did in
fact take place. While it might be nicer if it had not, there were
perfectly valid reasons why it did. Ya just can't escape that reality
simply based on an idealism - regarless of how attractive that idealism is.




You've never met me... But, spent 30+ years in primarily
commercial nuclear w/ design, construction and operation both in
engineering and on site. Never was nervous going onsite and wouldn't
be nervous about having a facility in the general area.


I wouldn't be fearful of entering a facility either. I do trust in the
controls for the most part, that are in place and in practice. My points
have not been about those, but about the inevitable accident that will occur
from uncontrolable factors such as geological disturbances,
weather/meterological events, and in this day and age - the mental
disturbances of groups of people.

As well, I've limited myself to only expressing concerns for the
accumulation of waste and the lack of any good way to address that problem.


--

-Mike-

Larry W wrote:
In article ,
Mike Marlow wrote:
...snipped...
Really??? 3 Mile Island. Chernobyl, Japan. it does not take a
large number with nukes, to create a large impact. One is all it
takes.

I don't glow in the dark either, and I'm 11 miles from 3 of them.
Downwind. But - you're gone from them now, right? Were you as much
of an advocate, with no concerns, when you lived nearer to them?
What if the disposal site was determined to be 10 miles from you?
I'm not anti-nuke. I don't fear nukes. I do however, think that a
great deal more thought needs to go into nukes than what comes out
in discussions like this. Too many people advocating nukes without
thinking about the ramifications.

...snipped...
...The stuff is dangerous. More dangerous
than oil, coal, and NG.


I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Speaking for myself, I'd sure
rather live next door to a nuclear plant than downstream from a coal
slurry dam:


To be fair - I am no advocate of that particular manner of dealing with the
fly ash. I don't want to second guess something that the designers didn't
invite me to participate in, but from where I sit, it sure does look like
those slurrys could have been almost expected. We've been building damns
and ponds for a long time, and we've seen plenty of failures - makes one
wonder why some of those lessons seemed to have been lost on the design of
those ponds.

--

-Mike-

Larry Jaques wrote:


Poor dear. You probably took "The China Syndrome" to heart, didn't
you? So sorry. Here's the data: More people die on our highways each
year than have died in all the years we've had nuclear power,
including the 3 largest accidents. As a percentage, the risk is very
small compared to almost every other type of accident in our lives. In
the nuclear industry, there has been a very low accident rate. Why the
unfounded fears, Mikey?

Nope - did not take China Syndrom to heart. I have watched as fail safes
failed to be safe in more than one nuclear accident though, and I am smart
enough to realize that the short 30 year history of this industry is no form
of reassurance. As things age, and stockpiles build up, we are only now
reaching points where some of the real concerns become real. Take a look
back at what I've written. I'm not anti-nuke, I've only spoken of the
potential for disaster if an accident does happen - and the evidence is
there to see it. It is much more catastrophic than competing technologies
available today, including fly ash floods. One cannot be lulled into
carelessnes just because the number of incidents is low. The impact from
each is much bigger than the impact from a slurry flow. The only other
point I've spoken on is the matter of waste. It does not matter what the
reasons are for waste stockpiles, they are there and they are not benign.
Much less benign than fly ash. It would be foolish not to recognize this.



I don't glow in the dark either, and I'm 11 miles from 3 of them.
Downwind. But - you're gone from them now, right? Were you as much
of an advocate, with no concerns, when you lived nearer to them?

Yes and yes. I had friends who worked there. One was a hot jumper. He
climbed into the vessel in a hot suit and connected the hook to pull
the rods and refuel the nukes. I believe his longest time down was 30
minutes, with 15 average. He sired a couple non-glowing kids, too.


You misunderstand my postion. I do not fear nukes and I do not expect to
glow in the dark.


What if the disposal site was determined to be 10 miles from you?

Sure, not a prob.


I'm not anti-nuke. I don't fear
nukes.

That's certainly not how your posts have been reading.


Might be worth re-reading them without that notion in your mind.


Read _Terrestrial Energy_ some time, Mike. Good book. Tucker did his
homework. http://goo.gl/gHzts

I think I might just do that.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:

....


I wouldn't be fearful of entering a facility either. I do trust in the
controls for the most part, that are in place and in practice. My points
have not been about those, but about the inevitable accident that will occur
from uncontrolable factors such as geological disturbances,
weather/meterological events, and in this day and age - the mental
disturbances of groups of people.


Well, any of those can happen whether you're onsite or not...so, you
might as well accept the risk. After all, if you drive to work in the
morning, your likelihood of severe trauma from an accident is _far_
higher than that you'll be injured by a commercial reactor or its
byproducts.


As well, I've limited myself to only expressing concerns for the
accumulation of waste and the lack of any good way to address that problem.


Again, while conveniently hiding behind the facade that it's a problem
when the real problem is that there's no legal way to do anything about
any of it in the US owing to political constraints as opposed to
anything technical.

Similarly w/ the argument about siting--if you're comfortable with
existing industrial siting that wasn't the smartest then there's no
objective basis to object regarding any other. In the overall actual
risk, the conventional plants have very good odds of being far more
likely to be a real problem than the nuclear plant or waste storage
facility.

It's paranoia, pure and simple....

--

In article ,
Mike Marlow wrote:
...snipped...
I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Speaking for myself, I'd sure
rather live next door to a nuclear plant than downstream from a coal
slurry dam:


To be fair - I am no advocate of that particular manner of dealing with the
fly ash. I don't want to second guess something that the designers didn't
invite me to participate in, but from where I sit, it sure does look like
those slurrys could have been almost expected. We've been building damns
and ponds for a long time, and we've seen plenty of failures - makes one
wonder why some of those lessons seemed to have been lost on the design of
those ponds.


Mike, just to clarify, those are NOT fly ash impoundments. They are
_slurry_ impoundments where the waste from _mining_ the coal is put. Fly
ash is produced from _burning_ coal and is yet another waste product from
coal that is often stored in impoundment dams. Coal is just plain dirty
all around.

--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

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

In article , dpb wrote:
Larry W wrote:

In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
...snipped...

Personally, I'm in favor of stacking the stuff up on the U.S.-Mexican
border. It will make spotting illegals easier to spot in the dark.




Actually, stacking it up is not a really good idea. During the Manhattan
project, the Oak Ridge team, mostly chemists and engineers, worked on
enriching & isolating the fissionable U235 isotope from the much
more prevalant U238. They were not aware of the reasons for doing
this (classified) and most did not have an understanding of the critcal
mass concept. Fortunately, one of the physicists at Los Alamos realized
the danger after seeing a photograph of the stack.

The USSR had a number of nuclear accidents in the late 50s at what is
now called Mayak. It's been theorized some of these resulted from
accidental criticality incidents.
...


Commercial reactor _new_ fuel won't reach criticality in an open stack
w/o moderator, what more spent fuel...

I spent almost 30 years in Oak Ridge and am aware (I am almost certain)
of all the criticality or near=criticality incidents there since the
inception as things of intense scrutiny and rehash for lessons learned,
etc. I have never heard of such an incident as you describe; please
provide some details so can dig into this...

--


I admit that I made that statement from memory of Richard Rhodes book which
I read many years ago and I may not have all my facts straight as to
location and dated, but I do have a recollection of such an incident
being in the book. OTOH, my memory is not what it used to be...
--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

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

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:46:22 -0500, Swingman wrote:
While a few may eventually do so, this recent event seems an
irrefutable, as well as historical and statistical, validation of the
favorable RISK/BENEFIT ratio inherent in the nuclear power industry.

While present statistics might appear to validate your viewpoint,
consider the long term risks of this event. Consider what effect this
radiation might have on future generations with the possibility of
abnormal births, congenital defects and illnesses later on in future
generations. If our sciences continue to advance geometrically as they
are now, cures or at least solutions may be found to handle those
problems, but there's certainly no guarantee of that.

All I can say is that nuclear power generation *appears* to be one of
the lesser affecting sources of power, but there's plenty of evidence
to cause it's advancement to be controlled and considered very
carefully.

Mike Marlow wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:


Poor dear. You probably took "The China Syndrome" to heart, didn't
you? So sorry. Here's the data: More people die on our highways
each year than have died in all the years we've had nuclear power,
including the 3 largest accidents. As a percentage, the risk is very
small compared to almost every other type of accident in our lives.
In the nuclear industry, there has been a very low accident rate.
Why the unfounded fears, Mikey?

Nope - did not take China Syndrom to heart. I have watched as fail
safes failed to be safe in more than one nuclear accident though, and
I am smart enough to realize that the short 30 year history of this
industry is no form of reassurance. As things age, and stockpiles
build up, we are only now reaching points where some of the real
concerns become real. Take a look back at what I've written. I'm
not anti-nuke, I've only spoken of the potential for disaster if an
accident does happen - and the evidence is there to see it. It is
much more catastrophic than competing technologies available today,
including fly ash floods. One cannot be lulled into carelessnes just
because the number of incidents is low. The impact from each is much
bigger than the impact from a slurry flow. The only other point I've
spoken on is the matter of waste. It does not matter what the
reasons are for waste stockpiles, they are there and they are not
benign. Much less benign than fly ash. It would be foolish not to
recognize this.

Are you aware the most dangerous of power generation methods is
hydroelectic?

Dams don't fail very often, but, boy, when they do the death toll is
monstrous.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:00:08 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:


Poor dear. You probably took "The China Syndrome" to heart, didn't
you? So sorry. Here's the data: More people die on our highways each
year than have died in all the years we've had nuclear power,
including the 3 largest accidents. As a percentage, the risk is very
small compared to almost every other type of accident in our lives. In
the nuclear industry, there has been a very low accident rate. Why the
unfounded fears, Mikey?

Nope - did not take China Syndrom to heart. I have watched as fail safes
failed to be safe in more than one nuclear accident though, and I am smart
enough to realize that the short 30 year history of this industry is no form
of reassurance. As things age, and stockpiles build up, we are only now
reaching points where some of the real concerns become real. Take a look
back at what I've written. I'm not anti-nuke, I've only spoken of the
potential for disaster if an accident does happen - and the evidence is
there to see it. It is much more catastrophic than competing technologies
available today, including fly ash floods. One cannot be lulled into
carelessnes just because the number of incidents is low. The impact from
each is much bigger than the impact from a slurry flow.

They can be, but aren't always. Some tidbits: http://goo.gl/lw6N ,
http://ibe.sagepub.com/content/15/2/187.abstract .


The only other
point I've spoken on is the matter of waste. It does not matter what the
reasons are for waste stockpiles, they are there and they are not benign.
Much less benign than fly ash. It would be foolish not to recognize this.

Isn't a lot of that fly ash radioactive, too? Coal is rich in uranium
and thorium. And what about Chinese fly ash drywall? There's nothing
benign about that stuff. http://goo.gl/r8DyV The last two sentences
of this video are interesting. (fly ash contains several enviro.
toxins such as arsenic, cadmium, and lead)


I'm not anti-nuke. I don't fear
nukes.

That's certainly not how your posts have been reading.


Might be worth re-reading them without that notion in your mind.

Your further posts have been enlightening. I wrote this quoted reply
before you wrote those, or at the same time, before I read them.
I sit corrected.


Read _Terrestrial Energy_ some time, Mike. Good book. Tucker did his
homework. http://goo.gl/gHzts

I think I might just do that.

I didn't agree with all of his conclusions or thoughts, but I think
his is the most fair overview I've seen in print yet.

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

Larry W wrote:
In article ,
Mike Marlow wrote:
...snipped...
I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Speaking for myself, I'd sure
rather live next door to a nuclear plant than downstream from a coal
slurry dam:


To be fair - I am no advocate of that particular manner of dealing
with the fly ash. I don't want to second guess something that the
designers didn't invite me to participate in, but from where I sit,
it sure does look like those slurrys could have been almost
expected. We've been building damns and ponds for a long time, and
we've seen plenty of failures - makes one wonder why some of those
lessons seemed to have been lost on the design of those ponds.


Mike, just to clarify, those are NOT fly ash impoundments. They are
_slurry_ impoundments where the waste from _mining_ the coal is put.
Fly ash is produced from _burning_ coal and is yet another waste
product from coal that is often stored in impoundment dams. Coal is
just plain dirty all around.

Ok - I may have misunderstood the links when I looked at them earlier. I
thought they were fly ash slurries. Maybe not so much a difference though -
it's still a mess that probably could have been dealt with better right from
the outset.

--

-Mike-

dpb wrote:


Again, while conveniently hiding behind the facade that it's a problem
when the real problem is that there's no legal way to do anything
about any of it in the US owing to political constraints as opposed to
anything technical.


Not hiding. Have not heard anything from the nuclear industry that
genuinely mitigates the risk. Reprocessing does not, though it does change
the risk. It's not purely political - though I will agree and give you that
the politics behind it are a significant factor.

Similarly w/ the argument about siting--if you're comfortable with
existing industrial siting that wasn't the smartest then there's no
objective basis to object regarding any other. In the overall actual
risk, the conventional plants have very good odds of being far more
likely to be a real problem than the nuclear plant or waste storage
facility.

It's paranoia, pure and simple....

Nice proclamation, but you stating it does not make it real.


--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:

dpb wrote:


Again, while conveniently hiding behind the facade that it's a problem
when the real problem is that there's no legal way to do anything
about any of it in the US owing to political constraints as opposed to
anything technical.



Not hiding. Have not heard anything from the nuclear industry that
genuinely mitigates the risk. Reprocessing does not, though it does change
the risk. It's not purely political - though I will agree and give you that
the politics behind it are a significant factor.


....


What _SPECIFIC_ risk are you talking about? What was the risk at Yucca
Mtn that's so horrific (other than Harry losing his powerful position in
NV and DC if he gets out of the way)???

Carter killed reprocessing because he could not separate the weapons
proliferation issue from that of commercial fuel reprocessing (that
nasty bogey-man word "Plutonium" again). We see how well that worked;
it stymied any further development on the technical front as nobody is
going to invest in an area that is guaranteed to not even get considered
owing to government decree and the areas of the world that were worried
about as far as rogue weapons didn't care what the US did anyway and
went on their way (N Korea, Iran, ...).


Meanwhile, owing to those decisions, spent fuel continues to simply
accumulate at the reactor sites as there is no alternative allowed or
allowable at present. The current situation is _all_, fundamentally,
political in how we got to this quagmire because every alternative has
been closed to date by intervention from DC.

--

J. Clarke wrote:

....


Yep, you go on believing what the ethanol lobby wants you to believe.
....


While you regurgitate the campaign propoganda of the combined Food
Institute, Grocery Manufacturers Association, etc., etc., who are all
the upper level distributors and manufacturers who are _already_
pocketing 85% of the food dollar (and wanting continued cheap inputs so
can increase margins even more)...

No thanks, I'll stick w/ what I can glean from the USDA statistics and
the bunch that are on my side including Farm Bureau, etc., as being at
least able to see the producer side.

You ain't see'd nuthin' yet if the present EPA and the Army Corps get
their way on both the energy and the food fronts, though, if you think
prices are high now, just watch what happens when those initiatives take
hold if they do. And, at the moment, it ain't lookin' good for the home
team.

--

Larry W wrote:

....


I admit that I made that statement from memory of Richard Rhodes book ...


I've skimmed it; don't own it. It's massive enough it may take some
digging to find the anecdote... Don't recall if it's indexed well
enough to help or not.

The only case even remotely close at Y-12 I can think of I just don't
think had any connection to NM having pointed out the operation as
troublesome. May have to be careful about how much I say on some of
these; some amazingly enough have details that are (or at least were
when I left OR around 2000 and DOE and the Q behind) still classified
owing to specifics of some of the materials involved (in the separation
process end, not the nuclear material itself) and at least last review
we did for DOE on operations that looked at some of these there had been
no partial declassification on any of the reports--if there was anything
in the report that was classified, the whole document was classified and
a derivative classifier would have to judge what could be released;
the user of the information isn't allowed to decide that just because
they know something else isn't classified per se if it's in the
classified report it can't be released simply on that knowledge. For
one thing, there are combinations of information that are both
unclassified yet the two in proximity to each other can create a
derivative work that may be classified because w/o that direct
connection that the two pieces of information are somehow useful
together isn't obvious. The rules are arcane and full of such
stuf....well, I digress (nothing unusual... )

You've definitely whetted my curiosity, though...

--

Just lucky................................

http://tinyurl.com/3n3qg7j

Bring on the nukes.


Lew

dpb wrote:



What _SPECIFIC_ risk are you talking about? What was the risk at
Yucca Mtn that's so horrific (other than Harry losing his powerful
position in NV and DC if he gets out of the way)???

Just the nature of the waste, and the fact that today, our storage strategy
relies on the hope that nothing will go wrong - no earthquakes, no outside
factors, that will disturb what is a fairly fragile storage strategy, and
that at some point we'll have a better plan.


Carter killed reprocessing because he could not separate the weapons
proliferation issue from that of commercial fuel reprocessing (that
nasty bogey-man word "Plutonium" again). We see how well that worked;
it stymied any further development on the technical front as nobody is
going to invest in an area that is guaranteed to not even get
considered owing to government decree and the areas of the world that
were worried about as far as rogue weapons didn't care what the US
did anyway and went on their way (N Korea, Iran, ...).

I get that part, and I've not disagreed with that point, but I can't lay it
all at the feet of the political decisions. Other countries have not been
as hogtied as the US, and have proceeded with reprocessing, but while their
waste issue are different (somewhat) than ours, they are also in some
respects, the same waste issues. So - the French (which I continue to rely
on for my examples, because I understand them to have committed more to
nuclear than anyone else), are wrestling with waste issues even today. So,
it appears that reprocessing, though offering a perfectly valid economical
benefit, still suffers the issue of what to do with the stuff.



Meanwhile, owing to those decisions, spent fuel continues to simply
accumulate at the reactor sites as there is no alternative allowed or
allowable at present. The current situation is _all_, fundamentally,
political in how we got to this quagmire because every alternative has
been closed to date by intervention from DC.

Not so much, as I understand it. Again - France is still dealing with what
to do with their spent fuel.

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:39:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

dpb wrote:

Meanwhile, owing to those decisions, spent fuel continues to simply
accumulate at the reactor sites as there is no alternative allowed or
allowable at present. The current situation is _all_, fundamentally,
political in how we got to this quagmire because every alternative has
been closed to date by intervention from DC.

Not so much, as I understand it. Again - France is still dealing with what
to do with their spent fuel.

And dealing with it well. Here's a 4-page NYT report on it:
http://goo.gl/12tDf The US could reduce their waste levels by a
factor of four by following the French methods of recycling.

--
The whole life of man is but a point of time; let us enjoy it.
-- Plutarch

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:39:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

dpb wrote:

Meanwhile, owing to those decisions, spent fuel continues to simply
accumulate at the reactor sites as there is no alternative allowed
or allowable at present. The current situation is _all_,
fundamentally, political in how we got to this quagmire because
every alternative has been closed to date by intervention from DC.

Not so much, as I understand it. Again - France is still dealing
with what to do with their spent fuel.

And dealing with it well. Here's a 4-page NYT report on it:
http://goo.gl/12tDf The US could reduce their waste levels by a
factor of four by following the French methods of recycling.

Yes, we could - and there has never been discussion or debate over that
point.

Read that very article again and see that neither France, the pro-recycling
factions, the anti-recycling factions (those two terms are probably a little
too strong), and the nuclear industry at large, have no more answers about
the waste and the threats is presents, than you and I as we read articles
like this. There is a lot of debate by experts on each side who know a
great deal more about this than either of us.

That article only states what I've been saying all along - the waste in any
form is still a looming issue. You can't just look at the availability of
electricity and ignore the waste issues.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:

dpb wrote:



What _SPECIFIC_ risk are you talking about? What was the risk at
Yucca Mtn that's so horrific (other than Harry losing his powerful
position in NV and DC if he gets out of the way)???


Just the nature of the waste, and the fact that today, our storage strategy
relies on the hope that nothing will go wrong - no earthquakes, no outside
factors, that will disturb what is a fairly fragile storage strategy, and
that at some point we'll have a better plan.


Carter killed reprocessing because he could not separate the weapons
proliferation issue from that of commercial fuel reprocessing (that
nasty bogey-man word "Plutonium" again). We see how well that worked;
it stymied any further development on the technical front as nobody is
going to invest in an area that is guaranteed to not even get
considered owing to government decree and the areas of the world that
were worried about as far as rogue weapons didn't care what the US
did anyway and went on their way (N Korea, Iran, ...).


I get that part, and I've not disagreed with that point, but I can't lay it
all at the feet of the political decisions. Other countries have not been
as hogtied as the US, and have proceeded with reprocessing, but while their
waste issue are different (somewhat) than ours, they are also in some
respects, the same waste issues. So - the French (which I continue to rely
on for my examples, because I understand them to have committed more to
nuclear than anyone else), are wrestling with waste issues even today. So,
it appears that reprocessing, though offering a perfectly valid economical
benefit, still suffers the issue of what to do with the stuff.



Meanwhile, owing to those decisions, spent fuel continues to simply
accumulate at the reactor sites as there is no alternative allowed or
allowable at present. The current situation is _all_, fundamentally,
political in how we got to this quagmire because every alternative has
been closed to date by intervention from DC.


Not so much, as I understand it. Again - France is still dealing with what
to do with their spent fuel.
....


Essentially for the same reasons we are...it doesn't matter what is the
proposed solution, there's some wacko group dreaming up some scenario
that has a one in a billion chance of coming true and that's the end of
that.

There is inherent risk in _anything_ and the likelihood of serious
injury or death from many other industrial wastes is far higher than
that for the disposal scenarios proposed; it's that the clamor for
infinitely safe is apparently demanded for this particular process
whereas as you've noted previously, really dumb things have been done in
the past on siting other industrial processes/facilities and you seem to
be ok w/ continuing down the same road there. Why the double standard???

Yucca Mtn was only "fragile" because of the mandate that it be
"monitored retrievable" storage....that meant all kinds of stuff to do
that. It surely would have been much better for all sorts of reasons
than just letting spent assemblies continue to sit in spent fuel pools.

I contend it is still essentially all political (and that is driven by
the special interest groups of all ilks that have banded together as
being anti-nuke for all sorts of underlying reasons from perceived risk
as you to environmental to simply anti-technology/development) here and
throughout the rest of the (more or less) democratic world.

BTW, I was reminded from another story last night of a feature of Carter
I had forgotten...it was he who got us going on corn ethanol because of
his misguided boycott on exporting grain to the Russians over the
Olympics and that was his answer to the resultant crash in the domestic
grain markets from having killed the markets. It's taken almost 30 yrs
to recover viable markets internal and external from that disaster and
the current administration is almost as hostile to ag in holding up
current approval of trade treaties that have been on hold since they
took office. Meanwhile, altho we're losing out every year in those
markets and will have tough road to recovery when they finally do get
approved (assuming will, eventually) ag is one of the few positive trade
balance areas in the US economy and they're doing about everything can
to stifle it and make us less competitive worldwide. Hard to figure
what goes on in their heads...

--

dpb wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:

dpb wrote:



What _SPECIFIC_ risk are you talking about? What was the risk at
Yucca Mtn that's so horrific (other than Harry losing his powerful
position in NV and DC if he gets out of the way)???


Just the nature of the waste, and the fact that today, our storage
strategy relies on the hope that nothing will go wrong - no
earthquakes, no outside factors, that will disturb what is a fairly
fragile storage strategy, and that at some point we'll have a better
plan.
....


Speaking of which, all of the above "relies on" are bogus even for the
spent fuel pools.

Certainly any repository site or other alternative has included design
basis earthquake, outside threaths, etc., etc, etc., ...

It's simply nonsense to say that...hell, the damn transport casks have
even been tested w/ full-scale train collisions w/ no harmful releases
and that _still_ doesn't satisfy the critics...there's nothing that
would ever satisfy the critics because they don't have any intent of
being satisfied; adequate safeguards aren't their objective, total
shutdown is the goal.

--

The issue is with congress. Not with the science or engineering.

Other countries have machines that take poor quality fuel and
make stronger fuel better. They are called Breeders.
We invented them here and had to export technology.

The country went backwards and spent money on black fuel
from foreign countries. Other countries have programs and
we have had them for many years without major issues.

Breeders were only developed in prototype mode never a
functional production unit.

Martin

On 6/27/2011 8:49 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:39:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

dpb wrote:

Meanwhile, owing to those decisions, spent fuel continues to simply
accumulate at the reactor sites as there is no alternative allowed
or allowable at present. The current situation is _all_,
fundamentally, political in how we got to this quagmire because
every alternative has been closed to date by intervention from DC.

Not so much, as I understand it. Again - France is still dealing
with what to do with their spent fuel.

And dealing with it well. Here's a 4-page NYT report on it:
http://goo.gl/12tDf The US could reduce their waste levels by a
factor of four by following the French methods of recycling.

Yes, we could - and there has never been discussion or debate over that
point.

Read that very article again and see that neither France, the pro-recycling
factions, the anti-recycling factions (those two terms are probably a little
too strong), and the nuclear industry at large, have no more answers about
the waste and the threats is presents, than you and I as we read articles
like this. There is a lot of debate by experts on each side who know a
great deal more about this than either of us.

That article only states what I've been saying all along - the waste in any
form is still a looming issue. You can't just look at the availability of
electricity and ignore the waste issues.

dpb wrote:



Essentially for the same reasons we are...it doesn't matter what is
the proposed solution, there's some wacko group dreaming up some
scenario that has a one in a billion chance of coming true and that's
the end of that.

Not at all for the same reasons. They have embraces recycling, and are
committing even more to it. Why do you use the term "wacko group"? Is it
because they dare to examine the risks, in contrast to your own views on the
matter? From what I have read, the "wacko groups" are not minimalized by
any industry experts, though the two factions may ultimately disagree.
You're the first I've heard refer to the dissenting voice that way.



There is inherent risk in _anything_

And those various risks carry differing costs.

and the likelihood of serious
injury or death from many other industrial wastes is far higher than
that for the disposal scenarios proposed;

I disagree completely. Remember, my comments have come from 2 points - the
potential for large scale disaster resultant from an accident, and the issue
of waste management. In either case, the potential for large scale disaster
is very large. Few is any other industrial wastes can lay waste entire
landscapes in the manner that nuclear impacts can.

it's that the clamor for
infinitely safe is

Why do you say such a thing? That has never come up in this conversation -
not at all. I am beginning to see that you are simply a pro-nuke because of
your professional background, and you have closed your mind to any thoughts
about the very obvious potentials for problems.

apparently demanded for this particular process
whereas as you've noted previously, really dumb things have been done
in the past on siting other industrial processes/facilities and you
seem to be ok w/ continuing down the same road there. Why the double
standard???

Double standard? I don't recall ever allowing such a thing. Please refresh
me.



Yucca Mtn was only "fragile" because of the mandate that it be
"monitored retrievable" storage....that meant all kinds of stuff to do
that. It surely would have been much better for all sorts of reasons
than just letting spent assemblies continue to sit in spent fuel
pools.
I contend it is still essentially all political (and that is driven by
the special interest groups of all ilks that have banded together as
being anti-nuke for all sorts of underlying reasons from perceived
risk as you to environmental to simply anti-technology/development)
here and throughout the rest of the (more or less) democratic world.

BTW, I was reminded from another story last night of a feature of
Carter I had forgotten...it was he who got us going on corn ethanol
because of his misguided boycott on exporting grain to the Russians
over the Olympics and that was his answer to the resultant crash in
the domestic grain markets from having killed the markets. It's
taken almost 30 yrs to recover viable markets internal and external
from that disaster and the current administration is almost as
hostile to ag in holding up current approval of trade treaties that
have been on hold since they took office. Meanwhile, altho we're
losing out every year in those markets and will have tough road to
recovery when they finally do get approved (assuming will,
eventually) ag is one of the few positive trade balance areas in the
US economy and they're doing about everything can to stifle it and
make us less competitive worldwide. Hard to figure what goes on in
their heads...

dpb wrote:


Sorry - hit Send too soon...


I contend it is still essentially all political (and that is driven by
the special interest groups of all ilks that have banded together as
being anti-nuke for all sorts of underlying reasons from perceived
risk as you to environmental to simply anti-technology/development)
here and throughout the rest of the (more or less) democratic world.


Perceived risks? Come on - how can a guy that lived his career in the
nuclear industry not admit the very real risks? Your credibility is quickly
waining when you make such statements. Your very own industry experts do
not diminish those risks in the same manner you try to.




--

-Mike-

dpb wrote:


Speaking of which, all of the above "relies on" are bogus even for the
spent fuel pools.

Not at all true. Japan didn't count on the tsunami. The three plants near
me are on a geological fault. Come on - be honest and quit being such an
apologist for your industry. I'm not trying to berate the industry, but you
can't see the forest for the trees, in your professional willingness to see
nothing but your career training. There's a lot of information you could
well investigate, which does not attempt to demonize the nuclear industry,
but does raise questions that the industry itself does not dismiss.


Certainly any repository site or other alternative has included design
basis earthquake, outside threaths, etc., etc, etc., ...

Really?


--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:

dpb wrote:


Sorry - hit Send too soon...


I contend it is still essentially all political (and that is driven by
the special interest groups of all ilks that have banded together as
being anti-nuke for all sorts of underlying reasons from perceived
risk as you to environmental to simply anti-technology/development)
here and throughout the rest of the (more or less) democratic world.



Perceived risks? Come on - how can a guy that lived his career in the
nuclear industry not admit the very real risks? Your credibility is quickly
waining when you make such statements. Your very own industry experts do
not diminish those risks in the same manner you try to.


I don't minimize risk; what I have noted is that it doesn't seem that
threre is any satisfying a large number of critics no matter what is
done...the shipping cask testing is just one example. A definitive test
that will survive a catastrophic accident and still shipping was one of
the "insurmountable difficulties" raised.

There are some considered critics, granted, but the position I
characterize w/ Harry Reid and the populist politics seems to me to be
the controlling factor in setting public policy rather than actual
cost:benefit risk analysis.

There has been one really severe nuclear accident in the world in the
history of nuclear power; Chernobyl and that it was so significant a
result owed to the design and primarily that the USSR built reactors w/o
any primary containment whatsoever. Because of that, it has no bearing
on any other facility presently operating.

In the US, TMI caused no discernible injuries and was the instigator for
major revisions in design modifications and upgrades to the current
generation of facilities.

The Fukushima incident has, afaict, had no personal injuries offsite and
no deaths although some onsite exposures (which, it appears, for the
most part could have largely been avoided). As for the tsunami, indeed
it appears the design basis event was under-estimated for the site; that
issue is being addressed all over the world already even in places that
have no chance of ever seing tsunamis for alternative scenarios. There
will undoubtedly be new procedures and safeguards placed on whichever
facilities are in the region you're near. Note, however, that even w/
the severity of the earthquake in Japan, the physical integrity of the
plants was not compromised other than by the loss of cooling owing to
the tsunami, not the tremor.

Overall, compared to any other major technology in widespread use, the
actual number of deaths and injuries from commercial nuclear power
accidents continues to leave it w/ far and away the best safety record
of any. That there will continue to be improvements and modifications
is certainly true and reasoned input is always useful but expecting
there to never be any conceivable incident is also unrealistic.

My contention remains that nuclear-related perceived risk is ranked far
higher than the realities of the actual happenings. Surely it is
unfortunate that any of these have occurred but then again, there could
be another large airliner be lost tomorrow over the South Atlantic w/
multi-hundred passengers to an apparent severe thunderstorm and yet
virtually nobody would choose to not get on _their_ flight the next day
following despite that event. OTOH, there's already movement to close
nuclear facilities in places that have no chances of tsunamis by
reacting to Japan; it makes no comparative sense whatever.

--

dpb wrote:


I don't minimize risk; what I have noted is that it doesn't seem that
threre is any satisfying a large number of critics no matter what is
done...the shipping cask testing is just one example. A definitive
test that will survive a catastrophic accident and still shipping was
one of the "insurmountable difficulties" raised.

I agree that in any environment, one can never seem to satisfy the critics -
they have their own agenda. I've been trying to be careful to only speak of
things I've read that even the industry advocates have said. They have
openly acknowledged risks. Please do understand - I'm not at all about
trying to leverage the opinions of some fringe antagonist group.


There are some considered critics, granted, but the position I
characterize w/ Harry Reid and the populist politics seems to me to be
the controlling factor in setting public policy rather than actual
cost:benefit risk analysis.

There has been one really severe nuclear accident in the world in the
history of nuclear power; Chernobyl and that it was so significant a
result owed to the design and primarily that the USSR built reactors
w/o any primary containment whatsoever. Because of that, it has no
bearing on any other facility presently operating.

I'll agree to that. TMI was in no way in the same league and it remains to
be seen what level the Japanese incident will fall into. But - that's not
been the underlying thought in my part of the discussion. Mine centers more
around the things we know are going to be issues, but may not have
experienced yet - but predictably will. The incidents to date only serve to
point to the fact that we need to be conscious of these possibilities - or
probabilities.


In the US, TMI caused no discernible injuries and was the instigator
for major revisions in design modifications and upgrades to the
current generation of facilities.

Yeahbut... (and I know - yeahbuts are not really a very solid argument...) -
we got lucky there. Well, maybe not lucky, but in the end we did not have
to face the probable worst case. Granted, it is because a lot of things
worked as planned, and that is good. But again - my statements are not
about operations, but about storage and about unexpected events. TMI -
though I have thrown it out there, is really not the best case to review.
What does matter about TMI is that despite all the official press releases
from both the industry and the government is that the damage was far greater
and far closer to catastrophic than what was revealed to the public - who
was reassured that all was well. That plant was a lot closer to a
catastrophic melt down than was acknowledged at the time. Credibility does
count some.


The Fukushima incident has, afaict, had no personal injuries offsite
and no deaths although some onsite exposures (which, it appears, for
the most part could have largely been avoided).

I think you are correct in that, but that is because people were either
washed out to sea to die in a different manner, or were evacuated to avoid
the impending doom. So, it is not even remotely reasonable to look at this
case as evidence of the safety of nuclear. Yup - people were evacuated.
You're now saying - oh look no one was irradiated. Well hell - of course
not - they were evacuated. Think about it...


As for the tsunami,
indeed it appears the design basis event was under-estimated for the
site; that issue is being addressed all over the world already even
in places that have no chance of ever seing tsunamis for alternative
scenarios.

Point being - lots of plants around the world - including in my area where
geological issues are a concern to some level. In the interest of building
the plants, those concerns were dismissed. Just like the likelihood of the
Japanese plant ever really being hit and severely impacted by a tsunami.
Well - we've seen these things happen. The credibility of the assurances is
gone. I don't care what you were taught to believe over 30 years. The
dangers, the risks of both operation and storage have been foisted on the
consuming public without proper regard for the what-if scenario.


There will undoubtedly be new procedures and safeguards
placed on whichever facilities are in the region you're near. Note,
however, that even w/ the severity of the earthquake in Japan, the
physical integrity of the plants was not compromised other than by
the loss of cooling owing to the tsunami, not the tremor.

Was not compromised???????????????? How in the hell do you say that?
Please - stop trying to bring this to some fine granularity of statement so
that you can prove that there was no safety issue. Just look at the big
picture. Is the plant up? Is it safe? Is it safe to live within 5 miles
of it? When - by the way... do you expect it will be safe to simply walk
through it? The point is that the very real dangers were realized.



Overall, compared to any other major technology in widespread use, the
actual number of deaths and injuries from commercial nuclear power
accidents continues to leave it w/ far and away the best safety record
of any.

I have agreed to this point more than once, but you must also realize that
we're only now beginning to realize the impacts that we had dismissed as a
result of a pretty good service record for 20 years. We became lulled into
assuming that since we didn't have a lot of bad experiences, that we could
now argue for how safe things really are. That's just plain bull**** and
you know it. The risks are real as is evidenced by the very industry
itself - again ... I have not seen anyone within your industry downplay the
risks the way that you do.

That there will continue to be improvements and modifications
is certainly true and reasoned input is always useful but expecting
there to never be any conceivable incident is also unrealistic.

Never suggested that.


My contention remains that nuclear-related perceived risk is ranked
far higher than the realities of the actual happenings.

Yeahbut... The risk of storage for example, is very low when you begin to
store materials. it grows as storage grows.

Surely it is
unfortunate that any of these have occurred but then again, there
could be another large airliner be lost tomorrow over the South
Atlantic w/ multi-hundred passengers to an apparent severe
thunderstorm and yet virtually nobody would choose to not get on
_their_ flight the next day following despite that event.

Agreed - but the scale of risk is completely different. 400 people will not
be exposed to risk in a nuckear accident (whether it is operational or
logistical). As well the post incident issues are much greater in the case
of a nuclear incident. That all just servers to differentiate the two.

OTOH,
there's already movement to close nuclear facilities in places that
have no chances of tsunamis by reacting to Japan; it makes no
comparative sense whatever.

I do agree that some of these decisions make no sense at all - but that
draws back to the fact that I'm not anti-nuke. Focusing on dealing with
waste and looking at the potential accident scenarios are good thoughts, but
in no way do I support the knee jerk reaction to simply close down plants.

--

-Mike-

Germany does the deed.

http://tinyurl.com/3do64xf


Lew

On 6/30/2011 5:04 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Germany does the deed.

http://tinyurl.com/3do64xf

Politics, not science.

Had to laugh at the commentors. This quote says it all:

"Say I wanted broil a steak, which I don't eat because its meat and
causes climate change ..."

.... nuff said.

Makes one hope they won't live to see the bill for stupidity come due.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote:

Politics, not science.

Obviously.

Politics is the vehicle of change.

Lew

On 6/30/2011 7:14 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

Politics, not science.

Obviously.

Politics is the vehicle of change.

Politics is why your state is in the state its in ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/1/2011 6:09 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 6/30/2011 7:14 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

Politics, not science.

Obviously.

Politics is the vehicle of change.

Politics is why your state is in the state its in ...


But if you live in California, that is a good thing. Right? ;~)

On 7/1/2011 8:03 AM, Leon wrote:
On 7/1/2011 6:09 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 6/30/2011 7:14 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

Politics, not science.

Obviously.

Politics is the vehicle of change.

Politics is why your state is in the state its in ...


But if you live in California, that is a good thing. Right? ;~)


ONLY ... as long as they stay/keep it in CA!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/1/2011 8:25 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/1/2011 8:03 AM, Leon wrote:
On 7/1/2011 6:09 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 6/30/2011 7:14 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

Politics, not science.

Obviously.

Politics is the vehicle of change.

Politics is why your state is in the state its in ...


But if you live in California, that is a good thing. Right? ;~)


ONLY ... as long as they stay/keep it in CA!!

And it ooks like some are fed up with it:

http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/...411b87a9f.html

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Jul 6, 12:54*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Thanks to liberals and other unfounded fear mongers.

* * *Way to go, guys!

O, forfuksakes. Fear has been used to control the masses for eons.
Hell, the whole 'Hell' idea was conjured up by some power-hungry
padres. "Keep them suckers in line by scaring them into believing a
BAD eternity awaits those who don't fall into line and contribute to
the coffers of the bishops." Jacq-O, the Right even manages to create
fears out of thin air, it is not an exclusive of libtards, but it is
manipulated skillfully by those who want control....like the parents
of yore telling their unruly children there's a boogie-man under the
bed.
Who do we get taxed to death? Because if we don't, THE I R S is
gonna ruin you!!! What if the whole country decided to tell the IRS to
go **** themselves... just exactly how much power would they have? All
those mofo's have is what you give them. Fire the FED... they are NOT
elected and neither is the IRS... they're private companies behaving
badly.
And what if the whole country decided to try to go it without power
for a few days. Have a BBQ, take a walk, swim,...and turn everything
OFF.


http://goo.gl/oqvr7shutting down wind farms?

Oh wait... these windmills are 'instant ON'....no cost for them to sit
there other than the bleed to feed the creative funding packages.

*feeling a little rebellious today*

On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:30:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:54*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Thanks to liberals and other unfounded fear mongers.

* * *Way to go, guys!

O, forfuksakes. Fear has been used to control the masses for eons.
Hell, the whole 'Hell' idea was conjured up by some power-hungry
padres. "Keep them suckers in line by scaring them into believing a
BAD eternity awaits those who don't fall into line and contribute to
the coffers of the bishops." Jacq-O, the Right even manages to create
fears out of thin air, it is not an exclusive of libtards, but it is
manipulated skillfully by those who want control....like the parents
of yore telling their unruly children there's a boogie-man under the
bed.

I'm as contemptuous of "the religious wrong" as the libtards.


Who do we get taxed to death? Because if we don't, THE I R S is
gonna ruin you!!! What if the whole country decided to tell the IRS to
go **** themselves... just exactly how much power would they have? All
those mofo's have is what you give them. Fire the FED... they are NOT
elected and neither is the IRS... they're private companies behaving
badly.
And what if the whole country decided to try to go it without power
for a few days. Have a BBQ, take a walk, swim,...and turn everything
OFF.

It'd be _horrible_, wouldn't it?


http://goo.gl/oqvr7shutting down wind farms?

Oh wait... these windmills are 'instant ON'....no cost for them to sit
there other than the bleed to feed the creative funding packages.

*feeling a little rebellious today*

Big banana crop comin' in, eh?

--
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge.
-- Marie Ebner von Eschenbach

In article
,
Robatoy wrote:

Oh wait... these windmills are 'instant ON'....no cost for them to sit
there other than the bleed to feed the creative funding packages.

And the solar farms, too...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/solar-showdown-weeds-vs-silicon/

Dead technology...

On Jul 8, 10:46*am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article
,

Robatoy wrote:
Oh wait... these windmills are 'instant ON'....no cost for them to sit
there other than the bleed to feed the creative funding packages.

And the solar farms, too...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/solar-showdown-weeds-vs-silicon/

Dead technology...

I do think, however, that solar is usable on small-scale
installations, but as a major feed to the grid, not so much.
Wind? Same thing. Peak loads occur at 7 PM and 7 AM (give-or-take)
just when wind is low(er).

On Jul 8, 10:46*am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article
,

Robatoy wrote:
Oh wait... these windmills are 'instant ON'....no cost for them to sit
there other than the bleed to feed the creative funding packages.

And the solar farms, too...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/solar-showdown-weeds-vs-silicon/

Dead technology...

I followed a few links from that site you posted and I hadn't thought
about the vulnerability of such installations.
One AK47 and 20 clips of ammo, there goes a big chunk of a farm. One
bullet per panel.

On Jul 6, 11:46*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:30:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy





wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:54 am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Thanks to liberals and other unfounded fear mongers.

Way to go, guys!

O, forfuksakes. Fear has been used to control the masses for eons.
Hell, the whole 'Hell' idea was conjured up by some power-hungry
padres. "Keep them suckers in line by scaring them into believing a
BAD eternity awaits those who don't fall into line and contribute to
the coffers of the bishops." Jacq-O, the Right even manages to create
fears out of thin air, it is not an exclusive of libtards, but it is
manipulated skillfully by those who want control....like the parents
of yore telling their unruly children there's a boogie-man under the
bed.

I'm as contemptuous of "the religious wrong" as the libtards.

Who do we get taxed to death? Because if we don't, THE *I R S *is
gonna ruin you!!! What if the whole country decided to tell the IRS to
go **** themselves... just exactly how much power would they have? All
those mofo's have is what you give them. Fire the FED... they are NOT
elected and neither is the IRS... they're private companies behaving
badly.
And what if the whole country decided to try to go it without power
for a few days. Have a BBQ, take a walk, swim,...and turn everything
OFF.

It'd be _horrible_, wouldn't it? *

http://goo.gl/oqvr7shuttingdown wind farms?

Oh wait... these windmills are 'instant ON'....no cost for them to sit
there other than the bleed to feed the creative funding packages.

*feeling a little rebellious today*

Big banana crop comin' in, eh?

--
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge.
* * * * * * * *-- Marie Ebner von Eschenbach

A cute joke from my childhood: "Why are bananas curved?"
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
wait for it
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
A: "otherwise they won't fit in the peel!!!!"

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:32:43 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jul 8, 10:46*am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article
,

Robatoy wrote:
Oh wait... these windmills are 'instant ON'....no cost for them to sit
there other than the bleed to feed the creative funding packages.

And the solar farms, too...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/solar-showdown-weeds-vs-silicon/

Dead technology...

I followed a few links from that site you posted and I hadn't thought
about the vulnerability of such installations.
One AK47 and 20 clips of ammo, there goes a big chunk of a farm. One
bullet per panel.

....and all hail breaks loose.