Just wondering..

[M. Adam Davis-2]

On 2/25/08, David VanHorn <microbrix@...> wrote:
> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?

I can see three reasons:
 * No bases near where you want a reactor due to population
(transmission losses), water source, geologic stability and other
factors
 * Don't want the military to control power to the people (low, but
possible military coup)
 * Don't want to let enemies get 2 birds with one stone

As far as letting them run them, the military has a mission that,
while not incompatible, is certainly not completely lined up with
being a utility company.

-Adam
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

>  * No bases near where you want a reactor due to population
> (transmission losses), water source, geologic stability and other
> factors

Well, we've moved bases before, and actually population centers and
bases seem to go hand in hand mostly, especially with navy bases.  I
dunno how many reactors the army has run, but the navy is certainly
used to them, working in VERY close quarters with them.

>  * Don't want the military to control power to the people (low, but possible military coup)

Seems way farfetched.

>  * Don't want to let enemies get 2 birds with one stone

Again, the bases are already in major population centers in a lot of cases.


> As far as letting them run them, the military has a mission that,
> while not incompatible, is certainly not completely lined up with
> being a utility company.

Yes, but that is where you bring in some civilians in.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Smolinski]

>  > As far as letting them run them, the military has a mission that,
>>  while not incompatible, is certainly not completely lined up with
>>  being a utility company.
>
>Yes, but that is where you bring in some civilians in.

Placing the US Bullion Depository at Ft Knox seems to have prevented
anyone from trying to improperly acquire the gold, James Bond
villains aside ;-)

I'm all for setting up a few locations across the US where many
nuclear reactors are placed. Near enough to major population centers
to be where the loads are, far enough away for a buffer zone. Set up
restricted airspace around them.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

Cedric Chang wrote:

> The LOUC is the same as the bogeyman behind the tree, the glowing  
> green frogs, etc.  LOUC is proportional to the Hubris Factor.  
> Anyway, a mountain full of Nook waste is a far less of a problem to  
> deal with than Global Warming.  See ...... on the one hand, there is  
> hand wringing about Global Warming ( which I have severe reservations  
> about ) and the same people who wring their hands and say it is going  
> to wipe us out ,offer such limp wristed solutions such as collecting  
> plastic at the curb, or let's use wind power ( big wind farms ----->  
> LOUC ---> you ain't seen nothing yet ) or solar.  I have nothing  
> against solar, it is a technology that perhaps will solve everything  
> in the future.  Right now It is not ready for prime time.  If humans  
> really cause GW and if it is really happening, then first, " let's  
> kill all the people."  [Henry VI]             ::-]    ( i wear glasses )
> cc
>
>  

No, No, they said "First, we'll kill all the lawyers".

--Bob A

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

> I'm all for setting up a few locations across the US where many
> nuclear reactors are placed. Near enough to major population centers
> to be where the loads are, far enough away for a buffer zone. Set up
> restricted airspace around them.

That's what I'm thinking.. We already have a lot of the security
infrastructure there, and it makes some sense to combine the
functions.  In case of a problem, the base probably remains powered
up, which is a good thing.

Since a lot of the folks responsible for the security and operations
would be essentially living at the plant, I would think that they
would take a serious interest.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Smolinski]

>  > I'm all for setting up a few locations across the US where many
>>  nuclear reactors are placed. Near enough to major population centers
>>  to be where the loads are, far enough away for a buffer zone. Set up
>>  restricted airspace around them.
>
>That's what I'm thinking.. We already have a lot of the security
>infrastructure there, and it makes some sense to combine the
>functions.  In case of a problem, the base probably remains powered
>up, which is a good thing.
>
>Since a lot of the folks responsible for the security and operations
>would be essentially living at the plant, I would think that they
>would take a serious interest.

That's an excellent point. If your wife and kids are living there,
you're going to be extra careful.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Andre Abelian-3]

Hi to all,

I used HSPLL instead of ECPLL to program some boards that it is too late
to open them. HS is for crystal and EC is for external clock. HS works for both.
Does any one know why HSPLL works for both and it is safe to use it.


thanks

Andre  

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[sergio masci-2]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Chris Smolinski wrote:

> >  > I'm all for setting up a few locations across the US where many
> >>  nuclear reactors are placed. Near enough to major population centers
> >>  to be where the loads are, far enough away for a buffer zone. Set up
> >>  restricted airspace around them.
> >
> >That's what I'm thinking.. We already have a lot of the security
> >infrastructure there, and it makes some sense to combine the
> >functions.  In case of a problem, the base probably remains powered
> >up, which is a good thing.
> >
> >Since a lot of the folks responsible for the security and operations
> >would be essentially living at the plant, I would think that they
> >would take a serious interest.
>
> That's an excellent point. If your wife and kids are living there,
> you're going to be extra careful.

You are projecting your feeling and ideals on other people. If everyone
felt like you there would be no wife beating husbands or child beating
fathers. Don't expect others to be more careful because you would be. Some
people will still see it as just another job.

Regards
Sergio
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Newtons Massmind]

My point is that we currently have mountains (plural) and plains and caves
and back yards full (to a lesser concentration) of nuclear waste (well, not
waste, but still radioactive to some degree) which we aren't even apparently
aware of and we don't worry about that, so why do we worry about a mountain
that we DO know about?

There are places where yellow cake sits around in national parks and kids
use it to draw on rocks. Xrays, high airplane flights, and bad water cause
more radiation damage than any nuke waste ever has. And coal power causes
more damage of all sorts (radiation, pollution, etc...) than anything
nuclear does ever.

So why do we get so upset about nuke plants and nuke waste? The numbers
don't account for the emotions.

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
Carey Fisher
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 05:49
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Just wondering..

James Newton wrote:
> Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally occurring
veins
> of radioactive ore being exposed by some natural or unnatural upheaval and
> that same sort of exposure happening to spent fuel rods.
>
> Shit happens.
The "Law of Unintended Consequences" is the problem here.  I think it's
likely that something we
currently don't know will bite us in the butt.  And do we want a
mountain full of nuclear
waste to be the biter?
Carey
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Smolinski]

>My point is that we currently have mountains (plural) and plains and caves
>and back yards full (to a lesser concentration) of nuclear waste (well, not
>waste, but still radioactive to some degree) which we aren't even apparently
>aware of and we don't worry about that, so why do we worry about a mountain
>that we DO know about?
>
>There are places where yellow cake sits around in national parks and kids
>use it to draw on rocks. Xrays, high airplane flights, and bad water cause
>more radiation damage than any nuke waste ever has. And coal power causes
>more damage of all sorts (radiation, pollution, etc...) than anything
>nuclear does ever.
>
>So why do we get so upset about nuke plants and nuke waste? The numbers
>don't account for the emotions.

Because human are not rational, and incorrectly assign risk to events.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Newtons Massmind]

This, again, misses the point. IMnHO.

It isn't that we KNOW for certain that Yucca will prove to be as stable as
Oklo. That would be the best guess, based on scientific methods, but no
scientist worth his or her salt will claim that his or her prediction is
100% reliable.

The POINT is that it is better to have the radioactive material in a place
were we KNOW about it rather than in a place where mother nature (bless her
homicidal heart) can belch it up at us at some unpredictable point in the
future.

Promoting nuke plants stimulates the mining of nuke fuel, thereby tracking
it down and moving it OUT of places where we didn't know it was and INTO
places where we DO know where it is.

Again, spent fuel is not fundamentally any more dangerous than naturally
occurring radioactive sources. At least we KNOW what we are doing with our
waste. We have no idea how Gia will use its "waste".

And by avoiding nuke power, we subject ourselves to coal power, "natural"
gas power, and oil power, all of which are killing us faster than all of our
nuke waste would if we just put it back right where we got it.

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
wouter van ooijen
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 09:08
To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
Subject: RE: [OT] Just wondering..

> We wouldn't. The point is that the above example shows that
> for the given conditions that natural reactor was exposed to
> the granite, sandstone and clays do a good job at keeping the
> plutonium and other wastes in place. You can then use that
> knowledge, and other geological knowledge, to make sure that
> a proposed dump will be exposed to similar conditions.

I disagree. You are confusing correlation with cause-and-effect. Without
much much more proof (much more than 1 non-random sample) I do not trust
anyone to correctly identify the factors that made this site stable. Not
for anything as important as dumping spent fuel.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:33 PM, James Newton <jamesnewton@...> wrote:
> My point is that we currently have mountains (plural) and plains and caves
> and back yards full (to a lesser concentration) of nuclear waste (well, not
> waste, but still radioactive to some degree) which we aren't even apparently
> aware of and we don't worry about that, so why do we worry about a mountain
> that we DO know about?

And all that waste that we already DO have, is sitting in FAR less
secure areas now.


Everything has it's costs, and it does seem that embedded interests
are hyping the dangers of the new stuff so that they won't loose their
market.   There were at one time laws that required a motor vehicle to
be preceeded by a flagman, etc..
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> The POINT is that it is better to have the radioactive
> material in a place were we KNOW about it rather than in a
> place where mother nature (bless her homicidal heart) can
> belch it up at us at some unpredictable point in the future.

You still don't get it: what we must store after using it is totally
different from what we mined. I would *not* mind the natural stuff being
stored in Yucca mountain or even in a clay pit in the Netherlands. But
real nuclar waste (what remaings of the fuel rods after their usefull
life) is a totally different piece of cake.

> And by avoiding nuke power, we subject ourselves to coal
> power, "natural" gas power, and oil power

Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently 'accepted'
amount of energy ( and at the current price).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Smolinski]

>  > The POINT is that it is better to have the radioactive
>>  material in a place were we KNOW about it rather than in a
>>  place where mother nature (bless her homicidal heart) can
>>  belch it up at us at some unpredictable point in the future.
>
>You still don't get it: what we must store after using it is totally
>different from what we mined. I would *not* mind the natural stuff being
>stored in Yucca mountain or even in a clay pit in the Netherlands. But
>real nuclar waste (what remaings of the fuel rods after their usefull
>life) is a totally different piece of cake.
>
>>  And by avoiding nuke power, we subject ourselves to coal
>>  power, "natural" gas power, and oil power
>
>Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently 'accepted'
>amount of energy ( and at the current price).

Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
century, with lifespans of 30 years.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Newtons Massmind]

The soviets have used Navy nuke ships to provide civilian power. When our
carriers are in port, why not use them to supply the grid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy We have 80 nuke powered ships.
Over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience (if the military is
to be believed, and a major accident would be hard to hide, I would expect).

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
David VanHorn
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:03
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Just wondering..

>  * No bases near where you want a reactor due to population
> (transmission losses), water source, geologic stability and other
> factors

Well, we've moved bases before, and actually population centers and
bases seem to go hand in hand mostly, especially with navy bases.  I
dunno how many reactors the army has run, but the navy is certainly
used to them, working in VERY close quarters with them.

<snip>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Newtons Massmind]

The difference between naturally occurring radioactive materials and nuke
waste is ONLY in terms of the level of radiation coming out of it. The type
and effect of the radiation is absolutely the same. If you dilute the spent
fuel rods enough, the resulting radiation field is NO different than the
naturally occurring fuel.

AND

It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the materials are
producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they have a shorter half life, so
over all, they will produce less total energy than the original substance.

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
wouter van ooijen
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 14:15
To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
Subject: RE: [OT] Just wondering..

> The POINT is that it is better to have the radioactive
> material in a place were we KNOW about it rather than in a
> place where mother nature (bless her homicidal heart) can
> belch it up at us at some unpredictable point in the future.

You still don't get it: what we must store after using it is totally
different from what we mined. I would *not* mind the natural stuff being
stored in Yucca mountain or even in a clay pit in the Netherlands. But
real nuclar waste (what remaings of the fuel rods after their usefull
life) is a totally different piece of cake.

> And by avoiding nuke power, we subject ourselves to coal
> power, "natural" gas power, and oil power

Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently 'accepted'
amount of energy ( and at the current price).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[sergio masci-2]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, wouter van ooijen wrote:

> > We wouldn't. The point is that the above example shows that
> > for the given conditions that natural reactor was exposed to
> > the granite, sandstone and clays do a good job at keeping the
> > plutonium and other wastes in place. You can then use that
> > knowledge, and other geological knowledge, to make sure that
> > a proposed dump will be exposed to similar conditions.
>
> I disagree. You are confusing correlation with cause-and-effect. Without
> much much more proof (much more than 1 non-random sample) I do not trust
> anyone to correctly identify the factors that made this site stable. Not
> for anything as important as dumping spent fuel.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it will always come down to
trust. You can chase these arguments round and round but ultimately it
always boils down to the same thing.

Regards
Sergio
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[ivp]

> 1) Bicycling
> 2) Walking
> 3) Train
> 4) Bus
> 5) Flying
>
> I love to ride my bicycle and as soon as my light system is
> repaired it's commuter time! I'm building a new light system

I like cycling too. Apart from the exercise, you get to gawp and
investigate all kinds of things that you wouldn't otherwise even
see or have the opportunity to poke around in. Car driving is
more of a point-to-point kind of travel, not an adventure like
cycling can be. When needs be, the bike goes in the back of the
car, which is parked a little way out of congestion areas. I'm
always careful to be well-lit in town. Can't believe the people
who ride down the middle of Queen St (a very busy central
Auckland street) at night with no helmet or lights. And on skate
boards too. Don't think my nerves were ever *that* good

Trains - good. 'cos you can take a bike with you. Which came
in extra handy last weekend as I needed to take a whole load of
power tools into town. Didn't fancy a 10 mile cycle in hot humid
weather with a ton of baggage. No sir

The job itself turned out to be a little unusual. A friend with a
commercial property has adopted a "factory cat", and I made a
cat-flap for it that the insurance company wouldn't object to

Now the staff are presented with a dead rat, sometimes in one
piece, sometimes as a jigsaw, albeit with missing pieces, in the
morning, so far every day. They probably come from a restaurant
a couple of doors up. Outside around the bins presumably, I've
no idea what the restaurant uses for entrees

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[ivp]

> The soviets have used Navy nuke ships to provide civilian power.
> When our carriers are in port, why not use them to supply the grid?

When Auckland had a major power outage a few years ago, the
diesel-fuelled NZ Navy ships did just that, but it was an emergency

As for nucular waste, it's been discussed here before - the problem
is more to do with people than the material. If there's a will to find
a secure long-term home for the waste, then it can be done

When you look at some of the world's major engineering feats -
Boston's Big Dig, the Channel Tunnel, the Mont Blanc Tunnel,
Holland's Zuiderzee and Delta projects, even NZ's Manapouri
Hydro scheme - is it that difficult to bury it waaaaay down ?

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

> Now the staff are presented with a dead rat, sometimes in one
> piece, sometimes as a jigsaw, albeit with missing pieces, in the
> morning, so far every day. They probably come from a restaurant
> a couple of doors up. Outside around the bins presumably, I've
> no idea what the restaurant uses for entrees

:) Kitty pays his rent!
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist