Just wondering..

[Byron Jeff]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:01:49PM -0400, W. Jacobs wrote:

> The risk may be imperceptible at TMI but the "Cancer Belt" that
> surrounds Hanford is fairly well documented.

Apples and gorillas. Hanford was a US military project designed to produce
plutonium. The US miltary deliberately dumped and contained radioactive waste in
the environment.

BAJ

> Bill
> who believes in coal and pays $0.066 a kWH
>
> Bob Axtell wrote:
> > Byron Jeff wrote:
> >
> >> The most disastrous and most covered US nuclear accident was Three Mile
> >> Island. To hear the story told it was a total meltdown and the state on
> >> Pennsylvania was made barren. But the truth of the matter is that in the
> >> absolute worst accident in the nearly 60 years of US nuclear power
> >> generation, no one died and the incidence of the terrifying nuclear
> >> radiation induced cancer ridden mutant baby zombies was statistically
> >> imperceptable:
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> 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

[Byron Jeff]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:40:22PM -0400, Apptech wrote:

> > The risk may be imperceptible at TMI but the "Cancer Belt"
> > that
> > surrounds Hanford is fairly well documented.
> > Bill
> > who believes in coal and pays $0.066 a kWH
>
> >>> But the truth
>
> What is truth?
>
> >>> of the matter is that in the
> >>> absolute worst accident in the nearly 60 years of US
> >>> nuclear power
> >>> generation, no one died and the incidence of the
> >>> terrifying nuclear
> >>> radiation induced cancer ridden mutant baby zombies was
> >>> statistically
> >>> imperceptable:
>
> What is statistics?

I gave the link in my original post.

>
> There are no cancers in the residential areas of Sellafield
> / Windscale caused by the nuclear facilities there.
> It's true!
> It's been statistically proven!
> Utterly rigorous scientific investigations have shown that
> the cancer clusters in Sellafield are/were unrelated in any
> way to the adjacent nuclear facilities.

That's not what the Wikipedia entry for Sellafield says. The COMARE report
http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/comare_pr10.htm

Indicates that while no significance at commercial nuclear power plants in
England, that places like Sellafield did have an increased incidence.

Again Sellafield was used as a weapons grade plutonium reprocessing plant
and that nuclear waste were dumped into the Irish sea and gaseous releases
into the air.

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

[W. Jacobs]

The risk may be imperceptible at TMI but the "Cancer Belt" that
surrounds Hanford is fairly well documented.
Bill
who believes in coal and pays $0.066 a kWH

Bob Axtell wrote:

> Byron Jeff wrote:
>
>> The most disastrous and most covered US nuclear accident was Three Mile
>> Island. To hear the story told it was a total meltdown and the state on
>> Pennsylvania was made barren. But the truth of the matter is that in the
>> absolute worst accident in the nearly 60 years of US nuclear power
>> generation, no one died and the incidence of the terrifying nuclear
>> radiation induced cancer ridden mutant baby zombies was statistically
>> imperceptable:
>>
>>    

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

[Russell McMahon]

> The risk may be imperceptible at TMI but the "Cancer Belt"
> that
> surrounds Hanford is fairly well documented.
> Bill
> who believes in coal and pays $0.066 a kWH

>>> But the truth

What is truth?

>>> of the matter is that in the
>>> absolute worst accident in the nearly 60 years of US
>>> nuclear power
>>> generation, no one died and the incidence of the
>>> terrifying nuclear
>>> radiation induced cancer ridden mutant baby zombies was
>>> statistically
>>> imperceptable:

What is statistics?

There are no cancers in the residential areas of Sellafield
/ Windscale caused by the nuclear facilities there.
It's true!
It's been statistically proven!
Utterly rigorous scientific investigations have shown that
the cancer clusters in Sellafield are/were unrelated in any
way to the adjacent nuclear facilities.

See my ad for bridges for sale.
And family friendly houses in Sellafield.



        Russell


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

[Russell McMahon]

>> What is statistics?

> I gave the link in my original post.


That was really a reference to a 2000 year or so old quote
:-)
(John 18:37b - 18:38a)

>> There are no cancers in the residential areas of
>> Sellafield
>> / Windscale caused by the nuclear facilities there.
>> It's true!
>> It's been statistically proven!
>> Utterly rigorous scientific investigations have shown
>> that
>> the cancer clusters in Sellafield are/were unrelated in
>> any
>> way to the adjacent nuclear facilities.

> That's not what the Wikipedia entry for Sellafield says.
> The COMARE report
> http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/comare_pr10.htm
> Indicates that while no significance at commercial nuclear
> power plants in
> England, that places like Sellafield did have an increased
> incidence.

That is my point.
PEOPLE claimed it was happening.
COMARE investigated and agreed.
BUT scientific investigations subsequently found that there
was no evidence that radiological issues were to blame. ie
the clusters "just happened" in that area, but it had
nothing to do with the radiation.

It would probably help their case long term if the
proponents of nuclear power erred on the side of
acknowledging that they may be due some of the doubt of the
benefit in uncertain cases. Claiming squeaky cleanness in
all events tend sto get non productive long term.

> Again Sellafield was used as a weapons grade plutonium
> reprocessing plant
> and that nuclear waste were dumped into the Irish sea and
> gaseous releases
> into the air.

Yes. But you get weapons grade plutonium from "residential
grade" power plants. ie while this was not a direct reactor
problem  it was utterly linked to reactors existing.

I personally would not be too too worried to live a few km
downwind of a competently run nuclear power station operated
in a non corrupt environment. Being certain of the
competence and the non-corruption would be the major
problem. Most of the time it all *seems* to work reasonably
well inside the stations proper.

______

While I'm here, when I referred to DU and weapons before I
was meaning "Depleted Uranium" used in "penetrators" in
modern weapons systems. eg Abrams MBT and Warthog 'rounds'.
It's generally accepted that a proportion of the Uranium is
vaporised in transit or on arrival or deposited over wide
areas as very fine dust. Any potential effects are made
'somewhat worse' by the fact [tm][national security may
preclude exact data being available] that rather than using
only virgin U to D into DU (such as happens when natural U
is gas centrifuged to separate U235 from its friends),
much/some/unknown-fraction of the DU is derived as a weapons
recovery program byproduct. It carries a small but
interesting cocktail of 'other stuff' along with the U. The
ratio is extremely small. The effects are debateable and
debated. Playing (or living) on ex US battlefields in Iraq
or the Balkans may not be a good idea. May beat standing in
front of a Warthog or Abrams during initial delivery though.

Random factoid. An Abrams crewman receives about a maximum
annual dose of radiation from his own DU during an otherwise
uneventful tour of duty. YMMV depending on your location
within the beast. [If Merkavas* used DU (and who can say)
the problem would be reduced due to the enlightened crew
placement.]




        Russell

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


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

[W. Jacobs]

Byron Jeff wrote:
> Apples and gorillas. Hanford was a US military project designed to produce
> plutonium. The US miltary deliberately dumped and contained radioactive waste in
> the environment.
>
> BAJ
>  
Gorillas and oranges.  Commercial nuclear plants sent their spent fuel rods to US DOD plants like Hanford to reprocess the fuel.  The Gov wanted the plutonium and did not want anyone else to have it.  This is part of the cost of nuclear power that does not show up in the cost of electric.  It is subsidized by the government.  
President Carter placed a moratorium on reprocessing and very little has been done since then.  Most nuclear plants have a swimming pool that is filled with spent fuel and water.  It boils the water 24/7.  Heaven help you if it ever boils dry.  It will need maintained for the foreseeable future
It is now under control of Dept of Energy

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

[Byron Jeff]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:44AM -0400, W. Jacobs wrote:
>
>
> Byron Jeff wrote:
> > Apples and gorillas. Hanford was a US military project designed to produce
> > plutonium. The US miltary deliberately dumped and contained radioactive waste in
> > the environment.
> >
> > BAJ
> >

> Gorillas and oranges.  Commercial nuclear plants sent their spent fuel
> rods to US DOD plants like Hanford to reprocess the fuel.

Not from my reading they don't. I see now that this is past tense. Right
now spent US nuclear fuel is stored in cooling ponds onsite. There is a
once through fuel cycle with no reprocessing.

To quote the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Reprocessing

"The recovered uranium and plutonium can, if economic and institutional
conditions permit, be recycled for use as nuclear fuel. This is currently
not done for civilian spent nuclear fuel in the US."

>  The Gov wanted
> the plutonium and did not want anyone else to have it.

While the second part is certainly true, with breeder reactors at Hanford
producing tons of plutonium, the US military certainly didn't need
plutonium from commercial reactor cores to make bombs.

Commercial reactors are poor breeders for plutonium. If you want to make
bombs, it's much better to actually build a breeder reactor.

>  This is part of
> the cost of nuclear power that does not show up in the cost of electric.
> It is subsidized by the government.

Reference please? Is this supposed subsidy, along with the sprialing
regulatory costs, the reason that no more new commercial reactors have come
online in over a decade:

http://www.southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2007/08/tva-green-lights-watts-bar-2.asp

Watts Bar in Tennesee took $8 billion and 23 years to come to fruition.

Who subsidized that?

> President Carter placed a moratorium on reprocessing and very little has
> been done since then.  Most nuclear plants have a swimming pool that is
> filled with spent fuel and water.  It boils the water 24/7.  Heaven help
> you if it ever boils dry.  It will need maintained for the foreseeable
> future
> It is now under control of Dept of Energy

Just continuous roadblocks. And that's what I keep complaining about. The
NRC should safely restart the US commercial nuclear program:

1) They need to preapprove a simple safe reactor design. Test the hell out
of it and approve it. Anyone who builds a plant with that design is
streamlined to build.

2) Start reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel. You get 97% of the volume to
put right back into the plants.

3) Take the final 3%, distill the hell out of the actinides (which are the
longest term radioactive products), and take rest and stick it Yucca
Mountain.


BTW I know it sounds like I'm talking about an exclusively nuclear
infrastructure. I really don't have a problem with solar, wind, or hydro.
But at the end of the day each present significant limitations in their
ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of different situations.
Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and the water don't
flow. Use it where it's appropriate. But nuclear needs to be a part of the
mix.

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

[Byron Jeff]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:08:38PM -0400, Apptech wrote:

[Snip]

> >> There are no cancers in the residential areas of Sellafield /
> >> Windscale caused by the nuclear facilities there.  It's true!  It's
> >> been statistically proven!  Utterly rigorous scientific investigations
> >> have shown that the cancer clusters in Sellafield are/were unrelated
> >> in any way to the adjacent nuclear facilities.

> > That's not what the Wikipedia entry for Sellafield says.  The COMARE
> > report http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/comare_pr10.htm
> > Indicates that while no significance at commercial nuclear power plants
> > in England, that places like Sellafield did have an increased
> > incidence.

> That is my point.
> PEOPLE claimed it was happening.
> COMARE investigated and agreed.
> BUT scientific investigations subsequently found that there
> was no evidence that radiological issues were to blame. ie
> the clusters "just happened" in that area, but it had
> nothing to do with the radiation.

What are these subsequent investigations?

> It would probably help their case long term if the
> proponents of nuclear power erred on the side of
> acknowledging that they may be due some of the doubt of the
> benefit in uncertain cases. Claiming squeaky cleanness in
> all events tend sto get non productive long term.

I agree. When Sellafield is dumping nuclear waste into the Irish Sea, you'd
best believe that there are going to be harmful effects on the environment.

> > Again Sellafield was used as a weapons grade plutonium
> > reprocessing plant
> > and that nuclear waste were dumped into the Irish sea and
> > gaseous releases
> > into the air.
>
> Yes. But you get weapons grade plutonium from "residential
> grade" power plants. ie while this was not a direct reactor
> problem  it was utterly linked to reactors existing.

But it's only a small byproduct in residential grade power plants. You need
a breeder reactor to get significant amounts of plutonium. This article:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_security/Nuclear-Reprocessing-Factsheet.pdf

indicates that residential plutonium constitutes about 1% of a spent
reactor core.

According to the Plutonium Watch:

http://www.isis-online.org/global_stocks/plutonium_watch2004.html

"Civil plutonium is in two basic forms--contained in spent (irradiated)
fuel, or in separated (unirradiated) form. Unirradiated plutonium may be in
pure form, in the process of being fabricated into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel,
or in fresh MOX fuel. Once it has been irradiated, however, the plutonium
in MOX fuel, like the plutonium produced when uranium fuel is irradiated,
is contained in spent fuel. The plutonium in spent fuel is considered more
proliferation resistant because it is difficult to separate the plutonium
from the other radioactive constituents of spent fuel."

BAJ

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

[Peter Todd-2]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:44AM -0400, W. Jacobs wrote:

>
>
> Byron Jeff wrote:
> > Apples and gorillas. Hanford was a US military project designed to produce
> > plutonium. The US miltary deliberately dumped and contained radioactive waste in
> > the environment.
> >
> > BAJ
> >  
> Gorillas and oranges.  Commercial nuclear plants sent their spent fuel rods to US DOD plants like Hanford to reprocess the fuel.  The Gov wanted the plutonium and did not want anyone else to have it.  This is part of the cost of nuclear power that does not show up in the cost of electric.  It is subsidized by the government.  
> President Carter placed a moratorium on reprocessing and very little has been done since then.  Most nuclear plants have a swimming pool that is filled with spent fuel and water.  It boils the water 24/7.  Heaven help you if it ever boils dry.  It will need maintained for the foreseeable future
> It is now under control of Dept of Energy

By foreseeable future, you mean a few years at most. Spent fuel *does*
cool down, that energy has to come from somewhere. According to my
second link, you get a 100x reduction in heat load over five years, due
to the fairly short half-lives of the stuff present that makes fresh
fuel so radioactive. As always in radioactivity, the hotter and more
dangerous something is, the fast it cools down and becomes safe.

In any case here is a good link to a risk evaluation:

http://www.inesap.org/bulletin22/bul22art30.htm

The main problem is that the zirconium cladding can burn, which would
lead to a potentially massive (20x Chernoble for instance in one
worst-case scenario) release of Caesium-137 into the environment. The
damage is then a matter of half-lifes, which for C-137 is 30 years. You
do have to empty the pool though, they are normally around 40-50 feet
deep of which only a few feet of depth is actually needed. Even then, a
few fire hoses of water spray are more than enough to keep the fuel
cool. The real issue is contingencies for a major accident, where
sending in people to setup hoses becomes dangerous. In some worst case
scenarios you'd be asking people to take some very serious risks to
setup that sort of emergency cooling system.

Remember though that the risks there are due to the greater density, 5
to 7 times the original designs, that many plants are packing their
fuel. As designed the density of those pools was such that the fuel
would be perfectly safe with no water cooling. You could get the stuff
to burn in a terrorism situation, by say, pouring gasoline on it, but it
is not dangerous on it's own. The water was there simply to protect the
operators from the direct gamma radiation hazard, which it does a very
good job of. When I went on a tour of Pickering Nuclear about a decade
ago I got to see the pool and above ground cask storage in person.
Incidentally, if the fuel was boiling the water, it sure wasn't doing so
very vigorously, I didn't notice any bubbles at all, and I think the
guide would have mentioned it, he did mention science behind that pretty
blue glow... Anyway, the immediate solution is to have the plants build
more pools or more low-density dry cask storage. Waiting works too, due
to the half-lifes and quickly reducing heat loads.

As for that option here is a link talking about dry cask storage and the
trade-offs inherent in it:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8967/are_nuclear_spent_fuel_pools_secure.html

Pretty much an issue of money really, water makes a far cheaper and
space-efficient radiation shield and cooling system than air and
concrete.


For comparison one of my friends at school works as a landscaper during
the summer.  He's works for a company with a got quite unique niche,
maintaining the grass over chemical holding tanks for indefinite storage
of waste by-products, toluene, dioxines, cyanide etc. His qualifications
are landscaping experimence, passing a bunch of chemical safety training
courses, and knowing not to use backhoes on top of tanks covered by 2ft
of soil. Various chemical related industries simply store this often
horrendously deadly stuff in large, monitored, concrete tanks
indefinitely. It'd be a much better idea to incinerate, especially for
hydrocarbon stuff like toluene, but building and operating incinerators
is completely out of the question politically.

Now the contents liquids and often water soluble and will contaminate
ground water if they leak. As always a fire could, and has on occasions,
triggered large scale chemical releases which do poison people, and
there is enough of them that in Ontario alone there is a company
specializing in doing landscaping of those tanks...

- --
peter[:-1]@petertodd.org http://petertodd.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH6g1g3bMhDbI9xWQRAoIkAJ9BA8KkPXfhnlwLmAru/z20xK2RwwCfX+KR
odDOXX80gs31cYbLgAZS4Gg=
=AUpc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[SME-2]

> You do have to empty the pool though, they are normally around 40-50 feet
> deep of which only a few feet of depth is actually needed. Even then, a
> few fire hoses of water spray are more than enough to keep the fuel
> cool.
...
> As designed the density of those pools was such that the fuel
> would be perfectly safe with no water cooling. You could get the stuff
> to burn in a terrorism situation, by say, pouring gasoline on it, but it
> is not dangerous on it's own.

Given "the job" it would be interesting to see if you could divert
liquid sodium reactor coolant into the pool, perhaps by bringing
specialist equipment on site. That way you'd have the potential to get
several parallel "effects" for your money. Sodium, or NaK would do a
nice job of dealing with the water but odds are more would get flung
out by the violence of the reaction than would burn on the spot. That
should do a good job of spreading 'the material' around as well as
sending it skyward. You should get enough combustion however to do the
job well. Extra credit for opening up water supplies into the general
area - perhaps with part of the Sodium being dedicated to this support
act. Perhaps Sodium and water directed around the containment vessel
could discontain it? You'd need to know your way around the reactor
concerned if you wanted the loss of coolant to do something useful
internally at about the same time. Using a team with 1 way tickets and
a dedication to the job would have distinct advantages in this sort of
scenario. Anyone want a scenario consultant? [I can do rather better
than that with far more certainty. I told the FBI but if they heard
they jest lay low or don't care. No, I'm not telling you.].



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

[Russell McMahon]

>From March 2nd.
Found in passing

Re comparing nuclear with solar on an equal footing.

> Rustle, I am disappointed.  Where are the hard figures (
> or at least
> good estimates ) that I know you love to provide ?  I do
> not think
> you have made your case without them.

I doubt your disappointment.
BUT I was not trying to make a case.
I was simply introducing stage one of a process - first find
out how level the playing field is and see what it will take
to allow a gorillas-gorillas comparison. This is, of course,
an extremely hard task in this case (as in many cases) and I
would be utterly wasting my time in putting any figures on
it. Those with Plutonium on their breaths would with a wave
of the hand (or a spent fuel rod) dismiss any such figures
with nary a further thought. Those hugging trees would pause
from doing so long enough to add a 0 on the end of all my
results. Status quo would prevail.

What I rather sought to do was provide some mental filter
opening over the sort of issues that would need to be
considered if you ever wanted to do serious comparisons. I
listed some finite areas for consideration. Which of these
do you so lightly dismiss and why?

If you (whoever) are serious about addressing these issues
do NOT use the points below which miss some detail - respond
to the original.

Synopsising from the original:

>> Firstly let both bear their own regulatory and management
>> costs. If it costs more then it pays more.

>> Next add the true costs of any indemnities offered
>> against
>> prosecution or liability. [Ask for an open market
>> insurance quote for a nuke plant. Go on. Just ask :-) ]

>> Next add the true cost of greenfielding the site when the
>> economic lifetime is over.

>> Next add any costs for extras such as requisite security
>> for
>> sites or products or whatever.

>> You can allow a positive contribution for outputs other
>> than
>> power per se as long as the prices are paid by fully non
>> subsidised customers. (eg not military of any shade or
>> governments)

>> Now add the cost of fuel, production etc.

>> Now add all that up and calculate true cost per unit of
>> electricity.

I'd wager, if I wagered, that the cost of nuclear is liable
to be double what you expect, even if you allow for this
rule.

At present solar is cost marginal against semi-available
alternatives. Solar will get cheaper. Many alternatives will
get dearer with time. Solar is not necessarily the best mass
energy source, but it is a viable one. It just depends on
whether we are happy to pay for our energy at a fair rate
now or would rather pay for it at a rather higher rate later
on.



        Russell

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

[Russell McMahon]

I think you meant IYHO > 1) They need to ...  :-) ?

> But at the end of the day each present significant
> limitations in their
> ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of
> different situations.

Yes.

> Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and
> the water don't
> flow. Use it where it's appropriate.

Yes.

> But nuclear needs to be a part of the mix.

No.

Nuclear COULD be a part of the mix.
But it doesn't have to be.
It has convenient attributes, but it's not a necessity.

The others are renewables but have peaky to very peaky
characteristics.
Direct solar doesn't do well at night :-).
It's statistical performance by day is good enough to plan
by.

Wind (indirect solar) is peaky and energy density is
variable. You build it in high energy density areas first.
Some countries (Scandinavia?) are building 'farms' offshore
for lower eco complaints and a more constant wind pattern.

Nobody seems to have mentioned wave power here lately, or
tidal basins.

Thought exercise. Consider the largest ocean harbour you
know. Consider how much energy it would take to pump it down
several metres when full in 6 hours. And how much to then
fill it by about the same amount in the next 6 hours. Start
getting ideas.

Wave power is a hard master - but the energies available are
immense. Thought exercise. Hinge two VERY large barges
together. Load them to the gunnels. Moor them in a wave line
so they happily hinge  to and fro as waves pass by. Now
consider how much energy it would take to make the large and
loaded barges do the same thing in the absence of waves or
water. Start getting ideas. (Gargoyle wave contouring raft)
[IEEE: heaving and pitching bodies, cavity resonators, wave
focusing, pressure devices surging devices, paddles,
outriggers.]

There are bidirectional hydro systems now that pump water
into storage basins. The overall efficiencies are reasonable
if not stunning.

Vanadium Redox batteries promise to allow utterly immense
battery systems to be implemented in future. Not up to
pumped hydro size.

A hydro scheme used as a load leveller for a wind + sun +
hydro system can greatly extend the duration that the water
reserve can be useful over in dry periods. And the wind and
solar can reverse pump the solar system if so designed.

The dread hydrogen could be used as a load leveller with
wind and sun using electrolysis and either thermal
combustion or fuel cells. Scale probably not nice for fuel
cells. Not yet anyway.

Ocean thermal (OTEC) has promise. It works. Probably poor
cost effectiveness so far.

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

Hawaiian land based !!!!!!!! trial OTEC

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OTEC_in_Hawaii.jpg


Quite a few of these schemes, and various others that are
available, could be expensive. But, until the TRUE cost of
nuclear is used in calculations, it stops marginal ones
being considered. Even if nuclear stations are not being
built it acts as "dog in the manger" to other prospective
solutions through its offer of alleged cheap, or not too too
dear,  power. Thought exercise: Price insurance in the
genuine free market for nuclear power generation without any
government intervention whatsoever. Go fishing.



            Russell








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

[Russell McMahon]

>> >> There are no cancers in the residential areas of
>> >> Sellafield /
>> >> Windscale caused by the nuclear facilities there.
>> >> It's true!  It's
>> >> been statistically proven!  Utterly rigorous
>> >> scientific investigations
>> >> have shown that the cancer clusters in Sellafield
>> >> are/were unrelated
>> >> in any way to the adjacent nuclear facilities.
>
>> > That's not what the Wikipedia entry for Sellafield
>> > says.  The COMARE
>> > report
>> > http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/comare_pr10.htm
>> > Indicates that while no significance at commercial
>> > nuclear power plants
>> > in England, that places like Sellafield did have an
>> > increased
>> > incidence.
>
>> That is my point.
>> PEOPLE claimed it was happening.
>> COMARE investigated and agreed.
>> BUT scientific investigations subsequently found that
>> there
>> was no evidence that radiological issues were to blame.
>> ie
>> the clusters "just happened" in that area, but it had
>> nothing to do with the radiation.
>
> What are these subsequent investigations?

_______________

Equivocal results

        http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0952-4746/19/4/605

but re increasing numbers of still births correlated with
the time that a worker is employed in the plant.

"    In the Commentary given in The Lancet, Hazel Inskip
from the University of Southampton advises that the possible
risk of stillbirth should be kept in perspective, and
comments that `there is no obvious mechanism for the
association',"

ie There is a correlation between ttime that you work there
and the prospect of your wife having still;-born children
*BUT* correlation does not prove causation and there is no
obvious causation present.

Hopefully this resulted in them going away and improving
their knowledge of causal mechanisms in such cases. What's
the bet?


_______________________


Aaagh
Browser crashed.
Work and sleep call.

Gaggafraffle        sellafield statistical

or similar for lots more.




            R

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

[Eoin Ross]

Geothermal - at lower source temperatures that previously used
apparently.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4245896.html 
Geothermal Power in Alaska Holds Hidden Model for Clean Energy
At Chena Hot Springs Resort, a visionary owner and an ingenious
engineer tap into one of the world's most overlooked energy
resources*not fossil fuels*to produce electricity, heat buildings
and soon, they hope, generate hydrogen.

"A black-eared husky named Amberlynn watches her every move from below.
The cool thing about this ... , she begins, as she does most sentences,
and it occurs to me that it's appropriate every time: This is cool. It
is Alaska's first geothermal plant, and it's producing electricity
from lower temperature water than any plant in the world."

Today, geothermal plants in the United States generate nearly 3000
megawatts of electricity*enough to power South Dakota. Almost all of
it comes from reservoirs that are at least 150 C / 300 F. The water
rising through a fracture in the granite pluton under Chena is only 70 C
/ 165 F.


>>> apptech@... 26 Mar 08 08:10:49 >>>
I think you meant IYHO > 1) They need to ...  :-) ?

> But at the end of the day each present significant
> limitations in their
> ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of
> different situations.

Yes.

> Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and
> the water don't
> flow. Use it where it's appropriate.

Yes.

> But nuclear needs to be a part of the mix.

No.

Nuclear COULD be a part of the mix.
But it doesn't have to be.
It has convenient attributes, but it's not a necessity.

The others are renewables but have peaky to very peaky
characteristics.
Direct solar doesn't do well at night :-).
It's statistical performance by day is good enough to plan
by.

Wind (indirect solar) is peaky and energy density is
variable. You build it in high energy density areas first.
Some countries (Scandinavia?) are building 'farms' offshore
for lower eco complaints and a more constant wind pattern.

Nobody seems to have mentioned wave power here lately, or
tidal basins.

Thought exercise. Consider the largest ocean harbour you
know. Consider how much energy it would take to pump it down
several metres when full in 6 hours. And how much to then
fill it by about the same amount in the next 6 hours. Start
getting ideas.

Wave power is a hard master - but the energies available are
immense. Thought exercise. Hinge two VERY large barges
together. Load them to the gunnels. Moor them in a wave line
so they happily hinge  to and fro as waves pass by. Now
consider how much energy it would take to make the large and
loaded barges do the same thing in the absence of waves or
water. Start getting ideas. (Gargoyle wave contouring raft)
[IEEE: heaving and pitching bodies, cavity resonators, wave
focusing, pressure devices surging devices, paddles,
outriggers.]

There are bidirectional hydro systems now that pump water
into storage basins. The overall efficiencies are reasonable
if not stunning.

Vanadium Redox batteries promise to allow utterly immense
battery systems to be implemented in future. Not up to
pumped hydro size.

A hydro scheme used as a load leveller for a wind + sun +
hydro system can greatly extend the duration that the water
reserve can be useful over in dry periods. And the wind and
solar can reverse pump the solar system if so designed.

The dread hydrogen could be used as a load leveller with
wind and sun using electrolysis and either thermal
combustion or fuel cells. Scale probably not nice for fuel
cells. Not yet anyway.

Ocean thermal (OTEC) has promise. It works. Probably poor
cost effectiveness so far.

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

Hawaiian land based !!!!!!!! trial OTEC

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OTEC_in_Hawaii.jpg 


Quite a few of these schemes, and various others that are
available, could be expensive. But, until the TRUE cost of
nuclear is used in calculations, it stops marginal ones
being considered. Even if nuclear stations are not being
built it acts as "dog in the manger" to other prospective
solutions through its offer of alleged cheap, or not too too
dear,  power. Thought exercise: Price insurance in the
genuine free market for nuclear power generation without any
government intervention whatsoever. Go fishing.



            Russell








--
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

[Howard Winter]

Russell,

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:06:35 +1300, Apptech wrote:

>... ursine arms are the order of the day

I love this!  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


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

[W. Jacobs]

Byron Jeff wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:44AM -0400, W. Jacobs wrote:
>  
> BTW I know it sounds like I'm talking about an exclusively nuclear
> infrastructure. I really don't have a problem with solar, wind, or hydro.
> But at the end of the day each present significant limitations in their
> ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of different situations.
> Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and the water don't
> flow. Use it where it's appropriate. But nuclear needs to be a part of the
> mix.
>
> BAJ
>  

In a coal fired power plant, they burn coal. Somewhere buried in the
cost of the every millions tons of coal, is a small addition for the
cost of a miner that was killed in the mining process. It is regrettable
but it exist and we, the users of electric from coal must pay for it.
The power plant burns the coal and makes electric. At the end of the
day, they back a truck up to a chute and load the ash. They sell the ash
to the road department who mix salt with it and put it on the roads in
the winter and they sell some of it to cement block people and they make
block out of it. When the day is done, The sale of the electric and the
ashes minus the cost of the coal and other expenses net a profit or loss
for the power plant. If they see a loss, they will increase the cost of
electric. And tomorrow will have a profit. This is simple. It works

In a nuclear plant, they “burn” nuclear. I would think that somewhere in
the cost of every fuel exchange they have the cost of some person that
was killed on the job. This person could be run over by a fork truck. I
am not saying he is killed by radiation, but he is there. It is called
an industrial accident. And again it is regrettable but it exist and we,
the users of electric from nuclear plant must pay for it. Again, the
power plant burns the fuel and makes electric. However in this case, no
one hauls the ashes away. They sit in this pool awaiting reclamation.
The spent fuel is degrades by only about 5% . That means it is 95% good
fuel. If this spent fuel was reclaimed, it would be reused and the cost
of reclaiming must be much cheaper than making new fuel however we do
not do that.

We must haul the ashes. We must bring this process to a close. Until we
do, we do not know what the cost of the electric is. Since the cost of
hauling the ash is not figured in the cost of the electric, we do not
know what it cost for electric. This is what I object to.

People talk about sending the ashes to Yucca Mountain. The people at
Yucca Mountain don't want the ashes. It is their property, they have a
right not to have it. The Yucca Mountain Repository is a government
facility used to store spent fuel, the ashes out of a nuclear reactor.
This is a government facility. I pay for this. I am subsidizing nuclear
power and I do not want to.

This facility needs to be operated by a consortium of nuclear power
plants. The cost has to be born not by the public but by the user. This
is my objection.

We should not permit any more plants until we know what the power cost.
We assume that nuclear power is completive with coal and wind and solar
and all the other sources but we do not know.

Because we do not know the cost of the power from the nuclear plant,
because it is subsidized, we think it is cheap. When we think it is
cheap, we tend to build more. There is a problem with this strategy.

Right now, we build wind mills. They may or may not be completive. There
is a 2 cent per kWh subside for every kWh made(I can buy electric for
2.3 cents per kWh). It comes as a tax credit. Also in most states, the
property tax on the wind mill is subsidized(you probably pay more for
your house than a power company pays for a wind mill).

Because of this, all monies to be invested in alternate energy are put
in wind mills. This deprives money for research into solar thermal,
geothermal, or other forms of such energy. This is a shame. However,
economically, if you have money to spend on alternate energy, you will
get a better return on wind mills.

I can understand this subsidy to get a start, but it should be reduced
as time go on. With wind mills, it is increased. The subsidized used to
be 1.7 cents per kWh.

So, Haul the ashes. Find out what the true cost of the nuclear power is.
End the subsidy. If nuclear energy is profitable, the market will do the
rest. Only then should we permit new units.

Bill
I like geothermal. It is 24/7. It may not be endless as it cools the
earth. It will go for a long time.

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

[Bob Axtell]

Well said, Mr Jacobs.

--Bob A

W. Jacobs wrote:

> Byron Jeff wrote:
>  
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:44AM -0400, W. Jacobs wrote:
>>  
>> BTW I know it sounds like I'm talking about an exclusively nuclear
>> infrastructure. I really don't have a problem with solar, wind, or hydro.
>> But at the end of the day each present significant limitations in their
>> ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of different situations.
>> Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and the water don't
>> flow. Use it where it's appropriate. But nuclear needs to be a part of the
>> mix.
>>
>> BAJ
>>  
>>    
>
> In a coal fired power plant, they burn coal. Somewhere buried in the
> cost of the every millions tons of coal, is a small addition for the
> cost of a miner that was killed in the mining process. It is regrettable
> but it exist and we, the users of electric from coal must pay for it.
> The power plant burns the coal and makes electric. At the end of the
> day, they back a truck up to a chute and load the ash. They sell the ash
> to the road department who mix salt with it and put it on the roads in
> the winter and they sell some of it to cement block people and they make
> block out of it. When the day is done, The sale of the electric and the
> ashes minus the cost of the coal and other expenses net a profit or loss
> for the power plant. If they see a loss, they will increase the cost of
> electric. And tomorrow will have a profit. This is simple. It works
>
> In a nuclear plant, they “burn” nuclear. I would think that somewhere in
> the cost of every fuel exchange they have the cost of some person that
> was killed on the job. This person could be run over by a fork truck. I
> am not saying he is killed by radiation, but he is there. It is called
> an industrial accident. And again it is regrettable but it exist and we,
> the users of electric from nuclear plant must pay for it. Again, the
> power plant burns the fuel and makes electric. However in this case, no
> one hauls the ashes away. They sit in this pool awaiting reclamation.
> The spent fuel is degrades by only about 5% . That means it is 95% good
> fuel. If this spent fuel was reclaimed, it would be reused and the cost
> of reclaiming must be much cheaper than making new fuel however we do
> not do that.
>
> We must haul the ashes. We must bring this process to a close. Until we
> do, we do not know what the cost of the electric is. Since the cost of
> hauling the ash is not figured in the cost of the electric, we do not
> know what it cost for electric. This is what I object to.
>
> People talk about sending the ashes to Yucca Mountain. The people at
> Yucca Mountain don't want the ashes. It is their property, they have a
> right not to have it. The Yucca Mountain Repository is a government
> facility used to store spent fuel, the ashes out of a nuclear reactor.
> This is a government facility. I pay for this. I am subsidizing nuclear
> power and I do not want to.
>
> This facility needs to be operated by a consortium of nuclear power
> plants. The cost has to be born not by the public but by the user. This
> is my objection.
>
> We should not permit any more plants until we know what the power cost.
> We assume that nuclear power is completive with coal and wind and solar
> and all the other sources but we do not know.
>
> Because we do not know the cost of the power from the nuclear plant,
> because it is subsidized, we think it is cheap. When we think it is
> cheap, we tend to build more. There is a problem with this strategy.
>
> Right now, we build wind mills. They may or may not be completive. There
> is a 2 cent per kWh subside for every kWh made(I can buy electric for
> 2.3 cents per kWh). It comes as a tax credit. Also in most states, the
> property tax on the wind mill is subsidized(you probably pay more for
> your house than a power company pays for a wind mill).
>
> Because of this, all monies to be invested in alternate energy are put
> in wind mills. This deprives money for research into solar thermal,
> geothermal, or other forms of such energy. This is a shame. However,
> economically, if you have money to spend on alternate energy, you will
> get a better return on wind mills.
>
> I can understand this subsidy to get a start, but it should be reduced
> as time go on. With wind mills, it is increased. The subsidized used to
> be 1.7 cents per kWh.
>
> So, Haul the ashes. Find out what the true cost of the nuclear power is.
> End the subsidy. If nuclear energy is profitable, the market will do the
> rest. Only then should we permit new units.
>
> Bill
> I like geothermal. It is 24/7. It may not be endless as it cools the
> earth. It will go for a long time.
>
>  

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

[Chris Smolinski]

Speaking of radiation...

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080325122807.htm>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080325122807.htm

Exposure To Low Levels Of Radon Appears To Reduce The Risk Of Lung
Cancer, New Study Finds
--

---
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

[William "Chops" Westfield]

>> In a nuclear plant

Perhaps we should stop talking about the US nuclear industry as if it  
were
somehow at the forefront of technology WRT nuclear energy.

What do they do in France, and what have the results been?  (France  
apparently gets over 75% of their electricity from nuclear...)

BillW

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

[Russell McMahon]

> What do they do in France, and what have the results been?
> (France
> apparently gets over 75% of their electricity from
> nuclear...)

True cost would be genuinely interesting.

It's very much a political decision. Which doesn't make it a
bad one. Just one that needs to be examined carefully. The
French are exceptionally keen on being self contained and
not dependant on other people for crucial infrastructure.
Which has it's merits :-). But this is a major factor in
their decision to use nuclear power extensively. They may
have made the same decision without this factor, but it
needs to be kept in mind when doing comparisons and
establishing true costs. I do not know how good their safety
records are but I have not heard of any terrible things
happening there. Which could be for several reasons :-).


        Russell


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