Author Topic: A Solution To Our Problem (Read 59456 times)

merchant · « **on:** Feb 24, 2003, 11:13 »

Why are we sitting around scared to stick our necks out

while tree hugging hippies dictate why we can't build more nuke plants. We are all aware of the extreme lack of jobs I know I am. Because I do not have one. And the price of energy is ridiculous. If smart people like ourselves could get backing by any of the energy GIANTS with billions in anual revenue we could lobby our way into a much better position. Hey but thats just my two cents. Please respond I would like to see if this is feasable or not.

alphadude · « **Reply #1 on:** Feb 25, 2003, 02:35 »

maybe u should ask the present adminstration. little known fact- the iraq war cost could equip every house in america with solar and decrease power consumption by 40%. this would spawn a giant new industry- dont forget bush senior wrote OUT nuclear in his energy policy back in the 80s. that was the final nail in the coffin. its not the so called hippies that are hiding under your bed- we have spotted the enemy and they is us!!!

Just the facts, ma'm. J. Friday

fluxmama · « **Reply #2 on:** Feb 25, 2003, 03:38 »

But junior's administration made such a big push to get Yucca Mountain storage approved, nukies were real hopeful there for a while.......Then, of course, he wants to drill in the Alaska wildlife refuge.......and the prospect of war is driving gas prices up.....and part of the reason for the war is -let's face it- to secure oil supplies for the future.....
I don't think Washington is capable of a coherent energy policy. Too many lobbyists for too many energy providers. Nuclear has a place, but talk of dirty bombs and WMD will awaken that old fear of anything nuclear in the American psyche. You're right, we need publicity and we need to be heard. Ideas?

moke · « **Reply #3 on:** Feb 25, 2003, 05:01 »

Merchant,

It's inevidable since the feasibility of other power generating sources are no match. Wind Mill's, Solar, Fuel Cells & the like include too many variables. Some say that the ozone has been depleted by constituents such as CFC's, at the same time, what flies at an altitude of 25 to 35,000 feet? Aircraft killing the atmosphere yet many don blinders since air transportation is essential.

Bush has started the ball rolling. Westinghouse has a new reactor design the incorporates 70% less piping than the modern day beast.

See the LBL DOE site and search for the Biography of Glen Seaborg. He gives the best scientifical explanation of the subject matter.

I feel that industry must continue to get control of the situation and weed out the weak since the USA has the best human resources. You need public trust and mediocrity will continue to keep a damper on the situation.

Moke

alphadude · « **Reply #4 on:** Feb 25, 2003, 05:13 »

i guess the idea of a fully integrated energy policy approach is wasted in discussion here? in time nuke will return, however, the propaganda of "to many variables" is like saying that horses are the best provider of transportation because they are safe and dependable. anti-auto narrow minded individuals predicted that a massive fire would happen across the US if autos were allowed to be used with that dangerous gasoline. yes darkness is not good for solar, and the wind dont blow all the time, but the reason those technologies didnt take off is that they cant be controlled by major companies. simple solar units and wind units do work and do lower energy consumption. the problem is we are off the grid(heroin) and not mainlining money to the oil boys. Nuke scared the piss outta oil, but guess who won? wake up! As long as oil is cheap, and it is, there will be no nukes, solar, wind, or fuel cells.

alphadude · « **Reply #5 on:** Feb 25, 2003, 05:29 »

moke u dont get halogens from aircraft. halogens in fuels is a no no big time- damages the engines muy pronto. the cfc damage today is results of halogens released almost 30 years ago. most of the damage was from the big one WW2.

also decentralized power-solar etc makes this country less vulnerable to attack on the infrastructure. dont get caught up in the brain washing of america.

flux mama- yucca mt only has about 5 to 10 years capacity and that is already taken more or less. the reason bush pushed it was that utilities were planning legal action against the US for not providing an endpoint for spent fuel which they are bound by law and the fact that the permit to generate was granted. I agree we need nuke, its clean, not cheap, and easy. (2 outa 3 aint bad) however, dont ya think that if the big boys wanted it too, they would be doing a big publicity program and get us on the band wagon? Bush is merely providing lip service to nukes. he is an oil man and so is his administation. go figure

SloGlo · « **Reply #6 on:** Feb 26, 2003, 03:45 »

yes darkness is not good for solar, and the wind dont blow all the time, but the reason those technologies didnt take off is that they cant be controlled by major companies. simple solar units and wind units do work and do lower energy consumption. the problem is we are off the grid(heroin) and not mainlining money to the oil boys

the big boys will play with solar/wind/tidal turbine power as soon as it is economically viable to do so. current land prices to purchase land for wind generation price it out of range on a per kw issue. same with solar, but solar is gaining effieciency thereby shrinking land (and also available lums needed) so the cost factor of that is tipping. tidal turbine generation has the drawback of being all underwater and legalities of land ownership for this type of economic endeavor. 'n remember that the big oil boys are actively doing the r&d on h cell fuels... iffen it wuzn't gonna make them money, they wouldn't be playin with that, they'd just buy up the patents and copyrights and sit on them, like they've done in the past.
iffen this country would realize that we have developed the power the rest of the world is using in leiu of fossil and that it is the choice of generation for the immediate (~ century or so) until the other generation venues are viable, they would now only want nukes, they would demand them.

alphadude · « **Reply #7 on:** Feb 27, 2003, 12:38 »

ahhh the H cell, works with water (some types) and heres the kicker- the water has to be ultra pure. other wise if u have any chlorine or salts u get toxic gas generation... want to know what the gasoline of the future is and priced just as high? water. no no no u cant use that ole tap water, or spring water.. he he he o wait a minute water is already as much as gasoline especially that nasty french water in the green bottle. hmm no wonder our balls always feel like they are in a vice.

Phurst · « **Reply #8 on:** Feb 27, 2003, 02:35 »

Now may be the time to pick up the nuke chant again. We have 20 years of solid safety and now we have high gas prices. Global warming is still a factor and is scaring a bunch of people. The hardest part is getting by the voting hysterical mother. She is the one vote politicians can't seem to live without. "What about the children? Won't somebody Pleeze think about the children!" One screaming voice worried about a nuke irradiating everybody and everything within a thousand miles silences every intelligent scientific voice. And the news loves them.

alphadude · « **Reply #9 on:** Feb 27, 2003, 04:51 »

phurst thats a nice cover story. has anyone everconsidered that nukes cost $$$$$$$$$. price anderson act allowed nukes to be built, but why are they not being built now? hmmmmm the government picks up the rest of the tab. so, in fact, we have utilities on corporate welfare. nice.

look at the rest of the world- how many private utilities own nukes- maybe 0- is there some reason why they are run by the government in other places? hmmmmmmmm FACE IT, we are a small, unimportant, faction that likes our megga buck pay checks, and the breath wasted here is just that- hot carbonacious discharge!! (a greenhouse gas- by the way) NO UTILITY wants to have one built unless the government hands it to them on a silver platter or corporate welfare, then when the thing fails the govt gets the bill for thyroid removal. Its nice to sit and debate why can't the world be a nicer place, but until those utilites decide that they want nukes- and are willing to accept the responsibility for mismanagement-we are wasting our time talking about it.

Phurst · « **Reply #10 on:** Feb 27, 2003, 06:00 »

Thyroid removal?

?

Rain Man · « **Reply #11 on:** Feb 28, 2003, 04:01 »

As heartless as it may seem, let the country go through a tough winter with brown/black outs, or a tough summer with no AC and a lot of dissent will go down the tubes. People are willing to bitch as long as it doesn't directly affect them. Put on the heat (or cold as the case may be) and the tune you hear changes. There may be a considerable amount of anti-nuke sentiment that drive the industry but when things get bad enough most people will hopefully get their heads screwed on straight.

radgal · « **Reply #12 on:** Feb 28, 2003, 10:56 »

Here Here Rainman. =D Nuke enery is still cheap anyway you look at it. AEP spent billions to refurbish DC Cook cause they new they'd make the money back. Cost is not soley on the gov't.

bigstew · « **Reply #13 on:** Mar 01, 2003, 04:59 »

alphadude, it's true Price-Anderson allowed nukes to be built but the only reason any 'alternative' energies are being developed and used is because of a 1.7c/kwhr federal energy credit for alternative energies. It's not because they're efficient.

Off the coast of Cape Cod developers want to use the credit to put 170, 270 foot tall wind towers covering 25 square miles of pristine waterways and fishing grounds to produce an average of 1 Meggawatt a piece for 170 Meg. And that's if nothing is down for maintenance. Oh, and I hope the birds using this migration path for the past 600 years know enough to get outtta the way of the giant cuisinarts. We could toss up 300 Meg of gas in a year on 20 acres. And no piles of feathers.

Does anybody really think busting atoms was/is the only way the early pioneers in this business saw us in 50 years ? We should be onto fusion and beyond by now. If not for whacky people and even whackier legislation we'd be there.The only way for an industrialized nation to provide safety and security for it's citizenry in the global marketplace is with baseload power plants. Solar is good for the small applications and should be pursued for it's possibilites as any potential source should be. But you ain't going to keep New York city lit up with wind towers and we can't keep burning coal and fighting wars over oil.
Know nukes, more nukes, better nukes. Whew!

SloGlo · « **Reply #14 on:** Mar 03, 2003, 11:32 »

karma up, bigstew! i've always thought of fission as a necessary evil, until better came along. but then again, i'm often in the minority, a pleasant place to be!

bigstew · « **Reply #15 on:** Mar 03, 2003, 02:49 »

Gee, thanks, SloGlo. Positive karma an' all.

And truth be known, I've trusted an HP once or twice. Would you trust an ol' operator with a pipe wrench and a length of yellow sleeving just waltzing in a heat exchanger room for an 'inspection'? Probably not, eh?

Clean nukes are all we got right now for serious generation but I'd get a Vegas divorce from the grid if I could. Fuel cells? A good stream and a water turbine? A solar concentrator and batteries? I've considered and rejected the lot of 'em. I'll keep sending my C-note a month into the big boys for now to keep my fancy computers from crashing.

The larger question in this post is: how are we going to continue to power the world with futuristic technologies when we couldn't sell 'em on nukes? ANYthing that's outside the realm of conventional understanding will be rejected without a hard-sell by .gov. It ain't like our youngsters are getting an un-sullied view of our industry (read your teenagers textbooks sometime). Future processes will fare no better.

Too bad we couldn't harness the power of all these hard drives.
Or the blasts of hot air from D.C.

alphadude · « **Reply #16 on:** Mar 03, 2003, 04:37 »

guys, i know that coal and oil is cheaper, with hydro being the cheapest. so when u say nuke is cheap, compared to what? how many hp's do they have in a coal plant? nuke is 4th on the list of 4.

as for alternate systems, wonder why the utilities lobbied to prevent solar homes from putting power on the grid? each of us can do more to be less dependent. one reason for living in the south...

we are a nation of wasters, and are the biggest energy hogs on the face of the earth. so eat, drink, be merry.......

as for refurbish of old plants.. its like this, if its built already you dont have to re-do the impact statement, etc. there is where your money is saved. to build a new nuke is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ no matter how u look at it. besides no one in the US still has an N stamp for piping do they? the horse is dead...

Pet_Cow · « **Reply #17 on:** Mar 03, 2003, 06:03 »

Quote

moke u dont get halogens from aircraft. halogens in fuels is a no no big time- damages the engines muy pronto. the cfc damage today is results of halogens released almost 30 years ago. most of the damage was from the big one WW2.

also decentralized power-solar etc makes this country less vulnerable to attack on the infrastructure. dont get caught up in the brain washing of america.

flux mama- yucca mt only has about 5 to 10 years capacity and that is already taken more or less. the reason bush pushed it was that utilities were planning legal action against the US for not providing an endpoint for spent fuel which they are bound by law and the fact that the permit to generate was granted. I agree we need nuke, its clean, not cheap, and easy. (2 outa 3 aint bad) however, dont ya think that if the big boys wanted it too, they would be doing a big publicity program and get us on the band wagon? Bush is merely providing lip service to nukes. he is an oil man and so is his administation. go figure

Actually Halogens or ozone depleting chemicals are released on every space shuttle flight. A good shuttle flight can knock out .25 per cent of the ozone layer. The irony of the situation is we use the shuttle to try to find out why the ozone layer is depleting.

I like hydrogen fuel idea- what a terrorist dream that would be. Can you say Ka-Boom!

alphadude · « **Reply #18 on:** Mar 03, 2003, 07:23 »

yea perchlorates are the solid fuel of choice for NASA,(SPACE CRAFT) lots of halogens there. but none in jp4. and the shuttle is only at 25k feet for a second so i assume conventional aircraft is the topic of discussion. H2 fuels are produced locally in the fuel cell or stored in hydrides which limits the K F -B ( Ka F**kin Boom)

SloGlo · « **Reply #19 on:** Mar 04, 2003, 03:44 »

last time i checked one of the biggie reasons that the 'lectric utilities were all lined up against solar homeowners pumping back onto the grid was the economics of installing the meters on the houses.... it was gonna be beholden to the companies for the cost to put the devices in place for joh q. to sell is uwattage.... not economically viable.
iffen the original powers that be had decided to to a generic plant, we wouldn't have a lot of our problem. they didn't as it was decided that it would be a corporate/country r&d in progress, so here we are with all these different designs. now that there are two licensed plants, the real question is one that asks.... yinze big boyz with the cajones 'n nuke sited land; why ain't ya building?

LaFeet · « **Reply #20 on:** Mar 04, 2003, 05:48 »

A number of issues have been mentioned and possibly incorrectly stated.

As to the number of hps utilized by an oil fired or coal fired plant, well there may or may not be any during the operation. However, the concentration of the waste/byproducts does require hp support.

As to the utilities lobbying against solar/wind power homes, today most companies offer zero/low interest loans for homeowners to purchase these improvements. The co-op that I am a member of will cover the loan and pay for any "extra" energy I produce.

Every little bit helps, conservation is the key. But since we are not an actual conservation type society, we must expand our power generation. Otherwise California will no longer be able to cool their homes in the summer or use their tanning beds in the winter.

Build more nukes !!!! At least take a lesson from our navy and build proven, standardized designs. Make them smaller and more plentiful.

Smaller nukes could be placed in many more areas that we could not install gigawatt plants. Smaller nukes would increase the number of components built for production, thereby lowering component cost, increasing the work force and providing cheap electricity.

Oil is not the issue where electricity is concerned, we can dance around that syringe.

To coin a greek goddess - "Just Do It"

azkidd · « **Reply #21 on:** Mar 04, 2003, 06:43 »

Here is my 2 cents for what it is worth (Karma)

Having just attended an all hands meeting with our new CEO last week, this subject was brought up. The CEO was asked of our Utilities plans of buying more Nukes. His response was we are looking at one right now, but we have to factor in the age and cost of continued operation. He said it was cheaper to build with new technology, than to buy into old technology. He continued to comment on building new technology plants to say that right now, there is no financing due to reactors started, but not finished, budgets submitted, but not met (overbudget) and basically no plant in our utility has been able to meet their operating budget in years. It is probably the same story around the nation.

littlebittime · « **Reply #22 on:** Mar 04, 2003, 07:13 »

alphadude I have a couple questions for you...and some comments

Quote

each of us can do more to be less dependent. one reason for living in the south...

Do you have a solar panel?

(This section is just a pet peeve.. and all questions are rhetorical)
If "we can each do more to be less dependent" why would those independent people using solar need to hook into the grid to sell their surplus?
Why not just simply be the independent people they want to be... ummm... independent of the grid?
And on the same note.. (this really burns me)
Why should corps. pay for their meters and buy their power? They want to use solar... let them!
Why is it the corps. responsibility to "subsidize" it by buying their surplus? What happened to free will? This is a free country... you want to use solar power instead of the grid... have at it... but why should everyone else pay for it... isn't that "electrical welfare".
(ok back to our regularly scheduled rant)

Then there's the issue of who is less costly - I suppose it's all in what numbers you want to crunch - so here are some I thought I'd share...
I found this at NEI.org -
"In 1999, production costs ( outlays for fuel and operations and maintenance ) at nuclear power plants averaged 1.83 cents per kilowatt-hour (KWH), lower than coal at 2.07 cents /kwh and still far lower than oil-fired units at 3.18 cents (kwh) and natural gas plants at 5.52 cents /kwh."
Ummm... look who's cheaper! And raise your hand if you think the oil-fired plants outlays for fuel are gonna go up in the next year or so!

Oh and...
US nuclear power plants are operating at record levels of safety and reliability - in 1999 generated an all time high of 728 billion kwh, providing 20 percent of the US electricity needs. (don't really have the time right now to spend looking for new stats - sorry... but if you need them I will get them)

Then there's the issue of stability... we NEED reliable stable baseload... wind, and solar can't do that - they are ok for supplements, but simply can't provide reliable baseload. Nuclear power plants are in fact stabilizing the electrical grid and helping to avert brownouts and blackouts. And they are doing so economically and without emitting any pollutants into the atmosphere.

And just so I don't leave windmills feeling neglected... they aren't suitable everywhere... in New England they run on average 25%-45% of the time and have HUGE maintenance costs - not to mention the vast footprint they leave in the landscape.... mountains don't look so hot without trees*. In New England there are WINDS - top of Mt Washington in NH holds the record for highest winds on record - but not steady blowing nice winds... no ... we have GUSTS which apparently aren't very good for windmills - breaks off blades... which leaves you with less of a wind mill and more of a big metal stick.
Oh and one more thing...you can check out the ones in Searsburg VT... they were subsidized.

*- a big tourist draw for the New England states btw are the trees changing colors on the mountain ranges.... chop them down and replace them with windmills and see what it does to the economy of an already depressed state like Vermont. A southern analogy would be Disney without the mouse. Or Busch Gardens with no beer.

Rain Man · « **Reply #23 on:** Mar 04, 2003, 01:07 »

A few years ago the Pittsburgh Press ran series of articles on what had happened to nuclear power in this country. In one of the series they interviewed utility CFOs about whether a new nuclear plant was in their future. Not a one wanted to be the first........but they were lining up to be the second.

alphadude · « **Reply #24 on:** Mar 04, 2003, 04:17 »

As an owner of an off the grid property, yes i do have a solar cell(s) and they work pretty good. for about $500 you can do a lot with light (24vdc) and other stuff. Im looking to buy a wind turbine for about $1100 that will give me lots of kw and i use composting toilets (sunmar) that converts waste to a high nutrient usable product, but it only produces about 3 gallons of compost a year-however water use = 0. As for HPs in coal plants? after 25 years in power production never seen one in all the coal plants ive been associated with. some idiot did adjust the hopper level indicator-cs137- one time and gave himself 50mr. OH yeah! this is sweet... your house meter spins backwards when u send to the grid... well the sangamos do anyway. thou doth protest too loudly.. I do know we love those megga buck pay checks, anyway!!

i know all this stuff, ive done the nuke lobby, nei support, etc.. the issue was- that a fully integrated energy policy is needed in the US. Does anyone disagree with that? (One day we will all have reactors in everyback yard. Duke Power VP -1973) so what happened?

alphadude · « **Reply #25 on:** Mar 04, 2003, 05:11 »

Cost of construction (about $2-6 billion per reactor) has long hindered nuclear power development, so orders for new plants in the U.S. may only be placed if the new reactor designs can provide an example of dramatically reduced construction costs.

Nuclear energy holds great promise as an environmental technology that would allow us to reduce our unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels, use less land and other resources, and produce fewer greenhouse gases. However, in order for the industry to reach its full potential, we must find a way to reduce construction costs, address public health and environmental safety issues, and solve the weighty problem of waste disposal.

Full integration of cost, show that nuclear is approximately equal in cost to coal $/kw. However, the "final solution" high level waste disposal cost has not been fully developed.
Maybe this is it in a nut shell.

SloGlo · « **Reply #26 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 06:19 »

use the off the shelf designs and build lots of them little rx. that'll take care of yer construction costs.
start recycling yer used fuel,

, yeah, we do it everywhere else but in the nuke field. that'll reduce yer weighty problem of fuel disposal. tailings from the recycling could be stored 'n utilized in a thermal power generation mode.... ought to be good fer a few k years, heck ya could even take yer coolant 'n snake it under yer access roadway so ya didn't have to clear the snow all winter. 'course ya could do that also around alla yer new nukes also.... perhaps the local populace would relax their anti-nuke stance if they had clear roads 'n no salt damage to their suv and yuppie car population. yinze southerners, yinze don't need no rx, ya gots yer solar, right?
public health and environmental issues? hmmm, see the thread on hormosis, 'n show me the environmental downside from the plants, 'k?

littlebittime · « **Reply #27 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 10:04 »

So let me get this straight...

Quote

As an owner of an off the grid property, yes i do have a solar cell(s) and they work pretty good.

you're an off the grid homeowner - do you live there 24/7/365 ?
And just out of curiosity.... you work in the nuclear industry as what exactly?

Quote

Im looking to buy a wind turbine for about $1100 that will give me lots of kw

so are you suggesting that everyone should have their own personal windmills?? And if so what about those folks in bigger cities? Or apartment buildings? what about migratory birds? what if the wind stops blowing? or what if it blows too hard? are personal windmills in your estimation a good example of base load energy? Or would you classify them more along the lines of part of an energy diversity package, which includes and dare I say... relies on.... the "old standards" to be much help at all?

Quote

and i use composting toilets (sunmar) that converts waste to a high nutrient usable product, but it only produces about 3 gallons of compost a year-however water use = 0.

Ok I'm sorry this is just too much for me... Alph ... honey...
That's just nasty.... falls into the way more then we all needed to know about you category. But since you brought it up....
What on earth constitutes a "usable product" in your mind?

Especially a usable product that takes a year... and is condensed to 3 gallons of "compost"? Are you growin' veggies in your own fecal matter? You don't have a lot in the way of dinner company do you?

Quote

OH yeah! this is sweet... your house meter spins backwards when u send to the grid...

Ummmm.... you stated you were off the grid... are you off or not off?
As for the backwards spin...
I'm not sure if this is true or not... and I don't really care frankly...
because I'm sticking to my original argument which is.. .if you want off the grid then get off.. no one is stopping you... but then don't whine because no one will force bigger companies to buy your power... you want to be in the business of selling power... buy a power plant not a personal windmill or solar cell... You want a personal windmill or solar cell... then it's for personal use... not public. And if that's not enough for you... here’s a bonus I'll offer free of charge... if and when my power goes out... well then you'll have braggin rights. fair enough?

Quote

i know all this stuff, ive done the nuke lobby, nei support, etc.. the issue was- that a fully integrated energy policy is needed in the US. Does anyone disagree with that?

Ummmm... no one disagrees with the fact that we need an integrated energy policy...
and btw... that's not what you said initially.

littlebittime · « **Reply #28 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 10:47 »

What you said intially Alpha was.... a fully integrated energy policy is wasted in discussion... then you took off an some tangent about horses and autos blowing up... only to return to your main mantra which is personal windmills and solar cells are dandy.

Then you continued with.... the decentralized energy (solar etc) is the best way to make this country less vulnerable to attack on the infrastructure.
- BTW so does reading by candle light and wearing long johns made of llama wool Skippy, but you're not gonna find a whole lot of folks to follow you down that dark path - unless of course you move to North Korea where you can ration electricity among other things and people will thank you for it, or windham county Vermont where you have the benefit of too much colligate drug use in the 60's .... although I feel I must warn you... as we've seen with the Human Shields... when the going gets tough... the morally superior and intellectually challenged get going.

Oh and, I'd LOVE to hear You try telling someone in Syracuse NY that they have to rely on SOLAR CELLS to power their TV, computer and hair dryers... the immediate response would go something like, "go suck eggs". The sun only shines approximately 2 days a year there.
Furthermore, even the granolas in New England know you can't power anything with solar there... In conjunction with your good old standards (oil, natural gas, electric) solar is an effective heat source.... ok, I'll agree with you there... but not everyone can own one... what then? And try to power your blow dryer with a solar cell in New England. Your better off rolling down the window of your 1978 VW Beetle or taking the top off Jeep Wrangler, its way more effective.

Quote

Nuclear energy holds great promise as an environmental technology that would allow us to reduce our unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels, use less land and other resources, and produce fewer greenhouse gases. However, in order for the industry to reach its full potential, we must find a way to reduce construction costs, address public health and environmental safety issues, and solve the weighty problem of waste disposal.

This is actually the only thing you've said that makes any sense at all...

So my question is what about - and please excuse the incorrect terminology as I am not a nuke worker - what about gen2 plants? The ones that cycle their own spent fuel into reuseable fuel... are they a myth? why not take a look at those? do they cost more when factoring in the cost of waste disposal... apples to apples comparing and all.

And just out of curiosity... can anyone tell me... what do coal plants do with their waste? And is it totally environmentally friendly? (aside from the toxic gases of course.)

Nuclear NASCAR · « **Reply #29 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 05:34 »

Finally, a question I can answer.

Many plants built retention ponds (usually called ash ponds) to store the ash they removed from the flue gas. With the change to western coal this has changed a bit but has also led to more recycling of ash because the western coal (low-sulfur) has to be transported via a dry pipe system vs. slurrying it as had been done in the past. I'm not certain of the exact amount but I know our coal plants sell quite a few tons of flyash a year to be used in concrete.

alphadude · « **Reply #30 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 05:46 »

coal plants typically pile their waste or some acutally convert the fly ash to building materials; however, the production of flyash far exceeds the demand for cinder block. ash ponds eventually turn into ash piles and a new pond is created. the waste, high in vanadium-among other things (uranium)-is a waste of special exemption. waste heat is discharged into the heat sink- ponds gulf ocean etc. volatiles- mercury-are not present in the ash since it is discharged at the rate of 1 pound per day in a typical 600 mwe plant of older vintage. low sulfur coal typically has been used since the early 80s and is on the market often.

alphadude · « **Reply #31 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 06:02 »

oh my background- since 1972 i have work in nuclear power production- chemist/environmental scientist/radiation protection and engineer. for about 5 years i was hp supervisor/then waste manager- non nuclear waste. i also served as incident commander in chemical accidents and in the emergency planning section. since 99, i have worked as an engineer in D&D projects mainly weapons facilites. i design plans and facilitate implementation. hence alpha dude- mmmmmmm- plut -me likey! i forgot i also recruit for the company.

oh and if u have a hornets nest that i can stick a stick in let me know!!!

alphadude · « **Reply #32 on:** Mar 05, 2003, 06:10 »

gen 2 facilites are becoming myth in the US. that concept was part of the AEC early nuclear concepts. when the waste cycle was broken-as part of the nuke- non-prolif. treaty. the idea of a nuclear cycle became history in the US. several nations do have this cycle-however they are gov. facilities and not civilian as desired in the US. the treaty took plut prodution out of civilian hands and placed it back into the gov. MOX is kinda sorta some of that concept but we will be burning russian plut.

FREE TIBET!!

SloGlo · « **Reply #33 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 05:51 »

who gives a fat flying (fill in your own personal favorite noun/verb here) who does the fuel recycle? the important issue is to get it done. so other countries have governmental agencies doing the work, la de freakin da! i don't care if it is private, federal government, united nations.... recycle the fuel! we know how to do it, we know how to handle the waste, let's just do it.

littlebittime · « **Reply #34 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 08:24 »

Quote

who gives a fat flying (fill in your own personal favorite noun/verb here) who does the fuel recycle? the important issue is to get it done. so other countries have governmental agencies doing the work, la de freakin da! i don't care if it is private, federal government, united nations.... recycle the fuel! we know how to do it, we know how to handle the waste, let's just do it.

Can I get an AMEN!

Hell No we don't glow!!

alphadude · « **Reply #35 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 04:18 »

i think we have come the full circle- uranium is soo cheap that recycle is not needed. U is a byproduct of the phosphate industry and is considered waste-recycle is a waste of time, money and effort. this has been discussed in other forums.

alphadude · « **Reply #36 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 04:51 »

might i suggest that ideas and concerns be directed to NEI. Paul Genoa is a good contact there and can direct you to some good answers. there seems to be a lot of searching for answers here and Paul knows all the politicians and can give u names of those that u can lobby and personnally attack or fund.

wonder what ever happend to cold fusion after the navy bought the rights?

alphadude · « **Reply #37 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 07:41 »

no dead pony here. besides they can be real good if u know how to cook them. but thats a french thang. ahh i love it when people think, debate, look at the other side, see the world etc.

alphadude · « **Reply #38 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 07:47 »

little i didnt answer some of your questions. one of them was why connect to grid when you are independent- one simple answer=building permits. cant build a house without being hooked to the grid. there are some areas where u dont need permits to build but no where near civilization. so many answers so little time!!

alphadude · « **Reply #39 on:** Mar 06, 2003, 07:50 »

what is it you do for a living little. you seem to have a stake in nuke someway or the other?

littlebittime · « **Reply #40 on:** Mar 07, 2003, 06:53 »

Can't I just admire clean energy? Or do I have to get paid by the industry to appreciate the beauty of nuclear power? The fact is... I'm a web/graphics designer. I happen to be married to a nuclear engineer... but I was pro nuke before I married him - which is how we met.

And just for the record... "building permits" doesn't answer why you'd be whining about not getting paid for your excess electricity - I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't be on the grid... I said if you chose to remove yourself from the grid - and there are many places where you can remove yourself from the grid... perhaps not in the south... but they do exist - don't whine about big companies not wanting to pay you for something they didn't ask you to give them.

(analogy alert) I have in the past knit socks for my kids - they weren't pretty mind you... but that's not the point - I have 3 kids... if I went ahead and knit a 4th pair... should I then call Hanes and demand they buy them from me because I knit more then I needed??

Same principle. The answer for the record is... NO! Nor should I go around stomping my feet and calling foul if I am silly enough to insist they buy them and they say forget it.

Go ahead and make your own solar/wind/hydro/squirrel on a wheel power... no one is saying you can't... you want to invest in making your own power... go right ahead - all the power to ya as it were... just don't expect anyone to buy your left overs... that is my point.

Pet_Cow · « **Reply #41 on:** Mar 07, 2003, 02:24 »

Quote

Can't I just admire clean energy? Or do I have to get paid by the industry to appreciate the beauty of nuclear power? The fact is... I'm a web/graphics designer. I happen to be married to a nuclear engineer... but I was pro nuke before I married him - which is how we met.

And just for the record... "building permits" doesn't answer why you'd be whining about not getting paid for your excess electricity - I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't be on the grid... I said if you chose to remove yourself from the grid - and there are many places where you can remove yourself from the grid... perhaps not in the south... but they do exist - don't whine about big companies not wanting to pay you for something they didn't ask you to give them.

(analogy alert) I have in the past knit socks for my kids - they weren't pretty mind you... but that's not the point - I have 3 kids... if I went ahead and knit a 4th pair... should I then call Hanes and demand they buy them from me because I knit more then I needed??

Same principle. The answer for the record is... NO! Nor should I go around stomping my feet and calling foul if I am silly enough to insist they buy them and they say forget it.

Go ahead and make your own solar/wind/hydro/squirrel on a wheel power... no one is saying you can't... you want to invest in making your own power... go right ahead - all the power to ya as it were... just don't expect anyone to buy your left overs... that is my point.

Nice parable, but it is not that simple. Socks are not regulated the way utilities are. A community/ state/county decides who gives them power. They can buy power from anyone they want. Utilities, up to now, have enjoyed a monopoly. It is time to make them compete. What you are saying is only those private utilities who monopolize energy have the right to supply power to the grid. You have ended competetion.

alphadude · « **Reply #42 on:** Mar 09, 2003, 03:23 »

waste not want not

littlebittime · « **Reply #43 on:** Mar 10, 2003, 06:12 »

Ok... first off... isn't making your own power the same as choosing? which means you've defeated the "big boy monopoly" simply by choosing to make power for yourself over choosing to buy power from them?
And I suppose it could be argued that your neighbor could do the same thing... if he/she wanted to that is.

And as far as the monopoly thing goes... lets take it a step further...If you'd like to make power to sell to the grid... well then I suppose that would be fine... but then you should kick in for your own meter - or what ever regulatory device you need... and proabably pay for the up keep and maintenance of the system... lines, poles, the big metal thingies on the poles, big metal thingies on the ground that hum, you know basically the stuff it takes to get your power on the grid and over to your neighbor .... just like all the other companies... that would be fair then... and I would say...have at it... you should in fact be able to do that.

But if what you're asking is that I agree that you should be able to make power.. and - without compensation for use of the lines , poles, and little metal box thingies that someone else paid for and is paying to maintain - that you be able to put your extra power out there for consumption AND that all the other companies would have to pay you for that power...
well then that's not exactly fair trade either is it?
You shouldn't be able to jump on the band wagon without playing in the band.

Of course that's just my opinion.

alphadude · « **Reply #44 on:** Mar 10, 2003, 11:30 »

yep a fully integrated energy policy is not too popular here. nuke has its problems and so do most other energy supplies. i really wouldnt call it clean energy, its just less obvious. take for example CY- called a model of nuke power for years until they shut down. polluted ground water, dumping of radioactive soil all over the site, rad dirt in peoples yards.. now mind u that is just one example and may be a bad one, but nuke is not usually considered on the clean side of the fence. mill tailings, phosphoric acid pits in florida, native american miners with lung cancer from mining U, etc. just be open to alternative ideas and dont be brainwashed by big industry.

althought u dont support alternative energy plans, i did state and its a known fact that if all homes that could be fitted with solar were fitted, a major reduction in the need for new power plants of any kind would be realized and a less vulnerable infrastructure of energy supply would be realized.

Pet_Cow · « **Reply #45 on:** Mar 10, 2003, 06:37 »

Greenpeace boke into Sizewell nuclear station and were able to scale the reactor dome and place the word "DANGER" in large block letters going down its side (about 10 feet each).

"Terrorists are unlikely to blow up a wind farm or make a dirty bomb from a solar panel," added Rob Gueterbock.

http://www.greenpeace.org/news/details?news_id=108507

SloGlo · « **Reply #46 on:** Mar 11, 2003, 03:30 »

"Terrorists are unlikely to blow up a wind farm or make a dirty bomb from a solar panel," added Rob Gueterbock.

terrorism by definition brings into play any target that will have an effect on the population to be effected.... wind farms are in, 'n what chemicals are in a solar panel - could they be utilized to the detriment of a populace?

LaFeet · « **Reply #47 on:** Mar 11, 2003, 04:47 »

I am truly amazed at how far some will take the MONOPOLY hype. I am mainly interested in elliminating my dependence on the local grid.

I am for the continued used and improvement of nuclear power. But I also believe that we should conserve where we can and reduce the amount of money that we pay to these monopolies.

I am very fortunate to have joined a CO-OP. I pay less per kW-hr than most others nearby. And I get to talk to a human when I have a question or complaint. My CO-OP is also a Net Metering company and will purchase any excess electricity at the same price I would have had to pay.

My reasoning is driven by need and not environmental concerns. Out here in BFE Oklahoma, all of the power, cable, and telephone lines are above ground in order to allow the monopolies to benefit from the twice annual ice storm. This way they can shut down grid sections, hire additional crews and drive up the electricity rates.

Back in Florida they learned ealry that underground cables are easily serviceable and safer from weather concerns.

As to the terrorist concerns, I guess you couls shred a solar panel and create a silicon based dust to spray with a crop duster. But the launching of a high speed wind turbine blade into the seats of the superbowl or any Nascar event would have a nasty effect.

Rain Man · « **Reply #48 on:** Mar 11, 2003, 08:19 »

Wind mills of mass destruction.....sounds like the UN Weapon's Inspectors should move on to the Netherlands after Iraq. Dutch pacifists my a**.

LaFeet · « **Reply #49 on:** Mar 11, 2003, 10:07 »

Thanks Rain Man....... I guess the Dutch might be next on our death wish list... or may be not.

The whole point of this topic is should we build more nuclear power plants.

My answer is a solid and loud YES.

With the technology we have today we could build safer and easier to service plants for our future. Take all of the leasons learned by the commercial plants (as well as those no longer classified by the military) and we are sitting on a gold mine.

The approved NRC designs would allow greater dispersal of smaller plants throughout the good ole US of A.

Just think how many more light bulbs we could leave on. We could all turn our thermostats up 15 degrees in the winter and down 20 in the summer !

I am not concerned about not having work for the next 20 years. But I would like to see more HPs, RCTs, RCMs and other nukes have a job.

Oh, and Rain Man..... solar panels coupled to a capacitor make a great fuse for a boomy device.......

alphadude · « **Reply #50 on:** Mar 11, 2003, 03:44 »

go fusion, since we are dreamin anyway! it all gets passed to us the consumer so who cares how much they cost? windmill farms are on the same level as redlights for terrorists- god help us if they all turn green or red at the same time!

littlebittime · « **Reply #51 on:** Mar 12, 2003, 06:40 »

I have a question...

La Feet... is your CO OP pro Nuke? Most that I've seen are not. Just wondering...

(for those reading along... that question holds no judgement either way... I am just wondering)

Nuclear NASCAR · « **Reply #52 on:** Mar 12, 2003, 06:46 »

Here's one that is pro-nuke http://www.kepco.org/ . They're 6% owners of Wolf Creek.

littlebittime · « **Reply #53 on:** Mar 12, 2003, 07:24 »

Alphadude...
Making the mental leap that I am not in support of an integrated and diverse energy policy would be an error on your part.
(I can sense that you're not used to being wrong... but in this case ... you are)

The fact of the matter is, I am in favor of a diverse energy plan...
Which, in my opinion, includes building more nuke plants, as well as putting windmills where they will be most effective (Midwest?) and solar cells where they are most effective (south?), and reducing our dependence on fossil plants when and where we can - note, I didn't say eliminate, but rather reduce... it also includes researching improvements and new discoveries, and I for one would like to see our government revisit the issue of "recycling" spent fuel.
(note to any media people out there: wouldn't it be novel to do a different kind of nuke story... perhaps a "recycle spent fuel" story?)

What I repeatedly said - and read this slowly this time so you comprehend the context - is, I am not in favor of forcing companies - regardless of their size - to buy your excess power without you paying your share to support the grid. You want to be a supplier of public power... then buy a power plant and follow all the rules and regulations and pay all the bills that go along with that - or join a CO OP. You want to produce power... then produce it for yourself and be happy with the knowledge that you are doing your part to reduce the power dependence on "big boy companies"... period!

LaFeet · « **Reply #54 on:** Mar 12, 2003, 10:42 »

LittleBit

I am lucky for the CO-OP bit. I do not have to purchase additional meter. My company will also provide a 0% interest loan provided I build a system large enough to exceed my power needs.

I agree with the expansion and diversification idea. We could benefit greatly by strategically placing different power generating technologies where they could best perform.

How do you feel about fuel cell cars?

SloGlo · « **Reply #55 on:** Mar 12, 2003, 11:19 »

too bad that gm just pulled the plug on the ev. iffen that had been succesful, it wooda created a nice draw on the grid forcing utilities to generate more.... of course it'd be tough on thems what's generating their own juice, but they could keep on burning dinos to get to the piggly wiggly.

LaFeet · « **Reply #56 on:** Mar 12, 2003, 01:30 »

Hey SloGlo.....

where at is this Piggly Wiggly at

?

And do they have nuclear hotwings

?

ANd who knows - may be some day we will "...all have our own atomic power plant in the backyard..." to provide the necessary Hydogen for fuel cells. Until then, I could get by on an electric car...... putt putt puttt scuze me I mean weer were ware

littlebittime · « **Reply #57 on:** Mar 12, 2003, 02:07 »

Well I've heard of "hybrids" (HEV)... and everyone I've talked to that has one loves them. I noticed them being used a lot in Paris, when I was there this past summer... but also noted that they were not as popular in Normandy where towns were further apart. Not sure why that is... I think Hummer did a cross country trek with a hybrid didn't they? I'd be interested in seeing what happens in the future... they look promising.

As for the hope of fuel cells... well... from the little I've read about them they look interesting. But if I got the gist correctly isn't there an issue with carbon dioxide when making the fuel? All CO aside, I see a bigger issue blocking any "green" vehicle, and I'm inclined to think perhaps we should focus on getting more hybrids on the road now... because by 2020 - the date I read when fuel cell vehicles are supposed to be available - even if 100,000 fuel cells vehicles are sold the positive effect that they may have on the environment will be dwarfed by conventional vehicles. Big manufactures aren't steering away from conventional vehicles toward hybrids even now.. hybrids are simply another option.

And I have to say as an SUV owner... I am, in a very real sense, part of the problem there not part of the solution. I suppose my only saving grace is that I work from home

Oh and I have a little British car '76 - leaded fuel even... Very Bad Littlebit ... bad girl!

You never did mention if your Co Op was pro nuke.

alphadude · « **Reply #58 on:** Mar 12, 2003, 04:36 »

finally, god that took for ever! logic did set in!

how can i be wrong when i play the antagonist!

hev are already on the maket in the US. they are not cost effective since they are considered a luxury item-ie limited production. the govt does give a $2k rebate but that dont offset the added expense of the car.

As far as forcing utilities to buy power, with de reg- a fiasco in its self- I guess we shouldnt force BIG business (enron types)to do any thing should we- its not reganomics! besides some of us do own part of an elect. co-op. so i do own some of the T&D. Besides who pays for the utilites to put up those power line? -look in the mirror- you pay for it every month.

does anyone here really know whats involved in fuel recycle? or is it a black box to most? (im speaking of the chemical process and waste management issues?) its not a clean process and the mention of fuel reprocess is just a cover for more big business rape of the american consumer. folks uranium is almost free- the push to reprocess is a cover to take utility waste cause we dont have anyplace to put it. reprocess is taking dollars (from us) and returning pennies. reprocessing is left over from the 50s mentality when U was big bucks. there is so much plut and U in the world today that there is no market for it.

SloGlo · « **Reply #59 on:** Mar 13, 2003, 03:34 »

alphadude... so yer sayin that there is no cost incentive for the reprocessing of fuel, is that correct?

littlebittime · « **Reply #60 on:** Mar 13, 2003, 10:06 »

Alphadude,
it must be so nice having your intellect. what with knowing everything there is to know about everything it's amazing you are just a D&D engineer and not GOD. Perhaps you should put in an application - Pet Cow knows of a website.

Quote

how can i be wrong when i play the antagonist!

As for being the antagonist... You haven't actually give an opposing position on anything I've said nor have you answered any of the tough questions with a coherent and logical response... you just keep coming up with silly comments after silly comments... that not an antagonist that's ADHD...

Quote

hev are already on the maket in the US.

The unfortunate scenario resurfaces for you.. and once again you are having trouble with reading comprehension... perhaps if I type slower...

I said "I saw many hybrids in France" I said "I know people with them... and the owners of the hybrids seem to like them."

Which btw pretty much implies that I know they are on the market. (seeing is believing and all)

Quote

they are not cost effective since they are considered a luxury item-ie limited production. the govt does give a $2k rebate but that dont offset the added expense of the car.

Umm, Since you can purchase the Honda Civic Hybrid for $20,000 - without the 2k rebate and you can buy the Honda Civic Sedan for 18,000 - (Math alert... remove shoes if you must) oddly enough... 20,000 minus 2,000 equals ... ummm... lets see... 18,000 - can you be so kind as to explain to me again, oh brilliant one... What exactly your point was? And while you're at it... where's the added expense you were pointing out? I'm no engineer mind you... but well, provide we aren't talking figures higher then 20 ... I can do simple math.

littlebittime · « **Reply #61 on:** Mar 13, 2003, 10:09 »

And here's your other brilliant point.... minced

Quote

As far as forcing utilities to buy power, with de reg- a fiasco in its self- I guess we shouldnt force BIG business (enron types)to do any thing should we- its not reganomics! besides some of us do own part of an elect. co-op. so i do own some of the T&D. Besides who pays for the utilites to put up those power line? -look in the mirror- you pay for it every month.

Jumping on the "Enron = bad" mantra is as sad and uninspiring as the "9/11" mantra ok. Were there bad apples in Enron?Yes. But the logic doesn't follow that then all big companies are Satan breeding grounds. Grow up. Life isn't that simplistic.
Your recent ownership of a co op is creative... but not believable... and just for the record I am aware that a portion of my bill that goes to support the utility and various aspects of it's daily running... your point?
Let me remind you that you stated you wanted to be off the grid and that if you are off the grid then you aren't paying the utility a monthly bill... therefore, and try to keep up here, you aren't paying for the lines any longer... I AM! Which brings us back to ... you can make power for yourself... I don't have a problem with that... but I don't think you should be allowed to produce power without paying into the support of the system. (I thought you said this sunk in... perhaps you should re read and take notes)

littlebittime · « **Reply #62 on:** Mar 13, 2003, 10:24 »

Ok... Ummm here's the forest... you're stuck in the trees.

Quote

does anyone here really know whats involved in fuel recycle? or is it a black box to most? (im speaking of the chemical process and waste management issues?) its not a clean process and the mention of fuel reprocess is just a cover for more big business rape of the american consumer. folks uranium is almost free- the push to reprocess is a cover to take utility waste cause we dont have anyplace to put it. reprocess is taking dollars (from us) and returning pennies. reprocessing is left over from the 50s mentality when U was big bucks. there is so much plut and U in the world today that there is no market for it.

I'm not going to pretend that I know the first thing about recycling fuel... Other than Jimmy Carter had a hand in ending it as an option while I was still watching Capt. Kangaroo... I am however going to make it a project of mine... and we can have this discussion in a week or so. (if you're up to it)

Until then let me plant this seed...
I'm not sure most of the people on this site who are discussing recycling, are doing so because of the initial expense of uranium, but rather the expense of disposing of the spent fuel we have now and in an attempt to curb the creation of more spent fuel.
Since I don't know what the cost is, I can't tell you whether it is financially a better option then what we're doing now - paying into a storage fund which is taking way to long to come to fruition and certainty isn't getting cheaper... But I can say it will go a long way to ease the minds of many citizens in this country who would rather not see nuclear plants run at all because of the spent fuel storage issue.
And I can also say with absolute certainly that many people are unaware that an option of recycling or technology to recycle is even out there - expensive or not.

My opinion is that the information and the idea should be out there for the public to discuss. Just because it's not what you would consider doesn't mean it's not considerable - actually it prompts me to consider it more. (which by the way... would be an antagonistic response)

alphadude · « **Reply #63 on:** Mar 13, 2003, 03:35 »

Economics is an issue with power production. At present, enriched uranium market is at a glut, and has been for the last 8 years. Plut is almost free- the russians cant get rid of it fast enough- so all we have to do is fly over and get it. As for spent fuel reprosessing- its not a lesser amount of waste at the end of the reprocess- its tons more. highly active and chemically toxic from the organic extraction process. the best is to consolidate and store/monitor/retrieve(MRS) when needed.

One of the reasons the fuel cycle was broken was to take civilians out of weapons production-plut- that way innocents would not be considered war criminals, targets or suffer from knowing that what they did was used to kill others- in the event that a "cowboy" president or such used nukes to get revenge or in a criminal activity.

alphadude · « **Reply #64 on:** Mar 13, 2003, 04:53 »

In addition to the West Valley (New York) site, a commercial reprocessing facility was built in the U.S. (Illinois) with government technical and financial assistance support but was never operated because it was not economical. Construction of another commercial reprocessing facility was started in Barnwell, South Carolina, but never completed. The reason for building these facilities was to extract plutonium for mixed oxide fuel in light water reactors and for fast breeder reactors. The use of MOX fuel has never been considered economical enough to warrant reprocessing, and large-scale U.S. breeder reactor program was eliminated during the early 1980s during the Administration of President Reagan who was a strong supporter of nuclear power plants.

from an NRC report

alphadude · « **Reply #65 on:** Mar 13, 2003, 05:04 »

Today, the pressure felt by reactor owners from electricity deregulation works against nuclear safety. According to a report on utility deregulation and nuclear power by the Nukem Corporation, “In an era of deregulation there will be no pool of captive customers to shoulder uneconomic operating costs or massive capital additions.” Because of deregulation, the owners of many reactors are limited liability companies with little or no cash reserves. There is no financial incentive to move wastes to safer dry storage.

from another NRC report

alphadude · « **Reply #66 on:** Mar 13, 2003, 05:13 »

I own several houses and properties. The island is off the grid. the others have dependence and some independence. I have been on a co-op for 20 years and 10 years prior to that! (30 years of nuke has been good to me!)

as for electric cars- today was the death of them. california will no longer require them to meet air quality standards. they are waiting for H cell production.=0 emission Electric cars were expensive more so than reg cars. There are hybrids that produce their own juice but thats another story- those are expensive too. HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT CALIF FORCED BUSINESS TO DO SOMETHING-GOD HELP US, has caused dramatic increase in research on alternative fuels vehicles. The motors and designs to be used on H vehicles were the result of someone making big business do something.

Cost of those cars- you must consider this- they did not or do not deliver the miles/cost/ range as conventionals. Using the supplied logic - we would all be driving Yugos! The facts on economics for those cars was derived from Consumers Report and other sources.

alphadude · « **Reply #67 on:** Mar 13, 2003, 05:40 »

I do have a problem with condescending attitudes and hubris that is displayed against anyone here that goes against the party lines. I have not addressed anyone in a personal manner and dont intend too. Its debate.. its not a challenge to anyones reading skills or how many socks they knit. Its a sharing of knowledge, not dogma, as it should be!

Oh yeah, we are hiring!

good luck!

getaclue2 · « **Reply #68 on:** Mar 13, 2003, 06:16 »

The site in IL was closed because Jimmy C. made the decision not to reprocess fuel in the states ( I believe mostly for security reasons). They actualy had several shipments of fuel on site ready to be processed when Carter made up his mind on the matter.

alphadude · « **Reply #69 on:** Mar 13, 2003, 10:14 »

that may be true but this is taken from a report published in 2000. I really have no more comments on the matter, nor in this thread actually. Its getting kinda boring. so have fun with this! Most of us will be to old to care or dead before this changes. Industry predictions is that 2025 is the expected revival of nuclear. Ill be living in Costa Rica then waitin on the grim reaper.

littlebittime · « **Reply #70 on:** Mar 14, 2003, 08:52 »

Quote

Economics is an issue with power production. At present, enriched uranium market is at a glut, and has been for the last 8 years. Plut is almost free- the russians cant get rid of it fast enough- so all we have to do is fly over and get it. As for spent fuel reprosessing- its not a lesser amount of waste at the end of the reprocess- its tons more. highly active and chemically toxic from the organic extraction process. the best is to consolidate and store/monitor/retrieve(MRS) when needed.

The economics of things… I suppose everything we do involves economics in one way or another… and there are always – as with anything two sides to the coin.
“Economic conditions are leading to extension of the operating cycle, higher fuel burnup and increased power levels. As in this country, initiatives have been identified in several other IAEA member countries to explore use of mixed oxide fuel either because of non proliferation considerations or to recycle fuel to use it more efficiently. “ quoted from a speech by Greta Joy Dicus Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the Nuclear Safety Research Conference 10/12/01 in reference to the present challenges of the nuclear industry.
So the Commissioner of the NRC is stating economics as a reason to explore recycling… hmmm. Interesting.

littlebittime · « **Reply #71 on:** Mar 14, 2003, 09:07 »

a personal comment from someone on the site

Quote

As for spent fuel reprosessing- its not a lesser amount of waste at the end of the reprocess- its tons more. highly active and chemically toxic from the organic extraction process. the best is to consolidate and store/monitor/retrieve(MRS) when needed.

A quote from some nrc report - posted previously...

Quote

The use of MOX fuel has never been considered economical enough to warrant reprocessing, and large-scale U.S. breeder reactor program was eliminated during the early 1980s during the Administration of President Reagan who was a strong supporter of nuclear power plants.

I’ve only just started my reprocessing “studies” but from what I’ve read so far the fuel doesn’t have to be mixed with plutonium to create MOX in can be just simply used as fresh fuel.
I searched the NRC – briefly – I was unable to find a whole lot in the way of text for reprocessing… my guess is because the US isn’t involved that much with reprocessing at this time… (or I could just not have spent enough time looking there.)

I then decided it was probably more logical to gather info from locations that do in fact reprocess fuel currently. (from the horse’s mouth as it were)

Institute of Electrical Engineers ( UK) January 2003
“Reprocessing effectively reduces the volume of waste and limits the need to mine new supplies of uranium, thereby extending the lifetime of finite resources.
When the uranium has been separated it can be made into fresh fuel or mixed with
the plutonium to produce a ceramic Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel. Both of these types of fuel can then be used in conventional reactors.

If the fuel were not reprocessed, it would need to be stored and then disposed of - 100% of the fuel, rather than just 3%, would then become waste.”

This is from a chart at the end of the same article.
"Reprocessing 1 ton of used nuclear fuel produces typically:

0.1 cubic metres of high level waste, containing nearly 99% of the radioactivity in the used fuel;
1 cubic metre of intermediate level waste, containing nearly 1% of the radioactivity in the used fuel;
4 cubic metres of low level waste containing 0.001% of the radioactivity in the used fuel."

littlebittime · « **Reply #72 on:** Mar 14, 2003, 09:15 »

an excerpt from an NRC document quoted in a post earlier in this thread...

Quote

Today, the pressure felt by reactor owners from electricity deregulation works against nuclear safety. According to a report on utility deregulation and nuclear power by the Nukem Corporation,

I searched the NRC site as well as the Nukem Corp site and could find no mention of this report, so I can’t speak directly to the entire content of the report. However, from what I did read about Nukem Corp, I gather they are a company that deals with spent fuel.
(from their site "Nukem Corp. provides safe, compliant, and cost-effective solutions to radioactive waste management problems through the innovative application of proven technologies.")

The fact that they wrote a report about nuclear power plants not spending money – another translation could be not hiring Nukem Corp – isn’t shocking. If I were a company that worked in spent fuel storage… I’d be pissed that nuclear power plants were storing spent fuel in the spent fuel pools rather than paying me to put them in “safer” dry storage tanks too. It goes back to the economics of it all that were referred to in previous posts. No dry storage tanks… no money for Nukem = nasty letter.

littlebittime · « **Reply #73 on:** Mar 14, 2003, 09:35 »

That's the third time on this site I've been called condescending. I thought condescending meant “patronizing behavior”, but I’m starting to think it means “being able communicate in a coherent manner”, well either that or bitch. Either way I’m ok with it.

I personally loved the “Oh yeah, we are hiring!

good luck.” comment.
But unless you need a graphic designer… I wouldn’t be looking to you for employment. Not that I don’t think I could do the work… but rather, why would I want to? I have stated repeatedly on this site… and once specifically in this thread, that I am a graphic designer… not a nuke worker.

By the way for those of you reading along… I don’t actually know how to knit… it was what we "condescending" people like to call an analogy.

Hey if I’m gonna be wearing the label I should at least be able to enjoy it every once in a while!

SloGlo · « **Reply #74 on:** Mar 15, 2003, 08:09 »

littlebittime....somehow i'm getting the impression that label yinze'r wearing is going to be graphically redesigned, somehow

alpha dude.... thanx fer setting me straight on the presidents. i thunk it was carter who made that speech that there'll be no breeders in the united states.... but he neglected to mention that shippingsport (not beaver valley) was breeding and operating commercially too! 'n iffen there ain't no reason to operate reprocessors, whyinell have the french and others done so? or is it that the french ain't scairt of something, like nukes?

LaFeet · « **Reply #75 on:** Mar 08, 2006, 12:50 »

Quote from: alphadude on Mar 04, 2003, 04:17

i know all this stuff, ive done the nuke lobby, nei support, etc.. the issue was- that a fully integrated energy policy is needed in the US. Does anyone disagree with that? (One day we will all have reactors in everyback yard. Duke Power VP -1973) so what happened?

I agree with ya... and I too spin my meter backwards when I can. The idea of ONE SOLUTION is just not feasible.

We need to expand the technologies that work best in the appropriate locations across our country. My wind generator does not allways produce juice and I have a drop in my PV cells during overcast days. But I supplement my household usage and minimize my familes dependence on oil by using these little techie tools.

I think the main problem is a lack of initiative and the continuous finger pointing that we as Americans have gotten used too. I dont wanna make an effort, and someone else is to blame for my lot in life seems to be our current motto..... what ever happened to "the land of the free....." or "the land of opportunity"? It is still out there iffen we would all just get off our buttocks and step up to the plate.

A simple solar water heater is an extremely efficient and inexpensive means to lower ones power bills, whether you have an electric or gas hot water heater. I have plan to install two this summer..... and also to use the latent attic heat to boot (lowering my attic temps, raising my water temps.. less money for electricity).

Author Topic: A Solution To Our Problem (Read 59456 times)

merchant

alphadude

fluxmama

moke

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

radgal

bigstew

bigstew

alphadude

Pet_Cow

alphadude

LaFeet

littlebittime

alphadude

alphadude

littlebittime

littlebittime

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

littlebittime

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

littlebittime

Pet_Cow

alphadude

littlebittime

alphadude

Pet_Cow

LaFeet

LaFeet

alphadude

littlebittime

littlebittime

LaFeet

LaFeet

littlebittime

alphadude

littlebittime

littlebittime

littlebittime

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

alphadude

getaclue2

alphadude

littlebittime

littlebittime

littlebittime

littlebittime