Honda Car Forum

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> news:49AMe.2135$Z%6.1249@newssvr17.news.prodigy.co m:
>
>
>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them.

"New nuclear plants appear too pricey"
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...ca/6073891.htm
"The last five U.S. nuclear power plants cost 11 times as much to build
per kilowatt produced as do current natural-gas plants. Even if new
next-generation nuclear plants can be built much more cheaply, their
construction costs still are likely to be two to four times higher than
natural gas, coal or wind plants, according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration."

>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>
>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>
> Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.

There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
feel differently.

"Yucca Mountain"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in579696.shtml
"... the battle is far from over, and the state of Nevada is in
full-scale revolt. A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists
and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they believe
has been shoved down their throats."

"The Impacts of Sabotage and Terrorism on Nuclear Waste Shipments: A
Critique of the U. S. Department of Energy's Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DOE/EIS-0250D) for the Proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
Geological Repository"
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/eis/yucca/ballard01.htm
"if one makes a cursory review of NRC’s Safeguards Summary Event List
(SSEL) it becomes clear that sabotage is a much more common practice in
nuclear related facilities than the public would assume and clearly a
known factor transportation planners should address."

"Yucca radiation limits unveiled"
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../27026244.html
"Never in our wildest nightmares would we have anticipated such a
ridiculous standard," Gov. Kenny Guinn said. "This is junk science at
its worst."

"YUCCA MOUNTAIN: 'Monkey wrench'"
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../27043079.html
"Thousands of fuel assemblies containing radioactive nuclear waste are
expected to arrive damaged at Yucca Mountain, including some with
undetected leaks and cracks, posing potential risks to workers and the
public, according to a report prepared for the government."

"Report says repository to bite county budget"
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../27062800.html
" The transportation of high-level nuclear waste to the planned Yucca
Mountain repository could have a devastating effect on local government
finances, according to a report accepted by Clark County commissioners
Tuesday."

>>Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump
>>to your child, nephew, pregant relative?
>>
>>If you answer yes to these then more power to you but
>>you'll be the first person I've met that does.

My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless
you personally are willing to have you and those you care
about live near it.

So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would
be okay".

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Brian wrote
> snip
>
>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>
>>it really depends. here, we don't "handle" it, we just store it. if we
>>dealt with it properly, like everyone else, we'd reprocess it. so if it
>>were reprocessed, no problem.
>
>
> Good lord. High level radioactive waste still results from reprocessing
> spent nuclear fuel from power plants.
>
> High level radioactive waste that is not spent fuel and so cannot be
> reprocessed is still an outcome of nuclear power plant operations.
>
> Lower level waste simply cannot be reprocessed and is of course still a
> hazard.

ok, let's keep this simple.

1. reprocessed means useful material is recovered, not left languishing
in big blue containers all over the country.

2. reprocessed means non-useful high level material is held inert in a
form such as borosilicate glass that bears minimal risk of chemical
issues and can be safely stored. this includes irradiated material as
well as fission product.

3. low level waste can be processed & concentrated or stored.

>
> I doubt it's only the U.S. who does not reprocess. Regardless, the reason
> the U.S. does not reprocess (by federal law) is, for one, because of
> concerns about plutonium proliferation: If this product of reprocessing gets
> in the wrong hands, the production of nuclear weapons is facilitated.

so we can't be trusted to non-proliferate our own plutonium??? that's a
crock. it's simply political fear.

>
> Reprocessing is also expensive. Mining/enrichment of uranium remains far
> cheaper than reprocessing.

on the contrary, reprocessing is highly profitable.

>
> You can't beef about how the high purchase cost of hybrid cars makes them
> unsuitable and then disregard how the high cost of reprocessing makes it
> unsuitable, all in the same thread. Or you can, but you'll be logically
> inconsistent.

if the overall cost of nuclear, including reprocessing &
decommissioning, is still on a par with gross polluters like coal, and
it is, i fail to understand the inconsistency. agreed, there's an
incredible amount of crackpot fear-mongering misinformation on the web
on this subject, but if nuclear power can be just as cheap as fossil,
doesn't pollute & can be done safely, i don't get the problem.

>
>
>>if it were properly stored, sure.
>>improper storage is your real concern, but again, a lot of fear is based
>>on misinformation.
>
>
> The fear is rationally based on misinformation like that you wrote above.

fear that the french have been operating nuclear plants and storing
waste without incident since the 70's? they don't have remote desert
repositories in france either.

>
>
>>>Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump
>>>to your child, nephew, pregant relative?
>>
>>technically, you get more radiation from coal power station fly ash.
>>which is used for cinder block. which builds homes. and from granite.
>> which is used in homes. there are many sources of background
>>ratiation, and many parts of the country, where humans happily live
>>where background is much higher than any emissions from your friendly
>>local storage facility.
>>
>>
>>>If you answer yes to these then more power to you but
>>>you'll be the first person I've met that does.
>>
>>it's nuts to freak without the full facts.
>
>
> The only one freaking here is you: You felt you had to dump an emotional
> truckload of incorrect information on someone who whose concerts are
> perfectly valid .

eh? the fact that we live with background radiation, sometimes at high
levels, is not valid grounds on which to throw perspective on the
radiation levels in a power station?

>
> I do not oppose per se further construction and operation of commercial
> nuclear power plants. I do resent the irrational religious fervor of many of
> its advocates, resulting in the transmission of highly inaccurate
> information which hinders, rather than helps, the reduction of U.S.
> dependence on foreign oil.

who's an advocate of religious fervor??? there's many grounds on which
nuclear power makes a lot of sense when analyzed rationally. that's
just a fact. there's no fervor or religion involved. now, if you want
to get all frothed up about ensuring operation oversight is independant
and competent, be my guest, but don't let that cloud the reality of any
deployment decision.

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> ok, let's keep this simple.
> 1. reprocessed means useful material is recovered, not left languishing
> in big blue containers all over the country.
>
> 2. reprocessed means non-useful high level material is held inert in a
> form such as borosilicate glass that bears minimal risk of chemical
> issues and can be safely stored.

Not necessarily.

Why read further if you can't accurately reflect even the simple?

You're on a religious mission, not a scientific one.

Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TdVMe.6804$Wi6.2923@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> > ok, let's keep this simple.
> > 1. reprocessed means useful material is recovered, not left languishing
> > in big blue containers all over the country.
> >
> > 2. reprocessed means non-useful high level material is held inert in a
> > form such as borosilicate glass that bears minimal risk of chemical
> > issues and can be safely stored.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> Why read further if you can't accurately reflect even the simple?
>
> You're on a religious mission, not a scientific one.
>
>
Huh? What are your arguments/postions on what jb said? Sounds like pot calling
kettle black, to me.

"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in
newsTPMe.35516$Ji.3946@lakeread02:

>
> "Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8oJMe.197$L03.96@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net.. .
>>
>>> I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would
>>> trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant?

Chemical plants often have ACCIDENTS;releases of toxic chemicals.
Remember Bhopal,India?
And trains derail and spill LOTs of chemical tanker loads.

>
> Of course. The point is people are so fearful of nuclear plants and
> waste that we know exactly how to detect and secure while they wallow
> in toxics of all natures and hardly complain at all. You try to clean
> up the mess of chemicals in Lousiana, Houston and dozens of other
> areas that are highly industrialized and let us know how far you get.
> Also, see if you can build a cheap detector to identify the presence
> of any of the hundreds of hazardous compounds the plants emit. You
> don't even know what to look for. With nuclear we know exactly what to
> look for and how to secure it. I'd rather deal with a known than an
> unknown.
>
> By comparison to fossil fuel plants, nuclear is exceptionally clean
> and safe.

The enviros tend to overloook or ignore the deaths and harm done by mining
coal and producing oil,it's just a fear of things nuclear.


>
> Leonard
>
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:ayTMe.339$zD3.124@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> news:49AMe.2135$Z%6.1249@newssvr17.news.prodigy.co m:
>>
>>
>>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them.
>
> "New nuclear plants appear too pricey"
> http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...ackages/yucca/
> 6073891.htm "The last five U.S. nuclear power plants cost 11 times as
> much to build per kilowatt produced as do current natural-gas plants.
> Even if new next-generation nuclear plants can be built much more
> cheaply, their construction costs still are likely to be two to four
> times higher than natural gas, coal or wind plants, according to the
> U.S. Energy Information Administration."

Costs are high because of the ridiculous opperssive regulations forced upon
the nuclear industry by enviro-extremists.
>
>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>
>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>
>> Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.
>
> There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
> feel differently.

Purely NIMBY.

>
> "Yucca Mountain"
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in579696.shtml
> "... the battle is far from over, and the state of Nevada is in
> full-scale revolt. A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists
> and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they
> believe has been shoved down their throats."

The stuff HAS to go somewhere;and nobody came up with any better site.
Under a mountain in the middle of a vast empty land seems about right.

>
> "The Impacts of Sabotage and Terrorism on Nuclear Waste Shipments: A
> Critique of the U. S. Department of Energy's Draft Environmental
> Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0250D) for the Proposed Yucca Mountain,
> Nevada, Geological Repository"
> http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/eis/yucca/ballard01.htm
> "if one makes a cursory review of NRC’s Safeguards Summary Event List
> (SSEL) it becomes clear that sabotage is a much more common practice
> in nuclear related facilities than the public would assume and clearly
> a known factor transportation planners should address."

This would be an argument FOR Yucca Mtn. Having the present wastes located
allover the country in MUCH less secure sites than Yucca makes NO sense.
Transportation is a short-term window of "opportunity" that is difficult to
attempt with any chance of success.
>
> "Yucca radiation limits unveiled"
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...05/news/270262
> 44.html "Never in our wildest nightmares would we have anticipated
> such a ridiculous standard," Gov. Kenny Guinn said. "This is junk
> science at its worst."
>
> "YUCCA MOUNTAIN: 'Monkey wrench'"
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...05/news/270430
> 79.html "Thousands of fuel assemblies containing radioactive nuclear
> waste are expected to arrive damaged at Yucca Mountain, including some
> with undetected leaks and cracks, posing potential risks to workers
> and the public, according to a report prepared for the government."
>
> "Report says repository to bite county budget"
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...05/news/270628
> 00.html " The transportation of high-level nuclear waste to the
> planned Yucca Mountain repository could have a devastating effect on
> local government finances, according to a report accepted by Clark
> County commissioners Tuesday."
>
>>>Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump
>>>to your child, nephew, pregant relative?
>>>
>>>If you answer yes to these then more power to you but
>>>you'll be the first person I've met that does.
>
> My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless
> you personally are willing to have you and those you care
> about live near it.
>
> So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would
> be okay".
>

It's OK because it's far better than what we have now.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in
> newsTPMe.35516$Ji.3946@lakeread02:
>
>
>>"Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>news:8oJMe.197$L03.96@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net ...
>>
>>>>I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would
>>>>trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second.
>>>
>>>Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant?
>
>
> Chemical plants often have ACCIDENTS;releases of toxic chemicals.
> Remember Bhopal,India?

Yes, quite well. It was horrible. So was Chernobyl.

My point is: rather than suggest we should trade one
bad situation for another bad situation, wouldn't it
be better to put effort into cleaning things up?

>> Reprocessing is also expensive. Mining/enrichment of uranium remains far
>> cheaper than reprocessing.
>
> on the contrary, reprocessing is highly profitable.

General Electric spent a lot of time and money trying to
build a reprocessing plant. At first it was going to
make lots of money. Then, well it would make some money.
Then, at least we can break even. Then finally they
gave up.

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=583

"General Electric built a large reprocessing facility in Morris, Ill.
The plant, which never operated, now stores used nuclear fuel."

"Nuclear Fuel Services, while a subsidiary of Getty Oil, built and
operated a small reprocessing facility in West Valley, N.Y. The high
cost of meeting new regulations in the mid-1970s forced the company to
close the plant."

"Allied General Nuclear Services, an Allied Chemical and General Atomics
joint venture, invested more than $500 million dollars in a new
reprocessing plant in Barnwell, S.C. The Carter administration’s
reprocessing ban—coupled with costly new regulatory requirements—ensured
that it, too, never operated."

"In 1994, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
issued a study that concluded total life-cycle costs are virtually the
same for reprocessing and eventual disposal or direct disposal of used
fuel."

>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>>
>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>>
>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.
>>
>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
>>feel differently.
>
> Purely NIMBY.

So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
waste dump in YOUR town?

>>"Yucca Mountain"
>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in579696.shtml
>>"... the battle is far from over, and the state of Nevada is in
>>full-scale revolt. A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists
>>and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they
>>believe has been shoved down their throats."
>
> The stuff HAS to go somewhere;and nobody came up with any better site.

We need to stop producing it. We are passing on a problem
that has to be dealt with for 10,000+ years.

> Under a mountain in the middle of a vast empty land seems about right.

The people living in Nevada don't see it as a vast empty
land. They live there.

>>My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless
>>you personally are willing to have you and those you care
>>about live near it.
>>
>>So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would
>>be okay".
>
> It's OK because it's far better than what we have now.

Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?

If nuclear power is so wonderful let the people who
benefit from it live near it's waste. Don't shove it
down someone else's throat.

"Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:AVeNe.524$GV7.75@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net.. .
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in
>> newsTPMe.35516$Ji.3946@lakeread02:
>>>"Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>news:8oJMe.197$L03.96@newssvr27.news.prodigy.ne t...
>>>
>>>>>I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would
>>>>>trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second.
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant?
>>
>>
>> Chemical plants often have ACCIDENTS;releases of toxic chemicals.
>> Remember Bhopal,India?
>
> Yes, quite well. It was horrible. So was Chernobyl.
>
> My point is: rather than suggest we should trade one
> bad situation for another bad situation, wouldn't it
> be better to put effort into cleaning things up?

What do you think needs to be done? Do you have any idea why petro-chem
industry releases the toxics that they do? Do you have any idea what it
would take to make them clean and safe to the degree that the nuclear
industry already is? You make it sound like a weekend "pick up the garbage
project" but it is much more complex than this.

Leonard