Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site jhunix.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa From: ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Oil and the costs of Fission Electricity Message-ID: <1149@jhunix.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Nov-85 12:06:35 EST Article-I.D.: jhunix.1149 Posted: Mon Nov 11 12:06:35 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 15-Nov-85 21:07:50 EST References: <460@mhuxm.UUCP> <740@whuxl.UUCP> <10822@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <528@scirtp.UUCP> <1092@jhunix.UUCP> <542@scirtp.UUCP> Reply-To: ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Computing Ctr. Lines: 162 In article <542@scirtp.UUCP> todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >> >> The only feasible alternatives to oil are natural gas, coal, and >> >> atomic energy >> >How about a little bit of conservation? >> >> Of the three, coal is very dirty and natural gas suffers from >> >> transportation difficulties. >> >> Fission energy is here right now, is competitive with oil in price/kw-hr, >> >I think fission power is becoming less and less of a bargain. >> >You say,"That's because all you worrywarts are regulating it death!" >> That's exactly it. Groups that claim fission power is unsafe have induced the >> creation of extremely stringent regulations, and then used the catch-22 >> that it costs too much, said costs being largely caused by the regulations >> they helped get passed. >Don't ignore the uninsurability argument: > Sources, please? >> >> and is very clean... >> >You mean it is very clean unless it becomes very, very dirty. >e.g. wastes, meltdowns. I KNOW what you mean. I am just pointing out below that "very clean unless very, very dirty" is meaningless. >> ANYTHING is clean unless it's dirty. Also, my room is light unless it's >> dark, and it seems to be rather quiet, unless it's noisy. The question is, >> is it actually clean or dirty, and the answer is clean. >> >> but is politically incorrect, for some reason I've never been able to fathom. >> > waste storage. I believe we are technologically able (probably) to >> > safely store wastes, but there are too many horror stories about >> > unsafe disposal practices, hundreds of pounds of unaccounted for >> > wastes, including weapons grade plutonium. >> Power reactors do not produce weapons-grade plutonium. Research reactors do >And breeder reactors do. Fission reactors produce wastes that can be refined >to weapons-grade plutonium. Uranium mines produce ores that can be refined to weapons-grade uranium. So what? >> but the argument is about nuclear power, not reactors used for other purposes. >> > The technological >> > requirements for creating a storage system that can withstand the >> > ravages of tens of thousands of years of time are boggling. >> Wait a minute--didn't the uranium stay in the ground that long? >Not enriched uranium, which is far more toxic than uranium ore. Enriched uranium may be more concentrated, but there isn't anything in it that wasn't in the ore. And as for it being toxic, is anyone going to eat or breathe it, or drink solutions of it? (Actually, I suspect that you really meant to speak of wastes here, not enriched uranium, but I can only respond to what you say.) >> Didn't salt >> mines? Besides, there are many substances we obtain that last longer than >> tens of thousands of years, and that you don't seem particularly worried >> about. (i.e. arsenic). > >How did you find out that I am a pro-arsenic kind-of-guy? *8-}. I didn't. I'm just pointing out that the "tens of thousands of years" statement is a double standard, because it isn't used for substances that last long times if they aren't radioactive. >> Also note that producing an amount of power from coal releases radioac- >>tivity into the air... also lasts "tens of thousands of years". >If you read my original posting you'll find many damning statements on coal. True, but again I was pointing out the double standard of "tens of thousands of years", "we are giving our children and grandchildren, etc..." not being used for materials not generally thought of as radioactive. >> > We are giving our children (and grandchildren, etc...) a poisonous >> > legacy, generated to fuel an economic system that will be hilariously >> > inefficient and crude to them. >> > ... >> > cost of total failure. In the event of a meltdown (a real possibility >> > by anyone's reckoning) the consequences will range from catastrophic >> > to cataclysmic, depending on who you talk to. When you consider the >> > price, is it worth it? >> Yes, a meltdown would result in a real catastrophe. So would bursting of >> a dam. So would an accident at a non-nuclear plant. But we accept these >> risks. >The risk of a bursting dam is calculable. The risk of an accident in a >non-nuclear plant is calculable. There is no clear idea of what would >happen in the event of a meltdown, but the most modest expectations >greatly exceed the destructive power of a burst dam or non-nuclear >plant explosion. From what I have seen, they wouldn't. Furthermore, a meltdown is much less likely than a burst dam or non-nuclear explosion. Also, just because some- thing isn't "calculable" doesn't mean that you don't have an upper bound on its damage. >> >> ending political restrictions on the development of fission power. >> >> Rick. >> >I'll be the first to admit that coal power is poisonous and crude. >> >What we need is research (I don't care who funds it, really) on >> >renewable energy sources. Why can't we push solar more? It wouldn't have >> >anything to do with power companies fear's of decentralized power >> >sources would it? Nah! >> > >> >I talk to my old red neck high school buddies who work on the >> >Shearon-Harris nuclear power plant near Raleigh, NC. They get >> >high or drunk nearly everyday, they fudge inspection report >> >forms, they have a good old time putting together a device >> >that requires significant amounts of energy and control just >> >to keep from exploding. >> Oh no, not the "exploding nuclear reactor" hoax again! A nuclear reactor >> can't explode like a bomb. >It is theorized, anyway. You mean you ARE claiming a nuclear reactor can explode like a bomb? >> It can have an ordinary steam explosion, but >> such an explosion would cause no more damage than from a steam explosion >> at any other type of plant. And I doubt that faking reports, getting high >> or drunk, etc... is limited to nuclear plants. >You are right, it isn't. But the consequences are far graver. >> Anyway, it isn't >> true that a reactor "requires significant amounts of energy and control >> just to keep from exploding". The safeguards are such that a complete >What is a safeguard in a nuclear plant setting if it isn't a sophisticated >system requiring significant amounts of energy and control? I always thought that many safeguards are automatic. I doubt that, for exam- ple, a N-thickness (sorry, but I don't have reference books on hand) steel containment vessel requires large quantities of energy or control to operate. >> loss of control would be extremely unlikely to result in an explosion. >(examples of loss of control deleted) >point experts tend to disagree on the level of ensuing disaster. Again, a disagreement on level doesn't mean either that the maximum level is unknown, or that the likeliness of an accident killing N people, compared (say) to that of a dam breakage killing N people, isn't known. >> Not even Three Mile Island exploded. >From what I understand, TMI came very close to not being cooled by Close doesn't count. The safeguards did work. >> > >> >Until we have a clear answer, we must conserve, >> >use clean power (hydroelectric, domestic natural gas), and put >> >a lot of resources into energy research, especially fusion and >> >solar. I have never stated that I am against these things, just that I do not consider your arguments against nuclear power valid. >As I have stated, I am not a strict no-nuker, I just believe that >Americans are not being realistic about the risks of nuclear power >and are not making informed choices. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa