article: Plug-in Hybrid

Page 2 of 4  
Jim Yanik wrote:


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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chemical plants often have

What happened at Bhopal was no accident; it was deliberate sabotage by somebody who knew how to do the most damage. And what happened at Chernobyl is not possible at commercial power plants; Chernobyl was an uncontained graphite moderated reactor and the graphite caught fire when an ill-advised experiment went very wrong and fractured the fuel rods. Three Mile Island is a better example of a terrible accident at a fairly modern nuclear power plant - complete meltdown of the core and nobody injured, no contamination outside the containment.
In the electric company I've worked for the past 21 years, there have been a few fatalities from electric accidents, one fatality from steam at a coal plant, and one serious injury from a transformer explosion at another coal plant. In the entire US there has never been an injury from the nuclear side of power production.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Chernobyl was rare,chem plants OFTEN have toxic spills,with OFTEN disastrous results. Same for oil refineries or storage. Nuclear power has a MUCH better safety record,and MUCH cleaner for the environment.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you noticed,the poster asked simplistic questions to frame the matter so that it SEEMS common-sense to be anti-nuclear. While avoiding common sense completely. How ironic.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those at either extreme of most issues lack common sense and intelectual honesty.
Leonard
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Stell wrote:

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. if it were properly stored, sure. improper storage is your real concern, but again, a lot of fear is based on misinformation.

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.

it's nuts to freak without the full facts. sure, there's a lot of misinformation around, on both sides, but the facts are plain: radiation is part of our existance on this planet. we cannot avoid it. it makes no sense to freak about the local power or storage facility if we're getting higher doses from our basement that is full of radon & from the cosmic rays that soak us every day of our lives. check out a bubble chamber some time. it's just a foaming cauldron of vapor trails left by the background radiation that is with us constantly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Neutreno's actually. extremely weakly interacting particles of unknown mass or size, that barely react or interact with anything. . one of the big projects going on in europe right now is the Neutreno factory -which aims to fire a stream from the uk to china, direct. http://hepunx.rl.ac.uk/uknf /
Good link to plug the only large-scale distributed computing project out there... (and which is a part of the above project)
Muon1 - www.stephenbrooks.org/muon1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flobert wrote:

no, not neutrinos. they are notoriously hard to detect - you'd have to sit there and stare through billions of all the other alpha, beta & gamma traces that you /can/ see before you had any chance of seeing a neutrino reaction.

which is true, and directly contradictory with your previous statement!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not true, they BARELY interact. but there's a huge number of them passing through us every second. Bubble chambers are heavily shielded, sealed high pressure water chambers. The aim is neutrenos sometimes 'interact' and on a body of water, but which has no flash point, to produce the bubbles. when a neutreno enters the chamber, and 'interacts' it produces a point for bubbles to form. (like the rough surfaces on the bottom of a pan produce the spots for bubbles to forum when the water approaches boiling.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flobert wrote:

and the proportion of neutrino reactions to alpha, beta & gamma is???

some research facilities may be, but not many of us get to press our noses against that kind of glass. normal mortals get to see the science museum bubble chamber of low pressure alcohol, which is not shielded specially so you /can/ see just how many of the other reactions there are.

flash point????????????
the pressure of the fluid is critically low in comparison to boiling point so any [reacting] passing particle leaves a "vapor trail" of local phase transition. but again, this talk in relation to the number of neutrino reactions you'll ever see is just nuts, because you'll probably never see one!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian wrote snip

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

The fear is rationally based on misinformation like that you wrote above.

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 .
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elle 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. this includes irradiated material as well as fission product.
3. low level waste can be processed & concentrated or stored.

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

on the contrary, reprocessing is highly profitable.

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.

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.

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?

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not necessarily.
Why read further if you can't accurately reflect even the simple?
You're on a religious mission, not a scientific one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Huh? What are your arguments/postions on what jb said? Sounds like pot calling kettle black, to me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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&catidX3
"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 administrations reprocessing bancoupled with costly new regulatory requirementsensured 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."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Stell wrote:

so how come it's done in all these other places? charity?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim E

far
Good ones. A more recent citation (this past month) is in the same vein:
--
The four witnesses at this [Congressional] hearing [on July 12] were very
cautious about the prospects for reprocessing (see
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not relevant;one selects the storage site based on sound engineering and environmental principles.
Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

"New nuclear plants appear too pricey" http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/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."

There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who feel differently.
"Yucca Mountain" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/23/60minutes/main579696.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 NRCs 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_home/2005/Aug-10-Wed-2005/news/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_home/2005/Aug-13-Sat-2005/news/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_home/2005/Aug-17-Wed-2005/news/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."

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".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.