article: Plug-in Hybrid

"jim beam" wrote

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" wrote in news:oTPMe.35516$Ji.3946@lakeread02:

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

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.

Brian Stell wrote in news:ayTMe.339$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

Costs are high because of the ridiculous opperssive regulations forced upon the nuclear industry by enviro-extremists.

Purely NIMBY.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

"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."

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

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

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

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.

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

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

so how come it's done in all these other places? charity?

"Brian Stell" wrote Jim E

Good ones. A more recent citation (this past month) is in the same vein:

Brian Stell wrote in news:AVeNe.524$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

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.

Brian Stell wrote in news:zefNe.1132$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

So,AGAIN;not RELEVANT,as one picks the safest,best-suited place to locate the storage facility.

And it's STILL a vast empty land. Most of it is owned by the Federal Government,too.

No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.

Some time in the future,we ALL will be benefitting from it. It's time to plan for that NOW,so face reality.

Doesn't bother me, but then, i used to work at a nuclear reprocessing facility...

>

flobert wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Many cities ALREADY HAVE a nuclear waste dump nearby,and very vulnerable to terrorists.Many also get nuclear shipments trucked through them,too. Any city with a fair-sized hospital.

I believe that many of the nearby residents are looking forward to good,high-paying government jobs from Yucca Mtn.

Hello, Those facts don't matter to the greenies. They just want to close down nuclear power plants. There was a protest at the local nuclear power plant about 15 years ago. I drove by the plant very early in the morning and saw about a dozen really expensive cars and motor homes. I later watched the nightly news shows and saw several famous actors being interviewed. I realized that those expensive cars and motor homes belonged to those rich actors and other rich people that drove from their million dollar homes in Hollywood. They used lots of gasoline to travel to my small town and only God knows how much wood was used to make their million dollar homes. I would NEVER donate money to any greenie group. Jason

In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For example look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor Californians have had to screw around with special "California Emissions" vehicles for over

20 years. The vehicles cost incrementally more and are hard to sell outside of California. They also require special additives in their gasoline, making theirs the most expensive fuwl in the contiguous 48 states, more than 50¢ gallon higher than some states.

During the California "energy crisis" a few years ago my employer tried to build a clean, natural gas-fired electric generating plant in Simi Valley but couldn't get the damn thing licensed in Calif. because of the absurd regulations and punitive licensing fees.

Californians did this to themselves and the same group 9or rather same mindset) is now trying to do it everywhere.

Blocking the long term storage of spent fuel rods at Yucca Mountain has effectively shut down *ALL* future nuclear powered elect generating stations. Why? Because your Federal Govt enacted legislation that says you cannot get a license to build a nuke plant if you don't have available storage for spent fuel rods. Of course you can store them on site at the nuke station itself but then that means having a nuclear waste site at every new generating station and we know the greenies will never stand for that.

Hello, You made some great points. I live in California. Several years ago the greenies worked together to get a law passed that required oil companies to place some sort of new additive in gasoline. Several years later, it was discovered that the additive was causing people to get cancer. In addition, various gas stations had defective tanks and the gasoline leaked into the ground water. People living near those gas stations came down with cancer. The oil companies were sued. I read several news report about those cases and none of the liberal reporters ever mentioned that the greenies were to blame for causing the cancer causing additive to be placed in the gas. I realize the oil companies should not have allowed the gas tanks under the ground to leak. However, the greenies should also have been sued because they were the ones to blame for causing the additive to be in the gasoline. Jason

dude, you have that totally ass-over-tip. the additive is mtbe. it was sold to the california state legislature as an "oxygenate" designed to reduce emissions, much like ethanol is being used today. it's since been banned because it contaminates ground water supplies with a taste like turpentine. now, here's the real rub: mtbe was mandated after lobbying by arco, whose refining process just happens to produce a lot of mtbe, much more than they could otherwise use. the hook they used was "oxygenation" being better for emissions - something that's not necessary with a fuel injected vehicle, the vast majority of vehicles on the road. speculation is that the real reason arco wanted mtbe mandated for all gasoline was not only to get rid of their excess mtbe production, but also to reduce mpg, therefore increase gas sales. and they succeeded. but guess whose wife was on the board of arco at the time this mandate found it's was through the state assembly? go on, guess...