[Hidden-tech] Nuke Power & Energy Providers?

Michael Eger michael.eger at gmail.com
Thu Nov 1 14:43:07 EDT 2007


Everybody,

This topic could quickly change into a flame war. The questions was is
one electric provider was better then the other.

This is really not the forum to debate nuclear power. The simple fact
is all power sources have a down side even renewables. Solar needs
lots of land, wind turbines injure birds,  Hydroelectric changes the
flow of rivers, Oil comes from a politically unstable parts of the
world and adds to global warming, the list goes on.

  Yes we need to invest in renewables for power. But we can't discount
a valid DOMESTIC source of power that does not add to global warming ,
do to outdated fears.

And for the na sayers let me point out that the " accident at the
Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown,
Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S.
commercial nuclear power plant operating history(1), even though it
led to NO deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby
community." http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

Just before bashing a valid source of power, remember the refinery
fires, tankers spilling oil,all the trapped coal miners, and natural
gas explosion.  Nuclear power does not look so bad in that light.





On 11/1/07, Shel Horowitz <shel at frugalfun.com> wrote:
>    ** The author of this post was a Good Dobee.
>    ** You too can help the group
>    ** Fill out the survey/skills inventory in the member's area.
>    ** If you did, we all thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > WMECO 33% Nuclear, 39% Gas, 14% coal, 8% oil, 6% other
>  > Dominion 64% Nuclear, 18% Gas, 8% Coal, 2% oil, 3% hydro, 5% other
>
>
> Unfortunately, if we stay on the grid, we don't really have a nuke-free
> alternative. Mass Electric (serves Noho) also has some nuclear in its mix,
> if I'm not mistaken. You can, however, lower your dependence on nuclear by
> adding a solar system. On our 1743 farmhouse, we have a solar hot water
> system, which is not only excellent but lowers our electric bill by over
> $100 per month--and a small photovoltaic system, which produces less than
> I'd hoped (I think it was installed too lo on the roof) but does sell back
> about 10% of our purchased electricity (and I imagine saves us at least that
> much in electricity that we consume directly)
>
>
> >
>  > Basically I think Dominion owns one or more nuclear power plants in
>  > the northeast, which are cheaper to operate than fossil-fuel
>  > plants. But there is that persistent problem of what to do with
>  > nuclear waste.  Nobody wants it, and it lasts ~ 10,000 years.
>
>  Good catch, but it leaves out a couple of things that folks should
>  consider. I speak from some knowledge of the nuke industry, having
>  worked with alongside those folks (both in those in military and the
>  private sector) for a couple of decades. I produced a documentary
>  about the issues of "safe" nuke power and heard so many lies from
>  their defenders and heard so many horror stories from not only those
>  folks but hard core scientists, that I can't enumerate them in this e-
>  mail. Suffice it to say, they included the facts about the half-life
>  of waste (actually up to a quarter million years for a couple
>  isotopes, Jeremy), the politicization of the industry, simple things
>  like wrenches getting accidently dropped in waste pools and discarded
>  there, technicians selling drugs in the plants, etc.
>
>
> I also have some knowledge of this industry, starting with reading every lay
> book on the subject for a college paper I wrote in 1974 (and to which I came
> to the subject with an open mind, and got scared--very scared), to writing a
> column on the problems of nuclear power in 1978-79, to writing my first book
> on that subject in the aftermath of Three Mile Island.
>
>
> Basically there is *no* good reason to go nuclear. As far as reasons to
> avoid it, these are some of them:
> * Taking the entire fuel cycle, from mining through milling, transportation,
> assembly into fuel rods, powering the nuke, and temporarily dealing with the
> waste, nuclear power actually *consumes more power than it generates*--talk
> about a bad trade-off!
> * Steven is correct--nuclear waste has to be sealed off from the environment
> for about 250,000 years. Typically, you can multiply the half-life of any
> radioactive isotope by ten in order to get an approximation of when it will
> be safe to treat as non-half the radiation to emit and neutralize. So if you
> have a pound of radioactive material, at the end of its half-life, you'll
> still have half a pound of radioactive and half a pound of inert. After the
> next half-life you still have a quarter-pound, but after ten cycles, nearly
> all of it is inert (you never reach zero, of course). Nukes generate a whole
> stew of radioactive materials; one of the deadliest, plutonium 239, has a
> half-life of 24,100 years--thus, the figure of a quarter million years of
> isolation. This is one of the most carcinogenic substances we now about,
> deadly to humans in doses measured with an eyedropper--and every nuke
> generates significant amounts. The handful of reactors operating in the US
> currently add 2000 *tons* of the stuff every year, and all you need is 20
> pounds to make an h bomb (we won't talk about other destructive uses that
> require far less). [source:
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/extracting-plutonium-from-nuclear-reactor-spent-fuel.html]
> * The only reason there is a commercial nuclear power program in this
> country as that the government, back in the 50s, not only announced that if
> private utilities wouldn't step up, it would set up its own competing power
> plant system--and coupled that with an incredible giveaway called the
> Price-Anderson Act--which established heavily subsidized insurance policies
> with sharply limited liability. Basically, the only ones likely to collect
> anything in the event of a catastrophic accident are the owners of the
> plant, and even they won't recoup their investment.
> * Then you have a whole raft of safety issues including clumsy low-level
> accidents like the dropped wrenches, on up to catastrophic failure through
> accident or terrorism or earthquake
>
>
> There's more, lots more--but I'll stop there.
>
>
> I'm no promoter of nuke power, but I have been thinking things over
>  of late. What about global warming? What if nuke power is our short-
>  cut to getting to a hydrogen/solar economy and getting off oil? I
>  won't tell you what to think; as I've said, I haven't made up my own
>  mind. Just think about it and learn. Maybe take the sources (except
>  true renewables) off your ledgers in deciding where you find a
>  provider for the next couple of years.
>
>
> Here are some facts that might help make up your and others' minds:
>
>
> * More energy from the sun falls uncaptured on the earth than is consumed by
> all human activity
> * Rooftops are a largely untapped source of energy. Think about all the
> flat-roof buildings in New York City--with a quarter of their area devoted
> to solar collectors and another quarter for rooftop gardens: a big step
> toward both food (thus drastically lowering the need for petroleum input)
> and energy self-sufficiency
> * We could redesign many of our industrial and commercial processes to use a
> whole lot less energy. See for example my article about visionary scientist
> Amory Lovins and the work he's done to change industrial energy patterns:
> http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/amorylovins.shtml
>
>
> In other words, we can do everything we need with conservation  solar, wind,
> small-scale hydro, geothermal--especially if we change our use patterns (for
> example, buying more locally grown food) --
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>  Shel Horowitz - 413-586-2388/800-683-WORD shel at frugalfun.com
>
>
> I show the world the value in your values!
> Award-wining author,
> Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First
> Founder of the Business Ethics Pledge,
> http://www.business-ethics-pledge.org
> _________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>
> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list.
> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members
> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>



Google

More information about the Hidden-discuss mailing list