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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!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: <1092@jhunix.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 12:01:50 EST Article-I.D.: jhunix.1092 Posted: Sat Nov 2 12:01:50 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 05:31:05 EST References: <460@mhuxm.UUCP> <740@whuxl.UUCP> <10822@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <528@scirtp.UUCP> Reply-To: ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Computing Ctr. Lines: 125 In article <528@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. >> and is very clean... > >You mean it is very clean unless it becomes very, very dirty. 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, Are these "stories" true or not? References? > hundreds of pounds of unaccounted for > wastes, including weapons grade plutonium. Power reactors do not produce weapons-grade plutonium. Research reactors do, 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? 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). Also note that producing an amount of power from coal releases radioactivity into the air (every substance contains small amounts of radioactive materials, and you need a lot more coal to produce the same amount of power than you do uranium). This radioactivity also lasts "tens of thousands of years". > 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. >> Perhaps some of the groups that are opposed to our >> current buildup should redirect their energies to >> 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! > >The French have taken the most realistic approach to implementing >fission power. They have standardized all their plants, so that >each plant is an improvement on its predecessor. Obviously the French >have more at stake than we do, as they get something close to 70% their >electron juice from nukes, we get less than 20. Our power companies >each throw together their own kludge reactors, most of which are >clumsy, large scale versions of Rickover's nuclear sub reactors, >each of which has its own bugs and ideosyncracies (many of which >don't reveal themselves until it's too late. > >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 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. 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 loss of control would be extremely unlikely to result in an explosion. Not even Three Mile Island exploded. >BTW, if you're wondering how they pass >urinalysis tests- they bring clean samples everyday from a >non-drug-using friend or SO. I don't feel too confident. > >Maybe Fusion power will liberate us all from this dilemna, maybe >decentralized power (solar, wind, cow manure *8-}, etc...) will >be the answer. 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. > Todd Jones -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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