Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scirtp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd
From: todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Oil and the costs of Fission Electricity
Message-ID: <542@scirtp.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 12:53:29 EST
Article-I.D.: scirtp.542
Posted: Thu Nov  7 12:53:29 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 07:25:00 EST
References: <460@mhuxm.UUCP> <740@whuxl.UUCP> <10822@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <528@scirtp.UUCP> <1092@jhunix.UUCP>
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 173

me = > >
> 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.

Don't ignore the uninsurability argument:

	Before regulations became "stifling" nuclear power plants were
unable to buy affordable insurance to cover post-catastrophe injury claims.
Most capitalists would see this as a signal that the risks outweigh the
benefits. Power companies simply railroaded legislation that made *all*
power companies equally liable for accidents.

>  
> >> and is very clean...
> >
> >You mean it is very clean unless it becomes very, very dirty.

e.g. wastes, meltdowns.

> 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.

> 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.
> 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-}.

> 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". 

If you read my original posting you'll find many damning statements on coal.

> >   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.

> >> 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 is theorized, anyway.

> 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?

> loss of control would be extremely unlikely to result in an explosion.

If you cannot maintain proper placement of boron control rods in a
reacting mass, the reacting mass becomes so hot, the containment
chamber can no longer contain the mass. If you cannot control the
emergency cooling levels in such an emergency, the mass melts through
the reactor and heads (theoretically) to the water table. At this
point experts tend to disagree on the level of ensuing disaster.

> Not even Three Mile Island exploded.

From what I understand, TMI came very close to not being cooled by
the emergency cooling water. Despite its containment, it has affected
my power bill.

> >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
> Kenneth Arromdee

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.

-todd jones