Nuclear Recycling?

[SeaCat]

I have read the comments on other threads where the Europeans are recycling their spent nuclear fuel rods with a remarkable level of re-use. (One quote I heard was a usage that leaves behind only 2% of the original waste.)

Where do these numbers come from and how do they do it? Any and all information is welcome. (Any and all Websites would also be welcome.)

Cat

 

[only_more_so]

I have read the comments on other threads where the Europeans are recycling their spent nuclear fuel rods with a remarkable level of re-use. (One quote I heard was a usage that leaves behind only 2% of the original waste.)

Where do these numbers come from and how do they do it? Any and all information is welcome. (Any and all Websites would also be welcome.)

Cat

Try looking up breeder reactors, since I believe that is the technology that allows recycling of the "spent" fuel rods.

This site has some information.

Anyway, as I understand it, you have a fuel rod surrounded by the material that is going to be converted to fuel. As the fuel rod decays (creating power) it transforms the other material into fuel. You then separate the fuel from the rest of the material, and continue the process.

 

[SeaCat]

Well so far the research on this subject has been interesting to say the least.

Yet I don't see anyone else here.

I'm interested in hearing other peoples comments both pro and con.

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

Try looking up breeder reactors, since I believe that is the technology that allows recycling of the "spent" fuel rods.

This site has some information.

Anyway, as I understand it, you have a fuel rod surrounded by the material that is going to be converted to fuel. As the fuel rod decays (creating power) it transforms the other material into fuel. You then separate the fuel from the rest of the material, and continue the process.

Hey there Orgazmo,

From what little I have read it is a bit more complicated than that, with two types of recycling being touted right now.

What is interesting to me is how those against the recycling always seem to fall back on the lines of this can produce Plutonium which would allow terrorists to create nuclear weapons.

Cat

 

[MagicaPractica]

Unfortunately, I don't know a great deal about this topic except that one of my brothers has long been aghast at the fact that America does not do this and holds up France as an example so perhaps there is some information out there on their program.

 

[only_more_so]

Well so far the research on this subject has been interesting to say the least.

Yet I don't see anyone else here.

I'm interested in hearing other peoples comments both pro and con.

Cat

It's all about fear. People are afraid of nukes. They are afraid that terrorists will steal the uranium/plutonium and make a bomb (even though it is basically impossible to use nuclear fuel for a bomb). People are afraid of a meltdown, which is somewhat justified given the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, but given modern safety standards and reactor designs, this is a very minor concern. People are afraid of contamination, valid but very exaggerated. They are afraid of nuclear waste, which if you use a breeder reactor is minimal. There is also the somewhat valid concern about dumping warm water into rivers and causing environmental impacts (but compared to other energy sources, I really don't mind).

Basically nuclear power is the boogeyman. People are too scared to talked rationally about it. From everything I know, I would be perfectly happy having a new nuclear plant in my neighborhood. If I had kids, I would hope they would have field trips to visit the plant to show how neat it is.

But, I'm only a rocket scientist, not a nuclear scientist.

 

[R. Richard]

SeaCat:
I found a very infomative site that limits itself to the Franch nuclear experience. The link is to a PDF format document that is long and difficult to read. The general conclusion seems to be that the French recycling plan exposes the French population to LESS radiation than the normal background radiation in the areas where the studies were done.

http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/anglais/pdf/fiche.pdf

[Some years back, the City of Houston, TX was examining the idea of adding flourides to the public water system, to fight tooth decay. There was a lot of opposition to the plan, with the main thrust of the arguments being that the use of flourides in the City of Houston water supply would produce deformed, idiot children. In the midst of the argument, a guy from the City of Houston Water Department finally got to a microphone and pointed out that the NATURAL amount of flouride in the City of Houston water supply was six times the permitted federal levels. [It is possible to draw the conculsion that the use of flourides in the City of Houston water supply produces deformed, idiot children, but don't try to bring the matter up in Houston.]

 

[SeaCat]

It's all about fear. People are afraid of nukes. They are afraid that terrorists will steal the uranium/plutonium and make a bomb (even though it is basically impossible to use nuclear fuel for a bomb). People are afraid of a meltdown, which is somewhat justified given the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, but given modern safety standards and reactor designs, this is a very minor concern. People are afraid of contamination, valid but very exaggerated. They are afraid of nuclear waste, which if you use a breeder reactor is minimal. There is also the somewhat valid concern about dumping warm water into rivers and causing environmental impacts (but compared to other energy sources, I really don't mind).

Basically nuclear power is the boogeyman. People are too scared to talked rationally about it. From everything I know, I would be perfectly happy having a new nuclear plant in my neighborhood. If I had kids, I would hope they would have field trips to visit the plant to show how neat it is.

It's kind of amusing how people fear Nuclear Power. They lump all "accidents" together.

Three Mile Island was a steam leak, one that leaked low lever radioactive steam into the atmosphere. (No I don't have the levels on hand.)

Chernoble was an accident waiting to happen. It was an almost complete meltdown created by an accident and backed up by badly engineered reactors.

The latest in Japan? I haven't heard much about it other than radioactives of some kind were released. (Do you have any information on this?)

Current design and construction methods make Nuclear Power Plants safer than ever before. From what I have heard and read the potential for exposure is less than sitting on the local beaches.

As for the creation of nuclear weapons from Plutonium created in the recycling of spent fuel rods, I find this scenario hard to believe. It would take a fairly high level of education as well as access to the Plutonium. (One of the deadliest materials you would care to work with.)

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

SeaCat:
I found a very infomative site that limits itself to the Franch nuclear experience. The link is to a PDF format document that is long and difficult to read. The general conclusion seems to be that the French recycling plan exposes the French population to LESS radiation than the normal background radiation in the areas where the studies were done.

http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/anglais/pdf/fiche.pdf

[Some years back, the City of Houston, TX was examining the idea of adding flourides to the public water system, to fight tooth decay. There was a lot of opposition to the plan, with the main thrust of the arguments being that the use of flourides in the City of Houston water supply would produce deformed, idiot children. In the midst of the argument, a guy from the City of Houston Water Department finally got to a microphone and pointed out that the NATURAL amount of flouride in the City of Houston water supply was six times the permitted federal levels. [It is possible to draw the conculsion that the use of flourides in the City of Houston water supply produces deformed, idiot children, but don't try to bring the matter up in Houston.]

Thanks R. Richard, I'll check out the site.

It always amazes me how people focus on something and forget to listen to those who might know something.

My father often tells me of how in the 1960's they were dealing with higher than average rainfall in Germany. His Mother-in-law stated that she had heard it was because of all the American Sputnicks we were sending up. She believed that until the day she died.

Cat

 

[xssve]

There are three problems with nuclear power, make that four:

1.) high levels of subsidy required.
Required at every stage, from design to decommissioning, the fuel is supplied at a loss, the taxpayer subsidzes nukes from start to finish - waaaay after finish.

2.) Waste management, see #1.

3.) Cost of decommissioning, see #! again.

A large number of the 100 or so reactors currently in operation in the US are scheduled for decommissioning soon, no nuke decommissioned anywhere else to date has failed to far exceed it's projected decommissioning costs, and the industry hasn't set aside enough money to even cover the original cost projections.

4.) Insurance, see #1 again.

The level of insurance required to cover even one Chernobyl scale incident is prohibitive enough to make nuclear power diseconomic, so naturally the insurance requirements have been relaxed, the taxpayer will cover it of course.

Whoops, Five, and it's a biggie: our current grid is simply inadequate to expand production, nuclear or otherwise, so whiel aging plants can be replaced, there is very little room for any new ones - the electric industries own recommendations call for micropower on a distributed grid to cope with increases in demand.

The only alternative is to build and entirely new grid - which will cost more than another 100 nukes.

 

[amicus]

Not going to do the research, Roxanne presented a sufficient number of resources for anyone who wants to know the 'facts' of nuclear power generation.

But, I have toured a Nuclear Plant, twice and was doing talk radio at the time, interviewed scientists in the field and discussed openly the entire range, including waste disposal and decommissioning plants after a 20-30 year lifespan.

It is 'fear' as someone mentioned. I recall driving by the plant with people in my car who physically scooted to the far side of the vehicle when we passed the plant. I am much more concerned with the land directly below high voltage transmission lines that permeate the near vicinity with high intensity magnetic energy.

I might remind, that hundreds, thousand of US Sailors, live for months within the confined quarters of nuclear submarines that function 24/7 with no ill effects or radiation. (according to the available research)

The great promise of atomic energy in the 50's has largely dissipated in the United States. France and Japan are taking some advantage, but since those enterprises are government controlled, the decrease in the cost of production has not been passed on to the public at large but consumed by government, and as government always does, in useless and wasteful manner.

It is left wing politics that do not want 'cheap' energy to fuel an ever growing industrial society that has prevented nuclear plants from proliferating in the United States, Add to that the coal miners unions and to some extent, the fossil fuel industry in general, who prefer the labor intensive (more blue collar jobs), over the modernization of society and the lifting of the burden of labor from the human back to machinery and technology.

Perhaps we must indeed suffer through the dregs of a true energy crisis, brown outs, black outs, falling economy, famine and starvation before we take a close look at where the left wing chickens have come home to roost.

$3.00 gasoline (I paid $2.93 for regular this morning), blame in on the Liberals.

High cost for home heating oil? No drilling or pumping permitted in the US. Blame it on the Left Wing Liberals. Like ripples on a pond, agricultural fertilizers are made from petroleum products; the cost of such things has skyrocketed along with fuel products.

Must we really suffer the coming disasters become we recognize and correct the cause?

Amicus...(I was invited to comment of this thread)

 

[xssve]

Oh, sorry - there is a type of breeder reactor that can recycle the waste from other reactors, I forget what it's called, but just one of which would solve the bulk of the waste problems - except that it's considered too expensive to build one, so there are no plans to do so.

Instead, the waste is too be buried on active fault lines in the middle of a huge drainage basin.

 

[xssve]

Perhaps we must indeed suffer through the dregs of a true energy crisis, brown outs, black outs, falling economy, famine and starvation before we take a close look at where the left wing chickens have come home to roost.

$3.00 gasoline (I paid $2.93 for regular this morning), blame in on the Liberals.

High cost for home heating oil? No drilling or pumping permitted in the US. Blame it on the Left Wing Liberals. Like ripples on a pond, agricultural fertilizers are made from petroleum products; the cost of such things has skyrocketed along with fuel products.

Must we really suffer the coming disasters become we recognize and correct the cause?

Amicus...(I was invited to comment of this thread)

Lol, No drilling or pumping in the US permitted? IF you're not going to do the research, at least don't make your own up.

Nor the price of gas, as producers and refiners gouge the market in anticipation of peak oil, do you understand how oil futures are determined?

And why is it exactly our agricultural sector has come to depend on fertilizers so heavily and who exactly is responsible for that?

We are about to reap quite a few disaters that republicans have sown the seeds of, about your only hope is that everybody will believe you when you blame it on liberals in typically spineless fashion.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Um, I think I'm the usual suspect you referred to in the OP, but I have found this industry source to be very authoritative and useful: http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/reference.html

Some of the information I have posted came from this article: http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110008677

 

[amicus]

Lol, No drilling or pumping in the US permitted? IF you're not going to do the research, at least don't make your own up.

Nor the price of gas, as producers and refiners gouge the market in anticipation of peak oil, do you understand how oil futures are determined?

And why is it exactly our agricultural sector has come to depend on fertilizers so heavily and who exactly is responsible for that?

We are about to reap quite a few disaters that republicans have sown the seeds of, about your only hope is that everybody will believe you when you blame it on liberals in typically spineless fashion.

~~~

God must love the 'true believers' like xssve, as she made so many of them; sighs.

Point the first, research. A year of so ago, following Katrina, the Senate Energy Committee held hearings on the energy crises created by the hurricane. The head high mucky mucks from five or six energy companies were grilled for days before a largely nasty Democrat members.

You do the research and tell us all, we want to know, when the last refinery was permitted to be built in the US. You do the research and tell us all why the Chinese are drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico while US oil firms are not licensed to do so.

You do the research on ANWAR and off shore drilling permits on both the east and west coasts of the US.

There are 30 permit applications on file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission awaiting approval for building new plants. The average time, just for the permission and the paper work is almost a decade. Held up by left Wing Democrats who depend on the 10 million AFof L and CIO union members and the Coal Miner's unions, to keep burning polluting coal and natural gas, to preserve those precious blue collar slave labor jobs.

Like the 'usual suspects' you toss out 'price gouging', when there is exactly none that has taken place and Congress investigated it for months, Pure propaganda and you know it...well, maybe you don't, ignorance is bliss.

The use of fertilizers is an energy company plot, chuckles and hah, hah, hah, not even the brainwashed here on the forum will buy that....silly, silly person.

"Spineless" more accurately describes the Clinton democrats that cut military spending, reduced the size of our forces by twenty five percent, loss thousands of veteran and career soldiers by attrition. Spineless if the liberal left in general who think the high price of energy is a 'good' thing as it slows industrialization, creation and innovation, in fact they are proud of high gas and energy prices, they would have you burn coal and live in caves.

...not that it matters...


amicus...

 

[SeaCat]

Lol, No drilling or pumping in the US permitted? IF you're not going to do the research, at least don't make your own up.

Nor the price of gas, as producers and refiners gouge the market in anticipation of peak oil, do you understand how oil futures are determined?

And why is it exactly our agricultural sector has come to depend on fertilizers so heavily and who exactly is responsible for that?

We are about to reap quite a few disaters that republicans have sown the seeds of, about your only hope is that everybody will believe you when you blame it on liberals in typically spineless fashion.

Now Now xssve, be nice.

I invited Ami to this thread because while I don't always agree with his views I do respect him.

As for the no drilling, look at the regulations he has commented on in the past. The limitations of drilling even tst wells in some areas of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Looking at those then yes he is correct in his comment of no drilling.

We are about to reap the benefits of the Republicans, as well as the Democrats and those in between.

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

Um, I think I'm the usual suspect you referred to in the OP, but I have found this industry source to be very authoritative and useful: http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/reference.html

Some of the information I have posted came from this article: http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110008677

Thank you, I shall check thse out.

Cat

 

[xssve]

~~~

God must love the 'true believers' like xssve, as she made so many of them; sighs.

Point the first, research. A year of so ago, following Katrina, the Senate Energy Committee held hearings on the energy crises created by the hurricane. The head high mucky mucks from five or six energy companies were grilled for days before a largely nasty Democrat members.

You do the research and tell us all, we want to know, when the last refinery was permitted to be built in the US. You do the research and tell us all why the Chinese are drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico while US oil firms are not licensed to do so.

Moot, since the oil industry has no desire or intention of building any more refineries - when they do, the opposition isn't the Democratic congress, who has been in office, what, a year? It's state and local opposion they meet, NIMBYism from people who don't want large, noisy, smelly refineries right next to where they live, leaking noxious and toxic fluids into their groundwater and driving down their property values - do you?

Didn't think so. So at best, the legislative branch isn't trampling states and individuals rights enough to suit either you or the oil industry.

You do the research on ANWAR and off shore drilling permits on both the east and west coasts of the US.

Do the research on who owns that oil - hint: it isn't us.

There are 30 permit applications on file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission awaiting approval for building new plants. The average time, just for the permission and the paper work is almost a decade. Held up by left Wing Democrats who depend on the 10 million AFof L and CIO union members and the Coal Miner's unions, to keep burning polluting coal and natural gas, to preserve those precious blue collar slave labor jobs.

It's been a republican congress for almost 15 years - a year after Caongress changed hands and it's already the dem's fault. I'll say slowly: S p i n e l e s s.

Further, you still haven't absorbed the inconvenient fact that the gtrid cannot take any more, it's at the ragged edge now, pushed to the very limit - 30 more nuclear plants would simply sit idle, maintained at taxpayer expence

Like the 'usual suspects' you toss out 'price gouging', when there is exactly none that has taken place and Congress investigated it for months, Pure propaganda and you know it...well, maybe you don't, ignorance is bliss.

It's a cartel dearie - high prices, high profits, hmmm... Tricky one that, guess it's just one of those things.

The use of fertilizers is an energy company plot, chuckles and hah, hah, hah, not even the brainwashed here on the forum will buy that....silly, silly person.

No, but industrialized monoculture is a republican plot - ever hear of soil banks? that was one of those liberal ideas that republicans could never stomach - can you say dust bowl?

"Spineless" more accurately describes the Clinton democrats that cut military spending, reduced the size of our forces by twenty five percent, loss thousands of veteran and career soldiers by attrition. Spineless if the liberal left in general who think the high price of energy is a 'good' thing as it slows industrialization, creation and innovation, in fact they are proud of high gas and energy prices, they would have you burn coal and live in caves.

Sigh, nor did the Democrats submit a bill to give OBL a medal, and as I recall, Clinton fought a war, and won, with very little loss of American lives with that horribly crippled military - Bush has pushed military spending to near WWII levels and can't manage a few rednecks with pipe bombs.

And how do high prices slow innovation? High prices spur innovation, subsidizing uncompetitive industries like agribussiness, oil and gas, and nuclear power slow innovation and creation, and industrialization.

No, you can burn coal and live in caves, we'll have windmills and solar power.

...not that it matters...


amicus...

Not that it does, as long as certain pockets are being lined at our - and your expense.

Takes a lot of money to keep that propaganda machine going.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There are three problems with nuclear power, make that four:

1.) high levels of subsidy required.
Required at every stage, from design to decommissioning, the fuel is supplied at a loss, the taxpayer subsidzes nukes from start to finish - waaaay after finish.

2.) Waste management, see #1.

3.) Cost of decommissioning, see #! again.

A large number of the 100 or so reactors currently in operation in the US are scheduled for decommissioning soon, no nuke decommissioned anywhere else to date has failed to far exceed it's projected decommissioning costs, and the industry hasn't set aside enough money to even cover the original cost projections.

4.) Insurance, see #1 again.

The level of insurance required to cover even one Chernobyl scale incident is prohibitive enough to make nuclear power diseconomic, so naturally the insurance requirements have been relaxed, the taxpayer will cover it of course.

There is much truth to this, but I believe the situation is quite different now than when the first generation of nukes were built here in the 1960s and 1970s. Modern third generation plants are like night and day compared to those "kludges" (engineer's term for a cobbled together mish-mash of a machine).

On the insurance thing, let me ask you this: What if a few decades from now nukes could provide all the energy the U.S. needed - no fossil fuels at all - at a cost not too far above what we pay for energy today. Stipulate that this is possible - I won't ask you to agree with it if you don't want to.

Now, what if this was prevented from happening because no individual company and it's investors were willing to accept the liability imposed in a very litigious by an extremely unlikely event (and becoming ever more unlikely as technology advances)? Nevertheless, even the release of inconsequential amounts of radioactivity like happened in Japan a few weeks ago in an earthquake would generate billions of dollars in lawsuits. (Never say never, but the chances of a Chernobyl with modern reactors is so unlikely that it's really just an obstructionist hobgoblin. Life entails risks, whether from chasing down mastodons, driving a team of oxen, or operating a nuke.)

Wouldn't you say that the social utility of replacing all or most fossil fuel consumption would be worth a "subsidy" in the form of a limited liability waiver, allowing damage claims only to those who have suffered actual harm, and capping at some reasonable level the amount of "pain and suffering" awards over-and-above actual damages, like $500,000 or so?

Beyond that, I don't think there should be any subsidies, but neither do I think that excessive regulatory roadblocks should be erected, including providing NIMBYs and enviros with virtually unlimited ability to use litigation to tie up new projects. This industry should have a fair field with no favors - and no extraordinary disadvantages.

 

[xssve]

Now Now xssve, be nice.

I invited Ami to this thread because while I don't always agree with his views I do respect him.

As for the no drilling, look at the regulations he has commented on in the past. The limitations of drilling even tst wells in some areas of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Looking at those then yes he is correct in his comment of no drilling.

We are about to reap the benefits of the Republicans, as well as the Democrats and those in between.

Cat

I'm being nice - I haven't called them degenerates yet.

 

[xssve]

There is much truth to this, but I believe the situation is quite different now than when the first generation of nukes were built here in the 1960s and 1970s. Modern third generation plants are like night and day compared to those "kludges" (engineer's term for a cobbled together mish-mash of a machine).

On the insurance thing, let me ask you this: What if a few decades from now nukes could provide all the energy the U.S. needed - no fossil fuels at all - at a cost not too far above what we pay for energy today. Stipulate that this is possible - I won't ask you to agree with it if you don't want to.

Now, what if this was prevented from happening because no individual company and it's investors were willing to accept the liability imposed in a very litigious by an extremely unlikely event (and becoming ever more unlikely as technology advances)? Nevertheless, even the release of inconsequential amounts of radioactivity like happened in Japan a few weeks ago in an earthquake would generate billions of dollars in lawsuits. (Never say never, but the chances of a Chernobyl with modern reactors is so unlikely that it's really just an obstructionist hobgoblin. Life entails risks, whether from chasing down mastodons, driving a team of oxen, or operating a nuke.)

Wouldn't you say that the social utility of replacing all or most fossil fuel consumption would be worth a "subsidy" in the form of a limited liability waiver, allowing damage claims only to those who have suffered actual harm, and capping at some reasonable level the amount of "pain and suffering" awards over-and-above actual damages, like $500,000 or so?

Beyond that, I don't think there should be any subsidies, but neither do I think that excessive regulatory roadblocks should be erected, including providing NIMBYs and enviros with virtually unlimited ability to use litigation to tie up new projects. This industry should have a fair field with no favors - and no extraordinary disadvantages.

Without subsidies, the industry would simply cease to exist - those lawsuits and NIMBYism represent the self interest of individual Americans, annoying things like health etc.

To answer your main question, if there were no alternative, then it would not be a bad way to go - since there are alternatives, and better ones, which the energy industry as a whole supports, with the exception of a narrow cabal of nuke fanatics who, although they don't have enough money for adequate insurance or decommissioning the plants they have, seem to have a lot of money for marketing and lobbying, then it isn't.

 

[amicus]

Moot, since the oil industry has no desire or intention of building any more refineries - when they do, the opposition isn't the Democratic congress, who has been in office, what, a year? It's state and local opposion they meet, NIMBYism from people who don't want large, noisy, smelly refineries right next to where they live, leaking noxious and toxic fluids into their groundwater and driving down their property values - do you?

Didn't think so. So at best, the legislative branch isn't trampling states and individuals rights enough to suit either you or the oil industry.

Do the research on who owns that oil - hint: it isn't us.

It's been a republican congress for almost 15 years - a year after Caongress changed hands and it's already the dem's fault. I'll say slowly: S p i n e l e s s.

Further, you still haven't absorbed the inconvenient fact that the gtrid cannot take any more, it's at the ragged edge now, pushed to the very limit - 30 more nuclear plants would simply sit idle, maintained at taxpayer expence

It's a cartel dearie - high prices, high profits, hmmm... Tricky one that, guess it's just one of those things.

No, but industrialized monoculture is a republican plot - ever hear of soil banks? that was one of those liberal ideas that republicans could never stomach - can you say dust bowl?

Sigh, nor did the Democrats submit a bill to give OBL a medal, and as I recall, Clinton fought a war, and won, with very little loss of American lives with that horribly crippled military - Bush has pushed military spending to near WWII levels and can't manage a few rednecks with pipe bombs.

And how do high prices slow innovation? High prices spur innovation, subsidizing uncompetitive industries like agribussiness, oil and gas, and nuclear power slow innovation and creation, and industrialization.

No, you can burn coal and live in caves, we'll have windmills and solar power.


Not that it does, as long as certain pockets are being lined at our - and your expense.

Takes a lot of money to keep that propaganda machine going.

~~~

I think it was better before discussing religion with the faithful, at least they would pray (or is that Prey) for my sorry soul to be saved, but the left has no class at all, sacrificing truth of all kinds to the gods of the greater good.

I give you a small response only because you spent some time, very little thought on your direct reply.

'Nimbyismistically' speaking here, it is not necessary to place refineries or any other industrial complex your your back yard, dearie. Unfortunately, eco nuts have put off limits most of the land that could be used for such enterprise, all in the guise of saving the environment and starving the people.

So, you are totally wrong, the oil industry does indeed desire to drill and mine and transport and refine increased amounts of fossil fuel within the confines of the US, but you folks just won't let them. And everybody knows that, so do you, you just ignore it.

A power grid for transmission of electrical energy is quite like a new road, dearie, it isn't built until it is needed. But that really is another interesting discussion, how forty years of a democrat controlled Congress has allowed the infrastructure, bridges, freeways, POWER GRIDS, all to deteriorate as they do not want a growing, viable business and industrial nations, the left wing, ecological crowd wants zero growth and pastoral agrarian society to role back the industrial age and return to the past....something that also, everyone knows...except maybe you and you wouldn't have the courage to admit it anyway.

OPEC is a cartel, Venezuelan and Mexico government owned resources are a Cartel, Columbian drug lords are a Cartel, there are no cartels in America, not even any monopolies, except government itself. But then, you know that, yet the propaganda continues to flow.

'Industrialized monoculture? Dust bowl', geez dearing, you are back to 30's politics, when they were not ashamed to slobber over socialism. You should be ashamed.

Soil banks, subsidized farming, paying farmer s to produce and then dumping the product, naw, dearie, all the Rooseveltian 'make work' schemes to keep the laborers laboring, dig a ditch, fill it in, tax the wealthy to pay them....yeah, we all know. left wing pipe dreams, keep the masses happy.


Well...thas enough for me, you will keep keeping the faith, baby, as you have all your life, I surely will not attempt to educate you and you sorely need it...find another altruist somewhere, taint me.

amicus...

 

[xssve]

Read: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.07/juice.html

Then read it again - we currently generate twice as much electrical energy as we need, half of it is lost in heat and line losses - and the current scheme of centralized production has reached the limits of grid capacity - the Ca. blackout of a couple of years ago was plants being ordered to shut down during the peak demand summer months due to the grid reaching within 5% of it's capacity. Plants had to shut down or risk blowing out the whole grid.

Micropower on a distributed grid works becasue the supply is closer to the demand, so a Kilowatt of mocropwer replaces Two Kilowatts of centralized power. You still need the power plants, micropower cannot replace the energy needed for industrial use, peak demand, etc., there is currently no feasable method of storing large amounts of electricity, so you need the power plants whent he sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow, etc., although micropower also includes high efficiency gas and coal turbines, etc.

It is a common accusation, but in fact, the distributed grid desn't call for getting rid of centralized power production, just supplementing it primarily in the domestic power market.

If for instance, every home in Ca., Nevada, Az, etc., installed just enough[ PV cells to run their air conditioners, it would probobly extend the current grid lifespan another 20 or thirty years without having to build any new plants of any sort - conservation has so far been keeping pace with increases in demand for the most part, Flourescents, more efficient appliances, etc., but eventually that may plateau too.

 

[xssve]

~~~


I give you a small response only because you spent some time, very little thought on your direct reply.

'Nimbyismistically' speaking here, it is not necessary to place refineries or any other industrial complex your your back yard, dearie. Unfortunately, eco nuts have put off limits most of the land that could be used for such enterprise, all in the guise of saving the environment and starving the people.

So, you are totally wrong, the oil industry does indeed desire to drill and mine and transport and refine increased amounts of fossil fuel within the confines of the US, but you folks just won't let them. And everybody knows that, so do you, you just ignore it.

Yes, it is a very small response.

I live in the Permian basin, and the oil and gas industry is doing quite well, thank you, nobody starving like they did back in the Eighties when oil was cheap because we were subsidizing Iraq to attack Iran, and they were both dumping oil.

BUt as you say, it doesn't matter - the oil we drill here is mostly owned by BP, and is sold in GB and Europe where they pay $5 or more a gallon - it cost so much more to drill here, what with labor costs being what they are - we use cheaper oil from the ME and Asia over here: all the oil in ANWR would last us six months, and would be too expensive to sell here - that's why we sold it to BP.

A power grid for transmission of electrical energy is quite like a new road, dearie, it isn't built until it is needed. But that really is another interesting discussion, how forty years of a democrat controlled Congress has allowed the infrastructure, bridges, freeways, POWER GRIDS, all to deteriorate as they do not want a growing, viable business and industrial nations, the left wing, ecological crowd wants zero growth and pastoral agrarian society to role back the industrial age and return to the past....something that also, everyone knows...except maybe you and you wouldn't have the courage to admit it anyway.

You are seriously going to sit here and tell me this after 6 and half years of republicans cutting infrastructure investment, while running up deficits for tax cuts and stupid wars - you know the reason oil futures keep going up is because of instability in the ME - and the reason it's unstable is because of neo-con meddling, Saddam was no picnic, but but he kept things predictable - remember what happened in Iran that started this whole business? Nixon and Kissenger. As it stands now, we are basically being forced to ally ourselves with the radical Salfists in Saudi - Al Quaeda that is, in order to stabilize the situation enough to get any oil out - and you're not only allying yourself with the very people you're supposed to be fighting, but basically throwing Isreal to the dogs in doing so.

For oil.

Shit, as I recall cutting taxes was supposed to be your magic wand, sprinkling fairy dust and making everything better - private investment, etc. - what they hell are you complaining about? This is the paradise you wanted - oh, that's right, the liberals, they ruin everything, wah.

A spine. Get one.

I really don't know what the "left" wants - a pastoral, agrarian economy wasn't all that bad, I'd certianly do allright - it's the growth at any cost mentality that is the reason you have to vent off your rage and frustration in here when they let you out of your tiny little cubicle for a little while.

OPEC is a cartel, Venezuelan and Mexico government owned resources are a Cartel, Columbian drug lords are a Cartel, there are no cartels in America, not even any monopolies, except government itself. But then, you know that, yet the propaganda continues to flow.

Lol, such an innoccent.

'Industrialized monoculture? Dust bowl', geez dearing, you are back to 30's politics, when they were not ashamed to slobber over socialism. You should be ashamed.

Soil banks, subsidized farming, paying farmer s to produce and then dumping the product, naw, dearie, all the Rooseveltian 'make work' schemes to keep the laborers laboring, dig a ditch, fill it in, tax the wealthy to pay them....yeah, we all know. left wing pipe dreams, keep the masses happy.

Well you understand agriculture even less than you do economics - where does food come from? Shrink wrapped at the supermarket?

Well...thas enough for me, you will keep keeping the faith, baby, as you have all your life, I surely will not attempt to educate you and you sorely need it...find another altruist somewhere, taint me.

amicus...

It isn't altruism, it's self interest - you would do well to educate yourself on who exactly is benefiting from neo-con policy - hint, it isn't you, you're the one being an altruist, so compassionate and generous to the wealthy and powerful, they must really respect you for that, lol.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Without subsidies, the industry would simply cease to exist - those lawsuits and NIMBYism represent the self interest of individual Americans, annoying things like health etc.

To answer your main question, if there were no alternative, then it would not be a bad way to go - since there are alternatives, and better ones, which the energy industry as a whole supports, with the exception of a narrow cabal of nuke fanatics who, although they don't have enough money for adequate insurance or decommissioning the plants they have, seem to have a lot of money for marketing and lobbying, then it isn't.

Define "self interest." On health damages, I provided for reimbursing actual damages for those who are actually harmed, plus a reasonable level of "pain and suffering." I said $500k on the latter, but if you want to make it a million or two that's OK. Just not a zillion trillion dollars. NIMBYs - I don't accept that they are actiing in genuine self interest. Instead, I think they are seeking to impose their personal aesthetic preferences on the rest of society. If someone's use and "quiet enjoyment" of their property is acually diminished by a nuke or any other facility, then they have a legitimate claim. But those are well-established legal standards, not open-ended excuses to stop all progress and development.

The only "alternative" to nukes that you have mentioned - "micropower on a distributed grid" - is just another form of fossil fuel generation - natural gas turbines (jet engines) or deisels. Fine for limited niches, but hardly "our energy future."