Re: Can hydrogen deliver?

From: Tim O'Flaherty (pinwheels_Fudge__at_gwi.net)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:42:15 -0500

"Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:41818E07.4040504@lakeweb.com...
>
>
> Tim O'Flaherty wrote:
> > "Dan Bloomquist" wrote::
> >
> >>>>>Name one country that has put spent fuel waste in a final
> >>>>>repository.
> >>>>
> >>>>They haven't, but here was what I said:
> >>>
> >>>Good to hear that, that was gratifying.
> >>
> >>So you agree that 'people' are not taking care of business?
> >
> > Some are, some are not. Some are taking care of the profitable side of
> > business and leaving the rest for other people to deal with.
>
> So the problems are about people, not the tool?
>

Fine, get rid of the people and our problems are solved.

> >>>>Mismanagement is a political problem. Three Mile Island was a
political
> >>>>debacle.
> >>>
> >>>Why so? Were politicians the ones who designed, built...
> >>
> >>No.
> >>
> >>>and operated the
> >>>plant?
> >>
> >>The poor operation was political.
> >
> > Such a useful word.
>
> Read about what happened. The plant would have handled things fine if
> the operators hadn't intervened.

Fine, get rid of the operators and our problems are solved.

You may not like the word because now
> you can't blame the tool. Richard wrote about it quite well. If I use a
> hammer to kill someone should we outlaw hammers? Then only outlaws would
> have hammers uno.
>

Silly analogy. How many hammers you figure you'd need to take out Boston?
How many tons of toxic hammer waste are we producing? How many British
hammer factories have had to be bailed out to the tune of 46 billion pounds
sterling?

> >>>>Not being able to dispose of waste in the Aleutian trench is
> >>>>political. Not understanding nuclear power by the masses is political.
> >>>
> >>>So whatever goes wrong it is a political problem. Whatever
> >>
> > miscalculations
> >
> >>>are made, corners cut to keep costs down it is the fault of the
> >>
> > politicians.
> >
> >>Political is a human condition. I'm using it in the broader sense of the
> >>word. And, I've made that pretty clear IMHO.
> >>
> > Well you have now at any rate. "Political" seems to be, by your useage,
> > anything that people do that goes wrong. Broad indeed. Broad enough to
put a
> > political veneer over economic, security and environmental shortcomings.
> > Wrap a white elephant in tinfoil and we can still see it's an elphant.
>
> Wrap the hammer in tinfoil and it is still just a tool...
>
> >>>Horsecrap. The mark of a loser is an inability to take responsibilty
> >>
> > for
> >
> >>>your own ***-ups like TMI or Davis Besse.
> >>
> >>My *** ups? Get a grip.
> >
> > Now , now! Don't take it personally, but as an apologist for nuke
failings...
>
> You are not listening. Nukes are just tools. Don't blame the hammer for
> what someone does with it.
>
> > you really need to know that it has gotten quite old and more than a bit
> > tedious hearing the whining about "political" problems when no real
> > economic, secure, evironmentally safe solution to nuke waste has yet
been
> > nailed down.
>
> If you don't like it, don't acknowledge my post. But if you continue to
> 'whine' about how the nuclear power industry is the cause of weapons and
> such, I'll continue to check you on it.
>
> >>> Tell me how the politicians were
> >>>responsible for Davis Besse.
> >>
> >>What's the big deal about Davis Besse?
> >
> > Sorry, I thought you might be up on that, the reactor with a hole in
it's
> > head. My mistake. Here....
> > http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=790
> >
> > The NRC identified cost cutting as a factor but now with nuclear
"newspeak"
> > we can safely pop that in the bag labeled politics.
>
> I know what happened there, what's the big deal? As you must not have
> read the article, I'll tell you. People cutting corners. People not
> doing what they should have. People not using their tools properly.
>

People forced to cut corners to try to remain economically competitive. My
point.

> >>>>Yellowcake has plenty of fusible uranium. Yellowcake would be easier
to
> >>>>get than guarded spent fuel.
> >>>
> >>>Once again an irrelevant diversion. The issue is separated Pu and the
> >>
> > costs
> >
> >>>and risks of reprocessing. Why go to the expense and hassle of
starting
> >>
> > at
> >
> >>>yellowcake when tons of separated Pu are available, more every year.
> >>
> >>What are you talking about?
> >>
> > You're not following the thread. Once again......
> >
> >
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/nuclear/plutonium/EnergyReviewSubmissi
> > on0901.htm
> > Potential Terrorist Misuses of Plutonium and MOX
> >
> > [The procedures required for the chemical separation of plutonium from
> > uranium in MOX fuel pellets would be simple and well within the
> > technological capabilities of a moderately sophisticated terrorist
> > organization (6). The preparation of Sarin for the attack on the Tokyo
> > underground (7) involved considerably more sophisticated chemistry and
> > greater acute danger to the operators than that required for the
separation
> > of plutonium from MOX. The chemistry is less sophisticated than that
> > required for the illicit preparation of designer drugs.
> >
> > None of the concepts involved in understanding how to separate the
plutonium
> > are difficult; a second-year undergraduate would be able to devise a
> > suitable procedure by reading standard reference works, consulting the
open
> > literature in scientific journals and by searching the World Wide Web.]
> >
> > Simpler still would be to steal/buy separated Pu. At the end of
> > 1996 there was an inventory of nearly 50 tons in France alone. Not MOX
mind
> > you but PU already separated from spent commercial fuel via
reprocessing.
>
> You are not following the thread. Once again....
> If the industry doesn't protect good fuel, it is a policing failure. As
> little as you like the word, it is political. (I'd like to see your link
> that says there is 50 tons of ready to go fuel in France.)
>
First, don't put words into my mouth. I never used the phrase "50 tons of
ready to go fuel " in France.
I did assert that there is nearly 50 tons of separated plutonium in France
and more every year.

Actually France held 79.9 tons in 2002, 32 tons of which were foreign
owned. See table 1 in the link below....

http://www.isis-online.org/global_stocks/separated_civil_pu.html
[Table 1 shows that about 235 tonnes of civil separated plutonium were held
and owned by 14 countries at the end of 2002]

> > Because we are amassing tons of Pu that while not classed as weapons
grade
> > can be used to create a nuclear weapon with no enrichment needed. Clear
> > now?
>
> If it can be used in a weapon, it is a perfectly good fuel and should be
> used for that. Please provide a link that demonstrates these multi ton
> stockpiles of ready to go fuel.

Once again you use the phrase "ready to go fuel". Apparently you don't know
separated Pu is NOT "ready to go fuel". Google MOX and study up on this a
bit.

>
> >>
> >>Waste will probably never get dumped in the ocean because of the
> >>ignorance concerning nuclear energy. Ignorance is a human condition.
> >
> > So only ignorant humans oppose dumping of nuke waste into the ocean?
>
> Yes.
>

Regards,
Tim O

Quantcast