Re: King Tut's Nukes (back by popular demand)

From: Karl Johanson (karljohanson_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 08/12/04 

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:54:51 GMT

"wmbjk" <wmbjk@REMOVE_THIScitlink.net> wrote in message
news:p87ih09kbafjk7t8lirqfqllmjoft05n2r@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:28:10 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
> <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >>"wmbjk" <wmbjk@REMOVE_THIScitlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >The current tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour is pretty reasonable, even
if
> >they spend all of it.
>
> It's only reasonable if it produces a result. If you haven't seen any
> results, then it's silly to claim that the fund is sufficient.

Well, by your standards then, it was silly of you to say, "It costs more
than will ever be collected from the ratepayers under the current system."

> >> Why don't you list the compensation Nevada is receiving for Yucca.
> >> Perhaps they're ungrateful?
>
> >What, and have you not believe any of it (or have you go all "what's your
> >@#$%ing point" on me)? Why don't you look it up yourself so you're more
> >likely to not decide it's wrong before you've read it.
>
> IOW, you can't cite any compensation. Coulda' knocked me over with a
> feather.

IOW you aren't that good at researching, coulda' knocked me over with a
stray nitrogen atom. (See below.)

> >> There you go again. Tourist tours of the tunnels? LOL
>
> >If it stays empty, I expect it might happen. Or someone might buy it if
it's
> >never used, like some buying old missile silos.
>
> Perhaps you could put the income from those tours in perspective.
> Would you say that the money would be enough to pay for a single
> nuke's on-site storage for one year, or two?

This went way over your head. If Yucca gets cancelled as a repository site,
they may have tours of the site. That's all.

> >> Are you suggesting something else?
>
> >Yes. Vitrify it, or leave it clad in zirc alloy. Bury it in multilined
> >containers, surrounded by Bentonite clay & monitor the site.
>
> Sounds good to me. Now how about explaining why you believe that would
> be any easier to sell to a host area than what's been proposed so far.
> And how much more expensive it would be than bury-it-and-forget-it.
>
> >So Nevada will give back the compensation already given then?
>
> Once again, say what compensation you're talking about. I predict more
> double talk from you instead.

For starters the $75 million the Nevada University system has received in
preferential grants.

The ideas range from cutting income taxes to building a railroad. Here's
what's being mentioned as compensation from the federal government:

> >> Here's the deal - renewkables are fond of claiming that anyone who
> >> balks at hosting off-site waste storage is guilty of unreasonable fear
> >> and NIMBYism.
>
> >Some might make statements similar to your paraphrase. Some don't.
>
> Well, you certainly have.

The only time I've every used the term NIMBY in a post was in reply to you
using it, in a different thread..

> >>Yet they never talk about the unreasonable fear of those
> >> who don't want the waste kept where it was generated, or the
> >> unreasonable belief of ratepayers that they should have cheap power
> >> even though the real costs are higher. You can pretend that nuke
> >> ratepayers *aren't* naive if you want, but I don't see the purpose.
>
> >You're a nuclear energy consumer. You have internet access. The cost of
that
> >energy to power the internet (regardless of what energy type powers your
> >home computer) is reflected in the cost of internet access (or in the
cost
> >of your taxes which subsidize some interent access). You're a nuclear
energy
> >consumer. Every post you make means more Plutonium produced. Every time I
> >read on of your posts it means more Plutonium produced.
>
> ??? So what?

So, if you claim that nuclear energy rate payers are naive, and you are a
nuclear energy consumer and thus an indirect nuclear energy rate payer, then
by your logic... well, I'll let you figure it out.

> >> Doesn't really matter how the costs got out of hand unless you know of
> >> a do-able way to reduce them.
>
> >There's talk of raising them higher from 'maximum conceivable releases up
to
> >1% of existing ground water levels 10,000 years from now, to even higher.
> >Meanwhile 2.5 million per year are dying from biomass energy emissions.
>
> You seem to have segued from costs to standards.

Standards are one of several factors which influence costs. For example, set
yourself a lubrication oil emission standard for your wind generator to one
part per trillion to the surrounding air & see if you can afford it. Try
gyprocking your house (gyprock is naturally radioactive of course) with a
radiation standard as high as a nuclear plants. Try affording your lead acid
batteries with high standards for mining the lead, production, use &
recycling of the batteries. The lead in one household's worth of lead acid
batteries can contaminate around 10 billion litres of water to above EPA
standards.

>Regardless, I don't
> see any suggestion about how to reduce the costs, or change attitudes
> about standards.

I already made the suggestion. Stop doing the samo studies at Yucca, as
there's plenty of data that a worst case is not only trivial compared to the
death toll of renewable energy, but trivial compared to radiation already
naturally in the groundwater. Either start shipping the material now, or go
with your idea (below) of longer on-site storage before shipping.

Changing attitudes? Education.

> >>The fact is they're higher than
> >> advertised,
>
> >What do you think the total cost will be, versus the amount accumulated
(and
> >to be accumulated) by the tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour added to the
> >cost already? Should it be .011 or .012 cents per kilowatt hour instead?
>
> As I said, the fund contributions need to rise to a level that will
> accomplish a result. I would think that on-site storage for say, a
> hundred years, is something that could be sold to the public and
> budgeted for.

Sounds fine to me. Or reprocess & reuse and store the final material on site
for decades (or 100 years, to use your number), then using a repository.

>Most renewkables would say that would be too expensive,

Nuclear utilities (in the US) might be upset as the government has been
charging them/their rate payers an amount with an agreement to have a
permanent repository built & without authorizing intermediate storage
facilities in some cases. But that can be worked out if the plan is, and is
understood to
be, longer onsite storage.

> and so will continue to lobby for a cheaper solution that won't ever
> happen. Meanwhile the stuff will stay on-site anyway, and the Feds
> will compensate the plant owners

Why shouldn't they? It's the feds that have broken the agreement, to have
the repository made with the money the utilities have already paid to have
it done.

>http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/08-1
0
-2004/0002228631&EDATE=
>
> >> ??? I take it that your suggestion is to stop studying, and start
> >> building?
>
> >In this case, sure. And spend the money saved on extra bentonite clay for
> >the site, and extra site monitoring (and some cookstoves & solar stills
for
> >the Third World).
>
> Once again, that sounds good to me, but how do you suggest it get
> done? It wouldn't be any different if you were suggesting that we
> build a time machine.

The US already has trucks & containers & tunnels in Yucca mountain &
bentonite clay. Yes, getting some politicians to make a decision (other than
deciding to change which hand their using for covering their ***) can seem
as hard as producing a time machine. But as for the tech, time machines are
impossible, while all the tech exists for repositorying spent nuclear fuel,
with radiation issues dwarfed by such things as the radiation releases by
geothermal energy.

Part of how to get it done, is to make the points about other safety issues
in the world. Some think the question to ask is 'how to reduce Yucca's
likely emissions from 1% of background in groundwater in 10,000 years,
regardless of costs', where I suggest a more appropriate question to ask is,
'lets look at energy related dangers in general & see where money can be
best spent to save the most lives'. The latter question tends to be
understood when presented in that manner, even by *** covering politician
(and the 5%* of politicians who're made to look bad by the *** coverers).

(*Van Oort & Gramble's "Arbitrary Political Statistics". 1998)

> >>Very constructive. How's that working in your neck of the
> >> woods?
>
> >Works well often. You have to compare the benefits and costs of extended
> >studying with the costs & benefits of implementation.
>
> >I participated in a study to examine if higher grade reflective sheeting
on
> >road safety signs and delineators would be a good idea. When they felt
> >enough data had been gathered, they implemented a plan to use the higher
> >grade material. They could have spent money studying it for the last 16
> >years instead & not been able to afford as much high grade material, but
> >they implemented the program instead.
> >
> >Locally they studied the idea of making a power plant to run off landfill
> >gas from the Hartland Road site. The power is definitely not as clean as
> >some other sources. They could have spent decades studying ways to lower
> >emissions (and almost certainly found ways to do it). Meanwhile, the gas
> >would have been burned off for those decades in the even less clean flare
> >used before (or the even more dangerous option of allowing the methane &
> >other gasses to just float away). They did the study & implemented the
> >project & we get a meg+ of electricity and some dirty emissions, instead
of
> >a pretty flare and dirtier emissions. Studies can continue while the
power
> >plant is running as well.
>
> Very interesting, but it didn't answer the question I intended - how
> far along is your country in dealing with its nuke waste?

Ah, my misinterpretation. I thought you were asking a question about the
principle of eventually stopping studies & implementing an ideal. To the
specific question of how Canada is dealing with spent nuclear fuel: Canada
goes with your idea. On site storage for a longer period (in pools at first,
then in lined steel reinforced concrete containers, with the fuel still in
the zirc alloy cladding), with intention to use a Canadian shield site after
the fuel has had more decades to decay. As with your country, coal, oil,
natural gas, biomass & geothermal sites get to release their radioactive
material into the environment.

Karl Johanson

Quantcast