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

From: wmbjk (wmbjk_at_REMOVE_THIScitlink.net)
Date: 08/13/04 

Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:11:29 GMT

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:54:51 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:

>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."

I can't see your logic there. I think I was pretty clear - the fund is
insufficient since it hasn't produced a permanent solution and isn't
likely to.

>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:

You seem to have forgotten to follow up that colon.... Ideas are good,
but actual offers are better. If you want to buy a change of mind, you
need to have the cash in your hand. Cash payments would be more likely
to get results than tax cuts. University grants would be a poor
substitute IMO if one is trying to influence voters. Likewise, most
who are against the project wouldn't place much value on a new
railroad to nowhere. That part has been a near certainty for as long
as the project has been planned, but public opinion remains
overwhelmingly negative. In fact, it's quite possible that the issue
will cost GW Nevada and/or the country, which will push the project
back at least four years if not kill it outright.

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

You have parroted the classic renewkable argument many times - that
only politics is holding up the project.

>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.

Even though I'm off-grid, you still count me as a ratepayer? That's
quite a stretch. Think that if any power companies are giving refunds
for overcharges etc. that they'll send me a check? LOL

>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.

As I said, you might as well suggest building a time machine. If the
studies could be stopped, they would have. If the standards could be
lowered, they would have. Since neither has happened, it's time to
admit that more study and higher standards are more likely than dirt
moving.

>Changing attitudes? Education.

That's deep man. Are you talking brochures, TV ads, kindergarten
classes, or what? If you're serious, then you should be able to
discuss how it would be done, how it would be paid for, and how long
it would take to get results. Don't forget to take into account that
"education" has thus far failed to get many people to realize that
taking antibiotics for the common cold is a bad idea.

>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.

Saying that something can be "worked out" is meaningless. Additional
on-site storage has met the same kind of protest as all others things
nuclear.

>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=

Who said they shouldn't sue? Seems like they had a clear case, and as
I said, the Feds will be paying.

>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.

A manned mission to Mars is possible as well, yet it won't be done
anytime soon. There's a good chance a Mars trip will take place before
Yucca is finished though.

>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)

<sigh> Those arguments have been made ad nauseam for decades, and have
not made a difference. Instead, all of the factors that have worked
against nukes have become more pronounced with each passing day.

>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.

You forgot to mention the radioactivity of the concrete in wind
generator towers.... Anyway, that's a very poor summation of the
situation. It would be more accurate to say that studies continue,
possible actions have been proposed but not accepted, and that any
potential solution faces the same hurdles as in the US. About the only
differences I see are that the process isn't as far along as in the
US, and that more effort has been made towards consensus building.
Although that's still woefully inadequate if protest groups are
springing up already.

Wayne

Quantcast