Re: Can hydrogen deliver?

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:59:58 -0400

"Dez Akin" <dezakin@usa.net> wrote in message
news:dd43b4da.0410070032.141d2763@posting.google.com...
> "Tim O'Flaherty" <pinwheels_Fudge_@gwi.net> wrote in message
news:<PZidnYy9o90mP_ncRVn-uQ@gwi.net>...
> > "Dez Akin" <dezakin@usa.net> wrote in message
> > > > > And really, in the speculative scenario of 100% nuclear power, you
can
> > > > > certainly wager that molten salt breeder reactors will play a very
> > > > > large role, given they have the lowest cost fuel cycle... and
> > > > > incidentally can burn spent fuel from LWRs, producing less than
> > > > > 1/100th the waste with 1/1000th the half life.
> > > > You forgot the fine print, the disclaimer....
> > > Which has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Oh well.
> >
> > In so much as you are making claims about *potential* future performance
of
> > a fleet of the reactor above I thought it was quite relevant if somewhat
> > toungue in cheek. Based on past industry performance.
>
> It read much more like an activists scaremongering diatribe, a
> criticism of an industry that has had fewer causulties per dollar
> generated than the vast majority. Certainly less than coal or oil.

 Let's look at that diclaimer point by point.

Us Nuclear Energy Industry reserves the right to change the terms,
conditions, and notices under which the US Nuclear Powered Electricity is
offered, including but not limited to the charges associated with the
disposal of wastes, (Point 1. The issue of waste disposal has not been
resolved. Crying politics doesn't solve it.)

 capital costs, ( Point 2. This is a matter of historical record,
capital costs for the present fleet of US nuclear plants far exceeded the
figures stated at the start, sometimes by a factor of 10.)

   and operation and maintenance costs. (Point 3. While the US nuclear
fleet has kept O&M costs down it can be pointed out that this has
not been without impacts to safety. The Davis Beese plant is an example.
The NRC's own report on Davis Besse.....

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation
/lessons-learned/lessons-learned-files/lltf-rpt-ml022760172.pdf

notes that........ " The specific weaknesses noted above, as well as other
performance issues discussed in this report, collectively indicate DBNPS's
(Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station) failure to assure that plant safety
issues would recieve appropriate attention. Further, these performance
issues indicate: (1) strained engineering resources; (2) an approach of
addressing the symptoms of problems as a means of minimizing production
impacts; (3) a long standing acceptance of degraded equipment; (4) a lack of
management involvement in important safety significant work activities and
decisions, including a lack of a questioning attitude by managers;
(5)......"

Well you get the idea, "strained engineering resources", "minimizing
production impacts" and "acceptance of degraded equipment" are
particularly telling.)

You
are responsible for regularly reviewing these terms and conditions and
additional terms posted on your utility bill. (Point 4. This is where all
the above
points are paid for unless the shareholders get stuck with it.
Someone has to pay for backup power for Davis Besse but the
big payment, the final bill for waste disposal, hasn't even been
tabulated yet.)

You are also responsible for
paying our insurance costs. (Point 5. Price Anderson act, no shareholder
owned insurance company will insure nukes so the Feds passed a law to put
that potential liability on the taxpayers account. Tell the insurance
industry that you want to purchase insurance for a fleet of molten salt
breeder reactors, tack that on to the bill and see how many you sell. )

  In the event of an *event* you will eventually
be informed and assigned an evacuation route. (Point 6. When TMI
experienced meltdown the facts were withheld for 3 hours as pointed out by
this report by the Pa. Governor's Commission

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/PA_Env-Her/tmi/tmi_rpt.htm

[ "If large quantities of radioactive material had been released to the
environment at that point in the accident, the utility's three-hour delay in
notifying the Commonwealth could have caused serious response
oblems."] )

 Your continued use of US
Nuclear Powered Electricity constitutes your agreement to all such terms,
conditions, and notices.

>
> > > Really, whats the point of this long winded response? This is
> > > certainly the case for any other industry, including wind energy.
> >
> > Wrong.
> > Wind energy doesn't require an evacuation plan, wind energy pays it's
own
> > insurance bill and not at abitrarily set low levels of coverage, wind
energy
> > doesn't end up costing 10X the price stated and wind energy doesn't
leave
> > wastes that need to concern our great great great
> > great.......................... grandchildren. We also don't need to
guard
> > windturbines from Osama and other threats.
>
> Really? Lets take the alternative view, and presuppose that all
> electrical generation comes from wind farms, somehow. Now you have to
> have large load balancing systems, and economies of scale dictate that
> they will inevitably be pumped storage systems...

Not necesessarily energy storage is a hot topic of research right now.
Among other plans Redox comes to mind.

 which would
> certainly be as desirable of a target of Osama and pals as Hoover dam,
> and a failure in the support systems for a wind energy regime could
> quite conceivably involve evacuation plans, especially of a pumped
> storage load balancing system near a civilian area, and loss of life
> much more immediate and devastating than any nuclear accident
> envisioned.

Storage systems such as redox can be widely distributed so the Hoover dam
anaolgy doesn't (sorry I can't resist) hold water. :) In fact a
distributed generation system would be *less* susceptible to attack than
large targets like present day nukes and large hydro installations. Smaller
nukes like the AP600 (?) would alleviate that but would still be more
attractive targets than a wind farm.

>
> As for wastes, I'm to imagine that the waste generated by the building
> of all the infrastructure, say batteries, is not something to be
> concerned with?
Waste geberated by all our activities is a concern. High level rad waste is
a particular concern.
>
> But I suppose if the turbines themselves exist in a vacuum, I'll
> concede your argument.
>
> As for the nonsense about having to pay capital, insurance, and other
> business costs as part of the purchase price of the product, please
> tell me since when has this standard practice suddenly gone out of
> style?

I think this is clarified above.

>
> > I'll
> > > take a Chernobyl over a Bhopal any day.
> >
> > What did they make at Bhopal? Pesticides? Birds of a feather.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what difference it makes. The worst plausible
> nuclear accident did far less harm than a chemical processing
> accident. If you want to attack nuclear power on its economic merits,
> I'm open to hear such criticism (though I'm sure wind power is in a
> more dubious position) but on safety, the record is finer than any
> energy regime on a per joule basis.

I won't contest the safety record of nuclear power if we are limiting the
discussion to simply making electric power. I believe that with a few
notable exceptions, resulting in part from the pressure to keep costs down,
the record has indeed been laudable and that the folks who do this work are
committed to safety and serving the public good but regarding cost, security
issues and waste disposal, all of which have interrelated problems, I
believe nuclear power is not a good choice.

Regards,
Tim O

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Greed and terrorism
    ... Solve the waste problem both ... In the US this seems to be true, but then again, most nuclear power ... Fossils have the cost structure the other way around. ... The problem with wind is that generated wind power decreases to ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Is Wind Power Worth It?
    ... I wish I had more information about this whole wind thing. ... but it appears wind generation costs (even ... Navy sub accidents were the result of nuclear, ... Industry has never had a great track record in regard to hazardous waste. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Nuclear Power
    ... wind, since you will not be able to site nuclear power plants ... Vogtle site it was originally set up for two more plants. ... fact that so many nuclear plants failed to block simulated terrorist ... Things like this make me doubt the feasibility of nuclear power, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Windmills and energy input
    ... Notice how much waste is in electrical distribution. ... Distribution has a lot of waste and a lot of the wind ... I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Something to think on.
    ... >>> The fact is, though, both sides of any coin should be examined before ... It decribes how nuclear waste is being ... I know you are a fan of nuclear power. ... Nuclear power is unsafe, expensive and has no coherent strategy for the ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
Loading