Re: Can hydrogen deliver?

From: Tim O'Flaherty (pinwheels_Fudge__at_gwi.net)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 07:49:58 -0500

"Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:41866C88.7080800@lakeweb.com...
>
>
> Tim O'Flaherty wrote:
> > "Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> > news:41818E07.4040504@lakeweb.com...
> >
> >>
> >>Tim O'Flaherty wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Dan Bloomquist" wrote::
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>So the problems are about people, not the tool?
> >
> > Fine, get rid of the people and our problems are solved.
>
> >>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.
>
> So, end nuclear power and our 'problems' are solved?
>

Not necessarily. Just account for the hidden costs before assuming economic
viability. We are not now, nor have we ever, paid the full cost for nuclear
power. The waste is still accumulating worldwide. The cost of dealing with
this is delayed. Since the beginning of nuclear power generation we have
only seen more, never less with no end in sight. Whatever the technical or
politcal causes you or I cite this is the reality.

> > 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?
>
> As long as you single out 'nuclear power' as the source of 'nuclear
> danger', it is not a silly analogy. Because ending 'nuclear energy' will
> not cause 'nuclear, the rest' to disappear from the earth. If anything,
> it may make it more accessible to the bad guys.
>

Reprocessing is proposed as a partial solution to waste but reprocessing
results in growing volumes of separated Pu. More Pu means more
opportunitiesfor the bad guys.

> >>You are not listening. Nukes are just tools. Don't blame the hammer for
> >>what someone does with it.
> >>
> >>
> >>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.
> >>
> >>
> >>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.
>
> Again, so, it is about people, not the tool.?.? Do you know why I keep
> asking this question?
>

The bottom line is the economic viability of this tool. We need to account
for ALL the costs present and future to get a true assesment of nuclear's
economic viability.

> >
> >>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]
>
> So? Are you saying that because there are stocks of unirradiated
> plutonium we should end all nuclear power?

Not necessarily. However I am saying that growing stocks of Pu are to be
counted on the deficit side of nuclear's economic evaluation. Do seriously
expect us to believe that Japan considers it's Pu inventory an asset?

Why? Yes, I know you keep
> saying the bad guys will get there hands on it. There are plenty of
> other sources of nuclear materials out there. The weapons proliferation
> of the last fifty years dwarfs the materials from nuclear power by quite
> a bit.
>
> >>
> >>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.
>
> Then what's the big deal?
>

No problemo for the moment. Wait until someone like Osama steals or
buys/bribes a small portion of this separated Pu stockpile. Will we put
those costs on our utility bills, another 5 or 10 mills per kWh, for losing
downtown Cleveland or Philly or Times Square? No big deal at all.

<Snip>

Regards,
Tim O

Relevant Pages

  • Re: damage from ethanol?
    ... A nuclear power plant hasn't been built in the United States in two ... "However,new nuclear power at generating costs between 3.9 and 8.0 ... even deal with the debris left over from mining the uranium. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: SPSs and the candidates (was: Re: Historys Worst Presidential Candidate)
    ... > maintenance costs on rectennas and transmission lines, ... I was thinking hydrogen from electrolysis and fuel cells, ... As for nuclear power, it *would* have been too cheap to meter if the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: OT: Before Gore.. 1922 article on Global Warming
    ... not for the fact that the construction time for nuclear power plants was ... ENVIRONMENTAL DELAYS AND USURIOUS FINANCE CHARGES SENT THE COST OF NUCLEAR ... Nuclear power is not intrinsically expensive. ... and who now complain that nuclear costs too much. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: what fuel?
    ... > makes you think nuclear power is free? ... any way suggested I thought a nuke was free. ... If the equiv of diesel oil fuel could be produced at about 30 % ... Cradle to grave costs on the nuke and using the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Can hydrogen deliver?
    ... > Tim O'Flaherty wrote: ... get rid of the operators and our problems are solved. ... Just account for the hidden costs before assuming economic ... Since the beginning of nuclear power generation we have ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
Loading