Re: Can hydrogen deliver?

From: Dan Bloomquist (EXTRApublic21_at_lakeweb.com)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 16:43:47 GMT

Tim O'Flaherty wrote:
> "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.

Hot off the press:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

Disposal is political. We can safely dispose of waste in the ocean.

>>>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.

Then it needs to be dealt with if it is really a 'bad guy' problem. But
I don't know that it is a bad guy problem. Why go after the industry
stocks when there is N. Korea and Iran? Yellowcake, USSR stockpiles.

>>>>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.

And if excessive cost is political it can be fixed.

>>>>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?

I'm not interested in beliefs. If the numbers don't add up that's fine.
But I don't see this if nuclear power is properly managed.

>
>
> 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.

So we should outlaw the airline industry because some nut case could
commander a plane and crash it into a building? I don't understand your
logic.

> Regards,
> Tim O

Best, Dan. 

-- 
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mooks quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?
    ... the waste, but NIMBYism inflates the expense of the plant to $5B, the ... social cost of the plant remains $2B, even though the owner has to pay ... You're arguing that nuclear power, with the externality of NIMBYism, ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
    ... > Since the biggest part of our electricity comes from gas and oil, ... but the cost was previously prohibitive. ... One of the issues with coal that is now solved was the ash. ... Then there is nuclear power. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Can hydrogen deliver?
    ... Just account for the hidden costs before assuming economic ... We are not now, nor have we ever, paid the full cost for nuclear ... Since the beginning of nuclear power generation we have ... > The bottom line is the economic viability of this tool. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: What are the industrial application of mass produced hydrogen and oxygen?
    ... > does the hydrogen plant seperate the two gases? ... By supplying energy to dissociate water. ... for electrolysis turns out to be nuclear power plants. ... in quantity AND did not cost more than the energy cost saved, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: McCain Announces New Energy Policy
    ... Nuclear power is just one alternative and is widely used around the world. ... If you take into account the number of plants active in the world and the ... alternative for clean energy, and it isn't like there is any shortage of ... And if you put in the necessary safeguards, ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)