|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > June 2006 > Why Nuclear?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| Nulab under it's idiot leader Blair is pushing hard for Nuclear plants to be
built, there are many reasons why they should not be built in very large
numbers here are some of these reasons.
1 / Cost is huge in comparison with other means of energy supplies , this
is in the building and clean up.
2 / It is dangerous, accidents are fairly common, and it is open to
terrorism.
3 / Why build a dangerous plant when we have Natural sources of energy
generation that could start energy production within a year..or sooner and
these would produce very quickly and increase the power generation month by
month without causing damage to our world.
/////////////////
Some of these natural sources are Tidal- Turbines---- Wind turbines ----
Mini water turbines that are now feasible with little or no regular
maintenance with today electronics.there are literally thousands of sites
where these could be placed unobtrusively .
Tidal power around our shores are very strong with this source of power
which is fairly low tech we could supply our own energy needs completely
many times over, so the Uk. could supply Europe with clean energy.
These turbines designed to rise with the tide and turn directionally using
fins would be modular so maintenance is easy just unhitch and tow to the
nearest service centre.
This is beautiful simple low tech easily maintained creating ongoing jobs
using GODS own energy that he gave us.
So why use a dangerous energy generating substance when there is absolutely
no need.
Blair needs to be removed before his government makes even more trouble that
will extend well into the future.
| |
| William P.N. Smith 2006-05-26, 12:21 pm |
| "rebel" <rebel@prosof.net> wrote:
>Nulab under it's idiot leader Blair is pushing hard for Nuclear plants to be
>built, there are many reasons why they should not be built in very large
>numbers here are some of these reasons.
I have a bumper sticker that sez "I'd rather glow in the dark than
freeze in the dark." 8*)
Done right, "New-Clear" power can be just as safe as fossil fuels, and
can be significantly less expensive. Whether businesses can do
nuclear power right is an open debate, but with the current public
climate around the issue, they'll probably not get the chance to try
again till we are all freezing in the dark.
| |
| Chris Hill 2006-05-26, 12:21 pm |
| On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "rebel" <rebel@prosof.net> wrote:
>Nulab under it's idiot leader Blair is pushing hard for Nuclear plants to be
>built, there are many reasons why they should not be built in very large
>numbers here are some of these reasons.
>1 / Cost is huge in comparison with other means of energy supplies , this
>is in the building and clean up.
>
>2 / It is dangerous, accidents are fairly common, and it is open to
>terrorism.
>
>3 / Why build a dangerous plant when we have Natural sources of energy
>generation that could start energy production within a year..or sooner and
>these would produce very quickly and increase the power generation month by
>month without causing damage to our world.
>/////////////////
>Some of these natural sources are Tidal- Turbines---- Wind turbines ----
>Mini water turbines that are now feasible with little or no regular
>maintenance with today electronics.there are literally thousands of sites
>where these could be placed unobtrusively .
>Tidal power around our shores are very strong with this source of power
>which is fairly low tech we could supply our own energy needs completely
>many times over, so the Uk. could supply Europe with clean energy.
>These turbines designed to rise with the tide and turn directionally using
>fins would be modular so maintenance is easy just unhitch and tow to the
>nearest service centre.
>This is beautiful simple low tech easily maintained creating ongoing jobs
>using GODS own energy that he gave us.
>So why use a dangerous energy generating substance when there is absolutely
>no need.
Wind isn't a base load generator; I'd be surprised if tides can be
either.
| |
| daestrom 2006-05-26, 12:21 pm |
|
"rebel" <rebel@prosof.net> wrote in message
news:4476e4a2$0$23745$a8266bb1@reader.corenews.com...
> Nulab under it's idiot leader Blair is pushing hard for Nuclear plants to
> be
> built, there are many reasons why they should not be built in very large
> numbers here are some of these reasons.
> 1 / Cost is huge in comparison with other means of energy supplies , this
> is in the building and clean up.
>
But they also provide 'huge' amounts of energy.
> 2 / It is dangerous, accidents are fairly common, and it is open to
> terrorism.
>
'accidents are fairly common'??? You either have a warped idea of 'common',
or 'accident'. Can't tell which, but most folks consider two major
meltdowns in 50 years as not too 'common'.
> 3 / Why build a dangerous plant when we have Natural sources of energy
> generation that could start energy production within a year..or sooner and
> these would produce very quickly and increase the power generation month
> by
> month without causing damage to our world.
> /////////////////
> Some of these natural sources are Tidal- Turbines---- Wind turbines ----
> Mini water turbines that are now feasible with little or no regular
> maintenance with today electronics.there are literally thousands of sites
> where these could be placed unobtrusively .
> Tidal power around our shores are very strong with this source of power
> which is fairly low tech we could supply our own energy needs completely
> many times over, so the Uk. could supply Europe with clean energy.
> These turbines designed to rise with the tide and turn directionally using
> fins would be modular so maintenance is easy just unhitch and tow to the
> nearest service centre.
All these sources *should* be a part of our diverse energy programs. But
none of them by themselves can meet our needs without major changes to
society.
> This is beautiful simple low tech easily maintained creating ongoing jobs
> using GODS own energy that he gave us.
Didn't God also create uranium? This sort of argument is silly. Folks have
used 'God' to justify everything/anything. But what does it really mean?
> So why use a dangerous energy generating substance when there is
> absolutely
> no need.
'absolutely no need' is a very subjective claim. Yes, given enough money,
and enough changes to society, we *could* just live in deep underground
caves heated by the earth. But we choose not to.
> Blair needs to be removed before his government makes even more trouble
> that
> will extend well into the future.
Opinion with little facts is not a very persuasive position.
And what does this rather *political* rant have to do with homepower???
daestrom
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-05-26, 12:21 pm |
| Chris Hill wrote:
> Wind isn't a base load generator; I'd be surprised if tides can be
> either.
Why not? Tides are _utterly_ predictable, and they only have quite short
slack periods.
--
derek
| |
| Pete C. 2006-05-26, 1:21 pm |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> Chris Hill wrote:
>
>
> Why not? Tides are _utterly_ predictable, and they only have quite short
> slack periods.
> --
> derek
They also have a tremendous amount of energy available so the
inefficiencies of a short duration storage system (flywheel, CAS, pumped
hydro, etc.) to fill the slack periods can be largely ignored.
Pete C.
| |
| Ulysses 2006-05-26, 2:21 pm |
|
"William P.N. Smith" <news2006c@compusmiths.com> wrote in message
news:fe3e72t1u9im88i6243nvontajoecta9m8@4ax.com...
> "rebel" <rebel@prosof.net> wrote:
be[color=darkred]
>
> I have a bumper sticker that sez "I'd rather glow in the dark than
> freeze in the dark." 8*)
Mine says "Better Active Today Than Radioactive Tomorrow."
Just kidding. What really worries me about atomic power is the lack of
knowledge and understanding of the scientists. When they set off the first
hydrogen bomb they weren't sure if it would ignite the entire atmosphere or
not but set it off anyway. Add to that the "theory of the existance of
subatomic particles" that may or may not exist and I'd say we still have a
bit more to learn about this stuff.
I think the answer, or at least one answer, is to find ways to use less
power. We seem to be constantly using more and more when less used to be
enough.
>
> Done right, "New-Clear" power can be just as safe as fossil fuels, and
> can be significantly less expensive. Whether businesses can do
> nuclear power right is an open debate, but with the current public
> climate around the issue, they'll probably not get the chance to try
> again till we are all freezing in the dark.
| |
|
| 'accidents are fairly common'??? You either have a warped idea of 'common',
or 'accident'. Can't tell which, but most folks consider two major
meltdowns in 50 years as not too 'common'.
> 3 / Why build a dangerous plant when we have Natural sources of energy
> generation that could start energy production within a year..or sooner and
> these would produce very quickly and increase the power generation month
> by
//////////////////
You obviously did not see the programme on Dunrae, and you must of heard
about Chernobyl or is these and many others Alright one more Long Island.
| |
|
| One major reason is that nuclear is the only not fossil fuel based
system that can produce large quantities of power. Wind farms are also
expensive and are intrusive. Tidal is, at best, conceptual. I can see
investing in research & development and, perhaps, experimental
installations of tidal but it is not a solution for now.
The available fix for the next few decades is nuclear. Or put out the CO2.
//////////////////////////////
As I have already said it is technically possible to build tidal turbines
starting next week. the designs are already done.
Ship yards are ideally suited to build the turbines so why Nuclear it will
take ten years to build the first one and bring it on line, we could have
the majority of tidal turbines built in ten years producing three times the
power required for the UK.plenty to sell at a profit.
By generating in this way we would have the benefits of safe fish havens
more fish and less coastal erosion.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-05-26, 3:21 pm |
| Ulysses wrote:
> Just kidding. What really worries me about atomic power is the lack of
> knowledge and understanding of the scientists. When they set off the
> first hydrogen bomb they weren't sure if it would ignite the entire
> atmosphere or not but set it off anyway.
I'm not sure I believe that myth. It just doesn't follow from the science
they'd already done. There were people who worried about it - but I doubt
they were the scientists who actually designed the bomb. In any case,
that's a whole different line of physics from nuclear reactors.
> Add to that the "theory of the existance of
> subatomic particles" that may or may not exist and I'd say we still have a
> bit more to learn about this stuff.
They really don't contribute to the problem - though conceivably ways could
be found to use other subatomic particles to give larger energy outputs
than fission or even fusion. Not knowing what subatomic particles exist
doesn't change the physics of nuclear fission, in the same way that not
knowing about nuclear fission never changed the chemistry of a coal fire.
> I think the answer, or at least one answer, is to find ways to use less
> power. We seem to be constantly using more and more when less used to be
> enough.
I agree, but my personal jury is still out on nuclear. I'd be a lot happier
if I could trust the numbers on "true costs" both sides throw around.[color=darkred]
>
at least - the most liberal figures on harm caused by Chernobyl don't come
close to the most conservative figures due, annually, to coal (and Three
Mile Island wasn't a disaster - despite immense amounts of human stupidity,
the redundant safety systems worked [barely]). There are other victims of
nuclear - but the fact that so much less fuel is required than other forms
of power generation, means far fewer people are exposed to the dangers.
[color=darkred]
I just don't know - and I don't think anyone else does either - because
_nobody_ has ever had to actually pay for permanent safe storage of spent
nuclear fuel. I'm all for turning Chernobyl into an international
spent-fuel storage facility - since it's de facto the first permanent
storage facility on the planet.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-05-26, 4:21 pm |
| rebel wrote:
> As I have already said it is technically possible to build tidal turbines
> starting next week. the designs are already done.
> Ship yards are ideally suited to build the turbines so why Nuclear it will
> take ten years to build the first one and bring it on line, we could have
> the majority of tidal turbines built in ten years producing three times
> the
> power required for the UK.plenty to sell at a profit.
> By generating in this way we would have the benefits of safe fish havens
> more fish and less coastal erosion.
What makes you think that you will be able to build tidal turbines with any
less opposition from environmentalists than nuclear plants? It certainly
can't and won't happen in 10 years - even if it really could produce three
times the power the UK needs. We're just beginning the process of putting
in a modern tidal power system in the Bay of Fundy - you read it here
first: we won't have one built by 2016. (We do already have one in the
Annapolis River estuary - it's essentially a conventional hydro-electric
system with a reservoir that gets replenished at every high tide. I
guarantee you that environmentalists will never let us build another system
like _that_).
--
derek
| |
| daestrom 2006-05-26, 4:21 pm |
|
"rebel" <rebel@prosof.net> wrote in message
news:44773b48$0$23702$a8266bb1@reader.corenews.com...
> 'accidents are fairly common'??? You either have a warped idea of
> 'common',
> or 'accident'. Can't tell which, but most folks consider two major
> meltdowns in 50 years as not too 'common'.
>
> //////////////////
> You obviously did not see the programme on Dunrae, and you must of heard
> about Chernobyl or is these and many others Alright one more Long Island.
'Long Island'??? That is an island off the shore of New York city.
Although a nuclear plant was built there (Shoreham), it was never operated.
Concerns about evacuation routes and it's proximity to NYC created quite a
commotion and the state bailed out the owner's by buying it for $1 and
letting the owner recoup a lot of costs via rate increases.
Or, if you meant 'Three Mile Island', yes that was a significant nuclear
accident. Melted about 1/2 the core. Yet radiation exposure to the public
was barely discernable, and no land outside the site boundary was
contaminated.
daestrom
| |
|
| generating in this way we would have the benefits of safe fish havens
> more fish and less coastal erosion.
What makes you think that you will be able to build tidal turbines with any
less opposition from environmentalists than nuclear plants? It certainly
can't and won't happen in 10 years - even if it really could produce three
times the power the UK needs. We're just beginning the process of putting
in a modern tidal power system in the Bay of Fundy - you read it here
first: we won't have one built by 2016. (We do already have one in the
Annapolis River estuary - it's essentially a conventional hydro-electric
system with a reservoir that gets replenished at every high tide. I
guarantee you that environmentalists will never let us build another system
like _that_).
--
derek
===============
Are you talking Barrages, I do not advocate the use of these, far to many
problems with them. { expensive hard to maintain. not friendly }
What I envisage are floating turbines that rise with the tide and turn as
the tide turns, not depending on storage power just the speed of the tidal
flow and does not obstruct the flow. and we have massive flows here in the
UK. some places can generate 24 hrs. a day.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-05-26, 6:21 pm |
| rebel wrote:
> 'accidents are fairly common'??? You either have a warped idea of
> 'common',
> or 'accident'. Can't tell which, but most folks consider two major
> meltdowns in 50 years as not too 'common'.
>
> //////////////////
> You obviously did not see the programme on Dunrae, and you must of heard
> about Chernobyl or is these and many others Alright one more Long Island.
English would be helpful, but I'll try to translate. Dunrae? Not a nuclear
plant or an accident, as near as I can tell from Google. "Long Island"?
I'm not even certain there's a nuclear plant on any of the numerous "Long
Island"s in the world. You likely meant Three Mile Island, which was a
success.
So, so far, you've cited _one_ accident. There have been others, but not
more serious than the coal mining accidents we hear of weekly.
--
derek
| |
|
| I'm not even certain there's a nuclear plant on any of the numerous "Long
Island"s in the world. You likely meant Three Mile Island, which was a
success.
So, far, you've cited _one_ accident. There have been others, but not
more serious than the coal mining accidents we hear of weekly.
--
derek
=======
Yes your right about there being deaths in coal miming and pollution by
coal burning coal is a killer but you cannot compare that with nuclear
fallout the knoc k on effect like the seed of cancers that take years to
develop, so is it 100000 or 1000000 deaths from Chernobyl accident take your
pick. It only takes one mistake for Nuclear to be a disaster.
| |
|
| "rebel" <rebel@prosof.net> wrote in message
news:44774fa5$0$23707$a8266bb1@reader.corenews.com...
> generating in this way we would have the benefits of safe fish havens
>
> What makes you think that you will be able to build tidal turbines with
> any
> less opposition from environmentalists than nuclear plants? It certainly
> can't and won't happen in 10 years - even if it really could produce three
> times the power the UK needs. We're just beginning the process of putting
> in a modern tidal power system in the Bay of Fundy - you read it here
> first: we won't have one built by 2016. (We do already have one in the
> Annapolis River estuary - it's essentially a conventional hydro-electric
> system with a reservoir that gets replenished at every high tide. I
> guarantee you that environmentalists will never let us build another
> system
> like _that_).
> --
> derek
> ===============
> Are you talking Barrages, I do not advocate the use of these, far to many
> problems with them. { expensive hard to maintain. not friendly }
> What I envisage are floating turbines that rise with the tide and turn as
> the tide turns, not depending on storage power just the speed of the
> tidal flow and does not obstruct the flow. and we have massive flows here
> in the UK. some places can generate 24 hrs. a day.
>
>
There has been safe reactors designed in Europe that under a complete loss
of control the core would not go critical, in fact the design of the fuel
balls not rods made it that way. Another thing they need to spend more money
on Fusion and most problems for energy will be filled.
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2006-05-26, 8:21 pm |
|
"rebel" <rebel@prosof.net> wrote in message
news:4476e4a2$0$23745$a8266bb1@reader.corenews.com...
> Nulab under it's idiot leader Blair is pushing hard for Nuclear plants to be
> built, there are many reasons why they should not be built in very large
> numbers here are some of these reasons.
> 1 / Cost is huge in comparison with other means of energy supplies , this
> is in the building and clean up.
>
> 2 / It is dangerous, accidents are fairly common, and it is open to
> terrorism.
>
> 3 / Why build a dangerous plant when we have Natural sources of energy
> generation that could start energy production within a year..or sooner and
> these would produce very quickly and increase the power generation month by
> month without causing damage to our world.
1, 2, and 3 are absolute nonsense. Other than that, you are right on the
money (except for the name-calling that is).
Nuclear plants are not particularly dangerous compared to the ways we are
generating electricity today, and they are not expensive compared to the natural
alternatives we have available today. Why do you suppose that commercial power
companies want to build new nuclear plants if they are so expensive? As for
safety, look at the safety record of the hundreds of reactors the US Navy has
been operating for over half a century as an example, and those plants are
operated under far more severe conditions than any land-based plant.
As for "natural" energy plants not "causing damage to our world"; well that
is particularly nonsense. Even wind turbines have ecological problems (ask any
bird), and the ecological damage caused by dams can be horrific. Don't get me
wrong, I am not against these things, but all energy has a price, even the
"natural" kind. One price we pay for our fossil burning technology is air
pollution and its impact on human health. Just look at the statistics on
asthma. We are literally dying for our energy, and death by lung disease is the
price we pay for not using nuclear technology.
Vaughn
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-05-26, 8:21 pm |
| rebel wrote:
> Are you talking Barrages, I do not advocate the use of these, far to many
> problems with them.
Pay attention. I said that's what we _have_ and no more will ever be
permitted.
> What I envisage are floating turbines that rise with the tide and turn as
> the tide turns, _not depending on storage power just the speed of the
> tidal flow and does not obstruct the flow.
You'll still get a lot of opposition from environmental interests. It won't
happen fast.
> and we have massive flows here
> in the UK. some places can generate 24 hrs. a day.
No, you have massive flows in the English Channel - almost as much as we get
in the Bay of Fundy, in places. Most of England doesn't have that kind of
tide (I'm having a little trouble figuring out how you can actually
generate 24 hours a day - it _has_ to stop when the tide turns). I don't
know about the rest of the UK.
Also, please fix your newsreader. OE can do much better - you're making it
misquote.
--
derek
| |
| Chris Hill 2006-05-27, 11:21 am |
| On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:41:56 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>Chris Hill wrote:
>
>
>Why not? Tides are _utterly_ predictable, and they only have quite short
>slack periods.
So, how are you going to keep the lights on during the slack? That's
the part of what base load is, it never stops.
| |
| Pete C. 2006-05-27, 3:21 pm |
| Chris Hill wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:41:56 -0300, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> So, how are you going to keep the lights on during the slack? That's
> the part of what base load is, it never stops.
Apparently you didn't read my post - Flywheel, compressed air storage
and pumped hydro are all viable ways to cover the slack periods with
energy stored from the production periods. It's far more viable with
tidal energy than wind since the source is more regular, more
predictable and more energy is available.
Pete C.
| |
| Anthony 2006-05-29, 4:21 am |
| When I hear nuclear energy proposed I see images of children dying of
cancer in hospital years and years after the Chernobyl incident. It
would take a pretty strong argument to convince me that taking a risk
of that happening again is preferable to using other energy sources. If
a coal power station totally blows up (which doesn't happen often as
far as I know) the consequences for the surrounding areas are quite
minimal and certainly totally contained within a year. The same cannot
be said of nuclear where a serious mistake causes many decades of
suffering.
The main thing that is needed is to think differently from the
traditional mentality to energy production and use.
My proposed solution to the problem of green house gas emissions is:
(1) Reduce energy usage as much as possible. There are huge potential
energy savings that can made with minimal cost. e.g. insulate your roof
properly before install air conditioning or heating, using more energy
efficient lighting. Use more public transport.
(2) Invest in developing more efficient "alternate" energy sources.
There are many potential candidates - solar, wind, wave, tide,
geothermal, etc.
(3) Decentralise energy production where possible. For example install
solar panels on buildings which face the sun and feed this energy into
the grid. The roof area of most houses is perfectly adequate to
generate all the power they will need for lighting and most appliances
(but not the stove of course).
(4) Investigate the so called "base load" of heavy industry and see if
heavy users can run from their own highly efficient gas turbine power
plant instead of power from the grid.
(5) Develop storage technology to provide minimal base load for periods
when renewables are not available. One promising technology I read
about stored a huge amount of energy in a tank containing a super-hot
salt solution. Things like flywheels and batteries can also be used for
smaller applications.
Anthony.
http://adunk.ozehosting.com
| |
| Pooh Bear 2006-05-29, 4:21 am |
|
Anthony wrote:
> When I hear nuclear energy proposed I see images of children dying of
> cancer in hospital years and years after the Chernobyl incident. It
> would take a pretty strong argument to convince me that taking a risk
> of that happening again is preferable to using other energy sources.
That's why no-one is proposing taking the risk of building nuclear power
stations with unstable reactors or no containment building ( 2 of the problems
at Chernobyl ).
Graham
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-05-29, 9:21 am |
| Chris Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:41:56 -0300, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> So, how are you going to keep the lights on during the slack? That's
> the part of what base load is, it never stops.
When slack is so completely predictable, it's not hard to provide for
compensation. But consider the case of the UK - where do you think there's
a period when there's no tide flow anywhere in the UK?
--
derek
| |
| Ulysses 2006-05-29, 8:21 pm |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:ee6kk3-ukp.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...[color=darkred]
> rebel wrote:
>
many[color=darkred]
>
> Pay attention. I said that's what we _have_ and no more will ever be
> permitted.
>
as[color=darkred]
I have an idea (new to me, anyway): put giant turbines, about 1000 miles in
diameter, in the middle of the oceans. They will be turned by the Coriolis
of the ocean currents. Of course the electricity will flow backwards in the
Southern Hemisphere, but they are used to stuff like that.
| |
| Ulysses 2006-05-29, 8:21 pm |
|
"Anthony" <anthonyd@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148883637.284218.23260@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> (1) Reduce energy usage as much as possible. There are huge potential
> energy savings that can made with minimal cost. e.g. insulate your roof
> properly before install air conditioning or heating, using more energy
> efficient lighting. Use more public transport.
I'm pretty sure that 50 years ago your average middle-class family was
thrilled to get a 13 inch black and white TV. Now the same family wants a
giant screen TV with a 10 zillion watt stereo attached. Maybe the new TV
uses comparable power to the old one but all the other stuff sure adds up.
When I was looking for a new vacuum cleaner they were all boasting about how
much power they used! The more the better! I could not even find one that
drew less than 10 amps. My point it that people in our society seem to have
a craving for a lot more power than they really need and it might make a big
difference if everyone used less.
>
> (2) Invest in developing more efficient "alternate" energy sources.
> There are many potential candidates - solar, wind, wave, tide,
> geothermal, etc.
>
> (3) Decentralise energy production where possible. For example install
> solar panels on buildings which face the sun and feed this energy into
> the grid. The roof area of most houses is perfectly adequate to
> generate all the power they will need for lighting and most appliances
> (but not the stove of course).
>
> (4) Investigate the so called "base load" of heavy industry and see if
> heavy users can run from their own highly efficient gas turbine power
> plant instead of power from the grid.
>
> (5) Develop storage technology to provide minimal base load for periods
> when renewables are not available.
Please convince me that the so-called renewable energy sources actually
produce more energy than they consume. For example, can you tell me with
any certainty that a solar panel will produce more power in it's lifetime
that it took to make it? Or a wind generator? Are there any solar-powered
solar panel plants where the employees drive to work in solar-powered cars?
One promising technology I read
> about stored a huge amount of energy in a tank containing a super-hot
> salt solution. Things like flywheels and batteries can also be used for
> smaller applications.
>
> Anthony.
> http://adunk.ozehosting.com
>
| |
| Anthony 2006-05-29, 8:21 pm |
| Hi Ulysses,
Yes, solar panels do generate more energy than they take to produce!
Modern solar panels generate as much power in the first few years of
operation as it takes to manufacture them, and many panels come with 20
year guarantees, so they have a long lifetime. Probably the long
pay-back period is why not all that many people have not invested in
them yet - people tend to think in 5 year horizons rather than 20.
Its a myth that solar panels take more energy to make than they ever
produce. This may have been true in the very early days when solar
panels were made for space missions, but has not been the case for a
long time. There was an article about this is a recent edition of an
Australian alternate technology magazine called ReNew. I'll see if I
can dig up some actual figures from this.
Also, new developments in solar technology are pushing the efficiency
ever higher, and production costs down. My hope is that the price of
panels will come down low enough so that it becomes economic for
businesses to spring up which rent roof space from shopping centres and
buildings to install grid-connect solar panels.
Solar is not the only answer to the climate change problem because of
the energy storage problem, but it is the most direct way of harnessing
a plentiful energy source which shines on us every day - about 1 kW per
square metre!
Anthony.
| |
| Mike Swift 2006-05-29, 8:21 pm |
| In article <1148883637.284218.23260@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Anthony" <anthonyd@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> When I hear nuclear energy proposed I see images of children dying of
> cancer in hospital years and years after the Chernobyl incident. It
> would take a pretty strong argument to convince me that taking a risk
> of that happening again is preferable to using other energy sources. If
> a coal power station totally blows up (which doesn't happen often as
> far as I know) the consequences for the surrounding areas are quite
> minimal and certainly totally contained within a year. The same cannot
> be said of nuclear where a serious mistake causes many decades of
> suffering.
>
> The main thing that is needed is to think differently from the
> traditional mentality to energy production and use.
>
> My proposed solution to the problem of green house gas emissions is:
>
> (1) Reduce energy usage as much as possible. There are huge potential
> energy savings that can made with minimal cost. e.g. insulate your roof
> properly before install air conditioning or heating, using more energy
> efficient lighting. Use more public transport.
>
> (2) Invest in developing more efficient "alternate" energy sources.
> There are many potential candidates - solar, wind, wave, tide,
> geothermal, etc.
>
> (3) Decentralise energy production where possible. For example install
> solar panels on buildings which face the sun and feed this energy into
> the grid. The roof area of most houses is perfectly adequate to
> generate all the power they will need for lighting and most appliances
> (but not the stove of course).
>
> (4) Investigate the so called "base load" of heavy industry and see if
> heavy users can run from their own highly efficient gas turbine power
> plant instead of power from the grid.
>
> (5) Develop storage technology to provide minimal base load for periods
> when renewables are not available. One promising technology I read
> about stored a huge amount of energy in a tank containing a super-hot
> salt solution. Things like flywheels and batteries can also be used for
> smaller applications.
>
> Anthony.
> http://adunk.ozehosting.com
You may want to look at this site for some well written arguments on the
safety of nuclear power
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../04/14/AR200604
1401209.html>.
--
Mike Swift
Two things only the people anxiously desire, bread and circuses.
Decimus Junius Juvenalls
| |
| Anthony 2006-05-29, 9:21 pm |
| >
> You may want to look at this site for some well written arguments on the
> safety of nuclear power
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../04/14/AR200604
> 1401209.html>.
>
> --
> Mike Swift
>
Yes, he does provide a well argued case for nuclear.
The one argument against nuclear which he does not address is the
shortage of uranium. It is my understanding if the world was able to
switch to using nuclear fuel instead of coal tomorrow, we would only
have about 20 years worth of power before the world uranium reserves
ran out.
Apart from that, if our goal is to reduce CO2 emissions as fast as
possible, the answer is not to simply go ahead and build hundreds of
new nuclear plants. That construction effort itself will generate a lot
of CO2. What we should do is address energy conservation, and explore
other alternate power sources too.
Nuclear does need to be a part of the mix - its already used in the US
and Europe - but I don't believe its the total solution. We shouldn't
put all our eggs in the nuclear basket.
Anthony.
| |
| Mike Swift 2006-05-30, 1:21 am |
| In article <127mt58qb9tt5a1@corp.supernews.com>,
"Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:ee6kk3-ukp.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> many
> as
>
> I have an idea (new to me, anyway): put giant turbines, about 1000 miles in
> diameter, in the middle of the oceans. They will be turned by the Coriolis
> of the ocean currents. Of course the electricity will flow backwards in the
> Southern Hemisphere, but they are used to stuff like that.
No problem with that reversed direction just swap any two phase leads
from the generator. There will be some problems with trying to parallel
one of your Southern generators with one from the North in that the one
in the south will be delivering 50 Hz for Australia and New Zealand
while the northern one will be delivering 60 Hz for Hawaii and the U.S.
mainland. 
--
Mike Swift
Two things only the people anxiously desire, bread and circuses.
Decimus Junius Juvenalls
| |
| Anthony 2006-05-30, 2:21 am |
| I had a similar idea years ago... install solar panel arrays at
intervals all around the equator and you will have 24 hour electricity
!
(A few technical and politcal problems to solve with this idea however
:-)
Anthony.
| |
| Anthony 2006-05-30, 2:21 am |
| You may be interested to hear that Dr Helen Caldicott has written a
whole book on this issue which is coming out soon:
http://www.helencaldicott.com/
| |
| Mike Swift 2006-05-30, 3:21 am |
| In article <1148945609.325295.277370@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Anthony" <anthonyd@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, he does provide a well argued case for nuclear.
>
> The one argument against nuclear which he does not address is the
> shortage of uranium. It is my understanding if the world was able to
> switch to using nuclear fuel instead of coal tomorrow, we would only
> have about 20 years worth of power before the world uranium reserves
> ran out.
>
> Apart from that, if our goal is to reduce CO2 emissions as fast as
> possible, the answer is not to simply go ahead and build hundreds of
> new nuclear plants. That construction effort itself will generate a lot
> of CO2. What we should do is address energy conservation, and explore
> other alternate power sources too.
>
> Nuclear does need to be a part of the mix - its already used in the US
> and Europe - but I don't believe its the total solution. We shouldn't
> put all our eggs in the nuclear basket.
>
> Anthony.
The limited supply of uranium is a Red Herring. The 20 year figure is
based upon the one time through cycle where there is no reprocessing of
the spent reactor fuel. Reprocessing of reactor fuel is standard
everywhere in the world except the U.S. where it is a political issue
created by the Carter Administration in 1980. It also assumes that all
future reactors are of the Pressurized Water,(PWR) or Boiling
Water,(BWR) designs. New designs like the Pebble Bed Reactor, (PBR), 4S
reactor, and Thorium fuel cycle reactors remove this problem. With these
factored in there is enough fissionable material for one or two thousand
years, plenty of time to develop the next step like fusion.
It will be very difficult to build the 200-300 reactors to replace all
coal and natural gas plants. States with large coal reserves, coal
companies, railroads, and labor unions can demand lots of concessions
from elected officials to protect their tax revenues, industries, and
jobs.
We need a mix of power production systems, however the only systems that
are truly base load systems are coal, geothermal, and nuclear. Some
hydro is close to base load systems, but even Niagara Falls has to
reduce its output during some seasons and parts of the day. Natural gas
is quickly drying up as the California State government is finding out
subsequent to their demand that only natural gas plants could meet their
'pollution' requirements. They are rabidly anti nuclear. For peaking
power stored hydro is excellent, and in many areas solar is very good.
For volunteer power wind, wave, tidal, solar, and bio-mass are good.
Like you say we need many 'baskets', but you do not want to be trying to
supply your base load with wind, and solar, nor your peaking with
nuclear.
--
Mike Swift
Two things only the people anxiously desire, bread and circuses.
Decimus Junius Juvenalls
| |
| Day Brown 2006-05-30, 3:21 am |
| Why? because the tremendous investment requires huge concentrations of
power which the egos involved like to be on top of. The concentration of
power at a single point also concentrates the *money* that pays for it.
As the number of sources of power decline, the profits of those who are
incontrol of those sources increase.
The 'base line' consumption assumes that power from remote wind turbines
can not be brought in to an area where the wind is not blowing. You may
see a day where the wind dont blow, but nobody sees a day where it dont
blow in lots of other places.
As for wind being a threat to birds; they will figure it out. Those that
cant stay out of the way will be filtered out of the gene pool. Darwin
will solve that problem in a few years.
At the end of the day, the Almighty Dollar decides. The amortized cost
of new wind turbines is falling below $0.04/kwh, well below nukes. Dont
ask the givernment if nuclear power is a good idea, ask Wall Street.
Then too, while alcohol from corn looks like a scam, there are other
crops that are far more efficient with far lower costs of production and
output well in excess of 100 gallons/acre. Crunch the numbers; the
average midwest county is 25x25 miles. Even if only 50% of a county was
in alcohol production, that'd be 20 *million* gallons of alcohol/year.
And that's just one county. Never mind the meat production that comes
from feeding livestock the left over mash.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-05-30, 10:21 am |
| Anthony wrote:
> The one argument against nuclear which he does not address is the
> shortage of uranium. It is my understanding if the world was able to
> switch to using nuclear fuel instead of coal tomorrow, we would only
> have about 20 years worth of power before the world uranium reserves
> ran out.
That's not a shortage, as such (I'm not sure it's so little, either). With
little impetus to explore, we really aren't even searching for Uranium.
>
> Apart from that, if our goal is to reduce CO2 emissions as fast as
> possible, the answer is not to simply go ahead and build hundreds of
> new nuclear plants. That construction effort itself will generate a lot
> of CO2. What we should do is address energy conservation, and explore
> other alternate power sources too.
>
> Nuclear does need to be a part of the mix - its already used in the US
> and Europe - but I don't believe its the total solution. We shouldn't
> put all our eggs in the nuclear basket.
I agree. I'm not sure that we're investing enough in exploring the
possibilities for fusion, either.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-05-30, 10:21 am |
| Mike Swift wrote:
> The limited supply of uranium is a Red Herring. The 20 year figure is
> based upon the one time through cycle where there is no reprocessing of
> the spent reactor fuel. Reprocessing of reactor fuel is standard
> everywhere in the world except the U.S. where it is a political issue
> created by the Carter Administration in 1980.
Er, no. Canada has never recycled fuel (though I believe they've sold spent
fuel to France where it has been recycled - that also doesn't happen any
more for political reasons). There was an experimental reuse of fuel in
Candu reactors, but it was small scale.
--
derek
| |
| daestrom 2006-05-30, 6:21 pm |
|
"Anthony" <anthonyd@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148963712.998790.258590@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You may be interested to hear that Dr Helen Caldicott has written a
> whole book on this issue which is coming out soon:
>
> http://www.helencaldicott.com/
>
Hmmm.... Reading her bio, and an article written by here this April....
http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/index....Article&ID=2651
She makes some statements which can easily be disproved. Such as,
"Surprisingly, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has failed to upgrade
security at the 103 nuclear reactors since the September 11 attack. " Don't
know where she got that idea, but the NRC *has* required *several* changes
to security at nuclear plants. Most of them are kept classified for obvious
reasons, but someone claiming to be such an 'expert' surely can know the
'design basis threat' has been revised several times since 9/11.
While it's certainly true that Strontium-90, Cesium-137 and tritium are
dangerous fission products, the half life for tritium is ~12 years, so
ten-half-lifes would only be 120 years. Similarly, Cesium-137 has a
half-life of just 9.0 hours so essentially all of it has decayed in 1 year.
Strontium-90, with it's half life of 23 years would be reduced to a level
only 1.40e-8 of its original amount in 600 years. Yet she prefers to use
the more inflammatory and inaccurate, "Strontium 90, which causes bone
cancer and leukaemia, and cesium 137, which induces rare muscle and brain
cancers, are radioactive for 600 years. "
She carefully points out that each 1000 MWe reactor produces 200 kg of
plutonium in a year (about right), and then explains how it only takes 5 kg
of plutonium to make a critical mass. This is to infer to the reader that,
"...countries importing our uranium to fuel their nuclear reactors could,
theoretically, manufacture plutonium for many nuclear bombs each year." But
she is either ignorant or deliberately choses to ignore the problem that the
plutonium discharged for commercial LWR reactors is the wrong isotope for
making bombs. The fissile version is fissioned while still in the reactor.
Considering these facts and that she has made a 'career' of opposing both
nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon testing, and nuclear power, it's pretty
obvious her book would hardly be without bias.
daestrom
| |
| tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com 2006-05-30, 11:21 pm |
| On Tue, 30 May 2006 21:18:26 GMT, "daestrom"
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Anthony" <anthonyd@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1148963712.998790.258590@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>Hmmm.... Reading her bio, and an article written by here this April....
>http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/index....Article&ID=2651
>
>She makes some statements which can easily be disproved. Such as,
>"Surprisingly, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has failed to upgrade
>security at the 103 nuclear reactors since the September 11 attack. " Don't
>know where she got that idea, but the NRC *has* required *several* changes
>to security at nuclear plants. Most of them are kept classified for obvious
>reasons, but someone claiming to be such an 'expert' surely can know the
>'design basis threat' has been revised several times since 9/11.
That heighten security didn't stop someone from drilling a hole into
the pressurizer pipe @ Turkey Point unit 3. (Discovered during
refueling a few months ago.)
>
>While it's certainly true that Strontium-90, Cesium-137 and tritium are
>dangerous fission products, the half life for tritium is ~12 years, so
>ten-half-lifes would only be 120 years. Similarly, Cesium-137 has a
>half-life of just 9.0 hours so essentially all of it has decayed in 1 year.
Iodine-131 has a half life of 8 days..
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9155/2/3/305
Cs-137 has a half life of 30.23 years.
http://www.per.hqusareur.army.mil/S...SION/cs-137.htm
>Strontium-90, with it's half life of 23 years would be reduced to a level
Sr-90 has a half life 29.1 years..
http://ehs.missouri.edu/rad/isotopedata/sr-90.pdf
>only 1.40e-8 of its original amount in 600 years. Yet she prefers to use
Given that your initial data points are way off. the rest of your calcs
are also impacted. (1e-6).
Likewise the atmospheric distribution of several hundred or (thousand )
N-reactor contents would do a fairly good job of wiping out mankind
within a couple of generations. (40 to 60 years).
I.E. Man isn't capable of surviving a 600 year wait between meals.
:-(
Then again we'll be dealing with several hundred(maybe thousand) tons
of Pu dust blowing around for ten thousand years.
Even more, if enemies target each others waste storage facilities with
multistage weapons.
>the more inflammatory and inaccurate, "Strontium 90, which causes bone
>cancer and leukaemia, and cesium 137, which induces rare muscle and brain
>cancers, are radioactive for 600 years. "
Both of which concentrate in the food chain.
With no practical way to separate it out.
(Other than wait a thousand years for your next meal).
>
>She carefully points out that each 1000 MWe reactor produces 200 kg of
>plutonium in a year (about right), and then explains how it only takes 5 kg
>of plutonium to make a critical mass. This is to infer to the reader that,
>"...countries importing our uranium to fuel their nuclear reactors could,
>theoretically, manufacture plutonium for many nuclear bombs each year." But
>she is either ignorant or deliberately choses to ignore the problem that the
>plutonium discharged for commercial LWR reactors is the wrong isotope for
>making bombs. The fissile version is fissioned while still in the reactor.
err no.. It's just the isotopic mixture that's wrong..
but plenty of Pu-239 (60% of the Pu produced).
There are ways of separating Pu isotopes.
It's not generally known, but the cat's already out of the bag.
At some point .. Humanity will need to deploy fast breeders in order to
stretch the limited supply of U-235. After that point, Pu fuel loads
will skyrocket .
>
>Considering these facts and that she has made a 'career' of opposing both
>nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon testing, and nuclear power, it's pretty
>obvious her book would hardly be without bias.
Daestrom, it looks like you're the one with the Bias.. (so many
incorrect statements. )
| |
| Pooh Bear 2006-05-31, 3:21 am |
|
daestrom wrote:
> She carefully points out that each 1000 MWe reactor produces 200 kg of
> plutonium in a year (about right), and then explains how it only takes 5 kg
> of plutonium to make a critical mass. This is to infer to the reader that,
> "...countries importing our uranium to fuel their nuclear reactors could,
> theoretically, manufacture plutonium for many nuclear bombs each year." But
> she is either ignorant or deliberately choses to ignore the problem that the
> plutonium discharged for commercial LWR reactors is the wrong isotope for
> making bombs. The fissile version is fissioned while still in the reactor.
Eh ? In the UK the early Magnox stations were explicity used to make plutonium
for the weapons programme. You simply leave the fuel in the reactor for a
shorter time to get useful quantities ( lower burn up ).
Graham
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-05-31, 12:21 pm |
| tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com wrote:
> Daestrom, it looks like you're the one with the Bias.. (so many
> incorrect statements. )
Hardly. He might be _wrong_, but Caldicott is clearly _biased_. It's not
the same at all.
--
derek
| |
| William P.N. Smith 2006-05-31, 2:21 pm |
| William P.N. Smith <news2006c@compusmiths.com> wrote:
>Done right, "New-Clear" power can be just as safe as fossil fuels, and
>can be significantly less expensive.
Of course, "Done Right" is hard to do:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/05/30/t..._guard_trouble/
8*)
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-05-31, 7:21 pm |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:1el0l3-imp.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com wrote:
>
>
> Hardly. He might be _wrong_, but Caldicott is clearly _biased_. It's not
> the same at all.
> --
> derek
Derek, I respect your opinion on most things but I'd say that EVERYONE is
biased about this matter (and probably all other matters too).
I know I am.
The posts I'd like to answer are in my drafts folder but there might not be
time to do them justice :-(
Mary
| |
| daestrom 2006-05-31, 7:21 pm |
|
<tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:1149038642.058192.30630@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 21:18:26 GMT, "daestrom"
> <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> That heighten security didn't stop someone from drilling a hole into
> the pressurizer pipe @ Turkey Point unit 3. (Discovered during
> refueling a few months ago.)
>
>
> Iodine-131 has a half life of 8 days..
> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9155/2/3/305
>
>
> Cs-137 has a half life of 30.23 years.
> http://www.per.hqusareur.army.mil/S...SION/cs-137.htm
>
True. I confused it with Ce-137 (cerium).
>
>
> Sr-90 has a half life 29.1 years..
> http://ehs.missouri.edu/rad/isotopedata/sr-90.pdf
>
Yep, don't know where I was looking on the Chart of the Nuclides where I got
23.
>
>
> Given that your initial data points are way off. the rest of your calcs
> are also impacted. (1e-6).
>
I'm not suggesting (as you seem to be implying), that fission products
should just be released uncontrolled to the environment and we'll go 600
years between meals. But merely trying to refute the claims that this stuff
is deadly for as long as some of the 'antis' try to make out.
By the way, is 1e-6 enough of a reduction? What level of reduction *is*
enough? The 'antis' have tried to change the requirements for Yucca mtn
from 10,000 to 100,000 years before it can start leaking. There would be
less than 3e-100 the Cs-137 after 10,000 years, but apparently even that is
too much for some folks.
> Likewise the atmospheric distribution of several hundred or (thousand )
> N-reactor contents would do a fairly good job of wiping out mankind
> within a couple of generations. (40 to 60 years).
>
She doesn't make any claims about wide-spread atmospheric distribution. Why
do you?
> I.E. Man isn't capable of surviving a 600 year wait between meals.
> :-(
>
> Then again we'll be dealing with several hundred(maybe thousand) tons
> of Pu dust blowing around for ten thousand years.
>
Again, why are you assuming all the Pu is airborne??
> Even more, if enemies target each others waste storage facilities with
> multistage weapons.
>
And if enemies target each other's population centers with multple warheads,
people will be killed much more effectively. Your point? That multiple
nuclear weapon detonations are a bad thing? duh...
Does having a large underground storage of hi-level waste increase the
likelyhood that an enemy will use a n-weapon against us? No, it does not.
This often-used red herring tries to show how bad it would be if a n-weapon
is used against an underground storage of waste, but completely ignores how
bad it would be if a n-weapon was used in Manhatten or LA. Having a few
more targets when there are already hundreds of cities doesn't change the
probability of a nuclear attack.
>
> Both of which concentrate in the food chain.
>
> With no practical way to separate it out.
> (Other than wait a thousand years for your next meal).
>
>
> err no.. It's just the isotopic mixture that's wrong..
> but plenty of Pu-239 (60% of the Pu produced).
>
> There are ways of separating Pu isotopes.
> It's not generally known, but the cat's already out of the bag.
>
Of course. And there are ways of making weapons from raw U ore. If a
government wants to make n-weapons, they *don't* need commercial reactors.
After all, the first n-weapons were made that way..
But the facilities for separating Pu-239 from Pu-240 and other isotopes in
order to make weapons-grade Pu is not something you'll find in a garage.
> At some point .. Humanity will need to deploy fast breeders in order to
> stretch the limited supply of U-235. After that point, Pu fuel loads
> will skyrocket .
>
>
> Daestrom, it looks like you're the one with the Bias.. (so many
> incorrect statements. )
Yes, I made a couple of errors looking up isotopes in the Chart of the
Nuclides. But my 'facts' were easily verifiable (as you were able to easily
show where my errors were). I certainly didn't have time to have my posting
peer-reviewed and double-checked for accuracy. Certainly her published
papers should have been. The author of the paper does not seem to make any
differentiation between n-weapons, weapons-testing, and commercial nuclear
power.
You point out that if hi-level waste were widely dispersed in atmospheric
dust, it would be a bad thing. No one quibbles about that. But you make it
seem that any use of nuclear power would inevitably lead to such atmospheric
dust clouds. Not so. It would take a chain of several highly improbable
events. But you seem convinced the events are all inevitable if we use
nuclear power (such as a n-weapon strike on waste storage). With that kind
of thinking, you might as well dig your grave now and climb in, because
somewhere, sometime, a 'planet-cracking' meteor will strike and mankind is
doomed.
daestrom
| |
| daestrom 2006-05-31, 7:21 pm |
|
"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:447D2808.5302929C@hotmail.com...
>
>
> daestrom wrote:
>
>
> Eh ? In the UK the early Magnox stations were explicity used to make
> plutonium
> for the weapons programme. You simply leave the fuel in the reactor for a
> shorter time to get useful quantities ( lower burn up ).
>
Point is, a country bent on making nuclear weapons doesn't need a large
scale commercial nuclear program. And a large scale commercial nuclear
program doesn't in and of itself provide for nuclear weapons. Just because
they both have the word 'nuclear' in them doesn't mean they are inextricably
linked.
Yes, the US used some 'production reactors' for producing weapons grade
materials as well. But 'production reactors' and commercial 'power
reactors' aren't the same thing.
And if a government wants to lie about their intentions and carry on covert
weapons development, will *not* using commercial power reactors in another
country make any difference?? No.
daestrom
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-06-01, 10:21 am |
| Mary Fisher wrote:
>
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:1el0l3-imp.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
>
> Derek, I respect your opinion on most things but I'd say that EVERYONE is
> biased about this matter (and probably all other matters too).
>
> I know I am.
Well Daestrom could be biased as well as wrong: I was just pointing out that
making an error doesn't necessarily indicate bias (it can be a good
indicator though - we tend to see what we want to see).
On the subject of nuclear, I freely admit a pro-nuclear bias. I grew up
with it, and every person working in a nuclear plant in Canada (of a
certain age) and a good number in Korea, Japan, Pakistan and Romania, went
through my father's introductory nuclear physics course when he was a
training officer for Ontario Hydro. Still, even with that bias I can't
quite manage to come out in favor of nuclear power.
--
derek
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-06-01, 11:21 am |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:bo33l3-cl7.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
>
> On the subject of nuclear, I freely admit a pro-nuclear bias. I grew up
> with it, and every person working in a nuclear plant in Canada (of a
> certain age) and a good number in Korea, Japan, Pakistan and Romania, went
> through my father's introductory nuclear physics course when he was a
> training officer for Ontario Hydro. Still, even with that bias I can't
> quite manage to come out in favor of nuclear power.
Me too. As well as other sources - but not burning coal.
Mary
> --
> derek
| |
| Day Brown 2006-06-02, 2:21 am |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> On the subject of nuclear, I freely admit a pro-nuclear bias. I grew up
> with it, and every person working in a nuclear plant in Canada (of a
> certain age) and a good number in Korea, Japan, Pakistan and Romania, went
> through my father's introductory nuclear physics course when he was a
> training officer for Ontario Hydro. Still, even with that bias I can't
> quite manage to come out in favor of nuclear power.
These other countries you cite dont face nearly the risk of terrorism;
why would we want to create yet another rich target of WMD? It's one
thing to design a facility based on the risks of natural disasters, but
utterly hopeless to do so regarding terrorism because we have no idea at
all what the Jihadim will come up with.
There is also the matter of security for spent fuel and all other
radioactive materials. Even if the radiation from some terrorist act was
trivial, the sheeple would just freak out, and start dragging those they
feel responsible for the target being there... out to be shot.
Nuclear power may be fine for a rational population, but we dont *have*
that! We got fundies everywhere waiting for the Rapture, and demagogues
would come out of nowhere ranting about final solutions and willing to
start a melt down to "fullfill the will of God".
| |
| Arnold Walker 2006-06-02, 5:21 am |
|
"Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:wOPfg.121$cX5.264307@news.sisna.com...
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> These other countries you cite dont face nearly the risk of terrorism; why
> would we want to create yet another rich target of WMD? It's one thing to
> design a facility based on the risks of natural disasters, but utterly
> hopeless to do so regarding terrorism because we have no idea at all what
> the Jihadim will come up with.
>
> There is also the matter of security for spent fuel and all other
> radioactive materials. Even if the radiation from some terrorist act was
> trivial, the sheeple would just freak out, and start dragging those they
> feel responsible for the target being there... out to be shot.
>
> Nuclear power may be fine for a rational population, but we dont *have*
> that! We got fundies everywhere waiting for the Rapture, and demagogues
> would come out of nowhere ranting about final solutions and willing to
> start a melt down to "fullfill the will of God".
Sort of like Iran.....
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-06-02, 10:21 am |
| Day Brown wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> These other countries you cite dont face nearly the risk of terrorism;
Wow. There's an Americocentric viewpoint. I'd say that all of them face
significantly more likelihood of terrorism (particularly Pakistan) than
Canada. What you really mean is that none of them face a threat that
scares Americans.
> There is also the matter of security for spent fuel
No, really that's the _only_ important consideration. As somebody else
pointed out, blowing up nuclear plants is rather pointless if you can just
target cities. How to safely store the spent fuel is the problem.
--
derek
| |
| tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com 2006-06-02, 2:21 pm |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> Day Brown wrote:
>
>
> Wow. There's an Americocentric viewpoint. I'd say that all of them face
> significantly more likelihood of terrorism (particularly Pakistan) than
> Canada. What you really mean is that none of them face a threat that
> scares Americans.
>
>
> No, really that's the _only_ important consideration. As somebody else
> pointed out, blowing up nuclear plants is rather pointless if you can just
> target cities. How to safely store the spent fuel is the problem.
For the most part, fission weapons can only blow up a small suburb, or
a couple of square miles of some downtown district. Most of a 10,000
sq mile metro area will remain intact and continue to function.
Fallout zone from such a limited release can be evac'd and
most people can return to their homes in less than a year.
(Food & water will still need to be imported.)
===
To do significant damage to a Metro area,
one needs a large multi-stage thermonuclear device,
(5 to 10 MT+) or half a dozen smaller thermonuclear devices. (200
to 400 KT). It takes significant capability to deliver this type of
firepower. (U.S., Russia, China, France, England )
===
It's way different when one or more full scale nuclear power plants
get taken out.. Radioactivity wise, it's like detonating 4,000 or
more fission weapons and distributing large concentrations of fission
byproducts over hundreds of cities and surrounding countryside.
Removing those lands from any useful production/habitation for hundreds
to thousands of years.
(This capability is available to any minimal nuclear power, N Korea,
Iran, Pakistan, Al Queda?). You may not kill as many people, but
you've done far worse damage to target country. The terrorists will
have rendered ten's of millions homeless, penniless, which severely
impacts their productivity, and health. Imposing a huge and on going
burden on the remaining societal assets.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-06-02, 3:21 pm |
| tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> For the most part, fission weapons can only blow up a small suburb, or
> a couple of square miles of some downtown district. Most of a 10,000
> sq mile metro area will remain intact and continue to function.
Doesn't matter. Non-nuclear missiles (or simply bombs) with dirty warheads
will do more damage, more easily, than blowing up power plants. So it
still comes back to protection of the spent fuel.
--
derek
| |
| tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com 2006-06-02, 4:21 pm |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com wrote:
>
>
> Doesn't matter. Non-nuclear missiles (or simply bombs) with dirty warheads
> will do more damage, more easily, than blowing up power plants. So it
> still comes back to protection of the spent fuel.
No way, you haven't done the math..
Each 1GWe reactor contains ~110 metric tons+cool down pool+onsite
storage of very hot and dirty material.. Most of which would be
carried aloft and distributed by the nuclear explosion. (Mushroom
cloud ~50kft..) (Several hundred thousand square miles would be
contaminated.)
Meanwhile a dirty bomb(non-nuclear) weapon will contain less than a
ton of material. It will also set off DHS radiation detectors like
there is no tomorrow. (It will never get close to it's target). And
will probably kill anybody who get's close to it during transit. The
distribution of material will be somewhat limited, to a couple of
sq.miles.
Even dirty nuclear weapons aren't as dangerous.. They have less than
a millisec to produce fission isotopes, and would be lucky to fission
more than ten percent of it's limited mass.
=========
Permanently disrupting and bankrupting ten's of millions is far more
deadly than any direct attack on a city. It's like subtracting 25
years of life from almost everyone affected.
Fission weapon attack on city.. 100,000 to 200,000 dead.. another
million displaced for a year..
Fission weapon attack on Nuclear power plant.. 30,000 dead within a
year... Losses in productive lifespan(50%) for remaining 25 Million
evacuees == 12.75 million deaths (includes both resources abandoned and
efforts to recover after relocation).
Tack on a huge ongoing burden on remaining housing, food, and health
facilities.. (Another couple of million worker/lifespan deaths.)
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-06-02, 4:21 pm |
| tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> No way, you haven't done the math..
Ob boy. I _was_ going to let you have the last word. You're not even
attempting to do the math...
>
> Each 1GWe reactor contains ~110 metric tons+cool down pool+onsite
> storage of very hot and dirty material..
And you've made the blatant assumption you'll get it all into the air.
> Most of which would be carried aloft
Unproven and not believed
> Meanwhile a dirty bomb(non-nuclear) weapon will contain less than a
> ton of material. It will also set off DHS radiation detectors like
> there is no tomorrow. (It will never get close to it's target).
What detectors? What's going to stop it getting close to a target? Nobody
has shown any success with ABM's yet. Lead still does a darn good job of
shielding.
--
derek
| |
| tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com 2006-06-02, 6:21 pm |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com wrote:
>
>
> Ob boy. I _was_ going to let you have the last word. You're not even
> attempting to do the math...
>
> And you've made the blatant assumption you'll get it all into the air.
There is a lot more than 110 metric tons of fuel rods onsite..
Probably an equal amount in the cool down pool.
Another 2 to 3x in dry storage.. (6 to 8X for most US facilities).
>
> Unproven and not believed
I don't care what you believe.
All one needs to observe is a typical mushroom cloud that forms
after such an explosion.
Destruction of the reactors primary and secondary containment in
the first couple of milliseconds would be a given. Just how the
failure mode progresses after that is an unknown.. My guess, reactor
probably spits it guts(core) out into the plasma ball surrounding
what's left of the facility.
Side note:
We'll find out after the first terrorist Nuclear strike on such a
facility. After that, our questions will be answered and I suspect
that ALL Nuclear power plants will BE DECOMISSIONED shortly thereafter.
(I.E. The ability to prevent a re-occurance would NOT be feasible,
thus deemed as an unacceptable risk.)
Thus at best, nuclear power is a temporary solution and must be retired
ASAP.
>
>
> What detectors?
That information is on a need to know basis only.
>What's going to stop it getting close to a target? Nobody
> has shown any success with ABM's yet.
Huh? Strategic missiles have a somewhat limited payload capacity..
Only the very best (Trident-II, MX,, Titan-2(gone), SS-18 ) can put a
several of tons of payload on target.. (And they only existing in US
and Russian arsenals, who tip them multiple multistage thermonuclear
devices.)
This is about countries with limited fission capabilities ability to
inflict a society killing blow on the US.
> Lead still does a darn good job of shielding.
And just how much lead do you think it's going to take to prevent a ton
or two of very hot Neutron emitters from being detected? (Still not
even close to reactor poping off).
Hint: The Space Shuttle crawler might be able to carry that load.
It's much harder to detect a fission weapon before it goes off..
Molar(# of atoms) ratio of radioactive material between devices
(~10 to 20x)..
Decay rate difference.. (1e+4 to 1e+7x)..
Multiply them together.. Makes an N-weapon ~1e+5 to 2e+8 x times
more difficult to detect. (Or vice-a-versa, a large dirty bomb easier
to detect).
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-06-02, 6:21 pm |
|
<tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:1149279637.807499.176390@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> There is a lot more than 110 metric tons of fuel rods onsite..
>
> Probably an equal amount in the cool down pool.
> Another 2 to 3x in dry storage.. (6 to 8X for most US facilities).
>
>
> I don't care what you believe.
>
> All one needs to observe is a typical mushroom cloud that forms
> after such an explosion.
>
> Destruction of the reactors primary and secondary containment in
> the first couple of milliseconds would be a given. Just how the
> failure mode progresses after that is an unknown.. My guess, reactor
> probably spits it guts(core) out into the plasma ball surrounding
> what's left of the facility.
>
> Side note:
>
> We'll find out after the first terrorist Nuclear strike on such a
> facility. After that, our questions will be answered and I suspect
> that ALL Nuclear power plants will BE DECOMISSIONED shortly thereafter.
> (I.E. The ability to prevent a re-occurance would NOT be feasible,
> thus deemed as an unacceptable risk.)
>
> Thus at best, nuclear power is a temporary solution and must be retired
> ASAP.
>
>
> That information is on a need to know basis only.
>
>
> Huh? Strategic missiles have a somewhat limited payload capacity..
> Only the very best (Trident-II, MX,, Titan-2(gone), SS-18 ) can put a
> several of tons of payload on target.. (And they only existing in US
> and Russian arsenals, who tip them multiple multistage thermonuclear
> devices.)
>
> This is about countries with limited fission capabilities ability to
> inflict a society killing blow on the US.
>
>
> And just how much lead do you think it's going to take to prevent a ton
> or two of very hot Neutron emitters from being detected? (Still not
> even close to reactor poping off).
>
> Hint: The Space Shuttle crawler might be able to carry that load.
>
>
>
> It's much harder to detect a fission weapon before it goes off..
> Molar(# of atoms) ratio of radioactive material between devices
> (~10 to 20x)..
> Decay rate difference.. (1e+4 to 1e+7x)..
> Multiply them together.. Makes an N-weapon ~1e+5 to 2e+8 x times
> more difficult to detect. (Or vice-a-versa, a large dirty bomb easier
> to detect).
What's the source for all your statements?
Mary
>
| |
| daestrom 2006-06-02, 6:21 pm |
|
<tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:1149279637.807499.176390@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> There is a lot more than 110 metric tons of fuel rods onsite..
>
> Probably an equal amount in the cool down pool.
> Another 2 to 3x in dry storage.. (6 to 8X for most US facilities).
>
Not even close. But what percentage would really be carried aloft? A
mushroom cloud is only a small fraction of the material at the plast site.
Why do you think it would be a disproportionate amount of spent fuel in the
cloud?
>
> I don't care what you believe.
>
> All one needs to observe is a typical mushroom cloud that forms
> after such an explosion.
>
> Destruction of the reactors primary and secondary containment in
> the first couple of milliseconds would be a given. Just how the
> failure mode progresses after that is an unknown.. My guess, reactor
> probably spits it guts(core) out into the plasma ball surrounding
> what's left of the facility.
>
And your 'guess' is based on???
Concrete structures actually stand up pretty well to the blast effects
(review above ground tests and the two nucs used in WWII). To 'vaporize' a
two foot thick containment wall, you would have to get the tactical weapon
much closer that 1/4 mile. Or if you speculate use of a thermonuclear
device, then the question is why a nuc plant and not Manhatten. So
distruction of the primary containment is *not* 'a given'.
> Side note:
>
> We'll find out after the first terrorist Nuclear strike on such a
> facility. After that, our questions will be answered and I suspect
> that ALL Nuclear power plants will BE DECOMISSIONED shortly thereafter.
> (I.E. The ability to prevent a re-occurance would NOT be feasible,
> thus deemed as an unacceptable risk.)
>
Pure unsupported speculation. How close to the reactor are you speculating
this weapon? How does it get that close past security and radiation
detectors? The owner controlled area of most plants is several city blocks
in size. If a tactical nuc can only damage a couple of city blocks, then it
would have to get past security to be within a 'lethal' radius of the
reactor.
daestrom
| |
| tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com 2006-06-02, 6:21 pm |
|
Mary Fisher wrote:
> <tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
> news:1149279637.807499.176390@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> What's the source for all your statements?
>
> Mary
And what is your background??
I don't see a purpose to your non-specific request.
Define which statement you're asking about?
Decay rates are public knowledge. (google for them)
Decay products are public knowledge. (google for them).
Same goes for mass of decay products.
Spent fuel composition is somewhat more difficult to find..
(That info getting harder to find, sources are disappearing.)
Destruction of reactor containment is documented.
Same goes for radii of destruction by nuclear device.
( That info, I now restrict to protect the sources. ) ,
Mathematics can fill in a fair number of the blanks..
I have used hundreds of sources in formulating these responses.
Many of them can be found by searching www.deja.com
"Nuclear author:Keating".
Those with sufficient scientific background already know both the
science and the math. (And the truth behind them).
| |
| Mary Fisher 2006-06-02, 6:21 pm |
|
<tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:1149282360.341318.92200@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>
> And what is your background??
That's irrelevant.
> I don't see a purpose to your non-specific request.
So is that.
>
> Define which statement you're asking about?
All of them.
| |
| tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com 2006-06-02, 8:21 pm |
| daestrom wrote:
> <tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
> news:1149279637.807499.176390@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Not even close. But what percentage would really be carried aloft? A
> mushroom cloud is only a small fraction of the material at the plast site.
> Why do you think it would be a disproportionate amount of spent fuel in the
> cloud?
Spent fuel.. There is a lot of it laying about US installations. (20
to 30 years worth).
My previous posts only factored in the contents of the Reactor itself.
(Which will be operating at full power when the event occurs. )
So far, I've fairly conservative in my estimates.. (15% release).
>
>
> And your 'guess' is based on???
>
> Concrete structures actually stand up pretty well to the blast effects
> (review above ground tests and the two nucs used in WWII). To 'vaporize' a
> two foot thick containment wall, you would have to get the tactical weapon
> much closer that 1/4 mile. Or if you speculate use of a thermonuclear
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (1/4 of a mile)..
There dozens of ways to deliver a N-weapon right NEXT to the
containment.. (Especially, if they have smart(human) guidance system.
I don't think terrorists have a problem with that aspect.)
> device, then the question is why a nuc plant and not Manhatten. So
> distruction of the primary containment is *not* 'a given'.
Yes, (see above.) Total destruction..
Manhattan, You kill a few hundred thousand, maybe 1/2 million.
or
Take out Nuclear plant when wind blowing towards food growing
and population centers.
Kill a smaller number outright.
Take out three or four states for the next 1000 years.
Create ten's of millions penniless of refugees..
Decrease their average lifespan by 5 to ~10 years.
(economic ruin/poverty is just as deadly as radiation.)
(assumes evac will be 100% successful & permanent)
Economic loss 3 to 5 times that of GDP.
(Equivalent to 24 to 40 million deaths.. @ 1M$ of GDP per person
lifetime.)
Cripple the country with huge re-occuring burden.
Shut down all remaining nuclear plants.
>
>
>
> Pure unsupported speculation. How close to the reactor are you speculating
> this weapon? How does it get that close past security and radiation
> detectors?
Almost any approach path in excess of XX meters will do.
By sea, land or air. Anything method that avoids the front gate.
Most of those detectors aren't designed to detect N-weapons.
They sample the air stream for airborne radioactive particles.
N-weapons aren't designed to deposit any significant materials into
the atmosphere until they go off.
> The owner controlled area of most plants is several city blocks
(Two city blocks), 1056 ft @ 20 mph.== about 36 seconds of warning and
time to deploy counter measures without setting off the weapon.
> in size. If a tactical nuc can only damage a couple of city blocks, then it
> would have to get past security to be within a 'lethal' radius of the
> reactor.
I won't go into details for obvious reasons..
Getting past security is a no-op.
Delivering weapon with 20ft of containment is a no-op.
---
A few years back(93), an escaped hospital patient drove a station
wagon through TMI-1's turbine building's alumium roll up door and
stopped inside. (Within ~200ft of reactor containment).
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-c...93/in93094.html
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/newslett...ewsletterID=217
It took them four hours to find the intruder in the basement of the
turbine building.
| |
| Pooh Bear 2006-06-03, 4:21 am |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com wrote:
>
>
> Doesn't matter. Non-nuclear missiles (or simply bombs) with dirty warheads
> will do more damage, more easily, than blowing up power plants. So it
> still comes back to protection of the spent fuel.
I'd have thought that a blown-up nuclear power plant was itself the ideal dirty
bomb.
Graham
| |
| daestrom 2006-06-03, 2:21 pm |
|
<tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:1149287567.402735.187250@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> daestrom wrote:
<snip>[color=darkred]
>
> Spent fuel.. There is a lot of it laying about US installations. (20
> to 30 years worth).
Doesn't answer the question, "What percentage would really be carried
aloft?" And of that carried aloft and spread over 'three or four states',
what would be the concentration on the ground and in the environment in that
land area? How does that concentration compare to background radiation
levels and dose? I suspect you have *not* done the math you claim you have.
Otherwise you wouldn't be making such outlandish claims of
death/destruction.
>
> My previous posts only factored in the contents of the Reactor itself.
> (Which will be operating at full power when the event occurs. )
>
What do you think the current operating power level has to do with anything?
Or do you just mention it to try and scare the masses into thinking its
somehow relavent. Considering plants operate at full power about 90% of the
time, it's hardly a stroke of genious to assume an attack would happen while
at power.
Do you think that is the plant's most vulnerable condition?
<snip>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (1/4 of a mile)..
> There dozens of ways to deliver a N-weapon right NEXT to the
> containment.. (Especially, if they have smart(human) guidance system.
> I don't think terrorists have a problem with that aspect.)
Really? Dozens? Name three.
A human with a device walking into a facility would be stopped at the
security entrance. This is more than 1/4 mile from the containment in most
plants. His device would set off several different alarms. Someone trying
to gain access via other than authorized access points faces a number of
formidable barriers. Attempting to breach such barriers is now instantly
considered a threat to the general public and deadly force is authorized to
stop anyone making such an attempt. (I wonder if the 'greenpeace' folks
that tried such things in the 70's and early 80's would try them today)
No ground-based vehicle can get that close either (despite your citation
below that is completely outdated). Guess that leaves airborne threats.
Well, maybe that's one. But 'dozens of ways'? Now you're just trying to
use scare tactics and fearmongering.
>
>
> Yes, (see above.) Total destruction..
>
> Manhattan, You kill a few hundred thousand, maybe 1/2 million.
>
> or
>
> Take out Nuclear plant when wind blowing towards food growing
> and population centers.
>
> Kill a smaller number outright.
> Take out three or four states for the next 1000 years.
> Create ten's of millions penniless of refugees..
> Decrease their average lifespan by 5 to ~10 years.
> (economic ruin/poverty is just as deadly as radiation.)
> (assumes evac will be 100% successful & permanent)
> Economic loss 3 to 5 times that of GDP.
> (Equivalent to 24 to 40 million deaths.. @ 1M$ of GDP per person
> lifetime.)
> Cripple the country with huge re-occuring burden.
Unsupported claptrap. Even if a nuc plant were attacked, the likelyhood of
your scenario is more remote than even you could calculate. Even if as much
radioactivity went airborne as you claim, the affects on the land-use and
people you claim are unsubstantiated. Look at how 'uninhabitable' the area
around Chernobyl is today just 20 years later. Activity might be
*detectable* over the entire continent. But *detectable* and
*uninhabitable* are a far cry from each other.
Ten tactical nucs set off in the largest US population centers would have
worse effects and would be easier to carry out (not that it would be
'easy'). Yet you seem to be implying that ten nucs at nuclear plants is a
more credible threat. Despite the stronger security, you think a terrorist
would rather go after a hardened, secure target than the superbowl stadium
in front of live TV? or a presidential inaugaration?
>
> Almost any approach path in excess of XX meters will do.
> By sea, land or air. Anything method that avoids the front gate.
>
> Most of those detectors aren't designed to detect N-weapons.
> They sample the air stream for airborne radioactive particles.
Guess you've never had to enter a nuclear plant. Radioactive air samplers
are used for detecting the *release* of radioactive material, not *security*
of incoming personnel/equipment. Different things, different purposes,
different methodologies.
>
> N-weapons aren't designed to deposit any significant materials into
> the atmosphere until they go off.
>
>
> (Two city blocks), 1056 ft @ 20 mph.== about 36 seconds of warning and
> time to deploy counter measures without setting off the weapon.
Only if a vehicle could maintain 20 mph through whatever barriers may be
installed for the purpose of *not* allowing it. Do you think you're smarter
than the security experts that protect these facilities? You think you're
the first person to think of this? How large an ego do you have??
>
>
> I won't go into details for obvious reasons..
Nor will I discuss the details of nuclear plant security in detail (I am not
privy to all the security details either). But your idea of plant security
is outdated and grossly oversimplified. Much of your scenario depends on
nuclear plant security being as lax as it was 30 years ago. It isn't. You
really think you're the only one that ever thought of these threats? Such
hubris.
>
> Getting past security is a no-op.
> Delivering weapon with 20ft of containment is a no-op.
Saying it doesn't make it true. It merely shows your ignorance and lack of
analytical thought.
>
> A few years back(93), an escaped hospital patient drove a station
> wagon through TMI-1's turbine building's alumium roll up door and
> stopped inside. (Within ~200ft of reactor containment).
>
> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-c...93/in93094.html
> http://www.dep.state.pa.us/newslett...ewsletterID=217
>
> It took them four hours to find the intruder in the basement of the
> turbine building.
>
You really have a pretty low esteem of the whole nuclear security process to
think security remains unchanged after such an incident. The reason you
were able to find that incident in the NRC documents is because when that
event occurred the NRC required each licensee to review and update their
security plans. Several more updates have occurred since then and since
9/11. The NRC allows that incident to be public knowledge and not
classified because they no longer believe such a scenario is a danger. Do
you really think the NRC would publish a 'blueprint' of how to attack a
facility on their own web if that hadn't eliminated that threat ??? Notice
the date of the event and the date of the publication. The public document
was released only *after* corrective actions were taken to prevent a
recurrence.
You are ignorant of the security at nuclear sites, and assume it hasn't
changed in decades. That really is pretty stupid. But it suits your agenda
of fear-mongering, so you do it anyway.
You claim to have insider knowledge of nuclear weapons capabilities and
understandably are reticent to discuss them. Yet you think you are aware of
all security measures around nuclear plants, that such security is detailed
in the public record and that security measures remain unchanged after
incidents. Guess you don't see the irony in that.
daestrom
| |
| daestrom 2006-06-03, 2:21 pm |
|
"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44812971.8D6183D@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>
> I'd have thought that a blown-up nuclear power plant was itself the ideal
> dirty
> bomb.
>
Except that 'dirty' bombs are designed to spread contamination, while
nuclear plants are designed to contain it.
daestrom
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-06-03, 3:21 pm |
| tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com wrote:
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>
> And what is your background??
> I don't see a purpose to your non-specific request.
>
It's much easier to have a rational argument with someone who can cite
facts. Since you either can't or won't, you've merely made a statement of
what you believe - and as you said, yourself, "I don't care what you
believe".
--
derek
| |
|
| |