On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:43:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


Chuck, I cannot understand why the folks talking the most about
mankind's contribution to global warming are the same ones fighting the
use of nuclear energy. Ah yes, there is a waste problem. But, it is
minimal, given the recycling technology, compared to the advantages of
nuclear energy.

Caltech physics professor David Goodstein has stated that

“ ... you would have to build 10,000 of the largest power plants that are feasible by engineering
standards in order to replace the 10 terawatts of fossil fuel we're burning today ... that's a staggering
amount and if you did that, the known reserves of uranium would last for 10 to 20 years at that burn
rate. So, it's at best a bridging technology ... You can use the rest of the uranium to breed plutonium 239
then we'd have at least 100 times as much fuel to use. But that means you're making plutonium, which
is an extremely dangerous thing to do in the dangerous world that we live in. �

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory



Perhaps this is one of the reasons many folks think the liberals are
'crying wolf' more than actually trying to solve the problem. Of course,
with folks like Al Gore, the whole issue is a money-making proposition.

I agree nuclear has to be part of the answer, but it is by no means *the* answer. I also do not seem to
share the trust you have in this government. Living down wind of Three Mile Island, I clearly remember
the assurances that the problem was under control, only to find out later that 1/2 the core had melted
down. Oh, and if you think things have chanced, remember the assurances about the air quality at
ground zero.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:11:14 -0000, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:43:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


Chuck, I cannot understand why the folks talking the most about
mankind's contribution to global warming are the same ones fighting the
use of nuclear energy. Ah yes, there is a waste problem. But, it is
minimal, given the recycling technology, compared to the advantages of
nuclear energy.

Caltech physics professor David Goodstein has stated that

“ ... you would have to build 10,000 of the largest power plants that are feasible by engineering
standards in order to replace the 10 terawatts of fossil fuel we're burning today ... that's a staggering
amount and if you did that, the known reserves of uranium would last for 10 to 20 years at that burn
rate. So, it's at best a bridging technology ... You can use the rest of the uranium to breed plutonium 239
then we'd have at least 100 times as much fuel to use. But that means you're making plutonium, which
is an extremely dangerous thing to do in the dangerous world that we live in. ”

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory



Perhaps this is one of the reasons many folks think the liberals are
'crying wolf' more than actually trying to solve the problem. Of course,
with folks like Al Gore, the whole issue is a money-making proposition.

I agree nuclear has to be part of the answer, but it is by no means *the* answer. I also do not seem to
share the trust you have in this government. Living down wind of Three Mile Island, I clearly remember
the assurances that the problem was under control, only to find out later that 1/2 the core had melted
down. Oh, and if you think things have chanced, remember the assurances about the air quality at
ground zero.

You missed the line preceding your quote, which came from the interview
with Goodstein:

"PROFESSOR DAVID GOODSTEIN: It depends on what kind of nuclear power you
mean.

If you mean the kind of conventional power that we use for power in the
United States, burning uranium 235, which is a rare isotope of uranium,
there are a couple of problems."

The conventional power being used at that time did not use the recycling
technology available today. Furthermore, I didn't suggest replacing *all*
the fossil fuel power with nuclear, as posited in your reference.

It may well be a while before we have nuclear powered aircraft.

Three Mile Island is the typical liberal response. How long ago was that?
How many folks were killed? Do you seriously believe the technology hasn't
improved since then?

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:08:42 -0500, John H. wrote:


Three Mile Island is the typical liberal response. How long ago was
that? How many folks were killed? Do you seriously believe the
technology hasn't improved since then?

The technology has improved considerably, pebble bed reactors, for example, but the bureaucrats that
make decisions haven't improved. The Three Mile Island event happened in 1979, around the same time
that studies of Yucca Mountain were started. Yucca Mountain isn't expected to be in use until @ 2017, at
a cost of somewhere between $50-100 billion. It's capacity is expected to be 70,000 metric tons of
waste. We have already generated @ 60,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. So, basically, Yucca
Mountain will be full before it ever becomes usable, but hey, let's all just jump on the nuclear bandwagon.

Whine all you want about "typical liberal responses", but it was economics that kept nuclear reactors
from being built, economics as in cheap and plentiful coal. Nuclear power is still expensive.

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:08:42 -0500, John H. wrote:


Three Mile Island is the typical liberal response. How long ago was
that? How many folks were killed? Do you seriously believe the
technology hasn't improved since then?

The technology has improved considerably, pebble bed reactors, for example, but the bureaucrats that
make decisions haven't improved. The Three Mile Island event happened in 1979, around the same time
that studies of Yucca Mountain were started. Yucca Mountain isn't expected to be in use until @ 2017, at
a cost of somewhere between $50-100 billion. It's capacity is expected to be 70,000 metric tons of
waste. We have already generated @ 60,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. So, basically, Yucca
Mountain will be full before it ever becomes usable, but hey, let's all just jump on the nuclear bandwagon.

Whine all you want about "typical liberal responses", but it was economics that kept nuclear reactors
from being built, economics as in cheap and plentiful coal. Nuclear power is still expensive.




I'm ok with nuclear power plants if there is trustworthy civilian
oversight of the construction and operation, and if the nuclear waste
will be stored only in red states such as Texas, Alabama, and
Mississippi, the places I never willingly visit.

We don't live that far from a nuke plant. I figure when it goes up, I'll
be an even more glowing personality.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:47:50 -0400, HK wrote:


I'm ok with nuclear power plants if there is trustworthy civilian
oversight of the construction and operation, and if the nuclear waste
will be stored only in red states such as Texas, Alabama, and
Mississippi, the places I never willingly visit.

Hey, I agree. I think nuclear has to play a part in our energy future. I just don't think it is the magical
solution. We are going to spend $50-100 billion to store nuclear waste. Personally, I wonder what the
future would look like if we spent that kind of money on sustainable energy development.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:42:37 -0000, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:08:42 -0500, John H. wrote:


Three Mile Island is the typical liberal response. How long ago was
that? How many folks were killed? Do you seriously believe the
technology hasn't improved since then?

The technology has improved considerably, pebble bed reactors, for example, but the bureaucrats that
make decisions haven't improved. The Three Mile Island event happened in 1979, around the same time
that studies of Yucca Mountain were started. Yucca Mountain isn't expected to be in use until @ 2017, at
a cost of somewhere between $50-100 billion. It's capacity is expected to be 70,000 metric tons of
waste. We have already generated @ 60,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. So, basically, Yucca
Mountain will be full before it ever becomes usable, but hey, let's all just jump on the nuclear bandwagon.

Whine all you want about "typical liberal responses", but it was economics that kept nuclear reactors
from being built, economics as in cheap and plentiful coal. Nuclear power is still expensive.

Do some reading about the recycling technology available today.

thunder wrote:

Whine all you want about "typical liberal responses", but it was economics that kept nuclear reactors
from being built, economics as in cheap and plentiful coal. Nuclear power is still expensive.


Economics and poor management is what killed the WPPSS
projects and economics is why the Trojan plant (Oregon's
only nuke plant)was shut down early.