Nuclear Power Needs To Go

[Boreas]

All four of these crises are ongoing and he result of negligence and corruption. Nuclear power is unsustainable and should be phased out globally.

http://www.newsweek.com/hanford-nuclear-reservation-radioactive-waste-454808

http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/05/01/inenglish/1462100634_134674.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/business/energy-environment/france-nuclear-energy-areva.html

https://www.rt.com/usa/338410-indian-point-bernie-sanders/

[JJIII]

Rob used to champion the CANDU power plants in Canada. Does anyone have any info on how they operate?

[finnbow]

The current lower price of natural gas will probably have more to do with nuclear energy's demise than anything in the OP's links. BTW, the Hanford Site's leaking tanks have nothing to do with commercial nuclear power.

[catswiththum]

To anyone interested, I recommend the documentary "Pandora's Promise," - clears away a lot of the hyperbole and provides a well done overview of nuclear energy options with some of the leading nuclear and environmental scientists/engineers.

[Boreas]

The current lower price of natural gas will probably have more to do with nuclear energy's demise than anything in the OP's links. BTW, the Hanford Site's leaking tanks have nothing to do with commercial nuclear power.

A distinction without a difference, IMO. In any event, some of the waste stored at Hanford is waste from commercial reactors that was destined for Yucca Mtn.

[finnbow]

A distinction without a difference, IMO. In any event, some of the waste stored at Hanford is waste from commercial reactors that was destined for Yucca Mtn.

While this may be true, it's certainly news to me, having been to Hanford bunches of times. Only the N Reactor was dual use (military/civilian), but I doubt that a small portion of the mixed waste in the underground tanks has been specifically deemed Yucca Mountain waste. Perhaps the spent fuel is, but the spent fuel has absolutely nothing to do with the leaky tanks.

In any event, using Hanford to make an argument against the use of modern nuclear reactor designs is silly. The use of single walls underground tanks to accommodate 100 million gallons of mixed waste was due to war time exigencies (beating Hitler to the bomb and keeping ahead of the Russians). These exigencies don't exist in the civilian nuclear power industry. If anything kills nuclear, it will be the price of natural gas lowered by virtue of fracking.

[Boreas]

While this may be true, it's certainly news to me, having been to Hanford bunches of times. Only the N Reactor was dual use (military/civilian), but I doubt that a small portion of the mixed waste in the underground tanks has been specifically deemed Yucca Mountain waste. Perhaps the spent fuel is, but the spent fuel has absolutely nothing to do with the leaky tanks.

In any event, using Hanford to make an argument against the use of modern nuclear reactor designs is silly. The use of single walls underground tanks to accommodate 100 million gallons of mixed waste was due to war time exigencies (beating Hitler to the bomb and keeping ahead of the Russians). These exigencies don't exist in the civilian nuclear power industry. If anything kills nuclear, it will be the price of natural gas lowered by virtue of fracking.

It is true. That's what happens when you retire. And pointing to the permanent risks associated with nuclear waste storage, however it was generated, is not "silly". Or do you maintain that this is a soluble problem?

And there are indications that there are now some double wall tanks, those not built under wartime exigencies, that are leaking. Tanks that are 400 yards from the second largest river in the US.

[finnbow]

It is true. That's what happens when you retire. And pointing to the permanent risks associated with nuclear waste storage, however it was generated, is not "silly". Or do you maintain that this is a soluble problem?

And there are indications that there are now some double wall tanks, those not built under wartime exigencies, that are leaking. Tanks that are 400 yards from the second largest river in the US.

Not all "nuclear waste storage" is the same. When one normally speaks of nuclear waste storage in the civilian nuclear industry, they're talking of spent fuel. The contents of Hanford's tanks isn't spent fuel. Conflating the two in making an argument against civilian nuclear reactors shows a lack of understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and the nature of the mess at Hanford.

That said, cheap natural gas and existing regulatory burdens have pretty much killed the civilian nuclear industry. AFAIK, the V.C. Summer plant expansion in South Carolina is pretty much the only ongoing civilian reactor project and I'm sure its owner, SCE&G, would in retrospect much preferred to have built a natural gas plant considering costs that have skyrocketed to $12 billion.

http://www.thestate.com/news/business/article41740257.html

The handwriting is pretty much on the wall already. The NRC, which was going great guns 20 years ago with the promise of a resurgent civilian nuclear industry, is downsizing dramatically in recognition of the dynamics noted above.

[Boreas]

Not all "nuclear waste storage" is the same. When one normally speaks of nuclear waste storage in the civilian nuclear industry, they're talking of spent fuel. The contents of Hanford's tanks isn't spent fuel. Conflating the two in making an argument against civilian nuclear reactors shows a lack of understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and the nature of the mess at Hanford.

That said, cheap natural gas and existing regulatory burdens have pretty much killed the civilian nuclear industry. AFAIK, the V.C. Summer plant expansion in South Carolina is pretty much the only ongoing civilian reactor project and I'm sure its owner, SCE&G, would in retrospect much preferred to have built a natural gas plant considering costs that have skyrocketed to $12 billion.

http://www.thestate.com/news/business/article41740257.html

The handwriting is pretty much on the wall already. The NRC, which was going great guns 20 years ago with the promise of a resurgent civilian nuclear industry, is downsizing dramatically in recognition of the dynamics noted above.

Yes, there's vitrification but the vitrified waste is still hot and the process results in an increased volume of waste, making storage even more problematic. And the risks associated with nuclear waste, however it was generated are both extreme and seemingly insoluble.

[Tom Joad]

Part of this "Ask this old house" episode is on how Germany is moving toward energy independence. They also talk about how Germany has committed to move away from Nuclear, which they were once among the world's leaders in.

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365590403/

[Pio1980]

The non disposable byproducts have always been a major problem with "the power too cheap to meter".
No doubt Hyman Rickover expected a level of competence as high as his own from the civilian side, unintended consequences notwithstanding.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[finnbow]

Yes, there's vitrification but the vitrified waste is still hot and the process results in an increased volume of waste, making storage even more problematic. And the risks associated with nuclear waste, however it was generated are both extreme and seemingly insoluble.

Vitrification at Hanford and grout stabilization at Savannah River (http://www.srs.gov/general/news/factsheets/lnwtc.pdf)are effectively both prototype efforts to stabilize mostly uncharacterized mixed (with process chemicals) liquid nuclear waste. Its treatment and storage really isn't comparable to (solid) fuel cycle waste. Grout stabilization and vitrification are both performed to convert the liquid waste to solid waste to preclude seepage into ground water, a process unnecessary for (solid) fuel cycle waste.

That said, Harry Reid's efforts to close Yucca Mountain have certainly set back our ability to safely store spent fuel. Because we have chosen not to reprocess spent fuel (as done in numerous other countries, including France) due to non-proliferation concerns, we are stuck with needing a large nuclear waste repository (which the civilian nuclear industry has already payed for, BTW). Now that Yucca Mountain is on mothballs, so to speak, we are stuck storing spent fuel onsite at nuclear plants across the nation, not an ideal long term solution, to be sure, not to mention a screw-job for the civilian nuclear industry.

[Boreas]

Vitrification at Hanford and grout stabilization at Savannah River (http://www.srs.gov/general/news/factsheets/lnwtc.pdf)are effectively both prototype efforts to stabilize mostly uncharacterized mixed (with process chemicals) liquid nuclear waste. Its treatment and storage really isn't comparable to (solid) fuel cycle waste. Grout stabilization and vitrification are both performed to convert the liquid waste to solid waste to preclude seepage into ground water, a process unnecessary for (solid) fuel cycle waste.

That said, Harry Reid's efforts to close Yucca Mountain have certainly set back our ability to safely store spent fuel. Because we have chosen not to reprocess spent fuel (as done in numerous other countries, including France) due to non-proliferation concerns, we are stuck with needing a large nuclear waste repository (which the civilian nuclear industry has already payed for, BTW). Now that Yucca Mountain is on mothballs, so to speak, we are stuck storing spent fuel onsite at nuclear plants across the nation, not an ideal long term solution, to be sure, not to mention a screw-job for the civilian nuclear industry.

I know what vitrification is and I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for the civilian nuclear industry.

One way or the other we're "stuck" with every atom of nuclear waste ever generated.

[finnbow]

I know what vitrification is and I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for the civilian nuclear industry.

One way or the other we're "stuck" with every atom of nuclear waste ever generated.

On that we agree. We can't just wish it away. That said, most people on earth get the preponderance of their lifetime radiation dose from cosmic radiation, radon and medical imagery and not from nuclear power.

[Dondilion]

Vitrification at Hanford and grout stabilization at Savannah River (http://www.srs.gov/general/news/factsheets/lnwtc.pdf)are effectively both prototype efforts to stabilize mostly uncharacterized mixed (with process chemicals) liquid nuclear waste. Its treatment and storage really isn't comparable to (solid) fuel cycle waste. Grout stabilization and vitrification are both performed to convert the liquid waste to solid waste to preclude seepage into ground water, a process unnecessary for (solid) fuel cycle waste.

That said, Harry Reid's efforts to close Yucca Mountain have certainly set back our ability to safely store spent fuel. Because we have chosen not to reprocess spent fuel (as done in numerous other countries, including France) due to non-proliferation concerns, we are stuck with needing a large nuclear waste repository (which the civilian nuclear industry has already payed for, BTW). Now that Yucca Mountain is on mothballs, so to speak, we are stuck storing spent fuel onsite at nuclear plants across the nation, not an ideal long term solution, to be sure, not to mention a screw-job for the civilian nuclear industry.

So its extreme waste problems make it very undesirable: Aiding and abetting
the OP statement.

[catswiththum]

The French seem to have a good handle on it - nuclear energy provides 75% of their electric power; they export around 3 billion Euros worth a year. They have constant gov. and scientific collaboration actively accelerating the recycling/reusability/waste storage processes.

[Boreas]

The French seem to have a good handle on it - nuclear energy provides 75% of their electric power; they export around 3 billion Euros worth a year. They have constant gov. and scientific collaboration actively accelerating the recycling/reusability/waste storage processes.

From the OP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/business/energy-environment/france-nuclear-energy-areva.html

[Dondilion]

The French seem to have a good handle on it - nuclear energy provides 75% of their electric power; they export around 3 billion Euros worth a year. They have constant gov. and scientific collaboration actively accelerating the recycling/reusability/waste storage processes.

Nuclear is in the group...If it can go wrong , it will. However its wrong is mega.

[finnbow]

So its extreme waste problems make it very undesirable: Aiding and abetting
the OP statement.

The problems in the Defense nuclear complex (e.g., Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge) are legacy problems from a different time, not unlike Superfund projects where American industry worked with little concern or regulation when it came to the environment. We are now able to recognize the mess this created.

[finnbow]

Nuclear is in the group...If it can go wrong , it will. However its wrong is mega.

Perhaps so, but far more have been killed over the years due to the use of coal from mining accidents and respiratory disease. The environmental impact of coal hasn't been exactly benign either from mountain-top removal to rivers polluted from mine drainage to acid rain killing lakes hundreds of miles from power plants to dirty air. Unfortunately, there is no free lunch.

[Boreas]

Perhaps so, but far more have been killed over the years due to the use of coal from mining accidents and respiratory disease. The environmental impact of coal hasn't been exactly benign either from mountain-top removal to rivers polluted from mine drainage to acid rain killing lakes hundreds of miles from power plants to dirty air. Unfortunately, there is no free lunch.

Another one that needs to go. You're on a roll, Pat.

[finnbow]

Another one that needs to go. You're on a roll, Pat.

It's absolutely true. I'm not an absolute fan (nor foe) of nuclear power, but believe that at this point in time, it's still a viable component of the nation's power-generation capacity, as is coal, gas, wind, solar, hydropower and conservation. Other than conservation, all have a downside. Nuclear is low risk/high consequence whereas some other the others are high risk/low consequence. Pick your poison, as it were.

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

[Boreas]

It's absolutely true. I'm not an absolute fan (nor foe) of nuclear power, but believe that at this point in time, it's still a viable component of the nation's power-generation capacity, as is coal, gas, wind, solar, hydropower and conservation. Other than conservation, all have a downside. Nuclear is low risk/high consequence whereas some other the others are high risk/low consequence. Pick your poison, as it were.

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

The risks of nuclear increase over time. This can't be said of your high risk technologies.

[finnbow]

The risks of nuclear increase over time. This can't be said of your high risk technologies.

Not really. A reactor built to the newest standards (i.e., modular reactor designs) are quite safe. Regardless, the stringency of existing NRC regulation and cheap, abundant natural gas have pretty much destroyed any appetite for new reactors in the power industry.

[Boreas]

Not really. A reactor built to the newest standards (i.e., modular reactor designs) are quite safe. Regardless, the stringency of existing NRC regulation and cheap, abundant natural gas have pretty much destroyed any appetite for new reactors in the power industry.

You're forgetting the waste again.

[Pio1980]

It's absolutely true. I'm not an absolute fan (nor foe) of nuclear power, but believe that at this point in time, it's still a viable component of the nation's power-generation capacity, as is coal, gas, wind, solar, hydropower and conservation. Other than conservation, all have a downside. Nuclear is low risk/high consequence whereas some other the others are high risk/low consequence. Pick your poison, as it were.

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

It doesn't??

Something some of the electric car proponents seem to believe.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Pio1980]

Not really. A reactor built to the newest standards (i.e., modular reactor designs) are quite safe. Regardless, the stringency of existing NRC regulation and cheap, abundant natural gas have pretty much destroyed any appetite for new reactors in the power industry.

CANDU?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor?wprov=sfla1

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[finnbow]

You're forgetting the waste again.

If Harry Reid hadn't effectively closed Yucca Mountain (that was built with financing from the civilian nuclear industry) or if we chose to recycle spent fuel, it wouldn't be an intractable issue.

That said, we have ~100 operating power reactors in the United States. What do you propose? Shutting them down before their operating licenses expire? What good would that do? You'd still have ~100 plants to decommission, lots of spent fuel to store or reprocess, 800 billion kilowatt-hours of power to replace, and untold billions to pay the utility companies for reneging on the operating licenses and pissing away their money on Yucca Mountain.

Other than that, you're right.:D

[finnbow]

CANDU?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor?wprov=sfla1

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

No. They simply go by the name of (small) modular reactors. If you're interested, here are a couple of links providing an overview:

http://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/Small-Modular-Reactor

[nailer]

You're forgetting the waste again.

You could stop bringing it up and concede. ;)

[Boreas]

It doesn't??

Something some of the electric car proponents seem to believe.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Electric cars powered by electricity from non-polluting, renewable sources. Electric cars by themselves aren't the solution but they're a part of it.

[finnbow]

Electric cars powered by electricity from non-polluting, renewable sources.

At the risk of repeating myself,

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

How exactly is it that the electricity used to charge electric car batteries is inherently non-polluting and renewable? Do they direct electrons only with a renewable energy provenance to charging stations (while directing dirty electrons to the homes of the unworthy?)

Moreover, the overall energy efficiency of a real gas-sipper (e.g., a gas-powered Honda Civic) and a full electric Nissan Volt is nearly identical (which makes perfect sense in terms of conservation of energy). The real difference is that electric vehicles have no emissions at the point of use, but have emissions at the point of power generation.

https://www.masterresource.org/electric-vehicles/energy-usage-cost-gasoline-vs-electric/

[Boreas]

If Harry Reid hadn't effectively closed Yucca Mountain (that was built with financing from the civilian nuclear industry) or if we chose to recycle spent fuel, it wouldn't be an intractable issue.

That said, we have ~100 operating power reactors in the United States. What do you propose? Shutting them down before their operating licenses expire? What good would that do? You'd still have ~100 plants to decommission, lots of spent fuel to store or reprocess, 800 billion kilowatt-hours of power to replace, and untold billions to pay the utility companies for reneging on the operating licenses and pissing away their money on Yucca Mountain.

Other than that, you're right.:D

And since I never said any of that, I'm right.:cool:

And you bring up another area where nuclear sucks. Decommissioning old nukes is a real can of worms.

[Boreas]

At the risk of repeating myself,

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

How exactly is it that the electricity used to charge electric car batteries is inherently non-polluting and renewable? Do they direct electrons only with a renewable energy provenance to charging stations (while directing dirty electrons to the homes of the unworthy?)

We must begin the transition to 100% renewable non-polluting sources. You don't need to direct the dirty electrons elsewhere when there aren't any. Solar, wind, tidal and geothermal are all non-polluting renewable means of power generation.

[finnbow]

We must begin the transition to 100% renewable non-polluting sources. You don't need to direct the dirty electrons elsewhere when there aren't any. Solar, wind, tidal and geothermal are all non-polluting renewable means of power generation.

Solar is only really viable where the sun shines a lot and people don't live (i.e., where you have the space for solar panel "farms"). Wind power is only viable where the wind reliably blows and people don't live or don't mind turbines in their yards or beaches. Tidal is only viable along coasts with very high tidal range and geothermal is viable in places like Iceland. Morever, generating solar power in the middle of a remote desert or wind power on a remote mountain top both require lots of new transmission lines (beyond those of the current grid).

I firmly believe in replacing as much non-renewable energy as is practical/possible in an industrialized economy. To think that we'll get to 100% anytime soon is a pipe-dream of Bernie-like proportions.:D

[Boreas]

Solar is only really viable where the sun shines a lot and people don't live (i.e., where you have the space for solar panel "farms"). Wind power is only viable where the wind reliably blows and people don't live or don't mind turbines in their yards or beaches. Tidal is only viable along coasts with very high tidal range and geothermal is viable in places like Iceland. Morever, generating solar power in the middle of a remote desert or wind power on a remote mountain top both require lots of new transmission lines (beyond those of the current grid).

I firmly believe in replacing as much non-renewable energy as is practical/possible in an industrialized economy. To think that we'll get to 100% anytime soon is a pipe-dream of Bernie-like proportions.:D

Did I say that? Getting there as quickly as possible isn't the same as "any time soon" but it should be the goal and the first thing to go should be nukes. And is it better to charge your Tesla with 100% "dirty" electrons or even 80% "dirty" electrons?

[nailer]

And since I never said any of that, I'm right.:cool:

And you bring up another area where nuclear sucks. Decommissioning old nukes is a real can of worms.

I just happen to be an SME on that subject. :cool: They do it in Bremerton and during a visit I was provided a detailed tour of the Ticonderoga class cruiser being deconstructed.

FWIW you are dead on target regarding nuclear waste in this country.

[Rajoo]

At the risk of repeating myself,

Your argument reminds me of criticism of the Green Party in Germany back about 35 years back. Roughly translated, it was that the Greens believed that their electricity came directly from the power receptacle (i.e., it was spontaneously generated in a pure fashion magically at the plug).

How exactly is it that the electricity used to charge electric car batteries is inherently non-polluting and renewable? Do they direct electrons only with a renewable energy provenance to charging stations (while directing dirty electrons to the homes of the unworthy?)

Moreover, the overall energy efficiency of a real gas-sipper (e.g., a gas-powered Honda Civic) and a full electric Nissan Volt is nearly identical (which makes perfect sense in terms of conservation of energy). The real difference is that electric vehicles have no emissions at the point of use, but have emissions at the point of power generation.

https://www.masterresource.org/electric-vehicles/energy-usage-cost-gasoline-vs-electric/

I challenge you this assertion. Energy generation in power plants is a heck of a lot more efficient than automobiles since heat generated in automotive engines goes out through the tail pipe and the radiator. Waste heat generated in power plants is sequentially trapped and used elsewhere. They don't simply go up the smoke-stack nor is an internal combustion engine designed to develop heat. So those are two strikes against an internal combustion engine.

So to claim that energy conversion in a electric car vs. internal combustion engines are the same is ludicrous.

[nailer]

The Japanese auto industry has put a lot into improving the efficiency of the much beloved ICE. As an automobile engine an ICE is not being designed to generate heat, in fact it could be said that high efficiency designs are designed to minimize heat generation. Wouldn't this lessen the impact of strike two.

On the other hand, stee-rike one was 100+ mph heat. :)

[Rajoo]

The Japanese auto industry has put a lot into improving the efficiency of the much beloved ICE. As an automobile engine an ICE is not being designed to generate heat, in fact it could be said that high efficiency designs are designed to minimize heat generation. Wouldn't this lessen the impact of strike two.

On the other hand, stee-rike one was 100+ mph heat. :)

Point I was making is that the ICE engine was developed to provide rotational torque to power automobiles. It's a four stroke engine with one power stroke, the other strokes are essential to complete the cycle but not exactly designed for power generation. For power generation, a boiler is used, a giant heating tank where coal or oil is used to fire the boiler. Energy needed to keep the boilers going can and is optimized so that waste heat is minimal. Waste heat can also be effectively trapped.

How many strikes is that, one or two? :)

[Boreas]

Point I was making is that the ICE engine was developed to provide rotational torque to power automobiles. It's a four stroke engine with one power stroke, the other strokes are essential to complete the cycle but not exactly designed for power generation. For power generation, a boiler is used, a giant heating tank where coal or oil is used to fire the boiler. Energy needed to keep the boilers going can and is optimized so that waste heat is minimal. Waste heat can also be effectively trapped.

How many strikes is that, one or two? :)

Felix Wankel would have something to say about that.

[nailer]

Point I was making is that the ICE engine was developed to provide rotational torque to power automobiles. It's a four stroke engine with one power stroke, the other strokes are essential to complete the cycle but not exactly designed for power generation. For power generation, a boiler is used, a giant heating tank where coal or oil is used to fire the boiler. Energy needed to keep the boilers going can and is optimized so that waste heat is minimal. Waste heat can also be effectively trapped.

How many strikes is that, one or two? :)

More like a mound conversation. ;)

[nailer]

Felix Wankel would have something to say about that.

I still dream of a two rotor Miata.

[Rajoo]

Felix Wankel would have something to say about that.

I do stand corrected since the Wenkel engine is direct rotary. But the internal combustion engine principle still holds in terms of energy conversion.

[Rajoo]

I still dream of a two rotor Miata.

I dream of the chicks that drive them instead. :D

[finnbow]

I challenge you this assertion. Energy generation in power plants is a heck of a lot more efficient than automobiles since heat generated in automotive engines goes out through the tail pipe and the radiator. Waste heat generated in power plants is sequentially trapped and used elsewhere. They don't simply go up the smoke-stack nor is an internal combustion engine designed to develop heat. So those are two strikes against an internal combustion engine.

So to claim that energy conversion in a electric car vs. internal combustion engines are the same is ludicrous.

I didn't claim it. The cited article did. From original energy source to ultimate kW/mile on the road, it makes sense when one considers the conservation of energy. Different steps along the way will be more or less efficient (or environmentally friendly) for each type of vehicle, but in the end, energy expended is energy expended.

[Pio1980]

Central large scale energy production could favor electric vehicles for running cost. Aside from battery replacement, maintainance costs should be lower.
The great thing about electrical power is it's "fungeable" energy conversion.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Rajoo]

I didn't claim it. The cited article did. From original energy source to ultimate kW/mile on the road, it makes sense when one considers the conservation of energy. Different steps along the way will be more or less efficient (or environmentally friendly) for each type of vehicle, but in the end, energy expended is energy expended.

If the article says so, it must be true. :rolleyes:
But the assertion is still incorrect. One needs to consider the energy conversion rate for automobiles vs. conversion rates for electric plants. Energy conversion and chemical reaction kinetics including internal combustion is part of my education.

[sheltiedave]

With a continuously expanding world population, the only significant source of transportable, high density, distribution network friendly, base power capable energy is nuclear. Breeder reactors actually create more fuel than they use, by a 20 fold factor.

I have worked in the energy field my entire life, between fossil and nuclear. If we had an equal playing field for regs, nuclear plants would be highly cost competitive.

The best part about nuclear is it would not take much for the US to generate 80% of our power from nuke. Self sufficiency is a great goal for our power needs.

The cleanup "problems" are situations that have arisen out of a lack of political control, not lack of engineering knowledge or ability to control the nuclear genie.
I have worked at three DOE national labs, WIPP, a nuclear fuel plant, a uranium mine, a refinery, five nuke cleanup sites, and other hazwaste sites. Nuclear garbage is amongst the easier to collect, segregate, and prepare for internment.

[nailer]

... If we had an equal playing field for regs, nuclear plants would be highly cost competitive...

TMI hysteria put a permanent tilt to this playing field.

[Pio1980]

What about the CANDU reactor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor?wprov=sfla1

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[sheltiedave]

Having personally gone through the Navy nuclear training program that Rickover created, and having trained personnel at a commercial plant, they are two entirely different animals. The TMI incident was a very interesting anomaly that commercial plants had never trained for. The same thing happened a couple years before TMI at Davis Besse, but a senior reactor control room supervisor could capably think outside the box, correctly diagnosed the situation, and implemented the correct corrective action course in a timely fashion.

In Rickover's Navy program, operators spent six months learning about the reactors in a classroom situation, and then spent another six months playing with a real one in a land based prototype sandbox, where we were taught all about the box, how to keep things in play inside the box, and how to react when things headed outside the box.

Even with a catastrophic core breach at TMI, about 53% of the core turned into an elephant's foot, and operators refusing to believe and then incapable of understanding or controlling an ongoing core breach, there was no solid core material that breached the primary vessel containment, and only minor venting of fission product gases to atmosphere.

The French plant with the reactor vessel QA problem, and the San Onofre plant in CA that was most recently retired because of incredibly faulty QA on their replacement steam generators, are examples of outside vendors that criminally manufactured defective plant systems and then criminally sought to hide their fraud at acceptance inspection and operational testing.

[JJIII]

What about the CANDU reactor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor?wprov=sfla1

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I asked basically the same question in post #2 and got crickets.

Rob seemed to know something about them. I wish he would chime in.

[Pio1980]

I asked basically the same question in post #2 and got crickets.

Rob seemed to know something about them. I wish he would chime in.

Likewise.
I thought I'd posted the followup reminder on CANDU earlier, but apparently, it didn't 'stick'.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[finnbow]

I kinda answered in my response citing small modular reactors. That's the direction the industry seems to be going.

[JJIII]

I kinda answered in my response citing small modular reactors. That's the direction the industry seems to be going.

That was interesting. I had no idea such things existed.

[sheltiedave]

The CANDU reactors' major advantage is use of the slightly enriched natural uranium at 1.2% to 1.5%.

Refueling is also much easier, as they can be refueling individually on the fly, and once every five to eight years for a bank 30% refueling outage. CANDUs are a modified breeder heavy water reactor.

The Wikapedia blurb is pretty spot on for the generic description.

[merrylander]

Actually the CANDU could probably burn a lot of the 'spent' fuel from high pressure reactors. Last I heard India was planning on converting their CANDU to use Thorium as a fuel.

The other factor is it's safety record., the control rods are held up by electro-magnets. Had the Fukushima reactors been CANDUs when the power failed all the control rods would have dropped and shut down the reactor.

[JJIII]

Good to see you back. Rob.

[flacaltenn]

A distinction without a difference, IMO. In any event, some of the waste stored at Hanford is waste from commercial reactors that was destined for Yucca Mtn.

Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge and others are a complete consequence of the Weapons Programs. They are the most serious overlooked enviro disaster in this country for the past 40 years. They continue to BURY bulldozers in place because after a few months of service -- they are too radioactive to operate.

And if you actually READ that link to the NewYork nuclear plant -- their "major problems" were birds shitting on the powerlines and transformers busting OUTSIDE the reactors. The tritium leak was a one time incident and tritium has a very short half-life. Much shorter than the INFINTITE half-life of the pollutants that came spilling out of those busted transformers.

There is no other reliable 24/7/365 power source that is CO2 free, and can power your home for a year with only 0.7 ounces of waste. That's an amount that we ought to be able to handle. About equiv to a AA battery. Especially if you are a fan of putting 400 lbs of limited life batteries on wheels without a real plan for end of life recycling.

Nuclear is the RIGHT NOW solution for those suffering from GWarming hysteria. Even top Ecologists now are speaking out to use more of it. And for gosh sakes to rebuild the 40 or so seriously aged plants that are still percolating out there supplying over 20% of our electricity..

[merrylander]

Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge and others are a complete consequence of the Weapons Programs. They are the most serious overlooked enviro disaster in this country for the past 40 years. They continue to BURY bulldozers in place because after a few months of service -- they are too radioactive to operate.


Look up this document MLM-MU-77-66-0001.pdf it is now declassified and tells (most) of the radioactivity they left in the Mound Lab at Miamisburg, Ohio. This was where my late wife worked testing detonators for the A-bombs. It is also where they gave her the ovarian cancer that eventually killed her. This was because OSHA had not come up with "best practices" for handling radioactive materials and the contractors, in this case Monsanto, were so bloody careless as to be criminal.

The part they never tell you about is the several floors of the T building that were underground. From all the documents available you are led to believe that building only had two floors. BS

[merrylander]

Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge and others are a complete consequence of the Weapons Programs. They are the most serious overlooked enviro disaster in this country for the past 40 years. They continue to BURY bulldozers in place because after a few months of service -- they are too radioactive to operate.


Look up this document MLM-MU-77-66-0001.pdf it is now declassified and tells (most) of the radioactivity they left in the Mound Lab at Miamisburg, Ohio. This was where my late wife worked testing detonators for the A-bombs. It is also where they gave her the ovarian cancer that eventually killed her. This was because OSHA had not come up with "best practices" for handling radioactive materials and the contractors, in this case Monsanto, were so bloody careless as to be criminal.

Even after OSHA did publish guidelines it was like setting a speed limit but having no highway patrol. Karen Silkwood died well after the guidelines came out. DOE finally sent me all Florence's work records, well at least all the ones that had not been lost. I can point to another document where they wrote;;

3. Records Management
3.1 Finding aids may be insufficient to support the
identification and retrieval of records in the
future that may be required to support postclosure
activities.
High Initiate a cooperative effort between
LM and EM to identify/document
existing finding aids. Determination of
mitigation actions required will be
borne out by assessment.
3.2 EM may not inventory, archive, or disposition
all of its records prior to transfer of the site
because of lack of knowledgeable personnel,
resources, etc.
Medium Determine resources required to
disposition records in accordance with
NARA guidance prior to transfer of
the site.
4. Information Management
4.1 There may be delays in the transfer (or
insufficient transfer) of relational databases
(e.g., MEIMS) deemed critical for post-closure
because of lack of knowledgeable personnel,
resources, etc.

Upon reading the document I pointed at above, one scientist commented;

“Yes I said Monsanto... owner of the dirtiest, most unsafe nuclear research facility on Earth. A while back someone sent me a single document... declassified with all the appropriate marks... it was quite an eye opener. First I had never heard of this lab before... slipped under my radar and it was supposed to be closed... a real environmental mess”

[sheltiedave]

Merrylander, we pray for you every week and are very, very sorry that you lost your soulmate. The conditions that so many of these workers operated and worked under were deplorable by modern standards, yet the US government in its secretive zeal and desire to minimize settlements, for years denied and hid the very environments they had government contract workers exposed to every day.

I have three friends in the industry that worked at Mound on the cleanup, one or two who probably worked the very areas your wife worked. For anyone who doubts, the risks and dangers were real, and very pervasive and deadly to many over the years.

As far as the various nuke plant tritium leaks, they are numerous and widespread at this time, as most plants for a number of years were monitoring for cobalt60 and isotopes other than tritium, which is quite low on the relative risk level.

[Pio1980]

Private profit, public liability. Wot a country!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[BlueStreak]

Oh, GAWD!

I can here the Trump fans now;

"Save our Nukular! Save our Nukular! Save our Nukular! We Want our Nukular back!"

Oy, Oy, Oy...............

[merrylander]

Merrylander, we pray for you every week and are very, very sorry that you lost your soulmate. The conditions that so many of these workers operated and worked under were deplorable by modern standards, yet the US government in its secretive zeal and desire to minimize settlements, for years denied and hid the very environments they had government contract workers exposed to every day.

I have three friends in the industry that worked at Mound on the cleanup, one or two who probably worked the very areas your wife worked. For anyone who doubts, the risks and dangers were real, and very pervasive and deadly to many over the years.

As far as the various nuke plant tritium leaks, they are numerous and widespread at this time, as most plants for a number of years were monitoring for cobalt60 and isotopes other than tritium, which is quite low on the relative risk level.

Thank You, yes Florence worked in the underground levels of the T Building that the records say do not exist. Her gynecologist compounded the death sentence when after removing a 19cm x 17cm x 12cm 2200 gram collection of cysts from her and doing a radical hysterectomy he did not take the advice of two pathologists and perform further tests. So the cancer cells remained dormant until a trauma reactivated them. Then the hospitals were not much help. I would not send my worst enemy to Medstar Montgomery and would hesitate to send my cats to Howard County General. I should have taken her to Canada.

The detonators she tested were loaded with tritium and it was also kept in the T Building in its gaseous form. They allowed materials and staff to ride in the same elevator yet despite what happened to those Japanese fishermen on the Lucky Dragon (Fukuryu Maru) they still were very cavalier about the effects of radiation. Still waiting for a decision by the Dept of Labor as to her qualifying for remediation under EEOICP.. They admit that she never wore film badges or dosimeters in the four years she was there, but some young smartass at NIOSH has done a dose reconstruction, what I would call a SWAG. SWAG = Scientific Wild Ass Guess.

Oddly enough someone submitted her name to a group called the Cold War Patriots who sent me a certificate stating that she is a Founding Member. What really upsets me is that she and the young women she worked with gave their lives for this country but get no recognition. When I think back on it it was mostly young women who did this work, misogyny at work?

[noonereal]

Thank You, yes Florence worked in the underground levels of the T Building that the records say do not exist. Her gynecologist compounded the death sentence when after removing a 19cm x 17cm x 12cm 2200 gram collection of cysts from her and doing a radical hysterectomy he did not take the advice of two pathologists and perform further tests. So the cancer cells remained dormant until a trauma reactivated them. Then the hospitals were not much help. I would not send my worst enemy to Medstar Montgomery and would hesitate to send my cats to Howard County General. I should have taken her to Canada.

The detonators she tested were loaded with tritium and it was also kept in the T Building in its gaseous form. They allowed materials and staff to ride in the same elevator yet despite what happened to those Japanese fishermen on the Lucky Dragon (Forget the Japanese name) they still were very cavalier about the effects of radiation. Still waiting for a decision by the Dept of Labor as to her qualifying for remediation under EEOICP.. They admit that she never wore film badges or dosimeters in the four years she was there, but some young smartass at NIOSH has done a dose reconstruction, what I would call a SWAG.

Oddly enough someone submitted her name to a group called the Cold War Patriots who sent me a certificate stating that she is a Founding Member. Whhat really upsets me is that she and the young women she worked with gave their lives for this country but get no recognition. When I think back on it it was mostly young women who did this work, misogyny at work?

powerful post

much respect

[merrylander]

I wonder just how many of these women will be honored on Memorial Day, how many will even be remembered? They gave their lives for this country as surely as if they had been shot on the front lines - and that would have been a kinder death.

Over the course of three months I watched her die, helpless to do anything. She started out at 5'-2" and 130 pounds and was 4'-10" and less than 105 pounds at her death.

It was only by Divine Providence that I was by her side when she passed into the light.

[merrylander]

This is only the part of the documentation on the Mound Lab that I have printed out, there is much more on my hard drive. The influence that Monsanto had/has is shown in that some documents had only one revision - that was to remove any mention of Monsanto. I see in the Wash Post that Bayer AG is trying to buy Monsanto.

[merrylander]

Today would have been her 81st birthday - damn them

[modge]

[QUOTE=merrylander;315613]I wonder just how many of these women will be honored on Memorial Day, how many will even be remembered?

I would say none. Just buried in the past and forgotten has usual.

[sheltiedave]

Modge, unless you have worked in the military, the nuke weapons complex, or the national labs, I would politely ask you to can it. You have no idea how we honor those who have gone before us, and those who have fallen. Your very comment shows your callow disregard.

Rob, we hold your wife in the highest regard, we honor her service, and we hope your shared love can see you through the dark days. God bless.

[merrylander]

Dave I know that you do but not the government. They deny that they were the cause of her death although I will get a hearing before their Adjudication Panel sometime in the next few months. I know damn well that it was that lab that gave her the cancer. They tested her three times for Polonium210 - the stuff Putin had his boys use to kill that Russian in London.. they said the results were negative but a team of scientists investigating deaths at the Mound claim that their Bioassay method was flawed. She never wore film badges or dosimeters as according to Monsanto she would not be exposed to radioactive materials in her job, never mind all the dangerous chemicals around that place.

It is not the money, this country does not have enough money to replace her, I just want them to admit they killed her.

[modge]

Modge, unless you have worked in the military, the nuke weapons complex, or the national labs, I would politely ask you to can it. You have no idea how we honor those who have gone before us, and those who have fallen. Your very comment shows your callow disregard.

Rob, we hold your wife in the highest regard, we honor her service, and we hope your shared love can see you through the dark days. God bless.

OK, show me when the deaths from the nuclear labs are recognised. Gone before us, fallen in the nuclear industry? The rest I never mentioned. Did I? Callow disregard for the men and women who have died for their country. You have know idea about me, nor do I wish you to know. Its argent self centered remarks like this that makes people cringe.

[sheltiedave]

Nukeworker.com
Roadtechs.com
Radsafe.com
Journal of concerned atomic scientists
All professional health physics and radiation safety society publications
Numerous private blogs on the web

Please make your next demand harder, Midge. I work in the industry, and we are a tight bunch who have a very healthy respect for those who work with us, and our fallen. That includes working at three national labs, two FUSRAP sites, three DOE sites, four uranium fuel cycle facilities, two mines, one repository, nuclear military,and a partridge in the pear tree.

I know firsthand what I claim to be true.

There are two fallen threads on the first page at Nukeworker right now.

Trying to start a tempest is silly.

[merrylander]

This is the only remembrance that I know of - no idea who told them she had died.

[sheltiedave]

Here is a background about the T building...

http://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories/mound-laboratory-panel-discussion

[modge]

Nukeworker.com
Roadtechs.com
Radsafe.com
Journal of concerned atomic scientists
All professional health physics and radiation safety society publications
Numerous private blogs on the web

Please make your next demand harder, Midge. I work in the industry, and we are a tight bunch who have a very healthy respect for those who work with us, and our fallen. That includes working at three national labs, two FUSRAP sites, three DOE sites, four uranium fuel cycle facilities, two mines, one repository, nuclear military,and a partridge in the pear tree.

I know firsthand what I claim to be true.

There are two fallen threads on the first page at Nukeworker right now.

Trying to start a tempest is silly.

The above proves nothing kid.

[modge]

There are two fallen threads on the first page at Nukeworker right now.

And show those interested here what they say perhaps?

[sheltiedave]

Modge, you can do your own looking. This is the modern internet, where you point and click if you are interested.

I am not interested in a tussle with someone who won't do an iota of work, or research.

[modge]

So lets go back to what I said to begin with. The nuclear industry telling the general public about deaths caused by working in labs and nuclear plants. I don't think so. The next time I meet my cousin I will ask him about cover ups. He will tell me If he knows anything, he would trust me with his life and knows that what he tells me it doesn't go any further.. A doctor of physics at 22. Keble college Oxford. I last spoke to him several months ago. He told me at the moment he was overseeing the decommissioning of nuclear plants. Have any contact here? tell them about a conversation on the web. And has many knows the internet is not magical. Everything is not on the web. Also forget what he had to sign when he took up the job. Cover ups of course there's cover ups. So you believe what you like. I don't give a monkeys. But I will be told what he knows.

[merrylander]

Here is a background about the T building...

http://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories/mound-laboratory-panel-discussion

I have that one in my files on the Mound and as far as I am concerned that was a PR attempt by the people in charge to deny that anyone ever suffered radiation poisoning at the Mound. Yet the Dayton newspapers had many stories of people who lived near the site dying of cancer when there was no record of cancer in their families. Tritium, one of the things used in detonators at the time, exists as a gas and it was released accidentally more than once.

I have shown the NIOSH work to an advisor who has worked on many of the cases from Mound workers. His comment on reading the Dose Reconstruction document was that its author deserves the Nobel prize for Fiction. AFAIK the Dept of Labor EEOIC group 's sole function is to deny all claims, should be renamed EEOID.

I have read just about every document available on the T building. If II was to believe them that building only ever had two floors. They never talk about all the floors that were deep underground. The lab opposite the one where my Florence worked became so contaminated they sealed it, but the damage had already been done.

The decontamination and decommissioning of that site has just about doubled the first cost estimate. Documentation is missing because according to the stories they became contaminated and were sent to Los Alamos for burial.

[Oerets]

Any sane intelligent person when looking at Nuclear see the dangers now. Going back to Curie the dangers were known. They lie and cover up to further their own interests, financial or personal. Same is still in practice today in just the use of nuclear and Xrays in the health industry. The use of fossil fuels and on and on, the weighting of benefits over suffering by the numbers on a chart with little thought to a person or persons being that number.


Barney

[sheltiedave]

Barney, you do realize that the coal ash contains greater amounts of dispersible radioactive material than nuclear plants generate, don't you?

[Pio1980]

We already know the pitfalls of the present system approaches already in service re nondisposable residue and system failures.
Let's inject some "safe" plausible nuclear power proposals into the discussion, anyone?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[sheltiedave]

Pop, there is no perfect safe nuclear reactor design, and the liquid salt reactors, pebble bed reactors, and smaller inert gas cooled reactors all have an Achilles heel as well.

Our national electrical power grid is designed and engineered to supply power utilizing large, high density, constant power utility plants, and nuclear is the best in this regard.
Over the years, the NRC has succeeded in creating layer after layer of regulations so taxing that meeting all the regs represents over 70% of new plant costs, and close to 50% of operating costs.

There is all kinds of information about incidents, and bad plants. The real bad ones are legendary... The sticking pressure relief valve and lack of operator recognition that caused the TMI core meltdown. The same plant behavior at Davis Besse about 18 months prior had no incident because the operators, without totally recognizing the situation or root cause, still implemented the correct immediate action. The time the control room at Clinton plant in Illinois played "scram Sam", and reset the scram breaker in a controlled area by reaching into the area with a broomstick. The five year period where Millstone I and II did an emergency refuel every maintenance cycle, exceeding the allowed heat storage capacity of their spent fuel pools. Davis Bessie having a boron corroded reactor vessel head crdm steel layer less than 3/64" thick, not the as built 2" thickness. The coke can left in the bottom of the Detroit Fermi plant during construction, which caused a fuel channel failure when the plant was started up.

All these are quite well documented, in the public domain, and are available to read at the NRC.gov librar

[merrylander]

The Canadian Heavy Water CANDU reactor would never have the problems they had in Japan because when the power fails the control rods drop, shutting down the reactor Also it does not need to be shut down to re-fuel it India is planning (if they have not done it already) to run thr one they bought on Thorium.

That said all those labs built during the cold war were not power stations although Mound did design and build small power plants for satellites.

[merrylander]

Any sane intelligent person when looking at Nuclear see the dangers now. Going back to Curie the dangers were known. They lie and cover up to further their own interests, financial or personal. Same is still in practice today in just the use of nuclear and Xrays in the health industry. The use of fossil fuels and on and on, the weighting of benefits over suffering by the numbers on a chart with little thought to a person or persons being that number.


Barney

Barney they had the evidence of those Japanese fishermen on the Lucky Dragon who all took sick from the fallout of a nuclear test. It was not that they did not know, they just did not give a damn if some young women died.

[Boreas]

Barney, you do realize that the coal ash contains greater amounts of dispersible radioactive material than nuclear plants generate, don't you?

This issue is far from clear cut but it's true that nuclear waste and coal fly ash are both highly radioactive and both present inherent health risks which are insupportable? That's why we need to get rid of both.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

[finnbow]

This issue is far from clear cut bit it's true that nuclear waste and coal fly ash are both highly radioactive and both present inherent health risks which are insupportable? That's why we need to get rid of both.

Yep, we need to rid ourselves of over 50% of our generation capacity tout de suite.;)

[Boreas]

Yep, we need to rid ourselves of over 50% of our generation capacity tout de suite.;)

Do you reject the idea that we need to get rid of them at all?

[sheltiedave]

Hook your house up to solar, wind, or spend $20k for the solid geothermal heat/cool cycle that actually works. Just don't get the batteries you need for the solar because lead, cadmium, and lithium are as bad for the environment as anything.

We need to develop a base of 50% of our base power from nuclear , with effective regulations, and go from there. We have to be masters of our energy future, and this platform is readily attainable in a decade. As Rob pointed out, the Candus are a fairly effective platform with natural fuel.

[noonereal]

Hook your house up to solar, wind, or spend $20k for the solid geothermal heat/cool cycle that actually works. Just don't get the batteries you need for the solar because lead, cadmium, and lithium are as bad for the environment as anything.

We need to develop a base of 50% of our base power from nuclear , with effective regulations, and go from there. We have to be masters of our energy future, and this platform is readily attainable in a decade. As Rob pointed out, the Candus are a fairly effective platform with natural fuel.

town told me no to wind

You need two acres of empty land to get an OK....:(

[sheltiedave]

The fact is all energy consumption has major health and environmental consequences. We need to be open and truthful, which has not been the case for the past century.

[Boreas]

Hook your house up to solar, wind, or spend $20k for the solid geothermal heat/cool cycle that actually works. Just don't get the batteries you need for the solar because lead, cadmium, and lithium are as bad for the environment as anything.

We need to develop a base of 50% of our base power from nuclear , with effective regulations, and go from there. We have to be masters of our energy future, and this platform is readily attainable in a decade. As Rob pointed out, the Candus are a fairly effective platform with natural fuel.

There is no safe way to operate a nuke and no way to safely store the waste. You will disagree but history proves my point.

[Boreas]

The fact is all energy consumption has major health and environmental consequences. We need to be open and truthful, which has not been the case for the past century.

Nothing approaches the risks inherent in nuclear. From waste disposal to accident to decommissioned nukes, nuclear power presents unacceptable long-term health and environmental risks.

[Oerets]

We know the dangers and the solutions, just don't want to pay the costs. With the systems in use now the actual costs are hidden or passed along to the next generations. The human species as a whole have always been one who used up then moved on to the next unspoiled place. With environmental genocide ever increasing and no new planet in sight. Some tough times and decisions are ahead.

Yes the industries know full well what they are doing with little fear of recourse. Just be glad there some regulations, think how bad it would be without them.

Rob, keep up the good fight. You are not only trying to get some justice for Florence but also for those still suffering today and tomorrow.

Barney

[finnbow]

Do you reject the idea that we need to get rid of them at all?

As I think I've said before on this board, your stance reminds me of a joke that was made about the German Green Party when they were getting started in the early '80's. Roughly translated it said "The Greens get their electrical power directly from the wall receptacle," as if to say that their self-righteousness alone somehow ensured that their power was spontaneously and cleanly generated at the receptacle.

[merrylander]

As I think I've said before on this board, your stance reminds me of a joke that was made about the German Green Party when they were getting started in the early '80's. Roughly translated it said "The Greens get their electrical power directly from the wall receptacle," as if to say that their self-righteousness alone somehow ensured that their power was spontaneously and cleanly generated at the receptacle.

Now that the Germans say they will terminate all Nuke stations since Fukushima they are going to buy a lot of natural gas from Putin, or need a heck of a lot of coal.

[Boreas]

As I think I've said before on this board, your stance reminds me of a joke that was made about the German Green Party when they were getting started in the early '80's. Roughly translated it said "The Greens get their electrical power directly from the wall receptacle," as if to say that their self-righteousness alone somehow ensured that their power was spontaneously and cleanly generated at the receptacle.

No, I don't recall your saying that before but the superciliousness and dismissiveness is about what I'd expect from a retired engineer.

[sheltiedave]

Boreas do you know about the giant nuclear reactors we have safely stored at Oklo, west Gabon for over 300 million years?

[Boreas]

Boreas do you know about the giant nuclear reactors we have safely stored at Oklo, west Gabon for over 300 million years?


What do you see as the implications of this phenomenon?

[sheltiedave]

There are no implications.

[Boreas]

There are no implications.

Then I'm at a loss to understand why you brought it up.

[finnbow]

No, I don't recall your saying that before but the superciliousness and dismissiveness is about what I'd expect from a retired engineer.

You're welcome.:cool:

[sheltiedave]

I brought it up because they provide facts about storage of the most highly toxic radwastes in ceramic matrixes. Implications are guesses and conjectures.

[modge]

So lets go back to what I said to begin with. The nuclear industry telling the general public about deaths caused by working in labs and nuclear plants. I don't think so. The next time I meet my cousin I will ask him about cover ups. He will tell me If he knows anything, he would trust me with his life and knows that what he tells me it doesn't go any further.. A doctor of physics at 22. Keble college Oxford. I last spoke to him several months ago. He told me at the moment he was overseeing the decommissioning of nuclear plants. Have any contact here? tell them about a conversation on the web. And has many knows the internet is not magical. Everything is not on the web. Also forget what he had to sign when he took up the job. Cover ups of course there's cover ups. So you believe what you like. I don't give a monkeys. But I will be told what he knows.

So its been past over ffs LOL another load of asswipes.

[Boreas]

Leaking for 4 years.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/08/minor_radiation_leak_at_fitzpatrick_nuclear_plant_ has_gone_unfixed_for_4_years.html

[Wasillaguy]

Wow. Someone has a synapse structure resembling the telephone lines in a large Guatemalan city.

[sheltiedave]

Sorry, Wasilla, but we ALL have the synaptic brain structure of a Guatemalan telephone system. We have redundant connections so the brain can withstand damage and still operate to a high level of function.

This will get the electrons flowing, if you are so inclined.

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/7227488

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf

[Wasillaguy]

Sorry, Wasilla, but we ALL have the synaptic brain structure of a Guatemalan telephone system. We have redundant connections so the brain can withstand damage and still operate to a high level of function.

This will get the electrons flowing, if you are so inclined.

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/7227488

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf

Guatemala has a system of redundant phone lines?
I was talking about Modge, but if you insist on throwing yourself in the mix I won't stop you.

[sheltiedave]

I'm not insisting, but my wife and many friends work in the spinal rehab unit at the VA. I end up seeing, hearing, and reading about these phone systems of the brain quite a bit, and found your comment very apropos of how the brain is wired, and then tries to get rewired when injured.

Modge might due a little better at Building 53 at the St. Louis VA, rather than Building 52. :-)

[merrylander]

Do you reject the idea that we need to get rid of them at all?

I would love to get rid of the coal burning plants west of me in Ohio. Then my well water would not be so acid. But we have already spent the money for a neutralizer.

Why is this NIH factor so strong? The CANDUs have had no real accidents, they could probably burn the spent fuel we have stored all around the country because they do not need enriched uranium.

I might as well join this discussion since the thread has been so nicely sidetracked.:rolleyes:

[sheltiedave]

Rob, the CANDU 3+ does need 1% to 2% enriched, and is my favorite version of the CANDUs. It has a higher negative void space reactivity, uses only about 20% of the deuterium required for the earlier plants, has higher power output capacity(1200Mw a plant) and would allow us to mix natural and recovered used fuel or MOX. It also has a higher fuel burn rate, and conversely, a lower high rad level after defueling. The cherry on the top is it can be refueled while operating, a concept unheard of with the GE and Westinghouse PWR/BWR reactors stateside. That is a win/win/win/win situation.

[Wasillaguy]

Rob, the CANDU 3+ does need 1% to 2% enriched, and is my favorite version of the CANDUs. It has a higher negative void space reactivity, uses only about 20% of the deuterium required for the earlier plants, has higher power output capacity(1200Mw a plant) and would allow us to mix natural and recovered used fuel or MOX. It also has a higher fuel burn rate, and conversely, a lower high rad level after defueling. The cherry on the top is it can be refueled while operating, a concept unheard of with the GE and Westinghouse PWR/BWR reactors stateside. That is a win/win/win/win situation.

Possibly the most impressive feature is the name. It would have been unfortunate indeed had the acronym contained a "t" word in the wrong position.
Nobody wants a CANTDU 3+.
That would be a win/win/win/win/lose.

[merrylander]

Possibly the most impressive feature is the name. It would have been unfortunate indeed had the acronym contained a "t" word in the wrong position.
Nobody wants a CANTDU 3+.
That would be a win/win/win/win/lose.

Since the name was derived from the CANDU (short for CANada Deuterium Uranium) that would have been highly unlikely.:p

Meanwhile I am still having to deal with a collection of mental midgets at DoL. All save one whose name I won't mention or they would likely be fired for being competent.

[sheltiedave]

Rob, I am certain you know about this program because you are going through the process, but for any others who are stumbling around looking for help getting an occupational disease claim started, this is a good port to use.

Please note, once you have filed a claim, your medical costs from that day forward are covered if you succeed. You will still be liable for all medical costs before filing, so jump on this matter as quickly as possible if you need it.

https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=40866.0

[nailer]

What do you see as the implications of this phenomenon?

Dinosaurs had nuclear power?

[merrylander]

Rob, I am certain you know about this program because you are going through the process, but for any others who are stumbling around looking for help getting an occupational disease claim started, this is a good port to use.

Please note, once you have filed a claim, your medical costs from that day forward are covered if you succeed. You will still be liable for all medical costs before filing, so jump on this matter as quickly as possible if you need it.

https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=40866.0

Dave the only reason I know about this program is through personal digging on the Internet. DoE used to phone quite regularly - to see if she was still alive I imagine. They never ever mentioned WHPP although they might have pursued the pathologists request - which her own doctor ignored. Their last phone call was just before the EEOICP Act was passed so there was no dereliction of duty there.

It is my considered opinion after all my research that anyone who got cancer that lived withing a two mile radius of Mound should be compensated.

[Boreas]

Dinosaurs had nuclear power?

That's what I thought.

[sheltiedave]

Mars had a nuclear power plant as well.

[Boreas]

Mars had a nuclear power plant as well.

Fueled by an endless supply of Twix bars.

[sheltiedave]

Nope, uranium in all likelihood.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1097.pdf

[Boreas]

Nope, uranium in all likelihood.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1097.pdf

Oh, that Mars!

[merrylander]

Ha! The lady who was to hear my appeal has instead found in our favor and remanded our case back to the original group.

[sheltiedave]

Thanks for this news, Rob. We pray that you can gain comfort from this decision in your struggle for a truthful review.

Dave

[merrylander]

Thanks Dave I have to phone later and see where we go from here but the lady who was to hold the hearing went over her case and said that she did qualify under Part E and that the dose reconstruction and final review were unnecessary.

[donquixote99]

Very good! Sounds like 'remanded with a directed verdict.'

'Dose reconstruction?' Obviously, a term of bureaucratic art that means 'make something up.'

[merrylander]

Very good! Sounds like 'remanded with a directed verdict.'

'Dose reconstruction?' Obviously, a term of bureaucratic art that means 'make something up.'

DQ it reads to me like it was a directed verdict. Dose reconstruction is what we in the computer business call a SWAG. Monsanto decided that my Florence would never be exposed to radiation and so she never wore film badges or dosimeters, but they would check her with a radiation meter-just before she changed out of her lab clothes and into her street clothes. She registed hot four times.

I am very glad the hearing was called off because it was scheduled for Oct 26th at 11:00 AM 2016. Florence died Oct 26th at 11:30 AM 2015 and I was there.. I would have gone but it would have torn me apart.

[merrylander]

First the examiner takes two weeks to respond by snail mail. Then he goes on vacation. I guess his nose is so far out of joint that he will delay anyway he can. Maybe by Christmas?