Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [All-E] Re: Alert over flying ice at wind farms

Expand Messages
  • esbuck@aol.com
    In a message dated 6/3/2006 7:38:41 P.M. Central Standard Time, oil_free_and_happy@comcast.net writes: Picture a major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption.
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 3, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 6/3/2006 7:38:41 P.M. Central Standard Time, oil_free_and_happy@... writes:
      Picture a major, major
      earthquake or volcanic eruption.  There isn't anything going to
      contain this material.  Tons and tons could be released into the
      atmosphere, waterways, and all kinds of land based vehicles,
      wildlife, etc, and it will be nearly impossible to contain. It could
      easily end life as we know it today!  Tons and tons and tons...
      Gawd, all that radioactive lava flowing over populated areas!  The ones who get covered in molten radioactive lava probably won't be worrying about their chances of radiation-induced cancer.  When the lava solidifies, the radioactive fuel is encapsulated and far from any place people are likely to linger or grow crops, at least for a few hundred years.  Compared to the gasses from the volcano, the fuel released to the atmosphere (it's not very volatile) would be not very significant.  Actually, considering the tons and tons of uranium oxide we have spread over Iraq, a mere nuclear disaster would hardly register.  I'll grant that Iraqis don't have "life as we know it", but they are not yet extinct.  Let's see now, suppose and asteroid fifty  miles in diameter hit a containment pool?
    • Jim Gagnepain
      ... be a major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain. ... You really should study your information before you make these assertions. Here s
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 4, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > Your worry is groundless. In the next 1,000 years there will not
        be a major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain.

        > John Grant.

        You really should study your information before you make these
        assertions. Here's the 1/2 lifes of some of the byproducts in spent
        nuclear fuel:

        Strontium-90 28 years
        Caesium-137 30 years
        Plutonium-239 24,000 years
        Caesium-135 2.3 million years
        Iodine-129 15.7 million years

        Here's the link, and by the way, it's pro-nuclear.
        http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheScienceOfNuclearPower
      • gumsh0e
        ... You really should study logic and logical fallacies before you make your assertions. In particular, look up Non Sequitur. The half-lives of radioactive
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 5, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Gagnepain"
          <oil_free_and_happy@...> wrote:
          >
          > > Your worry is groundless. In the next 1,000 years there will not
          > be a major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain.
          >
          > > John Grant.
          >
          > You really should study your information before you make these
          > assertions. Here's the 1/2 lifes of some of the byproducts in spent
          > nuclear fuel:
          >
          > Strontium-90 28 years
          > Caesium-137 30 years
          > Plutonium-239 24,000 years
          > Caesium-135 2.3 million years
          > Iodine-129 15.7 million years
          >
          > Here's the link, and by the way, it's pro-nuclear.
          > http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheScienceOfNuclearPower
          >

          You really should study logic and logical fallacies before you make
          your assertions. In particular, look up Non Sequitur. The half-lives
          of radioactive waste has nothing to do with the probability of an
          earthquake or volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain.

          Lenny
        • John Grant
          ... What does half life have to do with the likelyhood of earthquakes? But I will respond to your misunderstanding of half life anyway. ... Iodine-129 is
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 5, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Jim Gagnepain wrote:

            > > Your worry is groundless. In the next 1,000 years there will not
            > be a major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain.
            >
            > > John Grant.
            >
            > You really should study your information before you make these
            > assertions. Here's the 1/2 lifes of some of the byproducts in spent
            > nuclear fuel:

            What does half life have to do with the likelyhood of earthquakes?
            But I will respond to your misunderstanding of half life anyway.

            >
            >
            > Strontium-90 28 years
            > Caesium-137 30 years
            > Plutonium-239 24,000 years
            > Caesium-135 2.3 million years
            > Iodine-129 15.7 million years

            Iodine-129 is 560,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
            Caesium-135 is 82,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
            Plutonium-239 is 850 times less radioactive than Strotium-90

            In other words, you would need 560,000 atoms of Iodine-129 to be as
            radioactive as ONE atom of Strontium-90!

            You should try to understand what half life really means.
            The longer the half life the lower the radioactivity.

            John Grant
          • Jim Gagnepain
            ... I didn t make the original 1000 years statement. I was simply showing the fallacy of it. Also, I don t think it s up to anti- nuclear folks to prove
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 5, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > What does half life have to do with the likelyhood of earthquakes?
              > But I will respond to your misunderstanding of half life anyway.
              > >
              > > Strontium-90 28 years
              > > Caesium-137 30 years
              > > Plutonium-239 24,000 years
              > > Caesium-135 2.3 million years
              > > Iodine-129 15.7 million years
              >
              > Iodine-129 is 560,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
              > Caesium-135 is 82,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
              > Plutonium-239 is 850 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
              >
              > In other words, you would need 560,000 atoms of Iodine-129 to be as
              > radioactive as ONE atom of Strontium-90!
              >
              > You should try to understand what half life really means.
              > The longer the half life the lower the radioactivity.
              >
              > John Grant

              I didn't make the original "1000 years" statement. I was simply
              showing the fallacy of it. Also, I don't think it's up to anti-
              nuclear folks to prove that there is no probability of an earthquake
              or other major natural disaster. That's the responsibility of those
              who want to create and store this wonderful stuff. They need to
              prove that there is absolutely ZERO probability of a major natural
              disaster. ZERO! Did you ever see those radioactive suits that
              people in the industry. This is nasty stuff. Gamma rays penetrate
              right through the skin and mutate genes, causing leukemia and other
              cancers. These "blood cancers" are reaching epidemic proportions.
              Here's a link and a quote:

              http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?
              docid=1G1:54359964&refid=ink_tptd_mag&skeyword=&teaser=

              "Though less well-known than breast or lung cancers, specialists
              say 'blood cancers' are reaching epidemic proportions."

              Nuclear wastes have been mismanaged for many years now, and our world
              is suffering the effects. Russia has supposedly dumped nuclear waste
              directly into the Siberian sea. Radioactive Krypton levels are many
              magnitudes higher than they were during pre-nuclear days, mostly
              attributed to the French nuclear program. And let's not forget
              Chernobyl. 3-Mile Island. You ask how many people died in these
              accidents. We're still counting. And this is without a major natural
              disaster!

              And sorry, as much as you'd like to, you're not allowed to bury it in
              your backyard.
              ----
              Jim
              http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/
            • the_maniacal_engineer
              What is the half life of a proton? probably half of my entire body mass is made up of protons. Oh woe is me - not only hase my sun been nuked, but I am
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 5, 2006
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                What is the half life of a proton? probably half of my entire body
                mass is made up of protons.

                Oh woe is me - not only hase my sun been nuked, but I am radioactive
                with such a long half life that i can never go out in public again. I
                better eat a banana to calm my nerves - potassium donchaknow

                --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, John Grant <grantjoh@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > Jim Gagnepain wrote:
                >
                > > > Your worry is groundless. In the next 1,000 years there will not
                > > be a major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain.
                > >
                > > > John Grant.
                > >
                > > You really should study your information before you make these
                > > assertions. Here's the 1/2 lifes of some of the byproducts in spent
                > > nuclear fuel:
                >
                > What does half life have to do with the likelyhood of earthquakes?
                > But I will respond to your misunderstanding of half life anyway.
                >
                > >
                > >
                > > Strontium-90 28 years
                > > Caesium-137 30 years
                > > Plutonium-239 24,000 years
                > > Caesium-135 2.3 million years
                > > Iodine-129 15.7 million years
                >
                > Iodine-129 is 560,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
                > Caesium-135 is 82,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
                > Plutonium-239 is 850 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
                >
                > In other words, you would need 560,000 atoms of Iodine-129 to be as
                > radioactive as ONE atom of Strontium-90!
                >
                > You should try to understand what half life really means.
                > The longer the half life the lower the radioactivity.
                >
                > John Grant
                >
              • gumsh0e
                ... as ... earthquake ... No we don t. Nothing in nature has zero risk, so why demand it of nuclear waste? A rational person (I guess that leaves you out)
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 5, 2006
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Gagnepain"
                  <oil_free_and_happy@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > What does half life have to do with the likelyhood of earthquakes?
                  > > But I will respond to your misunderstanding of half life anyway.
                  > > >
                  > > > Strontium-90 28 years
                  > > > Caesium-137 30 years
                  > > > Plutonium-239 24,000 years
                  > > > Caesium-135 2.3 million years
                  > > > Iodine-129 15.7 million years
                  > >
                  > > Iodine-129 is 560,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
                  > > Caesium-135 is 82,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
                  > > Plutonium-239 is 850 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
                  > >
                  > > In other words, you would need 560,000 atoms of Iodine-129 to be
                  as
                  > > radioactive as ONE atom of Strontium-90!
                  > >
                  > > You should try to understand what half life really means.
                  > > The longer the half life the lower the radioactivity.
                  > >
                  > > John Grant
                  >
                  > I didn't make the original "1000 years" statement. I was simply
                  > showing the fallacy of it. Also, I don't think it's up to anti-
                  > nuclear folks to prove that there is no probability of an
                  earthquake
                  > or other major natural disaster. That's the responsibility of those
                  > who want to create and store this wonderful stuff. They need to
                  > prove that there is absolutely ZERO probability of a major natural
                  > disaster. ZERO!

                  No we don't. Nothing in nature has zero risk, so why demand it of
                  nuclear waste? A rational person (I guess that leaves you out) would
                  only demand that the probability of such disasters be calculated,
                  that the consequences of such disasters be determined and that the
                  resulting risk (risk = probability of event X consequences) be
                  understood and small compared to those people live with everyday
                  (e.g. little old ladies driving in small cars).


                  Did you ever see those radioactive suits that
                  > people in the industry.

                  I've not only seen them, I've worn them often. They aren't very
                  flattering and never fit as well as they appear to in the pictures.
                  But having to dress like a large marshmallow peep is no basis for
                  opposing nuclear power. Other than being yellow, they aren't
                  fundamentally different than the suits worn by those that work in
                  other industries like hazmat remediation or the paint booth in body
                  shops. Actually, in those jobs, you have to wear a respirator.
                  Respirators are only worn in the nuclear business for those few tasks
                  that have the potential for localized high airborne contamination
                  levels.

                  The main reason for wearing the jumpsuits is so as not to potentially
                  contaminate your "street" clothes. Everyone exiting a work area must
                  pass through an extremely sensitive portal monitor. They are
                  routinely set off by people who have had certain routine medical
                  procedures performed within the previous few days such as having
                  radioactive barium tracer injected to check for various heart
                  conditions. In fact, the monitors will go off in the event of an
                  atmospheric thermal inversion that traps the naturally occuring Radon
                  gas that seeps out of the floors and walls and keeps the gases at
                  ground level. Radon sticks to synthetic fabrics in particular.
                  Although the Radon can be made to be released by spraying Cling Free
                  on the clothes, nuclear plant workers learn early on to just wear
                  cotton.


                  This is nasty stuff. Gamma rays penetrate
                  > right through the skin and mutate genes, causing leukemia and other
                  > cancers. These "blood cancers" are reaching epidemic proportions.
                  > Here's a link and a quote:
                  >
                  > http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?
                  > docid=1G1:54359964&refid=ink_tptd_mag&skeyword=&teaser=
                  >
                  > "Though less well-known than breast or lung cancers, specialists
                  > say 'blood cancers' are reaching epidemic proportions."

                  Somebody needs to learn about TinyUrl. Anyway, the article doesn't
                  say radiation was the cause of the "epidemic." It only mentions King
                  Hussein of Jordan dying from non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. But he lived
                  hundreds of miles from any nuclear plant. Studies have shown nuclear
                  plant workers are healthie as a group than the general population.

                  "The cohort studied consisted of 53,698 workers who were followed for
                  up to 18 years between 1979 and 1997. The mean total cumulative
                  equivalent dose for the whole cohort was 25.7 millisievert (i.e., an
                  average of 2.57 rem career dose for the study period).

                  Comparison of mortality rates of the cohort members to the gender,
                  age, calendar year, and cause-specific U.S. population mortality
                  rates showed that they were considerably lower (60 percent lower for
                  all-cause mortality, 35 percent lower for all cancers, and 66 percent
                  lower for all non-cancer mortality, including deaths from heart,
                  respiratory and circulatory system disease).

                  The workers included in the study exhibited a very substantial healthy
                  worker effect, i.e., there were considerably lower cancer and
                  noncancer mortality rates than the general population."

                  http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0411/msg00150.html

                  Lenny
                • Jim Gagnepain
                  ... that the consequences of such disasters be determined and that the resulting risk (risk = probability of event X consequences) be understood and small
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 5, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > No we don't. Nothing in nature has zero risk, so why demand it of
                    > nuclear waste? A rational person (I guess that leaves you out) would
                    > only demand that the probability of such disasters be calculated, >
                    that the consequences of such disasters be determined and that the >
                    resulting risk (risk = probability of event X consequences) be >
                    understood and small compared to those people live with everyday >
                    (e.g. little old ladies driving in small cars).

                    Interesting. You compare the risk of a massive release of radiation to
                    a little old lady driving a car. And you say I'm irrational. ZERO!
                  • gumsh0e
                    ... would ... to ... Why not compare the risks associated with the storage of spent fuel to the risks to little old ladies driving small cars at the urging of
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 5, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Gagnepain"
                      <oil_free_and_happy@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > No we don't. Nothing in nature has zero risk, so why demand it of
                      > > nuclear waste? A rational person (I guess that leaves you out)
                      would
                      > > only demand that the probability of such disasters be calculated, >
                      > that the consequences of such disasters be determined and that the >
                      > resulting risk (risk = probability of event X consequences) be >
                      > understood and small compared to those people live with everyday >
                      > (e.g. little old ladies driving in small cars).
                      >
                      > Interesting. You compare the risk of a massive release of radiation
                      to
                      > a little old lady driving a car. And you say I'm irrational. ZERO!

                      Why not compare the risks associated with the storage of spent fuel to
                      the risks to little old ladies driving small cars at the urging of sons
                      who are apparently in a hurry to get their inheritance? Risk is risk. .
                      A person could also compare the risks associated with nuclear power to
                      other forms of electrical generation.

                      http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/Pro/lle.html

                      Lenny
                    • gumsh0e
                      ... That reminds me of a story. Stop me if you ve heard it... In college, when the subject turned to the health effects of radiation exposure, my professor
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jun 5, 2006
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "the_maniacal_engineer"
                        <chris.stratford@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > What is the half life of a proton? probably half of my entire body
                        > mass is made up of protons.
                        >
                        > Oh woe is me - not only hase my sun been nuked, but I am radioactive
                        > with such a long half life that i can never go out in public again. I
                        > better eat a banana to calm my nerves - potassium donchaknow

                        That reminds me of a story. Stop me if you've heard it...

                        In college, when the subject turned to the health effects of radiation
                        exposure, my professor addressed the (all male) class by saying:

                        "Gentlemen, when you marry the conjugal relations you have with your
                        wife will increase your annual dose by one millirem per year [due to
                        the fact that people give off radiation from the naturally occurring
                        Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and similar isotopes that is in the foods we
                        eat]. But do not be concerned, it is a trivial amount. She will not
                        pose a health threat to you. However, sleeping with TWO women would
                        be veeerry dangerous!"

                        Lenny
                      • John Grant
                        ... You have yet to tell us how a massive release of radiation will come about. There are no volcanos around Yucca Mountain and earthquakes are very, very
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jun 5, 2006
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment


                          Jim Gagnepain wrote:


                          Interesting. You compare the risk of a massive release of radiation to
                          a little old lady driving a car.  And you say I'm irrational. ZERO!
                          You have yet to tell us how a massive release of radiation will come about.

                          There are no volcanos around Yucca Mountain and earthquakes are very, very unlikely to happen there in the next 1,000 years.

                          So, tell us details of how a massive release of radiation will come about.





                        • John Grant
                          ... Answer the question, if you can? ... I said nothing about 1,000 years in this post. ... Do you understand what I wrote about half lives? Iodine-129 is
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jun 5, 2006
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Jim Gagnepain wrote:

                            > > What does half life have to do with the likelyhood of earthquakes?

                            Answer the question, if you can?

                            >
                            > > But I will respond to your misunderstanding of half life anyway.
                            > > >
                            > > > Strontium-90 28 years
                            > > > Caesium-137 30 years
                            > > > Plutonium-239 24,000 years
                            > > > Caesium-135 2.3 million years
                            > > > Iodine-129 15.7 million years
                            > >
                            > > Iodine-129 is 560,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
                            > > Caesium-135 is 82,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
                            > > Plutonium-239 is 850 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
                            > >
                            > > In other words, you would need 560,000 atoms of Iodine-129 to be as
                            > > radioactive as ONE atom of Strontium-90!
                            > >
                            > > You should try to understand what half life really means.
                            > > The longer the half life the lower the radioactivity.
                            > >
                            > > John Grant
                            >
                            > I didn't make the original "1000 years" statement.

                            I said nothing about 1,000 years in this post.

                            > I was simply showing the fallacy of it.

                            Do you understand what I wrote about half lives?

                            "Iodine-129 is 560,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
                            Caesium-135 is 82,000 times less radioactive than Strotium-90
                            Plutonium-239 is 850 times less radioactive than Strotium-90"

                            > Also, I don't think it's up to anti-
                            > nuclear folks to prove that there is no probability of an earthquake
                            > or other major natural disaster. That's the responsibility of those
                            > who want to create and store this wonderful stuff. They need to
                            > prove that there is absolutely ZERO probability of a major natural
                            > disaster. ZERO!

                            What risk do you face each day riding your bicyle?
                            It is very, very far from ZERO.
                            And there is a real risk, but low, of you killing a person while you are
                            riding your bike. Would it be wrong for people to demand ZERO risk to
                            them from your bike riding?

                            Do you know of ANY activity that has ZERO risk.

                            > Did you ever see those radioactive suits that
                            > people in the industry. This is nasty stuff. Gamma rays penetrate
                            > right through the skin and mutate genes, causing leukemia and other
                            > cancers. These "blood cancers" are reaching epidemic proportions.

                            Are you aware that 20 to 50 cosmic rays go all the way through you body
                            every minute. This happens every day of your life. These are very much
                            more penatrating than gamma rays from radioactivity atoms.

                            The people in the Denver area have twice as many cosmic rays going
                            through their bodies but they are just as healthy as the rest of us.
                            AND they even have a lower rate of some cancers.

                            John Grant
                          • mlincoln19
                            OK John so if everybody uses nuclear power than in 50 years we will have about 6 billion radioactive tennis balls. By that time Iraq will be out of oil & we
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jun 16, 2006
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              OK John so if everybody uses nuclear power than in 50 years we will have about 6 billion radioactive tennis balls. By that time Iraq will be out of oil & we can store them in the empty oil wells, eh? We can convince the Iraqi insurgents U.S. troops are finally (after 53 years) going to leave (+remove all the McDonalds, Churches & Cat-Houses we built) if they will just let us deposit all the world's radioactive tennis balls in the expired oil wells. Mickey
                              --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, John Grant <grantjoh@...> wrote:

                              Jim Gagnepain wrote:

                              Are you wrong? Maybe, maybe not. That's the problem. Nobody knows, and nobody can guarantee anything. We're talking tons and tons of high level radioactive waste.

                              If all the power for my household came from a nuclear power plant, after 50 years, my share of the waste would be the size of atennis ball.
                              I could safely store that waste in my back yard in a 3 foot cube of concrete blocks filled with sand.
                              But it is better to store all those "tennis balls" deep inside Yucca Mountain.

                              Picture a major, major
                              earthquake or volcanic eruption.

                              Why picture "major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption" when Yucca
                              Mountain is not subject to major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption..

                              There isn't anything going to contain this material. Tons and tons could be released into the atmosphere, waterways, and all kinds of land based vehicles, wildlife, etc, and it will be nearly impossible to contain. It could easily end life as we know it today! Tons and tons and tons...

                              Your worry is groundless. In the next 1,000 years there will not be a major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain.

                              John Grant.
                            • John Grant
                              Some people are worried about shipping waste to Yucca Mountain. They would be even more worried if we try to ship the waste overseas. Texas oil wells could
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jun 17, 2006
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Some people are worried about shipping waste to Yucca Mountain.  They would be even more worried if we  try to ship the waste overseas.  Texas oil wells could do the job.  But long before 50 years we will be reprocessing the partly used fuel rods.  It will be easier to remove them from Yucca Mountain than an oil well.

                                Where did you come up with the number "6 billion"?  If every household on earth uses nuclear power that would likely come to about 1.5 billion tennis balls. .

                                mlincoln19 wrote:

                                OK John so if everybody uses nuclear power than in 50 years we will have about 6 billion radioactive tennis balls. By that time Iraq will be out of oil & we can store them in the empty oil wells, eh? We can convince the Iraqi insurgents U.S. troops are finally (after 53 years) going to leave (+remove all the McDonalds, Churches & Cat-Houses we built) if they will just let us deposit all the world's radioactive tennis balls in the expired oil wells. Mickey
                                --- In All-Energy@yahoogro ups.com, John Grant <grantjoh@.. .> wrote:

                                Jim Gagnepain wrote:

                                Are you wrong? Maybe, maybe not. That's the problem. Nobody knows, and nobody can guarantee anything. We're talking tons and tons of high level radioactive waste.

                                If all the power for my household came from a nuclear power plant, after 50 years, my share of the waste would be the size of atennis ball.
                                I could safely store that waste in my back yard in a 3 foot cube of concrete blocks filled with sand.
                                But it is better to store all those "tennis balls" deep inside Yucca Mountain.

                                Picture a major, major
                                earthquake or volcanic eruption.

                                Why picture "major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption" when Yucca
                                Mountain is not subject to major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption..

                                There isn't anything going to contain this material. Tons and tons could be released into the atmosphere, waterways, and all kinds of land based vehicles, wildlife, etc, and it will be nearly impossible to contain. It could easily end life as we know it today! Tons and tons and tons...

                                Your worry is groundless. In the next 1,000 years there will not be a major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain.

                                John Grant.


                              • gumsh0e
                                ... have about 6 billion radioactive tennis balls. If everybody used wind power, then in the United States, we d have to carpet an area larger than half the
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jun 18, 2006
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "mlincoln19" <mlincoln19@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > OK John so if everybody uses nuclear power than in 50 years we will
                                  have about 6 billion radioactive tennis balls.

                                  If everybody used wind power, then in the United States, we'd have to
                                  carpet an area larger than half the size of Montana with turbines.
                                  Replacing all of our energy needs with photovoltaic at current
                                  efficiencies would require a land area larger than Texas. But the
                                  decision to use nuclear, wind, solar (or any technology) isn't an all
                                  or nothing choice.

                                  Nuclear power generates 20% of the electricity used in the United
                                  States. Yucca Mountain could be physically expanded beyond its
                                  current license application to contain the "radioactive tennis balls"
                                  generated to date.

                                  Lenny
                                • Mickey Lincoln
                                  I bet all that flying ice from wind farms is a danger on a par with flying hail & flying frozen rain. Maybe they could put little defroster wires inside the
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jun 18, 2006
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I bet all that flying ice from wind farms is a danger on a par with flying hail & flying frozen rain. Maybe they could put little defroster wires inside the wind blades like the kind they have in car windows. Mickey
                                    --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, John Grant <grantjoh@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Some people are worried about shipping waste to Yucca Mountain. They
                                    > would be even more worried if we try to ship the waste overseas. Texas
                                    > oil wells could do the job. But long before 50 years we will be
                                    > reprocessing the partly used fuel rods. It will be easier to remove
                                    > them from Yucca Mountain than an oil well.
                                    >
                                    > Where did you come up with the number "6 billion"? If every household
                                    > on earth uses nuclear power that would likely come to about 1.5 billion
                                    > tennis balls. .
                                    >
                                    > mlincoln19 wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > OK John so if everybody uses nuclear power than in 50 years we will
                                    > > have about 6 billion radioactive tennis balls. By that time Iraq will
                                    > > be out of oil & we can store them in the empty oil wells, eh? We can
                                    > > convince the Iraqi insurgents U.S. troops are finally (after 53 years)
                                    > > going to leave (+remove all the McDonalds, Churches & Cat-Houses we
                                    > > built) if they will just let us deposit all the world's radioactive
                                    > > tennis balls in the expired oil wells. Mickey
                                    > > --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > <mailto:All-Energy%40yahoogroups.com>, John Grant <grantjoh@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Jim Gagnepain wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Are you wrong? Maybe, maybe not. That's the problem. Nobody knows, and
                                    > > nobody can guarantee anything. We're talking tons and tons of high
                                    > > level radioactive waste.
                                    > >
                                    > > If all the power for my household came from a nuclear power plant,
                                    > > after 50 years, my share of the waste would be the size of atennis ball.
                                    > > I could safely store that waste in my back yard in a 3 foot cube of
                                    > > concrete blocks filled with sand.
                                    > > But it is better to store all those "tennis balls" deep inside Yucca
                                    > > Mountain.
                                    > >
                                    > > Picture a major, major
                                    > > earthquake or volcanic eruption.
                                    > >
                                    > > Why picture "major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption" when Yucca
                                    > > Mountain is not subject to major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption..
                                    > >
                                    > > There isn't anything going to contain this material. Tons and tons
                                    > > could be released into the atmosphere, waterways, and all kinds of
                                    > > land based vehicles, wildlife, etc, and it will be nearly impossible
                                    > > to contain. It could easily end life as we know it today! Tons and
                                    > > tons and tons...
                                    > >
                                    > > Your worry is groundless. In the next 1,000 years there will not be a
                                    > > major, major earthquake or volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain.
                                    > >
                                    > > John Grant.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                  • Mickey Lincoln
                                    I know millions of wind generators would be needed to replace conventional U.S. energy sources, but no way do I believe a land area half the size of Montana
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jun 18, 2006
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I know millions of wind generators would be needed to replace conventional U.S. energy sources, but no way do I believe a land area half the size of Montana would be required. Many wind generators could go offshore. As oil gives out we will no doubt see much more nuclear, wind, solar - almost anything that generates electricity without CO2 emissions. Mickey
                                      --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "gumsh0e" <gumsh0e@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "mlincoln19" <mlincoln19@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > OK John so if everybody uses nuclear power than in 50 years we will
                                      > have about 6 billion radioactive tennis balls.
                                      >
                                      > If everybody used wind power, then in the United States, we'd have to
                                      > carpet an area larger than half the size of Montana with turbines.
                                      > Replacing all of our energy needs with photovoltaic at current
                                      > efficiencies would require a land area larger than Texas. But the
                                      > decision to use nuclear, wind, solar (or any technology) isn't an all
                                      > or nothing choice.
                                      >
                                      > Nuclear power generates 20% of the electricity used in the United
                                      > States. Yucca Mountain could be physically expanded beyond its
                                      > current license application to contain the "radioactive tennis balls"
                                      > generated to date.
                                      >
                                      > Lenny
                                      >
                                    • gumsh0e
                                      ... Lets do the math shall we? According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States generated 3.892 trillion kWh of electricity in 2003. What is generated is
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jun 24, 2006
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey Lincoln" <mlincoln19@...>
                                        wrote:
                                        >
                                        > I know millions of wind generators would be needed to replace
                                        >conventional U.S. energy sources, but no way do I believe a land area
                                        >half the size of Montana would be required.

                                        Lets do the math shall we? According to the CIA World Factbook, the
                                        United States generated 3.892 trillion kWh of electricity in 2003.
                                        What is generated is different than what is consumed because of things
                                        like transmission losses (and I would expect wind would have their
                                        share since the best winds are generally not where most people live).

                                        http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

                                        The American Wind Energy Association claims that 20% of America's
                                        electricity demand is .560 trillion kWh and if generated from wind
                                        would only use .6% of the land area of the lower 48 states or about
                                        16,000 square miles. But we have a problem Houston. If 20% of US
                                        electricity usage is .560 trillion kWh then 100% would only be 2.8
                                        trillion kWh, a 28% difference from the CIA factbook. Somebody is way
                                        off in their figures.

                                        http://www.awea.org/faq/land.html

                                        At any rate, if we take AWEA at their word, then scaling up to 100%
                                        using their figures would amount to 3% of the land area of the United
                                        States or 80,000 square miles or a geographical area greater than half
                                        the size of Montana and about half the size of California.

                                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_area

                                        Lenny
                                      • John Grant
                                        Very little electricity is produced by burning oil in the US. Most power comes from coal burning plants, and there is about a 200 year supply of coal.
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Jun 24, 2006
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Very little electricity is produced by burning oil in the US.
                                          Most power comes from coal burning plants, and there is about a 200 year supply of coal.

                                          Mickey Lincoln wrote:

                                          I know millions of wind generators would be needed to replace conventional U.S. energy sources, but no way do I believe a land area half the size of Montana would be required. Many wind generators could go offshore. As oil gives out we will no doubt see much more nuclear, wind, solar - almost anything that generates electricity without CO2 emission



                                          .


                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.