8272RE: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
- Oct 29, 2008
Hi Jay, Thank you for your post, I’m wondering if you or any of the scientists can clarify something for the group. I understand that it takes a significant amount of fossil fuel to process the uranium fuel rods for a conventional nuclear power plant, from mining to commissioning. I also understand that only a fraction of the stored energy is used, and the rods are not reprocessed to capture this lost energy. I’m not an expert, and I’m wondering if you or someone else can quantify the payback for a nuclear power plant?
When I visited the South Texas plant under construction many years ago, we were told that it would take the plant 7-8 years to just pay back the energy it took to build the plant. Taking into consideration the additional fuel processing costs, what is the payback on a nuke, expressed in the same terms as the payback on a PV module or other renewable energy system?
4007-C Greenbriar Drive
Stafford, TX 77477
Local (281) 340-1224
Toll Free (877) 340-1224
Fax (281) 340-1230
Cell (281) 960-8979
From: email@example.com [mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org ] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:16 PM
Subject: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
I am generally pro-nuclear.
I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly" . I would
have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the charge
because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite the
I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun burns
out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What I do
focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon output,
low environmental impact, and high energy output.
No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something, we
will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive use
of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different than
Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation wide.
Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures this.
It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested. Believe
me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a long
time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national doesn't
make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That whole
time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to use
the existing power generation - coal.
The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric hybrids
to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal to
nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a much
better position to be in when you start the long investing phase to
being the move to solar.
If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures that
we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is empirically
no different than being pro-coal.
Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)
--- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@ ...> wrote:
> My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more: The
> market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so long"Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@ >
> as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents and so
> long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their well-
> being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
> Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1% catastrophic
> failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
> --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com,
> wrote:[mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
> > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it's
> safe and
> > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
> brings up
> > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for the
> > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would decide
> > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any luck,
> > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few billion
> our way
> > :-).
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com
> OfSeems the
> > texasblessings
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
> > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
> > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the general
> > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
> > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables" .
> > consensus is "no". Good.
> > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you all
> > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband is
> > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
> > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
> > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
> > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
> > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community.
> > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
> > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources. They
> > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
> > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
> > industry.
> > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on our
> > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
> > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone
> > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.moment
> > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a
> Ito its
> > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
> > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the industry
> > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
> > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we, the
> > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
> > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
> > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
> > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how can
> > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise be
> > available to develop efficiency technologies and true renewables?
> > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew into
> > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due
> > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)case". In
> > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to run
> > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season &
> > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case he
> > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security over-
> > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
> > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams searched
> > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
> > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in
> > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14plainly doesn't want it and even if it
> > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years back, it
> > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
> > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates have
> > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother and
> > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
> > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb less
> > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the industry
> > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect ourselves
> > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
> > Mountain is a joke. Nevada
> > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of wasteCounty won't be going to Yucca. Our
> > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
> > course, the waste in Matagorda
> > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard isw:st="on">County (and you Harris County folks who are
> > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage or
> > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
> > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON a
> > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
> > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee training
> > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the tax-
> > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying them
> > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will pay
> > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would
> > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention, the
> > citizens of Matagorda
> > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing, never
> > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say in
> > matter at all.
> > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do
> > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
> > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be led,
> > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would have
> > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight this
> > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to your
> > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk to
> > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
> > Insist that this madness end.
> > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
> > Peace,
> > Susan
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>