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

Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

Expand Messages
  • chasmauch@aol.com
    NHNE News List Current Members: 1437 Subscribe/unsubscribe/archive info at the bottom of this message. ... GOING NUCLEAR A GREEN MAKES THE CASE By Patrick
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 19 9:16 AM
    • 0 Attachment
       
    • Michael Ewert
      You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie. :-) I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT… As president of the
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 21 10:12 PM
      • 0 Attachment

        You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

         

        I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

        As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

        - Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

        Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

         

        Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

        http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

         

        French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

        Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
        Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


        nuclear coal gas

        USA

        3.01

        2.71

        4.67

        Canada

        2.60

        3.11

        4.00

        US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
        Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

        At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

        A 2004 report from the University of Chicago , funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA . Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

        Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

         

        Basic cost

        With back-up

        With £30/t* CO2

        Nuclear

        2.3

        n/a

        n/a

        Gas-fired CCGT

        2.2

        n/a

        3.4

        Coal pulverised fuel

        2.5

        n/a

        5.0

        Coal fluidised bed

        2.6

        n/a

        5.1

        Onshore wind

        3.7

        5.4

        n/a

        Offshore wind

        5.5

        7.2

        n/a

         

        I don’t think any of these include ‘external’ costs (except CO2 in the last one), which the same article mentions as “Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.”.

         

        At this point, I’m believing that nuclear is a much better deal than coal (all things considered) and can be cheaper than combined cycle gas or coal if we build enough of them.

         

        http://www.nonukes.org/r08truec.htm points out the other end of the timeline – past experience:

        Commercial atomic power has thus far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which has been in the form of federal subsidies. They take only those costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified. It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers an average of a least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour.  Excluded costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate insurance, could well total another $375 billion.

        http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html#1 :

        In the late 1990’s, the renewable industries have been aggressively competitive. The following table shows the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, even ignoring the environmental costs associated with fossil and nuclear generated electricity (for further information on Renewable Energy Technologies, see Annex I).


        Figure 2 : Commercial renewables against proposed and actual nuclear costs (NEPI: Nuclear Energy Policy Issues Proposal for Sizewell C, 1994; NUFFO figures from Grubb & Vigotti, 199710).

        This article by Greenpeace also makes an excellent point about energy efficiency:

        Several technologies were considered, including compact fluorescent lamps, improved refrigerators and water-heaters and motor improvements. While the best electric-efficiency costs less than 1 cent per kWh of electricity saved, the average cost weighted over a wide range of electric efficiency improvements was around 2 cents.

         

        If you’re still with me, I’d say I have not made a case against nuclear, but against coal.  I’ve not made a good case for solar (or even wind), but for energy efficiency. [see also RMI http://www.rmi.org/ ]  However, solar (and even wind) are not mature industries.  Boy what we could do with the $492 billion nuclear got!

        So, we renewable energy advocates have our work cut out for ourselves.  This gives some idea what we are up against.  Through innovation, information and integration into our lives, we’ve got to make many forms of renewable energy cost competitive with nuclear energy, or else live with the alternative…

        Mike

        -----Original Message-----
        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of chasmauch@...
        Sent:
        Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:16 AM
        To: houstonpeakoil@...; hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

         


      • Bashir Syed
        Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory. a.. First of all how
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 22 7:26 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.
          • First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.
          • Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.
          • There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.
          • Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.
          • How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.
          • It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.
          • It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.
          • I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.
          Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.
          Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.
          At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

          There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal ( Yucca Mountain , etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

           

          Robert Johnston

           

           

          References:

           

          Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

          http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

           

          Article on reprocessing:

          http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

           

          The Greenpeace posting:

          http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

           

           

           


          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
          Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
          To: Michael K Ewert
          Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

           

          Second attempt

          ----- Original Message -----

          Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

          Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

           

          The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

          Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

          Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

           

          BASHIR A. Syed

          Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

           

          References:

          1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island ," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

          2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

          a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

          b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

          c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

          d. At Chernobyl , Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

          3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

          NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

             

          ----- Original Message -----

          Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

          Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

           

          You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

           

          I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

          As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

          “- Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.”

          Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

           

          Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

          http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

           

          French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

          Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
          Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


          nuclear coal gas

          USA

          3.01

          2.71

          4.67

          Canada

          2.60

          3.11

          4.00

          US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
          Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

          At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

          A 2004 report from the University of Chicago , funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA . Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

          Present-day cost of generatingUK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

           

          Basic cost

          With back-up

          With £30/t* CO2

          Nuclear

          2.3

          n/a

          n/a

          Gas-fired CCGT

          2.2

          n/a

          3.4

          Coal pulverised fuel

          2.5

          n/a

          5.0

          Coal fluidised bed

          2.6

          n/a

          5.1

          Onshore wind

          3.7

          5.4

          n/a

          Offshore wind

          5.5

          7.2

          n/a

           

          I don’t think any of these include ‘external’ costs (except CO2 in the last one), which the same article mentions as “Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.”.

           

          At this point, I’m believing that nuclear is a much better deal than coal (all things considered) and can be cheaper than combined cycle gas or coal if we build enough of them.

           

          http://www.nonukes.org/r08truec.htm points out the other end of the timeline – past experience:

          “Commercial atomic power has thus far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which has been in the form of federal subsidies. They take only those costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified. It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers an average of a least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour.  Excluded costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate insurance, could well total another $375 billion.”

          http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html#1 :

          In the late 1990’s, the renewable industries have been aggressively competitive. The following table shows the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, even ignoring the environmental costs associated with fossil and nuclear generated electricity (for further information on Renewable Energy Technologies, see Annex I).


          Figure 2 : Commercial renewables against proposed and actual nuclear costs (NEPI: Nuclear Energy Policy Issues Proposal for Sizewell C, 1994; NUFFO figures from Grubb & Vigotti, 199710).

          This article by Greenpeace also makes an excellent point about energy efficiency:

          “Several technologies were considered, including compact fluorescent lamps, improved refrigerators and water-heaters and motor improvements. While the best electric-efficiency costs less than 1 cent per kWh of electricity saved, the average cost weighted over a wide range of electric efficiency improvements was around 2 cents.”

           

          If you’re still with me, I’d say I have not made a case against nuclear, but against coal.  I’ve not made a good case for solar (or even wind), but for energy efficiency. [see also RMI http://www.rmi.org/ ]  However, solar (and even wind) are not mature industries.  Boy what we could do with the $492 billion nuclear got!

          So, we renewable energy advocates have our work cut out for ourselves.  This gives some idea what we are up against.  Through innovation, information and integration into our lives, we’ve got to make many forms of renewable energy cost competitive with nuclear energy, or else live with the alternative…

          Mike

          -----Original Message-----
          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of chasmauch@...
          Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:16 AM
          To: houstonpeakoil@...; hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

           




        • Jim & Janet
          I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 22 8:27 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.
            Still totally ridiculous
            Jim Duncan
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM
            Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

            Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.
            • First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.
            • Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.
            • There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.
            • Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.
            • How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.
            • It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.
            • It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.
            • I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.
            Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.
            Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.
            At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

            There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal ( Yucca Mountain , etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

             

            Robert Johnston

             

             

            References:

             

            Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

            http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

             

            Article on reprocessing:

            http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

             

            The Greenpeace posting:

            http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

             

             

             


            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
            Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
            To: Michael K Ewert
            Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

             

            Second attempt

            ----- Original Message -----

            Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

            Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

             

            The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

            Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

            Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

             

            BASHIR A. Syed

            Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

             

            References:

            1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island ," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

            2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

            a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

            b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

            c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

            d. At Chernobyl , Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

            3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

            NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

               

            ----- Original Message -----

            Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

            Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

             

            You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

             

            I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

            As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

            “- Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.”

            Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

             

            Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

            http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

             

            French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

            Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
            Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs inUSA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


            nuclear coal gas

            USA

            3.01

            2.71

            4.67

            Canada

            2.60

            3.11

            4.00

            US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
            Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

            At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

            A 2004 report from the University of Chicago , funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA . Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

            Present-day cost of generatingUK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

             

            Basic cost

            With back-up

            With £30/t* CO2

            Nuclear

            2.3

            n/a

            n/a

            Gas-fired CCGT

            2.2

            n/a

            3.4

            Coal pulverised fuel

            2.5

            n/a

            5.0

            Coal fluidised bed

            2.6

            n/a

            5.1

            Onshore wind

            3.7

            5.4

            n/a

            Offshore wind

            5.5

            7.2

            n/a

             

            I don’t think any of these include ‘external’ costs (except CO2 in the last one), which the same article mentions as “Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.”.

             

            At this point, I’m believing that nuclear is a much better deal than coal (all things considered) and can be cheaper than combined cycle gas or coal if we build enough of them.

             

            http://www.nonukes.org/r08truec.htm points out the other end of the timeline – past experience:

            “Commercial atomic power has thus far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which has been in the form of federal subsidies. They take only those costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified. It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers an average of a least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour.  Excluded costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate insurance, could well total another $375 billion.”

            http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html#1 :

            In the late 1990’s, the renewable industries have been aggressively competitive. The following table shows the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, even ignoring the environmental costs associated with fossil and nuclear generated electricity (for further information on Renewable Energy Technologies, see Annex I).


            Figure 2 : Commercial renewables against proposed and actual nuclear costs (NEPI: Nuclear Energy Policy Issues Proposal for Sizewell C, 1994; NUFFO figures from Grubb & Vigotti, 199710).

            This article by Greenpeace also makes an excellent point about energy efficiency:

            “Several technologies were considered, including compact fluorescent lamps, improved refrigerators and water-heaters and motor improvements. While the best electric-efficiency costs less than 1 cent per kWh of electricity saved, the average cost weighted over a wide range of electric efficiency improvements was around 2 cents.”

             

            If you’re still with me, I’d say I have not made a case against nuclear, but against coal.  I’ve not made a good case for solar (or even wind), but for energy efficiency. [see also RMI http://www.rmi.org/ ]  However, solar (and even wind) are not mature industries.  Boy what we could do with the $492 billion nuclear got!

            So, we renewable energy advocates have our work cut out for ourselves.  This gives some idea what we are up against.  Through innovation, information and integration into our lives, we’ve got to make many forms of renewable energy cost competitive with nuclear energy, or else live with the alternative…

            Mike

            -----Original Message-----
            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of chasmauch@...
            Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:16 AM
            To: houstonpeakoil@...; hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

             




          • Robert Johnston
            Bashir, I’d be interested in your comments after you read some of the recent literature in this field (you might want to look at the links I sent before as a
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 22 8:40 PM
            • 0 Attachment

              Bashir, I’d be interested in your comments after you read some of the recent literature in this field (you might want to look at the links I sent before as a starting point, but the technical literature no doubt has much more).  The work has been demonstrated in the laboratory and at pilot scale.  There is a net energy gain in the process when the accelerator and reactor are coupled, as proposed.  The concentration/partitioning technologies are being developed to deal with the problem of high quantity of dilute waste, so that it can be concentrated before being reused or processed. 

               

              Robert

               


              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
              Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

               

              Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

              • First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.
              • Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.
              • There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.
              • Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.
              • How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.
              • It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.
              • It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.
              • I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

              Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

              Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

              At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

              ----- Original Message -----

              Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

              Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

               

              There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal ( Yucca Mountain , etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

               

              Robert Johnston

               

               

              References:

               

              Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

              http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

               

              Article on reprocessing:

              http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

               

              The Greenpeace posting:

              http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

               

               

               


              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
              Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
              To: Michael K Ewert
              Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

               

              Second attempt

              ----- Original Message -----

              Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

              Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

               

              The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

              Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

              Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

               

              BASHIR A. Syed

              Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

               

              References:

              1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island ," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

              2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

              a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

              b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

              c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

              d. At Chernobyl , Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

              3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

              NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                 

              ----- Original Message -----

              Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

              Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

               

              You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

               

              I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

              As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

              - Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

              Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

               

              Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

              http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

               

              French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

              Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
              Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


              nuclear coal gas

              USA

              3.01

              2.71

              4.67

              Canada

              2.60

              3.11

              4.00

              US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
              Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

              At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

              A 2004 report from the University of Chicago , funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA . Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

              Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

               

              Basic cost

              With back-up

              With £30/t* CO2

              Nuclear

              2.3

              n/a

              n/a

              Gas-fired CCGT

              2.2

              n/a

              3.4

              Coal pulverised fuel

              2.5

              n/a

              5.0

              Coal fluidised bed

              2.6

              n/a

              5.1

              Onshore wind

              3.7

              5.4

              n/a

              Offshore wind

              5.5

              7.2

              n/a

               

              I don’t think any of these include ‘external’ costs (except CO2 in the last one), which the same article mentions as “Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.”.

               

              At this point, I’m believing that nuclear is a much better deal than coal (all things considered) and can be cheaper than combined cycle gas or coal if we build enough of them.

               

              http://www.nonukes.org/r08truec.htm points out the other end of the timeline – past experience:

              Commercial atomic power has thus far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which has been in the form of federal subsidies. They take only those costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified. It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers an average of a least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour.  Excluded costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate insurance, could well total another $375 billion.

              http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html#1 :

              In the late 1990’s, the renewable industries have been aggressively competitive. The following table shows the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, even ignoring the environmental costs associated with fossil and nuclear generated electricity (for further information on Renewable Energy Technologies, see Annex I).


              Figure 2 : Commercial renewables against proposed and actual nuclear costs (NEPI: Nuclear Energy Policy Issues Proposal for Sizewell C, 1994; NUFFO figures from Grubb & Vigotti, 199710).

              This article by Greenpeace also makes an excellent point about energy efficiency:

              Several technologies were considered, including compact fluorescent lamps, improved refrigerators and water-heaters and motor improvements. While the best electric-efficiency costs less than 1 cent per kWh of electricity saved, the average cost weighted over a wide range of electric efficiency improvements was around 2 cents.

               

              If you’re still with me, I’d say I have not made a case against nuclear, but against coal.  I’ve not made a good case for solar (or even wind), but for energy efficiency. [see also RMI http://www.rmi.org/ ]  However, solar (and even wind) are not mature industries.  Boy what we could do with the $492 billion nuclear got!

              So, we renewable energy advocates have our work cut out for ourselves.  This gives some idea what we are up against.  Through innovation, information and integration into our lives, we’ve got to make many forms of renewable energy cost competitive with nuclear energy, or else live with the alternative…

              Mike

              -----Original Message-----
              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of chasmauch@...
              Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:16 AM
              To: houstonpeakoil@...; hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

               


               

               

            • Bashir Syed
              The first thing I did was to click on [About the WNA] in which they openly describe that it is an organization to PROMOTE NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR POWER
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 23 11:39 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                The first thing I did was to click on [About the WNA] in which they openly describe that it is an organization to PROMOTE NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR POWER GENERATION. Second thing, I looked at is their description of ENERGY page where this organization, in order to promote Nuclear Power Industry, had tried to compare this with two cartoon diangrams (top) Conventional Fossil fuel burning power plant spewing out smoke and other pollutants in the air, and (bottom) a nuclear power plant showing clear skies and no smoke or discharge of pollutants.
                To an average reader or layman sounds fantastic, but the reality of poluuting the earth and water underneath with cancer-causing poisons (with life of billions of years) is neither shown not talked about. The nuclear industry did the same by paying Jacque Srouji (a news reporter for Tennesean, and an FBI Informer, who neither had any education in Physics or nuclear technology) to write such a promotional book "CRITICAL MASS" on the wonderful and beneficial things about such reactors. But the covert motive of this book was to perform the character assasination of Karen Silkwood in Chapter 13 of this book under the title of "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-McGee Employee, pages 261 --359. Here Srouiji published Secret documents from FBI files related to investigation about the mysterious hit and run fatal car accident in which Karen died while she was on her way to deliver a brown manilla folder containg information regarding several thousand pounds of missing por unaccounted-for Plutonium from the Cimmaeron Plant of Kerr-McGee Coroporation, in Oklahoma City. OK, on Nov. 13, 1974. When the police arrived at the scene of her  car accident they found the Brown Manila folder missing, which she was going to give to Steve Vodka, a New York Times Reporter, waiting for her at a neaby Holiday Inn, which never happened.
                Thus, perhaps a person who does not know about the latent hazards posed by power reactors might be sold by such folks through modern persuasive advertising techniques using internet, but I am not all convinved about the use of accelerators to minmize such risks or serious health hazards.
                Even the discharge of carcenogenic fluids in the sewer pipes in National Semiconductor IC plant in Santa Clara made then decide to shift their fabrication process overseas to avoid serious health problems created by theses chemicals and showing up in children in a cluster around their facility.
                 
                Bashir A. Syed 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:40 PM
                Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                Bashir, I’d be interested in your comments after you read some of the recent literature in this field (you might want to look at the links I sent before as a starting point, but the technical literature no doubt has much more).  The work has been demonstrated in the laboratory and at pilot scale.  There is a net energy gain in the process when the accelerator and reactor are coupled, as proposed.  The concentration/partitioning technologies are being developed to deal with the problem of high quantity of dilute waste, so that it can be concentrated before being reused or processed. 

                 

                Robert

                 


                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                 

                Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                • First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.
                • Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.
                • There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.
                • Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.
                • How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.
                • It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.
                • It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.
                • I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                ----- Original Message -----

                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                 

                There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal ( Yucca Mountain , etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                 

                Robert Johnston

                 

                 

                References:

                 

                Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                 

                Article on reprocessing:

                http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                 

                The Greenpeace posting:

                http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                 

                 

                 


                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                To: Michael K Ewert
                Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                 

                Second attempt

                ----- Original Message -----

                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                 

                The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule).Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                 

                BASHIR A. Syed

                Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                 

                References:

                1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island ," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                d. At Chernobyl , Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                   

                ----- Original Message -----

                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                 

                You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                 

                I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

                “- Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.”

                Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                 

                Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                 

                French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs inUSA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                nuclear coal gas

                USA

                3.01

                2.71

                4.67

                Canada

                2.60

                3.11

                4.00

                US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                A 2004 report from the University of Chicago , funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA . Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                Present-day cost of generatingUK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                 

                Basic cost

                With back-up

                With £30/t* CO2

                Nuclear

                2.3

                n/a

                n/a

                Gas-fired CCGT

                2.2

                n/a

                3.4

                Coal pulverised fuel

                2.5

                n/a

                5.0

                Coal fluidised bed

                2.6

                n/a

                5.1

                Onshore wind

                3.7

                5.4

                n/a

                Offshore wind

                5.5

                7.2

                n/a

                 

                I don’t think any of these include ‘external’ costs (except CO2 in the last one), which the same article mentions as “Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.”.

                 

                At this point, I’m believing that nuclear is a much better deal than coal (all things considered) and can be cheaper than combined cycle gas or coal if we build enough of them.

                 

                http://www.nonukes.org/r08truec.htm points out the other end of the timeline – past experience:

                “Commercial atomic power has thus far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which has been in the form of federal subsidies. They take only those costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified. It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers an average of a least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour.  Excluded costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate insurance, could well total another $375 billion.”

                http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html#1 :

                In the late 1990’s, the renewable industries have been aggressively competitive. The following table shows the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, even ignoring the environmental costs associated with fossil and nuclear generated electricity (for further information on Renewable Energy Technologies, see Annex I).


                Figure 2 : Commercial renewables against proposed and actual nuclear costs (NEPI: Nuclear Energy Policy Issues Proposal for Sizewell C, 1994; NUFFO figures from Grubb & Vigotti, 199710).

                This article by Greenpeace also makes an excellent point about energy efficiency:

                “Several technologies were considered, including compact fluorescent lamps, improved refrigerators and water-heaters and motor improvements. While the best electric-efficiency costs less than 1 cent per kWh of electricity saved, the average cost weighted over a wide range of electric efficiency improvements was around 2 cents.”

                 

                If you’re still with me, I’d say I have not made a case against nuclear, but against coal.  I’ve not made a good case for solar (or even wind), but for energy efficiency. [see also RMI http://www.rmi.org/ ]  However, solar (and even wind) are not mature industries.  Boy what we could do with the $492 billion nuclear got!

                So, we renewable energy advocates have our work cut out for ourselves.  This gives some idea what we are up against.  Through innovation, information and integration into our lives, we’ve got to make many forms of renewable energy cost competitive with nuclear energy, or else live with the alternative…

                Mike

                -----Original Message-----
                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of chasmauch@...
                Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:16 AM
                To: houstonpeakoil@...;hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...



                (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
              • Michael Ewert
                Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn’t call it ridiculous. Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 23 8:22 PM
                • 0 Attachment

                  Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn’t call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                  http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                   

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                   

                  I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                  Still totally ridiculous

                  Jim Duncan

                  ----- Original Message -----

                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                  Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                   

                  Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                  ·    First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                  ·    Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                  ·    There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                  ·    Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                  ·    How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                  ·    It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                  ·    It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                  ·    I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                  Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                  Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                  At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                  ----- Original Message -----

                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                  Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                   

                  There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal (Yucca Mountain, etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                   

                  Robert Johnston

                   

                   

                  References:

                   

                  Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                  http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                   

                  Article on reprocessing:

                  http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                   

                  The Greenpeace posting:

                  http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                   

                   

                   


                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                  To: Michael K Ewert
                  Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                   

                  Second attempt

                  ----- Original Message -----

                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                  Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                   

                  The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                  Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                  Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                   

                  BASHIR A. Syed

                  Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                   

                  References:

                  1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                  2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                  a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                  b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                  c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                  d. At Chernobyl, Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                  3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                  NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                     

                  ----- Original Message -----

                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                  Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                   

                  You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                   

                  I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                  As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

                  - Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

                  Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                   

                  Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                  http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                   

                  French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                  Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                  Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                  nuclear coal gas

                  USA

                  3.01

                  2.71

                  4.67

                  Canada

                  2.60

                  3.11

                  4.00

                  US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                  Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                  At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                  A 2004 report from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA. Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                  Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                   

                  Basic cost

                  With back-up

                  With £30/t* CO2

                  Nuclear

                  2.3

                  n/a

                  n/a

                  Gas-fired CCGT

                  2.2

                  n/a

                  3.4

                  Coal pulverised fuel

                  2.5

                  n/a

                  5.0

                  Coal fluidised bed

                  2.6

                  n/a

                  5.1

                  Onshore wind

                  3.7

                  5.4

                  n/a

                  Offshore wind

                  5.5

                  7.2

                  n/a

                   

                  I don’t think any of these include ‘external’ costs (except CO2 in the last one), which the same article mentions as “Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.”.

                   

                  At this point, I’m believing that nuclear is a much better deal than coal (all things considered) and can be cheaper than combined cycle gas or coal if we build enough of them.

                   

                  http://www.nonukes.org/r08truec.htm points out the other end of the timeline – past experience:

                  Commercial atomic power has thus far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which has been in the form of federal subsidies. They take only those costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified. It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers an average of a least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour.  Excluded costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate insurance, could well total another $375 billion.

                  http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html#1 :

                  In the late 1990’s, the renewable industries have been aggressively competitive. The following table shows the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, even ignoring the environmental costs associated with fossil and nuclear generated electricity (for further information on Renewable Energy Technologies, see Annex I).


                  Figure 2 : Commercial renewables against proposed and actual nuclear costs (NEPI: Nuclear Energy Policy Issues Proposal for Sizewell C, 1994; NUFFO figures from Grubb & Vigotti, 199710).

                  This article by Greenpeace also makes an excellent point about energy efficiency:

                  Several technologies were considered, including compact fluorescent lamps, improved refrigerators and water-heaters and motor improvements. While the best electric-efficiency costs less than 1 cent per kWh of electricity saved, the average cost weighted over a wide range of electric efficiency improvements was around 2 cents.

                   

                  If you’re still with me, I’d say I have not made a case against nuclear, but against coal.  I’ve not made a good case for solar (or even wind), but for energy efficiency. [see also RMI http://www.rmi.org/ ]  However, solar (and even wind) are not mature industries.  Boy what we could do with the $492 billion nuclear got!

                  So, we renewable energy advocates have our work cut out for ourselves.  This gives some idea what we are up against.  Through innovation, information and integration into our lives, we’ve got to make many forms of renewable energy cost competitive with nuclear energy, or else live with the alternative…

                  Mike

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of chasmauch@...
                  Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:16 AM
                  To: houstonpeakoil@...; hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                   


                   

                   

                • Mike C
                  What about Fast Breeder Reactors? It s supposed to extend the supply of uranium. Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) power stations can generate electricity while
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 24 2:05 AM
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn’t call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                    http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                    To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                     

                    I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                    Still totally ridiculous

                    Jim Duncan

                    ----- Original Message -----

                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                    Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                     

                    Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                    ·    First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                    ·    Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                    ·    There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                    ·    Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                    ·    How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                    ·    It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                    ·    It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                    ·    I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                    Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                    Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                    At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                    ----- Original Message -----

                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                    Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                     

                    There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal (Yucca Mountain, etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                     

                    Robert Johnston

                     

                     

                    References:

                     

                    Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                     

                    Article on reprocessing:

                    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                     

                    The Greenpeace posting:

                    http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                     

                     

                     


                    From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                    To: Michael K Ewert
                    Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                     

                    Second attempt

                    ----- Original Message -----

                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                    Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                     

                    The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                    Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                    Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                     

                    BASHIR A. Syed

                    Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                     

                    References:

                    1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                    2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                    a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                    b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                    c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                    d. At Chernobyl, Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                    3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                    NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                       

                    ----- Original Message -----

                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                    Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                     

                    You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                     

                    I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                    As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

                    - Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

                    Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                     

                    Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                    http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                     

                    French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                    Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                    Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                    nuclear coal gas

                    USA

                    3.01

                    2.71

                    4.67

                    Canada

                    2.60

                    3.11

                    4.00

                    US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                    Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                    At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                    A 2004 report from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA. Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                    Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                     

                    Basic cost

                    With back-up

                    With £30/t* CO2

                    Nuclear

                    2.3

                    n/a

                    n/a

                    Gas-fired CCGT

                    2.2

                    n/a

                    3.4

                    Coal pulverised fuel

                    2.5

                    n/a

                    5.0

                    Coal fluidised bed

                    2.6

                    n/a

                    5.1

                    Onshore wind

                    3.7

                    5.4

                    n/a

                    Offshore wind

                    5.5

                    7.2

                    n/a

                     

                    I don’t think any of these include ‘external’ costs (except CO2 in the last one), which the same article mentions as “Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.”.

                     

                    At this point, I’m believing that nuclear is a much better deal than coal (all things considered) and can be cheaper than combined cycle gas or coal if we build enough of them.

                     

                    http://www.nonukes.org/r08truec.htm points out the other end of the timeline – past experience:

                    Commercial atomic power has thus far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which has been in the form of federal subsidies. They take only those costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified. It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers an average of a least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour.  Excluded costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate insurance, could well total another $375 billion.

                    http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html#1 :

                    In the late 1990’s, the renewable industries have been aggressively competitive. The following table shows the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, even ignoring the environmental costs associated with fossil and nuclear generated electricity (for further information on Renewable Energy Technologies, see Annex I).


                    Figure 2 : Commercial renewables against proposed and actual nuclear costs (NEPI: Nuclear Energy Policy Issues Proposal for Sizewell C, 1994; NUFFO figures from Grubb & Vigotti, 199710).

                    This article by Greenpeace also makes an excellent point about energy efficiency:

                    Several technologies were considered, including compact fluorescent lamps, improved refrigerators and water-heaters and motor improvements. While the best electric-efficiency costs less than 1 cent per kWh of electricity saved, the average cost weighted over a wide range of electric efficiency improvements was around 2 cents.

                     

                    If you’re still with me, I’d say I have not made a case against nuclear, but against coal.  I’ve not made a good case for solar (or even wind), but for energy efficiency. [see also RMI http://www.rmi.org/ ]  However, solar (and even wind) are not mature industries.  Boy what we could do with the $492 billion nuclear got!

                    So, we renewable energy advocates have our work cut out for ourselves.  This gives some idea what we are up against.  Through innovation, information and integration into our lives, we’ve got to make many forms of renewable energy cost competitive with nuclear energy, or else live with the alternative…

                    Mike

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of chasmauch@...
                    Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:16 AM
                    To: houstonpeakoil@...; hreg@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                     


                     

                     

                  • Andrew McCalla
                    Mike, I’d have to say that PowerPoint Presentation makes a definitive case for totally ridiculous. Andrew H. McCalla Meridian Energy Systems 2300 S. Lamar,
                    Message 9 of 20 , Apr 24 5:18 AM
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Mike,

                       

                      I’d have to say that PowerPoint Presentation makes a definitive case for totally ridiculous.

                       

                      Andrew H. McCalla

                      Meridian Energy Systems

                      2300 S. Lamar, Ste. 107

                      Austin, TX   78704

                       

                      Voice: (512) 448-0055

                      Fax:    (512) 448-0045

                      www.meridiansolar.com

                       


                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Mike C
                      Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:06 AM
                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                       

                      Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn’t call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                      http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                       

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                       

                      I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                      Still totally ridiculous

                      Jim Duncan

                      ----- Original Message -----

                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                      Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                       

                      Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                      ·    First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                      ·    Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                      ·    There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                      ·    Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                      ·    How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                      ·    It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                      ·    It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                      ·    I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                      Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                      Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                      At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                      ----- Original Message -----

                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                      Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                       

                      There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal ( Yucca Mountain , etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                       

                      Robert Johnston

                       

                       

                      References:

                       

                      Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                      http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                       

                      Article on reprocessing:

                      http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                       

                      The Greenpeace posting:

                      http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic..php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                       

                       

                       


                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                      To: Michael K Ewert
                      Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                       

                      Second attempt

                      ----- Original Message -----

                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                      Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                       

                      The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                      Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                      Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                       

                      BASHIR A. Syed

                      Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                       

                      References:

                      1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island ," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                      2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                      a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                      b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                      c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                      d. At Chernobyl , Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                      3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                      NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                         

                      ----- Original Message -----

                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                      Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                       

                      You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                       

                      I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                      As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

                      - Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

                      Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                       

                      Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                      http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                       

                      French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                      Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                      Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                      nuclear coal gas

                      USA

                      3.01

                      2.71

                      4.67

                      Canada

                      2.60

                      3.11

                      4.00

                      US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                      Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                      At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                      A 2004 report from the University of Chicago , funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA . Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                      Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                       

                      Basic cost

                      With back-up

                      With £30/t* CO2

                      Nuclear

                      2.3

                      n/a

                      n/a

                      Gas-fired CCGT

                      2.2

                      n/a

                      3.4

                      Coal pulverised fuel

                      2.5

                      n/a

                      5.0

                      Coal fluidised bed

                      2.6

                      n/a

                      5.1

                      Onshore wind

                      3.7

                      5.4

                      n/a

                      Offshore wind

                      5.5

                      7.2

                      n/a

                       

                      I don’t think any of these include ‘external’ costs (except CO2 in the last one), which the same article mentions as “Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.”.

                       

                      At this point, I’m believing that nuclear is a much better deal than coal (all things considered) and can be cheaper than combined cycle gas or coal if we build enough of them.

                       

                      http://www.nonukes.org/r08truec.htm points out the other end of the timeline – past experience:

                      Commercial atomic power has thus far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which has been in the form of federal subsidies. They take only those costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified. It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers an average of a least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour.  Excluded costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate insurance, could well total another $375 billion.

                      http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html#1 :

                      In the late 1990’s, the renewable industries have been aggressively competitive. The following table shows the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, even ignoring the environmental costs associated with fossil and nuclear generated electricity (for further information on Renewable Energy Technologies, see Annex I).


                      Figure 2 : Commercial renewables against proposed and actual nuclear costs (NEPI: Nuclear Energy Policy Issues Proposal for Sizewell C, 1994; NUFFO figures from Grubb & Vigotti, 199710).

                      This article by Greenpeace also makes an excellent point about energy efficiency:

                      Several technologies were considered, including compact fluorescent lamps, improved refrigerators and water-heaters and motor improvements. While the best electric-efficiency costs less than 1 cent per kWh of electricity saved, the average cost weighted over a wide range of electric efficiency improvements was around 2 cents.

                       

                      If you’re still with me, I’d say I have not made a case against nuclear, but against coal.  I’ve not made a good case for solar (or even wind), but for energy efficiency. [see also RMI http://www.rmi.org/ ]  However, solar (and even wind) are not mature industries.  Boy what we could do with the $492 billion nuclear got!

                      So, we renewable energy advocates have our work cut out for ourselves.  This gives some idea what we are up against.  Through innovation, information and integration into our lives, we’ve got to make many forms of renewable energy cost competitive with nuclear energy, or else live with the alternative…

                      Mike

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of chasmauch@...
                      Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:16 AM
                      To: houstonpeakoil@...; hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                       


                       

                      &n

                      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

                    • Bashir Syed
                      Concepts are one thing, and researchers in every field stretch their imaginatons to propose ideas sometimes in order to keep their candles burning, and to be
                      Message 10 of 20 , Apr 24 6:36 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Concepts are one thing, and researchers in every field stretch their imaginatons to propose ideas sometimes in order to keep their candles burning, and to be gainfully employed, but many ideas have not been successful to be of practical use. One such idea is that of FUSION for which we still have a long way to go to make it practical for producing huge amount of energy promised by TOKAMAK builders at Princeton. Thus Concepts and APPLICATIONS are still way apart, including elimination of serious health hazards.
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 10:22 PM
                        Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                        Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn’t call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                        http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                         

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                         

                        I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                        Still totally ridiculous

                        Jim Duncan

                        ----- Original Message -----

                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                        Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                         

                        Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                        ·    First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                        ·    Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                        ·    There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                        ·    Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                        ·    How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                        ·    It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                        ·    It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                        ·    I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                        Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                        Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                        At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                        ----- Original Message -----

                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                        Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                         

                        There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal (Yucca Mountain, etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                         

                        Robert Johnston

                         

                         

                        References:

                         

                        Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                        http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                         

                        Article on reprocessing:

                        http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                         

                        The Greenpeace posting:

                        http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                         

                         

                         


                        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                        To: Michael K Ewert
                        Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                         

                        Second attempt

                        ----- Original Message -----

                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                        Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                         

                        The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                        Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                        Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                         

                        BASHIR A. Syed

                        Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                         

                        References:

                        1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                        2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                        a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                        b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                        c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                        d. At Chernobyl, Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                        3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                        NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                           

                        ----- Original Message -----

                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                        Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                         

                        You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                         

                        I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                        As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

                        “- Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.”

                        Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                         

                        Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                        http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                         

                        French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                        Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                        Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                        nuclear coal gas

                        USA

                        3.01

                        2.71

                        4.67

                        Canada

                        2.60

                        3.11

                        4.00

                        US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                        Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                        At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                        A 2004 report from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA. Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                        Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                         

                        Basic cost

                        With back-up

                        With £30/t* CO2

                        Nuclear

                        2.3

                        n/a

                        n/a

                        Gas-fired CCGT

                        2.2

                        n/a

                        3.4

                        Coal pulverised fuel

                        2.5

                        n/a

                        5.0

                        Coal fluidised bed

                        2.6

                        n/a

                        5.1

                        Onshore wind

                        3.7

                        5.4

                      • Jim & Janet
                        There are a few small hurdles like: a.. is there a silicon refinery in production on the moon b.. where will the manpower come from c.. an energy source must
                        Message 11 of 20 , Apr 24 7:46 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          There are a few small hurdles like:
                          • is there a silicon refinery in production on the moon
                          • where will the manpower come from
                          • an energy source must exist first, and no nukes on the moon
                          • microwaves aimed at the Earth, shall we shield all major population centers
                           
                          Covering 2 percent of the Earths surface with PV is feasable too. Why waste money doing it on the Moon when we have already begun doing it on Earth?
                          Does Mr. Syed care to chime in on the realities here?
                          Jim Duncan

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 10:22 PM
                          Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                          Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn’t call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                          http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                           

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                          Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                           

                          I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                          Still totally ridiculous

                          Jim Duncan

                          ----- Original Message -----

                          Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                          Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                           

                          Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                          ·    First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                          ·    Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                          ·    There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                          ·    Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                          ·    How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                          ·    It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                          ·    It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                          ·    I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                          Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                          Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                          At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                          ----- Original Message -----

                          Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                          Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                           

                          There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal (Yucca Mountain, etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                           

                          Robert Johnston

                           

                           

                          References:

                           

                          Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                          http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                           

                          Article on reprocessing:

                          http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                           

                          The Greenpeace posting:

                          http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                           

                           

                           


                          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                          Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                          To: Michael K Ewert
                          Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                           

                          Second attempt

                          ----- Original Message -----

                          Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                          Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                           

                          The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                          Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                          Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                           

                          BASHIR A. Syed

                          Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                           

                          References:

                          1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                          2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                          a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                          b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                          c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                          d. At Chernobyl, Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                          3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                          NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                             

                          ----- Original Message -----

                          Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                          Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                           

                          You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                           

                          I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                          As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

                          “- Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.”

                          Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                           

                          Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                          http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                           

                          French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                          Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                          Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                          nuclear coal gas

                          USA

                          3.01

                          2.71

                          4.67

                          Canada

                          2.60

                          3.11

                          4.00

                          US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                          Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                          At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                          A 2004 report from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA. Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                          Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                           

                          Basic cost

                          With back-up

                          With £30/t* CO2

                          Nuclear

                          2.3

                          n/a

                          n/a

                          Gas-fired CCGT

                          2.2

                          n/a

                          3.4

                          Coal pulverised fuel

                          2.5

                          n/a

                          5.0

                          Coal fluidised bed

                          2.6

                          n/a

                          5.1

                          Onshore wind

                          3.7

                        • Bashir Syed
                          Andrew: Please be kind to these scholars, as at least they exhibit their power of imagination, like Columbia University s genius Mark Green, who can explain
                          Message 12 of 20 , Apr 24 8:09 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Andrew:
                            Please be kind to these scholars, as at least they exhibit their power of imagination, like Columbia University's genius Mark Green, who can explain everything through STRING THEORY and produced a NOVA program on PBS with all modern tools to show the wizardry of DIGITAL age and movie magic involving special effects. The best in that domain are Anthropologists, who have interesting stories to tell as though they lived with Dinosaurs. 
                            Well, all of us have to make a living some doing practical things and others churning out such fantastic ideas supported by National Science Foundation and other organizations. This is what makes the world interesting.  Regards,  
                             
                            Bashir A. Syed  
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:18 AM
                            Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                            Mike,

                             

                            I’d have to say that PowerPoint Presentation makes a definitive case for totally ridiculous.

                             

                            Andrew H. McCalla

                            Meridian Energy Systems

                            2300 S. Lamar, Ste. 107

                            Austin, TX   78704

                             

                            Voice: (512) 448-0055

                            Fax:    (512) 448-0045

                            www.meridiansolar.com

                             


                            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Mike C
                            Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:06 AM
                            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                             

                            Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn’t call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                            http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                             

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                            Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                             

                            I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                            Still totally ridiculous

                            Jim Duncan

                            ----- Original Message -----

                            Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                            Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                             

                            Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                            ·    First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                            ·    Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                            ·    There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                            ·    Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                            ·    How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                            ·    It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                            ·    It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                            ·    I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                            Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                            Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                            At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                            ----- Original Message -----

                            Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                            Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                             

                            There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal ( Yucca Mountain , etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                             

                            Robert Johnston

                             

                             

                            References:

                             

                            Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                            http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                             

                            Article on reprocessing:

                            http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                             

                            The Greenpeace posting:

                            http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic..php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                             

                             

                             


                            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                            Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                            To: Michael K Ewert
                            Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                             

                            Second attempt

                            ----- Original Message -----

                            Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                            Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                             

                            The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                            Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                            Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                             

                            BASHIR A. Syed

                            Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                             

                            References:

                            1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island ," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                            2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                            a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                            b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                            c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                            d. At Chernobyl , Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                            3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                            NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                               

                            ----- Original Message -----

                            Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                            Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                             

                            You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                             

                            I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                            As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

                            “- Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.”

                            Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                             

                            Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                            http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                             

                            French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                            Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                            Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                            nuclear coal gas

                            USA

                            3.01

                            2.71

                            4.67

                            Canada

                            2.60

                            3.11

                            4.00

                            US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                            Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                            At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                            A 2004 report from the University of Chicago , funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA . Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                            Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                             

                            Basic cost

                            With back-up

                            With £30/t* CO2

                            Nuclear

                            2.3

                            n/a

                            n/a

                            Gas-fired CCGT

                            2.2

                            n/a

                            3.4

                            Coal pulverised fuel

                            2.5

                            n/a


                            (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

                          • Bashir Syed
                            Jim: It wasn t my presentation but by an Astronaut Scientist at NASA/JSC. As a fellow scientist I do respect his ideas, no matter how far fetched they might
                            Message 13 of 20 , Apr 24 8:47 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim:
                              It wasn't my presentation but by an Astronaut Scientist at NASA/JSC. As a fellow scientist I do respect his ideas, no matter how far fetched they might be, but the fact remains, how practical and economic those ideas are to use them for the well being of mankind on this planet.
                               
                              Bashir A. Syed
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 9:46 AM
                              Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                              There are a few small hurdles like:
                              • is there a silicon refinery in production on the moon
                              • where will the manpower come from
                              • an energy source must exist first, and no nukes on the moon
                              • microwaves aimed at the Earth, shall we shield all major population centers
                               
                              Covering 2 percent of the Earths surface with PV is feasable too. Why waste money doing it on the Moon when we have already begun doing it on Earth?
                              Does Mr. Syed care to chime in on the realities here?
                              Jim Duncan

                              ----- Original Message -----
                              Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 10:22 PM
                              Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                              Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn’t call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                              http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                               

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                              Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                               

                              I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                              Still totally ridiculous

                              Jim Duncan

                              ----- Original Message -----

                              Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                              Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                               

                              Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                              ·    First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                              ·    Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                              ·    There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                              ·    Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                              ·    How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                              ·    It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                              ·    It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                              ·    I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                              Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                              Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                              At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                              ----- Original Message -----

                              Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                              Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                               

                              There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal (Yucca Mountain, etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                               

                              Robert Johnston

                               

                               

                              References:

                               

                              Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                              http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                               

                              Article on reprocessing:

                              http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                               

                              The Greenpeace posting:

                              http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                               

                               

                               


                              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                              Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                              To: Michael K Ewert
                              Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                               

                              Second attempt

                              ----- Original Message -----

                              Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                              Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                               

                              The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                              Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                              Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                               

                              BASHIR A. Syed

                              Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                               

                              References:

                              1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                              2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                              a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                              b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                              c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                              d. At Chernobyl, Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                              3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                              NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                                 

                              ----- Original Message -----

                              Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                              Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                               

                              You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                               

                              I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                              As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

                              “- Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.”

                              Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                               

                              Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                              http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                               

                              French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                              Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                              Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                              nuclear coal gas

                              USA

                              3.01

                              2.71

                              4.67

                              Canada

                              2.60

                              3.11

                              4.00

                              US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                              Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                              At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                              A 2004 report from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA. Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                              Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                               

                              Basic cost

                              With back-up

                              With £30/t* CO2

                              Nuclear

                              2.3

                              n/a

                              n/a

                              Gas-fired CCGT

                              2.2

                              n/a

                              3.4

                              Coal pulverised fuel


                              (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

                            • Jim & Janet
                              We would all welcome a large or small breakthrough in energy efficiency, renewable energy, etc. However, when this plan was first proposed during the first
                              Message 14 of 20 , Apr 24 9:09 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                We would all welcome a large or small breakthrough in energy efficiency, renewable energy, etc. However, when this plan was first proposed during the first Bush/Pentagon Administration, it was a serious proposal complete with funding recommendation. Unfortunately,the recommendation was to fund the study with tax dollars. It is only a good idea if it was paid for entirely with private money.
                                Jim Duncan
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:09 AM
                                Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                Andrew:
                                Please be kind to these scholars, as at least they exhibit their power of imagination, like Columbia University's genius Mark Green, who can explain everything through STRING THEORY and produced a NOVA program on PBS with all modern tools to show the wizardry of DIGITAL age and movie magic involving special effects. The best in that domain are Anthropologists, who have interesting stories to tell as though they lived with Dinosaurs. 
                                Well, all of us have to make a living some doing practical things and others churning out such fantastic ideas supported by National Science Foundation and other organizations. This is what makes the world interesting.  Regards,  
                                 
                                Bashir A. Syed  
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:18 AM
                                Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                Mike,

                                 

                                I’d have to say that PowerPoint Presentation makes a definitive case for totally ridiculous.

                                 

                                Andrew H. McCalla

                                Meridian Energy Systems

                                2300 S. Lamar, Ste. 107

                                Austin, TX   78704

                                 

                                Voice: (512) 448-0055

                                Fax:    (512) 448-0045

                                www.meridiansolar.com

                                 


                                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Mike C
                                Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:06 AM
                                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                 

                                Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn’t call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                                http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                                 

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                 

                                I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                                Still totally ridiculous

                                Jim Duncan

                                ----- Original Message -----

                                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                                Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                 

                                Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                                ·    First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                                ·    Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                                ·    There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                                ·    Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                                ·    How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                                ·    It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                                ·    It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                                ·    I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                                Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                                Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                                At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                                ----- Original Message -----

                                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                                Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                 

                                There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal ( Yucca Mountain , etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                                 

                                Robert Johnston

                                 

                                 

                                References:

                                 

                                Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                                http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                                 

                                Article on reprocessing:

                                http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                                 

                                The Greenpeace posting:

                                http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic..php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                                 

                                 

                                 


                                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                                To: Michael K Ewert
                                Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                 

                                Second attempt

                                ----- Original Message -----

                                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                                Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                 

                                The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                                Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                                Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                                 

                                BASHIR A. Syed

                                Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                                 

                                References:

                                1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island ," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                                2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                                a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                                b.Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                                c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                                d. At Chernobyl , Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                                3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                                NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                                   

                                ----- Original Message -----

                                Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                                Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                 

                                You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                                 

                                I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                                As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

                                “- Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.”

                                Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                                 

                                Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                                http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                                 

                                French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                                Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                                Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                                nuclear coal gas

                                USA

                                3.01

                                2.71

                                4.67

                                Canada

                                2.60

                                3.11

                                4.00

                                US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                                Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                                At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                                A 2004 report from the University of Chicago , funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in theUSA . Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                                Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                                 

                                Basic cost

                                With back-up

                                With £30/t* CO2

                                Nuclear

                                2.3


                                (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
                              • L P Langevine
                                I remember attending a WREN conference in Denver in 1996 and there were discussions on using the excess hydropower capacity on the African continent and the
                                Message 15 of 20 , Apr 24 9:28 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I remember attending a WREN conference in Denver in 1996 and there were discussions on using the excess hydropower capacity on the African continent and the (emerging) technology of long distance transmission of electricity (via wires!) to export the energy to Europe. I haven't heard any mention of this idea since then.

                                  Also, wasn't there an idea to place mirrors in orbit to reflect solar energy to the earth, thereby increasing the availability of solar energy?

                                  L P Langevine

                                  On 4/24/06, Jim & Janet <jhd1@...> wrote:
                                  We would all welcome a large or small breakthrough in energy efficiency, renewable energy, etc. However, when this plan was first proposed during the first Bush/Pentagon Administration, it was a serious proposal complete with funding recommendation. Unfortunately,the recommendation was to fund the study with tax dollars. It is only a good idea if it was paid for entirely with private money.
                                  Jim Duncan
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:09 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                  Andrew:
                                  Please be kind to these scholars, as at least they exhibit their power of imagination, like Columbia University's genius Mark Green, who can explain everything through STRING THEORY and produced a NOVA program on PBS with all modern tools to show the wizardry of DIGITAL age and movie magic involving special effects. The best in that domain are Anthropologists, who have interesting stories to tell as though they lived with Dinosaurs. 
                                  Well, all of us have to make a living some doing practical things and others churning out such fantastic ideas supported by National Science Foundation and other organizations. This is what makes the world interesting.  Regards,  
                                   
                                  Bashir A. Syed  
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:18 AM
                                  Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                  Mike,

                                   

                                  I'd have to say that PowerPoint Presentation makes a definitive case for totally ridiculous.

                                   

                                  Andrew H. McCalla

                                  Meridian Energy Systems

                                  2300 S. Lamar, Ste. 107

                                  Austin , TX  78704

                                   

                                  Voice: (512) 448-0055

                                  Fax:    (512) 448-0045

                                  www.meridiansolar.com

                                   


                                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike C
                                  Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:06 AM
                                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                   

                                  Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn't call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                                  http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                                   

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                   

                                  I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                                  Still totally ridiculous

                                  Jim Duncan

                                  ----- Original Message -----

                                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                                  Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                   

                                  Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                                  ·    First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                                  ·    Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                                  ·    There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                                  ·    Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                                  ·    How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                                  ·    It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                                  ·    It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                                  ·    I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                                  Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                                  Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                                  At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                                  ----- Original Message -----

                                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                                  Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                   

                                  There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as "nuclear spallation".  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal (Yucca Mountain, etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir's concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                                   

                                  Robert Johnston

                                   

                                   

                                  References:

                                   

                                  Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                                  http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                                   

                                  Article on reprocessing:

                                  http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                                   

                                  The Greenpeace posting:

                                  http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic..php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                                   

                                   

                                   


                                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                                  To: Michael K Ewert
                                  Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                   

                                  Second attempt

                                  ----- Original Message -----

                                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                                  Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                   

                                  The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                                  Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                                  Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                                   

                                  BASHIR A. Syed

                                  Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                                   

                                  References:

                                  1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                                  2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                                  a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                                  b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                                  c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                                  d. At Chernobyl, Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                                  3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                                  NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                                     

                                  ----- Original Message -----

                                  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                                  Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                   

                                  You didn't tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                                   

                                  I'm not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                                  As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I'll pick on this point:

                                  " - Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future."

                                  Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                                   

                                  Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                                  http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                                   

                                  French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                                  Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                                  Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                                  nuclear coal gas

                                  USA

                                  3.01

                                  2.71

                                  4.67

                                  Canada

                                  2.60

                                  3.11

                                  4.00

                                  US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                                  Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                                  At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                                  A 2004 report from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA. Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                                  Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                                   

                                  Basic cost

                                  With back-up

                                  With £30/t* CO2

                                  Nuclear

                                  2.3

                                  n/a

                                  n/a

                                  Gas-fired CCGT

                                  2.2

                                  n/a

                                  3.4

                                  Coal pulverised fuel

                                  2.5

                                  n/a

                                  5.0

                                  Coal fluidised bed

                                  2.6

                                  n/a

                                  5.1

                                  Onshore wind

                                  3.7

                                  5.4

                                  n/a

                                  Offshore wind

                                  5.5

                                  7.2

                                  n/a

                                   

                                  I don't think any of these include 'external' costs (except CO2 in the last one), which the same article mentions as "Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.".

                                   

                                  At this point, I'm believing that nuclear is a much better deal than coal (all things considered) and can be cheaper than combined cycle gas or coal if we build enough of them.

                                   

                                  http://www.nonukes.org/r08truec.htm points out the other end of the timeline – past experience:

                                  "Commercial atomic power has thus far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which has been in the form of federal subsidies. They take only those costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified. It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers an average of a least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour.  Excluded costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate insurance, could well total another $375 billion."

                                  http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html#1 :

                                  In the late 1990's, the renewable industries have been aggressively competitive. The following table shows the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, even ignoring the environmental costs associated with fossil and nuclear generated electricity (for further information on Renewable Energy Technologies, see Annex I).


                                  Figure 2 : Commercial renewables against proposed and actual nuclear costs (NEPI: Nuclear Energy Policy Issues Proposal for Sizewell C, 1994; NUFFO figures from Grubb & Vigotti, 1997 10).

                                  This article by Greenpeace also makes an excellent point about energy efficiency:

                                  "Several technologies were considered, including compact fluorescent lamps, improved refrigerators and water-heaters and motor improvements. While the best electric-efficiency costs less than 1 cent per kWh of electricity saved, the average cost weighted over a wide range of electric efficiency improvements was around 2 cents."

                                   

                                  If you're still with me, I'd say I have not made a case against nuclear, but against coal.  I've

                                  (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

                                • Andrew McCalla
                                  Here is a link to a group founded on Buckminster Fuller’s stab at addressing the global energy situation: http://www.geni.org/ Andrew H. McCalla Meridian
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Apr 24 9:52 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    Here is a link to a group founded on Buckminster Fuller’s stab at addressing the global energy situation:  http://www.geni.org/

                                     

                                     

                                    Andrew H. McCalla

                                    Meridian Energy Systems

                                    2300 S. Lamar, Ste. 107

                                    Austin, TX   78704

                                     

                                    Voice: (512) 448-0055

                                    Fax:    (512) 448-0045

                                    www.meridiansolar.com

                                     


                                    From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of L P Langevine
                                    Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:28 AM
                                    To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                     

                                    I remember attending a WREN conference in Denver in 1996 and there were discussions on using the excess hydropower capacity on the African continent and the (emerging) technology of long distance transmission of electricity (via wires!) to export the energy to Europe . I haven't heard any mention of this idea since then.

                                    Also, wasn't there an idea to place mirrors in orbit to reflect solar energy to the earth, thereby increasing the availability of solar energy?

                                    L P Langevine

                                    On 4/24/06, Jim & Janet <jhd1@...> wrote:

                                    We would all welcome a large or small breakthrough in energy efficiency, renewable energy, etc. However, when this plan was first proposed during the first Bush/Pentagon Administration, it was a serious proposal complete with funding recommendation. Unfortunately,the recommendation was to fund the study with tax dollars. It is only a good idea if it was paid for entirely with private money.

                                    Jim Duncan

                                    ----- Original Message -----

                                    Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:09 AM

                                    Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                     

                                    Andrew:

                                    Please be kind to these scholars, as at least they exhibit their power of imagination, like Columbia University 's genius Mark Green, who can explain everything through STRING THEORY and produced a NOVA program on PBS with all modern tools to show the wizardry of DIGITAL age and movie magic involving special effects. The best in that domain are Anthropologists, who have interesting stories to tell as though they lived with Dinosaurs. 

                                    Well, all of us have to make a living some doing practical things and others churning out such fantastic ideas supported by National Science Foundation and other organizations. This is what makes the world interesting.  Regards,  

                                     

                                    Bashir A. Syed  

                                    ----- Original Message -----

                                    Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:18 AM

                                    Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                     

                                    Mike,

                                     

                                    I'd have to say that PowerPoint Presentation makes a definitive case for totally ridiculous.

                                     

                                    Andrew H. McCalla

                                    Meridian Energy Systems

                                    2300 S. Lamar, Ste. 107

                                    Austin , TX   78704

                                     

                                    Voice: (512) 448-0055

                                    Fax:    (512) 448-0045

                                    www.meridiansolar.com

                                     


                                    From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike C
                                    Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:06 AM
                                    To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                     

                                    Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn't call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                                    http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                                     

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                                    To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                     

                                    I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                                    Still totally ridiculous

                                    Jim Duncan

                                    ----- Original Message -----

                                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                                    Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                     

                                    Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                                    ·    First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                                    ·    Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                                    ·    There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                                    ·    Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                                    ·    How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                                    ·    It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                                    ·    It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                                    ·    I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                                    Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                                    Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                                    At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                                    ----- Original Message -----

                                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                                    Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                     

                                    There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as "nuclear spallation".  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal ( Yucca Mountain , etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir's concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                                     

                                    Robert Johnston

                                     

                                     

                                    References:

                                     

                                    Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                                    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                                     

                                    Article on reprocessing:

                                    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                                     

                                    The Greenpeace posting:

                                    http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic..php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                                     

                                     

                                     


                                    From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                                    To: Michael K Ewert
                                    Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                     

                                    Second attempt

                                    ----- Original Message -----

                                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                                    Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                     

                                    The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                                    Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                                    Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                                     

                                    BASHIR A. Syed

                                    Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                                     

                                    References:

                                    1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island ," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                                    2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                                    a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                                    b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                                    c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                                    d. At Chernobyl , Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                                    3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                                    NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                                       

                                    ----- Original Message -----

                                    Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                                    Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                     

                                    You didn't tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                                     

                                    I'm not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                                    As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I'll pick on this point:

                                    " - Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future."

                                    Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                                     

                                    Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                                    http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                                     

                                    French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                                    Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                                    Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                                    nuclear coal gas

                                    USA

                                    3.01

                                    2.71

                                    4.67

                                    Canada

                                    2.60

                                    3.11

                                    4.00

                                    US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                                    Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                                    At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                                    A 2004 report from the University of Chicago , funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA . Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                                    Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                                     

                                    Basic cost

                                    With back-up

                                    With £30/t* CO2

                                    Nuclear

                                    2.3

                                    n/a

                                    n/a

                                    Gas-fired CCGT

                                    2.2

                                    n/a

                                    3.4

                                    Coal pulverised fuel

                                    2.5

                                    n/a

                                    5.0

                                    Coal fluidised bed

                                    2.6

                                    n/a

                                    5.1

                                    Onshore wind

                                    3.7

                                    5.4

                                    n/a

                                    Offshore wind

                                    5.5

                                  • Kevin L. Conlin
                                    I agree with Andrew and Jim, this is a ridiculous proposal, totally impractical and a useless waste of taxpayer dollars, which I resent. The numbers proposed
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Apr 24 10:15 AM
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      I agree with Andrew and Jim, this is a ridiculous proposal, totally impractical and a useless waste of taxpayer dollars, which I resent.  The numbers proposed in the Power Point presentation are totally bogus, do you really expect us to believe that you can deploy 5000 people to work on the moon for years?  His estimate of the lunar costs are $4.9 trillion, and the terrestrial costs to be $17 trillion.  How in the world can you build all of the lunar infrastructure for less than 1/3 the cost of the terrestrial rectennas?

                                      Just because someone is bright enough to put such a presentation together does not mean we have to respect the ideas if they are totally ridiculous!  From a practical standpoint it makes a lot more sense to deploy these resources here on earth.

                                       

                                      Kevin

                                       

                                      ________________________

                                      Kevin Conlin
                                      Solarcraft, Inc.
                                      13130 Stafford Road, Suite 125
                                      Stafford, TX 77477-4536
                                      (281)495-0438
                                      fax (281)495-0440
                                      kconlin@...
                                      www.solarcraft.net


                                      From: Bashir Syed [mailto:bsyed@...]
                                      Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:10 AM
                                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                       

                                      Andrew:

                                      Please be kind to these scholars, as at least they exhibit their power of imagination, like Columbia University's genius Mark Green, who can explain everything through STRING THEORY and produced a NOVA program on PBS with all modern tools to show the wizardry of DIGITAL age and movie magic involving special effects. The best in that domain are Anthropologists, who have interesting stories to tell as though they lived with Dinosaurs. 

                                      Well, all of us have to make a living some doing practical things and others churning out such fantastic ideas supported by National Science Foundation and other organizations. This is what makes the world interesting.  Regards,  

                                       

                                      Bashir A. Syed  

                                      ----- Original Message -----

                                      Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:18 AM

                                      Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                       

                                      Mike,

                                       

                                      I’d have to say that PowerPoint Presentation makes a definitive case for totally ridiculous.

                                       

                                      Andrew H. McCalla

                                      Meridian Energy Systems

                                      2300 S. Lamar, Ste. 107

                                      Austin, TX  78704

                                       

                                      Voice: (512) 448-0055

                                      Fax:    (512) 448-0045

                                      www.meridiansolar.com

                                       


                                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike C
                                      Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:06 AM
                                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                       

                                      Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn’t call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                                      http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                                       

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                       

                                      I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                                      Still totally ridiculous

                                      Jim Duncan

                                      ----- Original Message -----

                                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                                      Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                       

                                      Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                                      ·         First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                                      ·         Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                                      ·         There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                                      ·         Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                                      ·         How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                                      ·         It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                                      ·         It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                                      ·         I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                                      Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                                      Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                                      At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                                      ----- Original Message -----

                                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                                      Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                       

                                      There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as “nuclear spallation”.  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal (Yucca Mountain, etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir’s concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                                       

                                      Robert Johnston

                                       

                                       

                                      References:

                                       

                                      Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                                      http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                                       

                                      Article on reprocessing:

                                      http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                                       

                                      The Greenpeace posting:

                                      http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic..php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                                       

                                       

                                       


                                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                                      To: Michael K Ewert
                                      Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                       

                                      Second attempt

                                      ----- Original Message -----

                                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                                      Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                       

                                      The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                                      Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                                      Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                                       

                                      BASHIR A. Syed

                                      Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                                       

                                      References:

                                      1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                                      2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                                      a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                                      b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                                      c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                                      d. At Chernobyl, Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                                      3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                                      NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                                         

                                      ----- Original Message -----

                                      Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                                      Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                       

                                      You didn’t tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                                       

                                      I’m not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                                      As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I’ll pick on this point:

                                      - Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

                                      Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                                       

                                      Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                                      http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                                       

                                      French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                                      Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                                      Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                                      nuclear coal gas

                                      USA

                                      3.01

                                      2.71

                                      4.67

                                      Canada

                                      2.60

                                      3.11

                                      4.00

                                      US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                                      Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                                      At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                                      A 2004 report from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA. Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                                      Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                                       

                                      Basic cost

                                      With back-up

                                      With £30/t* CO2

                                      Nuclear

                                      2.3

                                      n/a

                                      n/a

                                      Gas-fired CCGT

                                      2.2

                                      n/a

                                      3.4

                                      Coal pulverised fuel

                                      2.5

                                      n/a

                                      5.0

                                      Coal fluidised bed

                                      2.6

                                      n/a

                                      5.1

                                      Onshore wind

                                      3.7

                                      5.4

                                      n/a

                                      Offshore wind

                                      5.5

                                      7.2

                                      n/a

                                       

                                      I don’t think any of these include ‘external’ costs (except CO2 in the last one), which the same article mentions as “Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.”.

                                       

                                      At this point, I’m believing that nu

                                      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

                                    • Bashir Syed
                                      There have been interesting proposals by various scientists on this topic, and NASA distributed a DVD ( I think the title was Solar Energy from Space) during
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Apr 24 10:53 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        There have been interesting proposals by various scientists on this topic, and NASA distributed a DVD  ( I think the title was Solar Energy from Space) during "INSPECTION 2000" as a promotional item to propagate such ideas. Last year I met some so-called Educated people in UK, who really believed in  extracting Silicon from sand, in their garage. And one person told me that he has stored a lot of the QUARTZ sand, which he believed would make him rich some-day. More power to such folks! 
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:28 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                        I remember attending a WREN conference in Denver in 1996 and there were discussions on using the excess hydropower capacity on the African continent and the (emerging) technology of long distance transmission of electricity (via wires!) to export the energy to Europe. I haven't heard any mention of this idea since then.

                                        Also, wasn't there an idea to place mirrors in orbit to reflect solar energy to the earth, thereby increasing the availability of solar energy?

                                        L P Langevine

                                        On 4/24/06, Jim & Janet <jhd1@...> wrote:
                                        We would all welcome a large or small breakthrough in energy efficiency, renewable energy, etc. However, when this plan was first proposed during the first Bush/Pentagon Administration, it was a serious proposal complete with funding recommendation. Unfortunately,the recommendation was to fund the study with tax dollars. It is only a good idea if it was paid for entirely with private money.
                                        Jim Duncan
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:09 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                        Andrew:
                                        Please be kind to these scholars, as at least they exhibit their power of imagination, like Columbia University's genius Mark Green, who can explain everything through STRING THEORY and produced a NOVA program on PBS with all modern tools to show the wizardry of DIGITAL age and movie magic involving special effects. The best in that domain are Anthropologists, who have interesting stories to tell as though they lived with Dinosaurs. 
                                        Well, all of us have to make a living some doing practical things and others churning out such fantastic ideas supported by National Science Foundation and other organizations. This is what makes the world interesting.  Regards,  
                                         
                                        Bashir A. Syed  
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:18 AM
                                        Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                        Mike,

                                         

                                        I'd have to say that PowerPoint Presentation makes a definitive case for totally ridiculous.

                                         

                                        Andrew H. McCalla

                                        Meridian Energy Systems

                                        2300 S. Lamar, Ste. 107

                                        Austin , TX  78704

                                         

                                        Voice: (512) 448-0055

                                        Fax:    (512) 448-0045

                                        www.meridiansolar.com

                                         


                                        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike C
                                        Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:06 AM
                                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                         

                                        Farfetched maybe. But I wouldn't call it ridiculous.  Researchers at the University of Houston have come a long way on the concept.

                                        http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture41.pdf

                                         

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:28 PM
                                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                         

                                        I believe the plan with the moon based PV was to melt massive amounts of doped silicon and simply apply it to the moons surface, making huge light-sensitive patches of the ground there. That would save considerable cost by not having to build frames, make glass and all those other energy intensive things.

                                        Still totally ridiculous

                                        Jim Duncan

                                        ----- Original Message -----

                                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:26 PM

                                        Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                         

                                        Since my training is in Physics, I can say that whatever is written is not only theoretically possible but is proven in the laboratory.

                                        ·    First of all how many accelerators would you need to achieve this task.

                                        ·    Does anyone know how much energy is consumed when an accelerator is in operation.

                                        ·    There are thousands of tons of nuclear waste in liquid form, which is not easy to manage as target material using a high energy beam of protons.

                                        ·    Justice imagine that waste can be converted or transmuted to other species which are not long lived, but what are we going to do about the neutron damage to the heat exchanger pipes made of stainless steel, which are inside the reactors, and are continuously becoming brittle.

                                        ·    How can you stop the radiation damage to the electronic monitoring devices which are very close to the reactor. The devices change in their electronic functionality altering the calibrations to give misleading results of actual versus observed radiation levels.

                                        ·    It is not an easy problem to solve in a practical manner.

                                        ·    It is a very good exercise in publishing academic papers like two following concepts.

                                        ·    I attended a meeting last year at NASA, in which a scientist had presented razzle dazzle Power-Point slides about how we can go to the moon, set up a Silicon Solar Photovoltaic Panel making factory. Then use these PV Panels to produce electricity, convert it to microwave energy. Beam that energy in the form of microwaves back to earth and reconvert it into electricity. Theoretically and conceptually it is a very good plan, but does anyone know the economic and technical feasibility of such a project.

                                        Let us be pragmatic and use common sense  to comprehend many other variables apart from economics and energy requirements to operate such accelerators.

                                        Why don't we shoot this waste into outer space and that perhaps could be a better thought exercise than using accelerators.

                                        At one time people had proposed nuclear reactors for airplanes as well, but when they considered the possibility of a crash, all of their idealistic dreams vanished and the project was scrapped.  

                                        ----- Original Message -----

                                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 7:05 PM

                                        Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                         

                                        There was a recent note in Chemical & Engineering News describing a Japanese project to dispose of nuclear waste by use of an accelerator.  A posting describing similar technology was recently posted on the Greenpeace website, which refers to it as "nuclear spallation".  The technology purportedly will allow destruction of nuclear wastes through conversion to new elements with short half lives, rather than being resigned to the mega-half life decay rate assumptions underlying current thinking about nuclear waste disposal (Yucca Mountain, etc.).  Another development is reprocessing technologies that recycle most of the waste uranium etc. in spent fuel (only a fraction of it is actually reacted).  These sound like ways to deal with many of Bashir's concerns (in principle, I assume one could even subject plant pipes, etc. to such a process), while gaining the benefits from eliminating CO2 generating technologies. Bashir, any comments on the viability of accelerator based waste disposal?  There seems to be a lot of scientific support for the viability of the idea.

                                         

                                        Robert Johnston

                                         

                                         

                                        References:

                                         

                                        Article on accelerator driven waste disposal:

                                        http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.htm

                                         

                                        Article on reprocessing:

                                        http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm

                                         

                                        The Greenpeace posting:

                                        http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic..php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=54d75125091ca9c57e38ead083be453b

                                         

                                         

                                         


                                        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bashir Syed
                                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 AM
                                        To: Michael K Ewert
                                        Subject: Fw: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                         

                                        Second attempt

                                        ----- Original Message -----

                                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:22 AM

                                        Subject: Re: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                         

                                        The Founder of the Green Peace should be taken to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to not only see the worst which happened there but also experience the neutron environment. Trained as Physicist, and having served on NASA's Environmental (terrestrial and space) Radiation Safety Committee, I could tell him that he is full of hot air, and perhaps paid like a journalist Jacque Srouji, (who was paid to write a book CRITICAL MASS, in order to promote Nuclear Energy, without ever knowing the difference between an atom or molecule). Germany is the only sensible country to adopt Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar -Thermal & PV) and announcing the decommissioning of her Nuclear reactors before the end of this decade. Since the United states has a huge stock-pile of Uranium (some highly enriched brought from Central Asian Republics of ex-Soviet Russia and some recently removed from Iraq without informing the IAEA) and the rate of growth of nuclear energy down to 0.6 percent, some associates of current President wrongly advised him to not only to use it domestically but also make money by selling it to other countries (like India, China, etc) and to defense industry for making more Depleted Uranium munitions from it before it becomes a serious problem in this country. Uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 Billion years, and it takes about 5 half lives to reduce its radioactivity considered to be a safe level. 

                                        Now here is what happens in a nuclear reactor, not only does it create highly radioactive byproducts of FISSION reactions (which are deadly and creating a problem for storage even deep underground at Yucca Mountain in New Mexico), but within the reactor itself. The neutron flux within the reactors continuously bombards the stainless pipes used as heat exchangers to produce steam (which in turn is used to generate electricity with steam-turbines). Neutron with no charge cause structural damage by striking individual atoms and cause displacement which over a period of time makes stainless steel brittle. Once a crack develops in these heat exchanger pipes, it is literally impossisible to repair such damage due to extremely high levels of radiation near or inside the reactor, and the occurrence of such a crack can cause leakage of these deadly radioactive fluids (fission byproducts) within the reactor and pollute the water which poses the greatest health risk to marine life as well humans causing cancer. Just last week, manager of one of the reactor had to apologize to the inhabitants living around this reactor that the management deliberately didn't disclose to the media about the leakage of Tritium which has occurred a few times but they did not want to create panic. Tritium is a gamma emitter isotope of Hydrogen (containing two additional neutrons in the nucleus with half life of 12.3 years). Such accidents are bound to happen, and nothing known to man can stop it from occurring. Thus the radiation from such spills or discharge into rivers or streams, although invisible and tasteless, could prove deadly. The other thing which is hard for people to understand is that the radiation monitoring instruments contain Solid-State electronic devices, in which the continuous bombardment of radiation (neutrons and gamma) alters the performance characertics of these devices, changing the calibration, and one day leading to a situation (like meltdown) that occurred with Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl reactors. Thus the claims that this form of energy does not produce green-house emissions is totally misleading, because the byproducts of fission are far worse harmful than the carbon-dioxide and other pollutants - as they are silent killers without any remedy. 

                                        Thus anyone promoting nuclear power is nothing but an enemy of humanity as he/she has no idea about the harm other than making a quick buck for self enrichment (that too is questionable - because no matter how rich a person might be he can buy treatment for cancer). 

                                         

                                        BASHIR A. Syed

                                        Member: Amer. Phys. Soc., IEEE (Nucl. & Space Radiation Effects), Union of Concerned Scientists, Amer. Sol. Energy Soc. and Senior Memb. of International Solar Energy Society.  

                                         

                                        References:

                                        1. Ernest Sternglass, "SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island," (Introduction by Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, George Wald), McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, New York 1972 and 1981. 

                                        2. National Public Radio, April 21, 2006: from Archives:

                                        a. Voices of Chernobyl Survivors, stories.

                                        b. Chernobyl copes with Fallout, 20 years later

                                        c. Covering the Chernobyl Crisis

                                        d. At Chernobyl, Building a Shelter for a Shelter.

                                        3. Jacque Srouji, "CRITICAL MASS - Nuclear Power, the Alternative to Energy Famine," Aurora Publishers Incorporated, Nashville/London 1977. Srouji served as a newspaper reporter at "Tennessean" and paid by nuclear industry to write this book with having any background in Nuclear technology or physics. She also served as an FBI informer and delved into Karen-Silkwoods life after her mysterious death. Embedded in the book is a sinister plan to ruin the character of Karen Silkwood (Chapter 13: "Silkwood, Karen Gay: Former Kerr-Mcgee Employee," pages 261-359, which have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy but character assassination, even  by publishing secret FBI documents related to her death).

                                        NOTE: Missing in the graphic presentation is data regarding Renewable Energy for comparison with Nuclear energy - very clever! 

                                           

                                        ----- Original Message -----

                                        Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM

                                        Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...

                                         

                                        You didn't tell us your opinion Charlie.   J

                                         

                                        I'm not totally opposed to nuclear energy and the article makes some good points, BUT…

                                        As president of the Houston Renewable Energy Group I have to say something.  I'll pick on this point:

                                        " - Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future."

                                        Does that include the capital cost of the plant and disposal cost of the nuclear fuel and reactor at end of life and health effects?  I did some research.

                                         

                                        Here is one good review article by Uranium Information Centre  with all the data below in it:

                                        http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

                                         

                                        French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.

                                        Source: US Utility Data Inst. (pre 1995), Resource Data International (1995- )
                                        Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant. On the basis of the OECD projections opposite, capital costs in USA are 55% of total for nuclear, 45% of total for coal and 16% of total for gas. Grossing these up on this basis for 2001 gives 3.73 c/kWh for nuclear, 3.27 c/kWh for coal and 5.87 c/kWh for gas.


                                        nuclear coal gas

                                        USA

                                        3.01

                                        2.71

                                        4.67

                                        Canada

                                        2.60

                                        3.11

                                        4.00

                                        US 2003 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5%, 40 year lifetime, 85% load factor.
                                        Source: OECD/IEA NEA 2005.

                                        At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents.

                                        A 2004 report from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA. Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

                                        Present-day cost of generating UK electricity (p/kWh) from new plant

                                         

                                        Basic cost

                                        With back-up

                                        With £30/t* CO2

                                        Nuclear

                                        2.3

                                        n/a

                                        n/a

                                        Gas-fired CCGT

                                        2.2

                                        n/a

                                        3.4

                                        Coal pulverised fuel

                                        2.5


                                        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

                                      • Bashir Syed
                                        Something went wrong! ... From: Andrew McCalla To: Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:52 AM Subject: RE:
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Apr 24 10:54 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Something went wrong!
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: "Andrew McCalla" <andrew@...>
                                          To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:52 AM
                                          Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...


                                          > This message has been processed by Symantec's AntiVirus Technology.
                                          >
                                          > Unknown00000000.data was not scanned for viruses because too many nested
                                          > levels of files were found.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > For more information on antivirus tips and technology, visit
                                          > http://ses.symantec.com/
                                        • Bashir Syed
                                          Something went wrong! ... From: Kevin L. Conlin To: Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:15 PM Subject: RE: [hreg]
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Apr 24 10:54 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Something went wrong!
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "Kevin L. Conlin" <kconlin@...>
                                            To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:15 PM
                                            Subject: RE: [hreg] Fwd: Greenpeace Co-Founder Makes The Case FOR Nuclear...


                                            > This message has been processed by Symantec's AntiVirus Technology.
                                            >
                                            > Unknown00000000.data was not scanned for viruses because too many nested
                                            > levels of files were found.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > For more information on antivirus tips and technology, visit
                                            > http://ses.symantec.com/
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.