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

Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

Expand Messages
  • texasblessings
    I posed a question on here last night whether it was the general consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power reasonable within our acceptance of
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I posed a question on here last night whether it was the general
      consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
      reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables". Seems the general
      consensus is "no". Good.

      I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you all
      don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband is an
      Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
      Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.

      It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
      myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
      biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC aired
      a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
      safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources. They
      say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
      time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
      industry.

      And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on our
      community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
      were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone of
      nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.

      Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a moment I
      could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
      hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the industry
      requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
      jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we, the
      American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
      profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
      hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
      radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how can we
      NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise be
      available to develop efficiency technologies and true renewables?

      Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew into
      the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to its
      inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
      initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to run the
      smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season &
      all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case he had
      just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security over-
      reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
      around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams searched the
      building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
      sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in case". In
      fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
      minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years back, it
      was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.

      Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates have
      risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother and
      great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
      ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb less
      deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the industry
      had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect ourselves
      even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
      Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and even if it
      were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of waste
      awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
      course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to Yucca. Our
      fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard is
      12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage or
      transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
      industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON a suit
      that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with nuclear
      waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee training
      subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the tax-
      payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying them
      to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will pay
      them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would they
      want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention, the
      citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who are
      down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing, never got
      to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say in the
      matter at all.

      "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do
      nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
      yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be led,
      thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would have
      you follow. It's important that we band together and fight this
      industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to your
      friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk to
      your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
      Insist that this madness end.

      Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.

      Peace,
      Susan
    • Jack Wagner (HSN)
      I don t have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it s safe and is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that brings up the whole
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
      • 0 Attachment

        I don’t have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it’s safe and is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that brings up the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for the renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would decide but that’s probably not going to work this time around. With any luck, when the Fed gets through with the banks, they’ll throw a few billion our way J.

         


        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of texasblessings
        Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

         

        I posed a question on here last night whether it was the general
        consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
        reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables" . Seems the general
        consensus is "no". Good.

        I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you all
        don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband is an
        Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
        Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.

        It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
        myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
        biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC aired
        a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
        safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources. They
        say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
        time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
        industry.

        And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on our
        community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
        were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone of
        nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.

        Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a moment I
        could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
        hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the industry
        requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
        jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we, the
        American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
        profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
        hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
        radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how can we
        NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise be
        available to develop efficiency technologies and true renewables?

        Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew into
        the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to its
        inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
        initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to run the
        smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season &
        all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case he had
        just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security over-
        reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
        around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams searched the
        building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
        sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in case". In
        fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
        minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years back, it
        was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.

        Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates have
        risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother and
        great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
        ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb less
        deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the industry
        had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect ourselves
        even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
        Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and even if it
        were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of waste
        awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
        course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to Yucca. Our
        fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard is
        12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage or
        transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
        industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON a suit
        that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with nuclear
        waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee training
        subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the tax-
        payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying them
        to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will pay
        them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would they
        want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention, the
        citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who are
        down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing, never got
        to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say in the
        matter at all.

        "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do
        nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
        yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be led,
        thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would have
        you follow. It's important that we band together and fight this
        industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to your
        friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk to
        your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
        Insist that this madness end.

        Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.

        Peace,
        Susan

      • texasblessings
        My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more: The free market can t function, and therefor renewables can t compete so long as our gov t officials
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more: The "free"
          market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so long
          as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents and so
          long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their well-
          being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
          Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1% catastrophic
          failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!

          --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it's
          safe and
          > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
          brings up
          > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for the
          > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would decide
          but
          > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any luck,
          when
          > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few billion
          our way
          > :-).
          >
          >
          >
          > ________________________________
          >
          > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of
          > texasblessings
          > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
          > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
          >
          >
          >
          > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the general
          > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
          > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables". Seems the
          general
          > consensus is "no". Good.
          >
          > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you all
          > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband is
          an
          > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
          > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
          >
          > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
          > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
          > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
          aired
          > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
          > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources. They
          > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
          > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
          > industry.
          >
          > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on our
          > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
          > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone of
          > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
          >
          > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a moment
          I
          > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
          > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the industry
          > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
          > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we, the
          > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
          > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
          > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
          > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how can
          we
          > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise be
          > available to develop efficiency technologies and true renewables?
          >
          > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew into
          > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to its
          > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
          > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to run
          the
          > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season &
          > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case he
          had
          > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security over-
          > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
          > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams searched
          the
          > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
          > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in case". In
          > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
          > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years back, it
          > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
          >
          > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates have
          > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother and
          > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
          > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb less
          > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the industry
          > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect ourselves
          > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
          > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and even if it
          > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of waste
          > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
          > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to Yucca. Our
          > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard is
          > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage or
          > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
          > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON a
          suit
          > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
          nuclear
          > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee training
          > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the tax-
          > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying them
          > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will pay
          > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would
          they
          > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention, the
          > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who are
          > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing, never
          got
          > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say in
          the
          > matter at all.
          >
          > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do
          > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
          > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be led,
          > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would have
          > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight this
          > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to your
          > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk to
          > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
          > Insist that this madness end.
          >
          > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
          >
          > Peace,
          > Susan
          >
        • Jay Ring
          I am generally pro-nuclear. I certainly don t mind hearing from people with differing views - although I don t consider myself being led thoughtlessly . I
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I am generally pro-nuclear.

            I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
            although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly". I would
            have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the charge
            because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite the
            significant issues.

            I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
            greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun burns
            out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What I do
            focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon output,
            low environmental impact, and high energy output.

            No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something, we
            will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive use
            of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different than
            being pro-coal.

            Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation wide.
            Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures this.
            It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested. Believe
            me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a long
            time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national doesn't
            make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
            don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That whole
            time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to use
            the existing power generation - coal.

            The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric hybrids
            to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal to
            nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a much
            better position to be in when you start the long investing phase to
            being the move to solar.

            If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
            because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
            sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures that
            we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is empirically
            no different than being pro-coal.

            Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)


            - Jay


            --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@...> wrote:
            >
            > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more: The "free"
            > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so long
            > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents and so
            > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their well-
            > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
            > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1% catastrophic
            > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
            >
            > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it's
            > safe and
            > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
            > brings up
            > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for the
            > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would decide
            > but
            > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any luck,
            > when
            > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few billion
            > our way
            > > :-).
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ________________________________
            > >
            > > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
            > Of
            > > texasblessings
            > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
            > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the general
            > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
            > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables". Seems the
            > general
            > > consensus is "no". Good.
            > >
            > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you all
            > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband is
            > an
            > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
            > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
            > >
            > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
            > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
            > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
            > aired
            > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
            > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources. They
            > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
            > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
            > > industry.
            > >
            > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on our
            > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
            > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone of
            > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
            > >
            > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a moment
            > I
            > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
            > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the industry
            > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
            > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we, the
            > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
            > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
            > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
            > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how can
            > we
            > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise be
            > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true renewables?
            > >
            > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew into
            > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to its
            > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
            > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to run
            > the
            > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season &
            > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case he
            > had
            > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security over-
            > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
            > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams searched
            > the
            > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
            > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in case". In
            > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
            > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years back, it
            > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
            > >
            > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates have
            > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother and
            > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
            > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb less
            > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the industry
            > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect ourselves
            > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
            > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and even if it
            > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of waste
            > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
            > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to Yucca. Our
            > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard is
            > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage or
            > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
            > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON a
            > suit
            > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
            > nuclear
            > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee training
            > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the tax-
            > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying them
            > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will pay
            > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would
            > they
            > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention, the
            > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who are
            > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing, never
            > got
            > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say in
            > the
            > > matter at all.
            > >
            > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do
            > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
            > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be led,
            > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would have
            > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight this
            > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to your
            > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk to
            > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
            > > Insist that this madness end.
            > >
            > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
            > >
            > > Peace,
            > > Susan
            > >
            >
          • William & Cynthia Stange
            While I am nowhere even close to knowing the industry I do read a lot. What is with the new processing of fissal materials to make them less radioactive? I
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              While I am nowhere even close to knowing the industry I do read a lot. What is with the new processing of fissal materials to make them less radioactive? I also understand what the French do in making all their reactors exactly the same, to make emergency procedures streamline. While I am an opponent of nuclear I try to understand the issues. Any material that is highly radioactive that we ca not find a suitable container for sounds to me like a disaster waiting to happen. Methods like wind, solar,geothermal and thermal updrafting should be maintained as our future. Maybe? Maybe the others used as part time until renewables are ready.
               Bill
              From: Jay Ring <txses@...>
              Subject: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 4:16 PM


              I am generally pro-nuclear.

              I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
              although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly" . I would
              have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the charge
              because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite the
              significant issues.

              I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
              greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun burns
              out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What I do
              focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon output,
              low environmental impact, and high energy output.

              No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something, we
              will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive use
              of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different than
              being pro-coal.

              Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation wide.
              Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures this.
              It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested. Believe
              me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a long
              time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national doesn't
              make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
              don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That whole
              time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to use
              the existing power generation - coal.

              The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric hybrids
              to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal to
              nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a much
              better position to be in when you start the long investing phase to
              being the move to solar.

              If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
              because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
              sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures that
              we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is empirically
              no different than being pro-coal.

              Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)

              - Jay

              --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@ ...> wrote:
              >
              > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more: The "free"
              > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so long
              > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents and so
              > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their well-
              > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
              > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1% catastrophic
              > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
              >
              > --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@ >
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it's
              > safe and
              > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
              > brings up
              > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for the
              > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would decide
              > but
              > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any luck,
              > when
              > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few billion
              > our way
              > > :-).
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ____________ _________ _________ __
              > >
              > > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
              > Of
              > > texasblessings
              > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
              > > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
              > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the general
              > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
              > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables" . Seems the
              > general
              > > consensus is "no". Good.
              > >
              > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you all
              > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband is
              > an
              > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
              > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
              > >
              > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
              > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
              > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
              > aired
              > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
              > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources. They
              > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
              > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
              > > industry.
              > >
              > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on our
              > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
              > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone of
              > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
              > >
              > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a moment
              > I
              > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
              > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the industry
              > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
              > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we, the
              > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
              > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
              > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
              > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how can
              > we
              > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise be
              > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true renewables?
              > >
              > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew into
              > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to its
              > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
              > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to run
              > the
              > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season &
              > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case he
              > had
              > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security over-
              > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
              > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams searched
              > the
              > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
              > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in case". In
              > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
              > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years back, it
              > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
              > >
              > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates have
              > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother and
              > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
              > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb less
              > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the industry
              > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect ourselves
              > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
              > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and even if it
              > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of waste
              > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
              > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to Yucca. Our
              > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard is
              > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage or
              > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
              > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON a
              > suit
              > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
              > nuclear
              > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee training
              > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the tax-
              > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying them
              > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will pay
              > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would
              > they
              > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention, the
              > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who are
              > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing, never
              > got
              > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say in
              > the
              > > matter at all.
              > >
              > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do
              > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
              > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be led,
              > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would have
              > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight this
              > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to your
              > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk to
              > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
              > > Insist that this madness end.
              > >
              > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
              > >
              > > Peace,
              > > Susan
              > >
              >

            • texasblessings
              I m sorry if my choice of words belittled, again, it is JMO. I have to say, though, unless some major factor in the energy crisis has escaped me, what does
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm sorry if my choice of words belittled, again, it is JMO. I have
                to say, though, unless some major factor in the energy crisis has
                escaped me, what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels? It is
                my contention that particular argument is one of the greatest smoke-
                and-mirrors tactics the nuke industry has pulled off: Their mantra
                has long been "Nukes will get us out of Iraq" "Nukes will make us
                independent of foreign oil"

                How?

                TRANSPORTATION relies on fossil fuels, less than 2% of
                homes/businesses/industry do.

                Fossil fuel consumption, basically, does not compete with
                electricity generation in any form, yet we are led to believe it
                does.

                Do we need to cut down on fossil fuel comsumption, develop
                alternatives? Of course...

                Do we need to develop efficiency technologies, alternative power
                ideas, and cut down on electrical usage? Of course...

                But they are seperate crises, are they not?

                And once again, my husband works out there, the industry is my bread
                and butter, and I'd like to see it cease to exist, at least see it
                cease to expand. It took a lot to get my thinking to this point,
                but with the nukes, the more you learn, the more sickening it is. I
                have seen where the land of Native Americans was strip mined for
                uranium (with the threat of losing government funding if they
                resisted), I have stood in front of company execs and spokespersons
                and repeatedy been
                told "Its all about the money". And it is. And if they were making
                widgets that's be okay. But they're making an extremely dangerous
                situation even worse by the sole focus on profit, and we, via our
                gov't, are being forced to participate in our own demise.

                Thank you for engaging me, caring enough to discuss it. If you have
                a spare minute, go to www.mccnia.homestead.com "Food for Thought"
                page. And please, let me know what you think.

                --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Ring" <txses@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > I am generally pro-nuclear.
                >
                > I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
                > although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly". I
                would
                > have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the
                charge
                > because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite
                the
                > significant issues.
                >
                > I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
                > greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun
                burns
                > out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What
                I do
                > focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon
                output,
                > low environmental impact, and high energy output.
                >
                > No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something,
                we
                > will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive
                use
                > of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different
                than
                > being pro-coal.
                >
                > Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation
                wide.
                > Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures
                this.
                > It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested.
                Believe
                > me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a
                long
                > time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national
                doesn't
                > make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
                > don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That
                whole
                > time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to
                use
                > the existing power generation - coal.
                >
                > The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric
                hybrids
                > to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal
                to
                > nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a
                much
                > better position to be in when you start the long investing phase to
                > being the move to solar.
                >
                > If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
                > because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
                > sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures
                that
                > we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is
                empirically
                > no different than being pro-coal.
                >
                > Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)
                >
                >
                > - Jay
                >
                >
                > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@>
                wrote:
                > >
                > > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more:
                The "free"
                > > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so
                long
                > > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents
                and so
                > > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their
                well-
                > > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
                > > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1% catastrophic
                > > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
                > >
                > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@>
                > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it's
                > > safe and
                > > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
                > > brings up
                > > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for
                the
                > > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would
                decide
                > > but
                > > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any
                luck,
                > > when
                > > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few
                billion
                > > our way
                > > > :-).
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > ________________________________
                > > >
                > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On
                Behalf
                > > Of
                > > > texasblessings
                > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
                > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                > > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the
                general
                > > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
                > > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables". Seems the
                > > general
                > > > consensus is "no". Good.
                > > >
                > > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you
                all
                > > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband
                is
                > > an
                > > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
                > > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
                > > >
                > > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
                > > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
                > > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
                > > aired
                > > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
                > > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources.
                They
                > > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
                > > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
                > > > industry.
                > > >
                > > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on
                our
                > > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
                > > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone of
                > > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
                > > >
                > > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a
                moment
                > > I
                > > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
                > > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the
                industry
                > > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
                > > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we,
                the
                > > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
                > > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
                > > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
                > > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how
                can
                > > we
                > > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise
                be
                > > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true
                renewables?
                > > >
                > > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew
                into
                > > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to
                its
                > > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
                > > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to
                run
                > > the
                > > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season
                &
                > > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case
                he
                > > had
                > > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security
                over-
                > > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
                > > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams
                searched
                > > the
                > > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
                > > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in
                case". In
                > > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
                > > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years
                back, it
                > > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
                > > >
                > > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates
                have
                > > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother
                and
                > > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
                > > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb
                less
                > > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the
                industry
                > > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect
                ourselves
                > > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
                > > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and even if
                it
                > > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of
                waste
                > > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
                > > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to Yucca.
                Our
                > > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard
                is
                > > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage
                or
                > > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
                > > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON
                a
                > > suit
                > > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
                > > nuclear
                > > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee
                training
                > > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the
                tax-
                > > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying
                them
                > > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will
                pay
                > > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would
                > > they
                > > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention,
                the
                > > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who
                are
                > > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing,
                never
                > > got
                > > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say
                in
                > > the
                > > > matter at all.
                > > >
                > > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to
                do
                > > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
                > > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be
                led,
                > > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would
                have
                > > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight
                this
                > > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to
                your
                > > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk
                to
                > > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
                > > > Insist that this madness end.
                > > >
                > > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
                > > >
                > > > Peace,
                > > > Susan
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • Jim & Janet
                The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric hybrids to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal to nuclear (Possibly
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric hybrids
                  to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal to
                  nuclear (Possibly wind too), ....
                   
                  The statistics I posted seem to have not sunk in.
                  The use of electricity generated from renewable energy in the US is increasing while the use of electricity from nuclear is declining.
                  This is not a percentage statistic but a megawatt hour statistic. The market IS deciding.
                  Nuclear had a quarter century in the US to prove itself. The industry was not sustainable without huge subsidies from the taxpayers.
                  I don't think these numbers lie.
                  Jim Duncan

                  For the period January, 1 to June 30, 2008, the United States consumed 50.673 quadrillion Btus (quads) of energy. Of that amount, 34.162 quads was from domestic sources and 16.511 quads was imported. Domestically- produced renewable energy (biomass/biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind) totaled 3.606 quads, an amount equal to 10.56% of U.S. energy consumption that is domestically- produced.

                  This share is only slightly less than nuclear power's 11.98% contribution. And while consumption of nuclear power dropped to 4.091 quads, down from 4.119 quads during the first half of 2008, compared to the same period for 2007, renewable energy's share increased by 5% to 3.606 quads, up from 3.439 quads.


                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Jay Ring
                  Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:16 PM
                  Subject: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....


                  I am generally pro-nuclear.

                  I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
                  although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly" . I would
                  have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the charge
                  because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite the
                  significant issues.

                  I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
                  greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun burns
                  out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What I do
                  focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon output,
                  low environmental impact, and high energy output.

                  No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something, we
                  will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive use
                  of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different than
                  being pro-coal.

                  Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation wide.
                  Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures this.
                  It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested. Believe
                  me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a long
                  time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national doesn't
                  make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
                  don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That whole
                  time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to use
                  the existing power generation - coal.

                  The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric hybrids
                  to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal to
                  nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a much
                  better position to be in when you start the long investing phase to
                  being the move to solar.

                  If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
                  because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
                  sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures that
                  we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is empirically
                  no different than being pro-coal.

                  Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)

                  - Jay

                  --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@ ...> wrote:
                  >
                  > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more: The "free"
                  > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so long
                  > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents and so
                  > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their well-
                  > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
                  > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1% catastrophic
                  > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
                  >
                  > --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@ >
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it's
                  > safe and
                  > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
                  > brings up
                  > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for the
                  > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would decide
                  > but
                  > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any luck,
                  > when
                  > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few billion
                  > our way
                  > > :-).
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ____________ _________ _________ __
                  > >
                  > > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
                  > Of
                  > > texasblessings
                  > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
                  > > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                  > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the general
                  > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
                  > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables" . Seems the
                  > general
                  > > consensus is "no". Good.
                  > >
                  > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you all
                  > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband is
                  > an
                  > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
                  > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
                  > >
                  > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
                  > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
                  > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
                  > aired
                  > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
                  > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources. They
                  > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
                  > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
                  > > industry.
                  > >
                  > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on our
                  > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
                  > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone of
                  > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
                  > >
                  > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a moment
                  > I
                  > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
                  > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the industry
                  > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
                  > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we, the
                  > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
                  > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
                  > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
                  > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how can
                  > we
                  > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise be
                  > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true renewables?
                  > >
                  > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew into
                  > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to its
                  > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
                  > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to run
                  > the
                  > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season &
                  > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case he
                  > had
                  > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security over-
                  > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
                  > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams searched
                  > the
                  > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
                  > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in case". In
                  > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
                  > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years back, it
                  > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
                  > >
                  > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates have
                  > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother and
                  > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
                  > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb less
                  > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the industry
                  > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect ourselves
                  > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
                  > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and even if it
                  > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of waste
                  > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
                  > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to Yucca. Our
                  > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard is
                  > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage or
                  > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
                  > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON a
                  > suit
                  > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
                  > nuclear
                  > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee training
                  > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the tax-
                  > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying them
                  > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will pay
                  > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would
                  > they
                  > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention, the
                  > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who are
                  > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing, never
                  > got
                  > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say in
                  > the
                  > > matter at all.
                  > >
                  > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do
                  > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
                  > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be led,
                  > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would have
                  > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight this
                  > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to your
                  > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk to
                  > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
                  > > Insist that this madness end.
                  > >
                  > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
                  > >
                  > > Peace,
                  > > Susan
                  > >
                  >

                • texasblessings
                  ... have ... smoke- ... term fossil fuel rather that petroleum products, that s where it gets slippery) ... bread ... I ... spokespersons ... making ... have
                  Message 8 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > I'm sorry if my choice of words belittled, again, it is JMO. I
                    have
                    > to say, though, unless some major factor in the energy crisis has
                    > escaped me, what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels? It is
                    > my contention that particular argument is one of the greatest
                    smoke-
                    > and-mirrors tactics the nuke industry has pulled off: Their mantra
                    > has long been "Nukes will get us out of Iraq" "Nukes will make us
                    > independent of foreign oil" (And I/we are loosely using the
                    term 'fossil fuel' rather that petroleum products, that's where it
                    gets slippery)
                    >
                    > How?
                    >
                    > TRANSPORTATION relies on fossil fuels, less than 2% of
                    > homes/businesses/industry electricity consumption does.
                    >
                    > Fossil fuel consumption, basically, does not compete with
                    > electricity generation in any form, yet we are led to believe it
                    > does.
                    >
                    > Do we need to cut down on fossil fuel (petro) comsumption, develop
                    > alternatives? Of course...
                    >
                    > Do we need to develop efficiency technologies, alternative power
                    > ideas, and cut down on electrical usage? Of course...
                    >
                    > But they are seperate crises, are they not?
                    >
                    > And once again, my husband works out there, the industry is my
                    bread
                    > and butter, and I'd like to see it cease to exist, at least see it
                    > cease to expand. It took a lot to get my thinking to this point,
                    > but with the nukes, the more you learn, the more sickening it is.
                    I
                    > have seen where the land of Native Americans was strip mined for
                    > uranium (with the threat of losing government funding if they
                    > resisted), I have stood in front of company execs and
                    spokespersons
                    > and repeatedy been
                    > told "Its all about the money". And it is. And if they were
                    making
                    > widgets that's be okay. But they're making an extremely dangerous
                    > situation even worse by the sole focus on profit, and we, via our
                    > gov't, are being forced to participate in our own demise.
                    >
                    > Thank you for engaging me, caring enough to discuss it. If you
                    have
                    > a spare minute, go to www.mccnia.homestead.com "Food for Thought"
                    > page. And please, let me know what you think.
                    >
                    > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Ring" <txses@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I am generally pro-nuclear.
                    > >
                    > > I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
                    > > although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly". I
                    > would
                    > > have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the
                    > charge
                    > > because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite
                    > the
                    > > significant issues.
                    > >
                    > > I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
                    > > greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun
                    > burns
                    > > out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either.
                    What
                    > I do
                    > > focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon
                    > output,
                    > > low environmental impact, and high energy output.
                    > >
                    > > No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to
                    something,
                    > we
                    > > will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means
                    massive
                    > use
                    > > of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no
                    different
                    > than
                    > > being pro-coal.
                    > >
                    > > Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation
                    > wide.
                    > > Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures
                    > this.
                    > > It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested.
                    > Believe
                    > > me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes
                    a
                    > long
                    > > time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national
                    > doesn't
                    > > make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most
                    people
                    > > don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That
                    > whole
                    > > time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to
                    > use
                    > > the existing power generation - coal.
                    > >
                    > > The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric
                    > hybrids
                    > > to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from
                    coal
                    > to
                    > > nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats
                    a
                    > much
                    > > better position to be in when you start the long investing phase
                    to
                    > > being the move to solar.
                    > >
                    > > If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step
                    simply
                    > > because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
                    > > sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and
                    insures
                    > that
                    > > we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is
                    > empirically
                    > > no different than being pro-coal.
                    > >
                    > > Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > - Jay
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@>
                    > wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more:
                    > The "free"
                    > > > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete
                    so
                    > long
                    > > > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents
                    > and so
                    > > > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their
                    > well-
                    > > > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide,
                    the
                    > > > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1%
                    catastrophic
                    > > > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)"
                    <jack_wagner@>
                    > > > wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as
                    it's
                    > > > safe and
                    > > > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course,
                    that
                    > > > brings up
                    > > > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies
                    for
                    > the
                    > > > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would
                    > decide
                    > > > but
                    > > > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any
                    > luck,
                    > > > when
                    > > > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few
                    > billion
                    > > > our way
                    > > > > :-).
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > ________________________________
                    > > > >
                    > > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On
                    > Behalf
                    > > > Of
                    > > > > texasblessings
                    > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
                    > > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the
                    > general
                    > > > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
                    > > > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables". Seems the
                    > > > general
                    > > > > consensus is "no". Good.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope
                    you
                    > all
                    > > > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My
                    husband
                    > is
                    > > > an
                    > > > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
                    > > > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of
                    reactors
                    > > > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear
                    power's
                    > > > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community.
                    CNBC
                    > > > aired
                    > > > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say
                    its
                    > > > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources.
                    > They
                    > > > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the
                    longest
                    > > > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by
                    the
                    > > > > industry.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb
                    on
                    > our
                    > > > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
                    > > > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone
                    of
                    > > > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a
                    > moment
                    > > > I
                    > > > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds
                    and
                    > > > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the
                    > industry
                    > > > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund
                    overseas
                    > > > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should
                    we,
                    > the
                    > > > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
                    > > > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources,
                    creates
                    > > > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly
                    emits
                    > > > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how
                    > can
                    > > > we
                    > > > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would
                    otherwise
                    > be
                    > > > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true
                    > renewables?
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew
                    > into
                    > > > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due
                    to
                    > its
                    > > > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
                    > > > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to
                    > run
                    > > > the
                    > > > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin'
                    season
                    > &
                    > > > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case
                    > he
                    > > > had
                    > > > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when
                    security
                    > over-
                    > > > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in
                    from
                    > > > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams
                    > searched
                    > > > the
                    > > > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
                    > > > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in
                    > case". In
                    > > > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full
                    14
                    > > > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years
                    > back, it
                    > > > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates
                    > have
                    > > > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother
                    > and
                    > > > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
                    > > > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb
                    > less
                    > > > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the
                    > industry
                    > > > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect
                    > ourselves
                    > > > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
                    > > > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and even
                    if
                    > it
                    > > > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of
                    > waste
                    > > > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons.
                    Of
                    > > > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to
                    Yucca.
                    > Our
                    > > > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard
                    > is
                    > > > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage
                    > or
                    > > > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The
                    nuclear
                    > > > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and
                    WON
                    > a
                    > > > suit
                    > > > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
                    > > > nuclear
                    > > > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee
                    > training
                    > > > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the
                    > tax-
                    > > > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're
                    paying
                    > them
                    > > > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will
                    > pay
                    > > > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck
                    would
                    > > > they
                    > > > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention,
                    > the
                    > > > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks
                    who
                    > are
                    > > > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing,
                    > never
                    > > > got
                    > > > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no
                    say
                    > in
                    > > > the
                    > > > > matter at all.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to
                    > do
                    > > > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to
                    educate
                    > > > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be
                    > led,
                    > > > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would
                    > have
                    > > > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight
                    > this
                    > > > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to
                    > your
                    > > > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly,
                    talk
                    > to
                    > > > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal
                    government.
                    > > > > Insist that this madness end.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Peace,
                    > > > > Susan
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Kevin Conlin
                    Hi Jay, Thank you for your post, I m wondering if you or any of the scientists can clarify something for the group. I understand that it takes a significant
                    Message 9 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Hi Jay, Thank you for your post, I’m wondering if you or any of the scientists can clarify something for the group. I understand that it takes a significant amount of fossil fuel to process the uranium fuel rods for a conventional nuclear power plant, from mining to commissioning. I also understand that only a fraction of the stored energy is used, and the rods are not reprocessed to capture this lost energy. I’m not an expert, and I’m wondering if you or someone else can quantify the payback for a nuclear power plant?

                       

                      When I visited the South Texas plant under construction many years ago, we were told that it would take the plant 7-8 years to just pay back the energy it took to build the plant. Taking into consideration the additional fuel processing costs, what is the payback on a nuke, expressed in the same terms as the payback on a PV module or other renewable energy system?

                       

                      Kevin Conlin

                      Solarcraft, Inc.

                      4007-C Greenbriar Drive

                      Stafford, TX 77477

                      Local (281) 340-1224

                      Toll Free (877) 340-1224

                      Fax (281) 340-1230

                      Cell (281) 960-8979

                      kconlin@...

                      www.solarcraft.net

                       


                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
                      Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:16 PM
                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

                       


                      I am generally pro-nuclear.

                      I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
                      although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly" . I would
                      have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the charge
                      because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite the
                      significant issues.

                      I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
                      greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun burns
                      out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What I do
                      focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon output,
                      low environmental impact, and high energy output.

                      No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something, we
                      will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive use
                      of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different than
                      being pro-coal.

                      Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation wide.
                      Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures this.
                      It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested. Believe
                      me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a long
                      time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national doesn't
                      make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
                      don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That whole
                      time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to use
                      the existing power generation - coal.

                      The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric hybrids
                      to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal to
                      nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a much
                      better position to be in when you start the long investing phase to
                      being the move to solar.

                      If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
                      because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
                      sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures that
                      we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is empirically
                      no different than being pro-coal.

                      Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)

                      - Jay

                      --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@ ...> wrote:

                      >
                      > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more: The
                      "free"
                      > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so long
                      > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents and so
                      > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their well-
                      > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
                      > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1% catastrophic
                      > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
                      >
                      > --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com,
                      "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@ >
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it's
                      > safe and
                      > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
                      > brings up
                      > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for the
                      > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would decide
                      > but
                      > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any luck,
                      > when
                      > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few billion
                      > our way
                      > > :-).
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ____________ _________ _________ __
                      > >
                      > > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                      [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
                      > Of
                      > > texasblessings
                      > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
                      > > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                      > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the general
                      > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
                      > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables" .
                      Seems the
                      > general
                      > > consensus is "no". Good.
                      > >
                      > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you all
                      > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband is
                      > an
                      > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
                      > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
                      > >
                      > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
                      > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
                      > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community.
                      CNBC
                      > aired
                      > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
                      > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources. They
                      > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
                      > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
                      > > industry.
                      > >
                      > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on our
                      > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
                      > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone
                      of
                      > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
                      > >
                      > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a
                      moment
                      > I
                      > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
                      > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the industry
                      > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
                      > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we, the
                      > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
                      > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
                      > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
                      > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how can
                      > we
                      > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise be
                      > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true renewables?
                      > >
                      > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew into
                      > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due
                      to its
                      > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
                      > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to run
                      > the
                      > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season &
                      > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case he
                      > had
                      > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security over-
                      > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
                      > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams searched
                      > the
                      > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
                      > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in
                      case". In
                      > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
                      > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years back, it
                      > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
                      > >
                      > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates have
                      > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother and
                      > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
                      > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb less
                      > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the industry
                      > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect ourselves
                      > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
                      > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada
                      plainly doesn't want it and even if it
                      > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of waste
                      > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
                      > > course, the waste in Matagorda
                      County won't be going to Yucca. Our
                      > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard is
                      > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage or
                      > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
                      > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON a
                      > suit
                      > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
                      > nuclear
                      > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee training
                      > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the tax-
                      > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying them
                      > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will pay
                      > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would
                      > they
                      > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention, the
                      > > citizens of Matagorda
                      w:st="on">County (and you Harris County folks who are
                      > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing, never
                      > got
                      > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say in
                      > the
                      > > matter at all.
                      > >
                      > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do
                      > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
                      > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be led,
                      > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would have
                      > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight this
                      > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to your
                      > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk to
                      > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
                      > > Insist that this madness end.
                      > >
                      > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
                      > >
                      > > Peace,
                      > > Susan
                      > >
                      >

                    • Jay Ring
                      Unfortunately I have limited time (don t we all), so I can t give you the full length answer I would like to (and you deserve) But, very very briefly: Susan,
                      Message 10 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Unfortunately I have limited time (don't we all), so I can't give you
                        the full length answer I would like to (and you deserve) But, very
                        very briefly:

                        Susan,

                        No offense taken :) I said "coal", not "oil" but to a lesser extent
                        it applies to oil too.

                        Q: what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels?
                        A: It is a substitute for them

                        Q: How?
                        A: Coal is a fossil fuel

                        Q: But they (oil and energy) are seperate crises, are they not?
                        A: Not really, particularly with the coming of Plug in electric vehicles.

                        The "cost economy" (as opposed to fuel economy) of a plug-in electric
                        is going to be related to the price of gas and the price of
                        electricity. The more expensive gas is, the more attractive the
                        hybrid is. The cheaper electricity is, the more attractive the hybrid
                        is. Cheap and plentiful electricity, which nuclear can provide, makes
                        burning oil seem expensive and thus hastens the development away from
                        these sources.

                        Returning to the previous point - it's not just cars, in fact it's not
                        even mainly cars, it's electricity for your home and office, plus the
                        factories that produce the things you buy.


                        Jim,

                        I am not sure what point you are driving at with the the power
                        statistics you posted :) Sorry! What is popular is not always right,
                        and what is profitable is not always right either.

                        The cost-effectiveness of of nuclear depends on the cost of it's
                        competitors. When that competitor is coal, nuclear, solar, and wind
                        ALL lose out. If you eliminate coal, nuclear is the cheapest of the
                        remaining options. If you don't eliminate coal - then coal wins every
                        time and the rest can go home and cry. They all need subsidies if
                        they are to compete with coal. That doesn't make them bad!
                        Optionally, you can tax the emissions of coal instead, which achieves
                        the same goal.

                        We are all familiar with the massive subsidies we get on solar. I for
                        one am excited about the elimination of the cap! The fact that
                        nuclear requires them too (and then actually -does- compete with coal)
                        seems like a moot point.

                        Finally, nuclear energy's output would not be stagnant if we could get
                        some new construction approved. Without new construction, I don't see
                        how they could possibly rise - so I guess I don't see the relevance.


                        Kevin,

                        I am actually an electrical engineer, not a nuclear :) I am
                        significantly more familiar with how solar panels are made than I am
                        with refining and enriching uranium. I do have a passing knowledge
                        though.

                        I will say that enriching electronics grade silicon is no small task
                        and our current method involves tremendous energy - google for "float
                        zone processing" for some idea.

                        If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years, then
                        it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor of
                        2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years.

                        I wish I could put better numbers together for you, but typically cost
                        (in money) is at least roughly in line with the "true" costs. Since
                        neither generates negative externalities, I'd say you can use the
                        total payback period as a rough indicator.

                        I wouldn't normally reply with such a worthless "no real data"
                        response, except that I wanted to respond to something you raised
                        earlier in your message: "I also understand that only a fraction of
                        the stored energy is used, and the rods are not reprocessed to capture
                        this lost energy."

                        It is true that we don't recycle the spent rods. This is by federal
                        law. I believe congress should immediately repeal this law - is there
                        any reason for it to exist that I am not aware of?


                        Conclusion:

                        I still think PV is the best long term solution, but until the cost
                        comes down, going nuclear is the best way to get off coal RIGHT NOW.
                        We can't afford to wait the amount of time it will take to get PV on
                        every home in the country, the cost is just too prohibitive - we are
                        letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We are also forgetting
                        that when we get to the nuclear waypoint, we will be in a tremendously
                        better position to jump to the PV waypoint. Trying to make that jump
                        all in one go is just a bridge too far.


                        I wish I could explain more but I am out of time -

                        Have a good one guys!

                        - Jay



                        --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > I'm sorry if my choice of words belittled, again, it is JMO. I have
                        > to say, though, unless some major factor in the energy crisis has
                        > escaped me, what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels? It is
                        > my contention that particular argument is one of the greatest smoke-
                        > and-mirrors tactics the nuke industry has pulled off: Their mantra
                        > has long been "Nukes will get us out of Iraq" "Nukes will make us
                        > independent of foreign oil"
                        >
                        > How?
                        >
                        > TRANSPORTATION relies on fossil fuels, less than 2% of
                        > homes/businesses/industry do.
                        >
                        > Fossil fuel consumption, basically, does not compete with
                        > electricity generation in any form, yet we are led to believe it
                        > does.
                        >
                        > Do we need to cut down on fossil fuel comsumption, develop
                        > alternatives? Of course...
                        >
                        > Do we need to develop efficiency technologies, alternative power
                        > ideas, and cut down on electrical usage? Of course...
                        >
                        > But they are seperate crises, are they not?
                        >
                        > And once again, my husband works out there, the industry is my bread
                        > and butter, and I'd like to see it cease to exist, at least see it
                        > cease to expand. It took a lot to get my thinking to this point,
                        > but with the nukes, the more you learn, the more sickening it is. I
                        > have seen where the land of Native Americans was strip mined for
                        > uranium (with the threat of losing government funding if they
                        > resisted), I have stood in front of company execs and spokespersons
                        > and repeatedy been
                        > told "Its all about the money". And it is. And if they were making
                        > widgets that's be okay. But they're making an extremely dangerous
                        > situation even worse by the sole focus on profit, and we, via our
                        > gov't, are being forced to participate in our own demise.
                        >
                        > Thank you for engaging me, caring enough to discuss it. If you have
                        > a spare minute, go to www.mccnia.homestead.com "Food for Thought"
                        > page. And please, let me know what you think.
                        >
                        > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Ring" <txses@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > I am generally pro-nuclear.
                        > >
                        > > I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
                        > > although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly". I
                        > would
                        > > have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the
                        > charge
                        > > because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite
                        > the
                        > > significant issues.
                        > >
                        > > I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
                        > > greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun
                        > burns
                        > > out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What
                        > I do
                        > > focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon
                        > output,
                        > > low environmental impact, and high energy output.
                        > >
                        > > No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something,
                        > we
                        > > will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive
                        > use
                        > > of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different
                        > than
                        > > being pro-coal.
                        > >
                        > > Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation
                        > wide.
                        > > Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures
                        > this.
                        > > It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested.
                        > Believe
                        > > me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a
                        > long
                        > > time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national
                        > doesn't
                        > > make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
                        > > don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That
                        > whole
                        > > time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to
                        > use
                        > > the existing power generation - coal.
                        > >
                        > > The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric
                        > hybrids
                        > > to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal
                        > to
                        > > nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a
                        > much
                        > > better position to be in when you start the long investing phase to
                        > > being the move to solar.
                        > >
                        > > If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
                        > > because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
                        > > sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures
                        > that
                        > > we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is
                        > empirically
                        > > no different than being pro-coal.
                        > >
                        > > Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > - Jay
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@>
                        > wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more:
                        > The "free"
                        > > > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so
                        > long
                        > > > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents
                        > and so
                        > > > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their
                        > well-
                        > > > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
                        > > > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1% catastrophic
                        > > > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@>
                        > > > wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it's
                        > > > safe and
                        > > > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
                        > > > brings up
                        > > > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for
                        > the
                        > > > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would
                        > decide
                        > > > but
                        > > > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any
                        > luck,
                        > > > when
                        > > > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few
                        > billion
                        > > > our way
                        > > > > :-).
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ________________________________
                        > > > >
                        > > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On
                        > Behalf
                        > > > Of
                        > > > > texasblessings
                        > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
                        > > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the
                        > general
                        > > > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
                        > > > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables". Seems the
                        > > > general
                        > > > > consensus is "no". Good.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you
                        > all
                        > > > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband
                        > is
                        > > > an
                        > > > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
                        > > > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
                        > > > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
                        > > > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
                        > > > aired
                        > > > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
                        > > > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources.
                        > They
                        > > > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
                        > > > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
                        > > > > industry.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on
                        > our
                        > > > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
                        > > > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone of
                        > > > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a
                        > moment
                        > > > I
                        > > > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
                        > > > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the
                        > industry
                        > > > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
                        > > > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we,
                        > the
                        > > > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
                        > > > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
                        > > > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
                        > > > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how
                        > can
                        > > > we
                        > > > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise
                        > be
                        > > > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true
                        > renewables?
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew
                        > into
                        > > > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to
                        > its
                        > > > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
                        > > > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to
                        > run
                        > > > the
                        > > > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season
                        > &
                        > > > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case
                        > he
                        > > > had
                        > > > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security
                        > over-
                        > > > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
                        > > > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams
                        > searched
                        > > > the
                        > > > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
                        > > > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in
                        > case". In
                        > > > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
                        > > > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years
                        > back, it
                        > > > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates
                        > have
                        > > > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother
                        > and
                        > > > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
                        > > > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb
                        > less
                        > > > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the
                        > industry
                        > > > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect
                        > ourselves
                        > > > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
                        > > > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and even if
                        > it
                        > > > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of
                        > waste
                        > > > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
                        > > > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to Yucca.
                        > Our
                        > > > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard
                        > is
                        > > > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage
                        > or
                        > > > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
                        > > > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON
                        > a
                        > > > suit
                        > > > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
                        > > > nuclear
                        > > > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee
                        > training
                        > > > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the
                        > tax-
                        > > > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying
                        > them
                        > > > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will
                        > pay
                        > > > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would
                        > > > they
                        > > > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention,
                        > the
                        > > > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who
                        > are
                        > > > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing,
                        > never
                        > > > got
                        > > > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say
                        > in
                        > > > the
                        > > > > matter at all.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to
                        > do
                        > > > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
                        > > > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be
                        > led,
                        > > > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would
                        > have
                        > > > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight
                        > this
                        > > > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to
                        > your
                        > > > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk
                        > to
                        > > > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
                        > > > > Insist that this madness end.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Peace,
                        > > > > Susan
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • Jim & Janet
                        If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years, then it s beating current residential solar installs by about a factor of 2, which are
                        Message 11 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment

                          If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years, then it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor of 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years....


                          The "payback" period for solar PV of 15 years is way old news.
                          According to Justine Sanchez in her Home Power article (issue 127, Oct-Nov 2008) http://www.homepower.com/article/?file=HP127_pg32_Sanchez the Embodied Energy, the correct term, in solar photovoltaic module production is one to two years. Thin-film technology will generate significantly lower embodied energy, while the more energy intensive mono-crystalline manufacturing process doubles the energy involved.
                          The article updates a Dec 2000 HP article that illustrates the payback is 2.9- 6.5 years. *
                          The analysis includes not just the electricity used in the manufacturing process. Along with aluminum and glass making, the study includes the minor processes and chemicals for cleaning, etching etc, and wire for slicing silicon ingots into cells is also factored in. 
                          Losses from inverter inefficiencies, wire (voltage) losses dirty modules on your roof will add up to approximately 20% kilowatt hour output loss from the finished grid-active installation. These losses are not considered a part of the embodied energy since they vary depending on the quality and efficacy of the installation.
                          I seriously doubt that the process of generating nuclear powered electricity, starting at the mineshaft through to the electric grid can come close to matching the efficiency of PV. I doubt that any construction process that can take a decade to complete, that contains hundreds of tons of steel and thousands of cubic yards of cement can claim any payback at all.
                          We welcome any rebuttal with references.
                          Jim Duncan
                          North Texas Renewable Energy Inc
                          4029 Aragon Drive
                          Fort Worth, Texas 76133
                          817.917.0527
                          ntrei@...

                           
                           * Authors: Karl E. Knapp, Ph.D., Energy & Environmental Economics, Inc., 353 Sacramento St., Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111 • 415-391-5100

                          Fax: 415-391-6500 • karl@... www.ethree.com

                          Theresa L. Jester, Siemens Solar Industries, 4650 Adohr Ln., Camarillo, CA 93011 • 805-388-6500 Fax: 805-388-6557 • terry.jester@... www.solar.siemens.com 

                          For further reading:

                          Alsema, E.A.,

                          Energy Requirements of Thin-Film Solar Modules, A Review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v2, 387-415, 1998.

                          Fthenakis, V., K. Zweibel, and P. Moskowitz, ed.,

                          Photovoltaics and the Environment 1998, BNL/NREL, July 23–24, 1998, Keystone, CO, BNL-52557, Feb.1999

                          K. Knapp and T. Jester,

                          An Empirical Perspective on the Energy Payback Time for Photovoltaic Modules, Solar 2000: ASES Annual Conference, June 16–21, 2000, Madison, Wisconsin, American Solar Energy Society

                          www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/knapp/PVEPBTPaper.pdf K. Knapp, T. Jester, and G. Mihalik,

                          Energy Balances for Photovoltaic Modules: Status and Prospects, 28th IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists Conference, September 17–22, 2000, Anchorage, Alaska www.solarpv.com/paybackstudy.pdf


                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Jay Ring
                          Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:09 AM
                          Subject: [SPAM] [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

                          Unfortunately I have limited time (don't we all), so I can't give you
                          the full length answer I would like to (and you deserve) But, very
                          very briefly:

                          Susan,

                          No offense taken :) I said "coal", not "oil" but to a lesser extent
                          it applies to oil too.

                          Q: what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels?
                          A: It is a substitute for them

                          Q: How?
                          A: Coal is a fossil fuel

                          Q: But they (oil and energy) are seperate crises, are they not?
                          A: Not really, particularly with the coming of Plug in electric vehicles.

                          The "cost economy" (as opposed to fuel economy) of a plug-in electric
                          is going to be related to the price of gas and the price of
                          electricity. The more expensive gas is, the more attractive the
                          hybrid is. The cheaper electricity is, the more attractive the hybrid
                          is. Cheap and plentiful electricity, which nuclear can provide, makes
                          burning oil seem expensive and thus hastens the development away from
                          these sources.

                          Returning to the previous point - it's not just cars, in fact it's not
                          even mainly cars, it's electricity for your home and office, plus the
                          factories that produce the things you buy.

                          Jim,

                          I am not sure what point you are driving at with the the power
                          statistics you posted :) Sorry! What is popular is not always right,
                          and what is profitable is not always right either.

                          The cost-effectiveness of of nuclear depends on the cost of it's
                          competitors. When that competitor is coal, nuclear, solar, and wind
                          ALL lose out. If you eliminate coal, nuclear is the cheapest of the
                          remaining options. If you don't eliminate coal - then coal wins every
                          time and the rest can go home and cry. They all need subsidies if
                          they are to compete with coal. That doesn't make them bad!
                          Optionally, you can tax the emissions of coal instead, which achieves
                          the same goal.

                          We are all familiar with the massive subsidies we get on solar. I for
                          one am excited about the elimination of the cap! The fact that
                          nuclear requires them too (and then actually -does- compete with coal)
                          seems like a moot point.

                          Finally, nuclear energy's output would not be stagnant if we could get
                          some new construction approved. Without new construction, I don't see
                          how they could possibly rise - so I guess I don't see the relevance.

                          Kevin,

                          I am actually an electrical engineer, not a nuclear :) I am
                          significantly more familiar with how solar panels are made than I am
                          with refining and enriching uranium. I do have a passing knowledge
                          though.

                          I will say that enriching electronics grade silicon is no small task
                          and our current method involves tremendous energy - google for "float
                          zone processing" for some idea.

                          If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years, then
                          it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor of
                          2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years.

                          I wish I could put better numbers together for you, but typically cost
                          (in money) is at least roughly in line with the "true" costs. Since
                          neither generates negative externalities, I'd say you can use the
                          total payback period as a rough indicator.

                          I wouldn't normally reply with such a worthless "no real data"
                          response, except that I wanted to respond to something you raised
                          earlier in your message: "I also understand that only a fraction of
                          the stored energy is used, and the rods are not reprocessed to capture
                          this lost energy."

                          It is true that we don't recycle the spent rods. This is by federal
                          law. I believe congress should immediately repeal this law - is there
                          any reason for it to exist that I am not aware of?

                          Conclusion:

                          I still think PV is the best long term solution, but until the cost
                          comes down, going nuclear is the best way to get off coal RIGHT NOW.
                          We can't afford to wait the amount of time it will take to get PV on
                          every home in the country, the cost is just too prohibitive - we are
                          letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We are also forgetting
                          that when we get to the nuclear waypoint, we will be in a tremendously
                          better position to jump to the PV waypoint. Trying to make that jump
                          all in one go is just a bridge too far.

                          I wish I could explain more but I am out of time -

                          Have a good one guys!

                          - Jay

                          --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@ ...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > I'm sorry if my choice of words belittled, again, it is JMO. I have
                          > to say, though, unless some major factor in the energy crisis has
                          > escaped me, what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels? It is
                          > my contention that particular argument is one of the greatest smoke-
                          > and-mirrors tactics the nuke industry has pulled off: Their mantra
                          > has long been "Nukes will get us out of Iraq" "Nukes will make us
                          > independent of foreign oil"
                          >
                          > How?
                          >
                          > TRANSPORTATION relies on fossil fuels, less than 2% of
                          > homes/businesses/ industry do.
                          >
                          > Fossil fuel consumption, basically, does not compete with
                          > electricity generation in any form, yet we are led to believe it
                          > does.
                          >
                          > Do we need to cut down on fossil fuel comsumption, develop
                          > alternatives? Of course...
                          >
                          > Do we need to develop efficiency technologies, alternative power
                          > ideas, and cut down on electrical usage? Of course...
                          >
                          > But they are seperate crises, are they not?
                          >
                          > And once again, my husband works out there, the industry is my bread
                          > and butter, and I'd like to see it cease to exist, at least see it
                          > cease to expand. It took a lot to get my thinking to this point,
                          > but with the nukes, the more you learn, the more sickening it is. I
                          > have seen where the land of Native Americans was strip mined for
                          > uranium (with the threat of losing government funding if they
                          > resisted), I have stood in front of company execs and spokespersons
                          > and repeatedy been
                          > told "Its all about the money". And it is. And if they were making
                          > widgets that's be okay. But they're making an extremely dangerous
                          > situation even worse by the sole focus on profit, and we, via our
                          > gov't, are being forced to participate in our own demise.
                          >
                          > Thank you for engaging me, caring enough to discuss it. If you have
                          > a spare minute, go to www.mccnia.homestea d.com "Food for Thought"
                          > page. And please, let me know what you think.
                          >
                          > --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Jay Ring" <txses@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > I am generally pro-nuclear.
                          > >
                          > > I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
                          > > although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly" . I
                          > would
                          > > have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the
                          > charge
                          > > because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite
                          > the
                          > > significant issues.
                          > >
                          > > I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
                          > > greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun
                          > burns
                          > > out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What
                          > I do
                          > > focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon
                          > output,
                          > > low environmental impact, and high energy output.
                          > >
                          > > No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something,
                          > we
                          > > will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive
                          > use
                          > > of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different
                          > than
                          > > being pro-coal.
                          > >
                          > > Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation
                          > wide.
                          > > Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures
                          > this.
                          > > It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested.
                          > Believe
                          > > me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a
                          > long
                          > > time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national
                          > doesn't
                          > > make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
                          > > don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That
                          > whole
                          > > time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to
                          > use
                          > > the existing power generation - coal.
                          > >
                          > > The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric
                          > hybrids
                          > > to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal
                          > to
                          > > nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a
                          > much
                          > > better position to be in when you start the long investing phase to
                          > > being the move to solar.
                          > >
                          > > If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
                          > > because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
                          > > sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures
                          > that
                          > > we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is
                          > empirically
                          > > no different than being pro-coal.
                          > >
                          > > Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > - Jay
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@ >
                          > wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more:
                          > The "free"
                          > > > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so
                          > long
                          > > > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents
                          > and so
                          > > > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their
                          > well-
                          > > > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
                          > > > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1% catastrophic
                          > > > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@ >
                          > > > wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it's
                          > > > safe and
                          > > > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
                          > > > brings up
                          > > > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for
                          > the
                          > > > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would
                          > decide
                          > > > but
                          > > > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any
                          > luck,
                          > > > when
                          > > > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few
                          > billion
                          > > > our way
                          > > > > :-).
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
                          > > > >
                          > > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On
                          > Behalf
                          > > > Of
                          > > > > texasblessings
                          > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
                          > > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                          > > > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the
                          > general
                          > > > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
                          > > > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables" . Seems the
                          > > > general
                          > > > > consensus is "no". Good.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you
                          > all
                          > > > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband
                          > is
                          > > > an
                          > > > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
                          > > > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
                          > > > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
                          > > > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
                          > > > aired
                          > > > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
                          > > > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources.
                          > They
                          > > > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
                          > > > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
                          > > > > industry.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on
                          > our
                          > > > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
                          > > > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone of
                          > > > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a
                          > moment
                          > > > I
                          > > > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
                          > > > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the
                          > industry
                          > > > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
                          > > > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we,
                          > the
                          > > > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
                          > > > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
                          > > > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
                          > > > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how
                          > can
                          > > > we
                          > > > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise
                          > be
                          > > > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true
                          > renewables?
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew
                          > into
                          > > > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to
                          > its
                          > > > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
                          > > > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to
                          > run
                          > > > the
                          > > > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season
                          > &
                          > > > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case
                          > he
                          > > > had
                          > > > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security
                          > over-
                          > > > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
                          > > > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams
                          > searched
                          > > > the
                          > > > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
                          > > > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in
                          > case". In
                          > > > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
                          > > > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years
                          > back, it
                          > > > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates
                          > have
                          > > > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother
                          > and
                          > > > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
                          > > > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb
                          > less
                          > > > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the
                          > industry
                          > > > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect
                          > ourselves
                          > > > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
                          > > > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and even if
                          > it
                          > > > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of
                          > waste
                          > > > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
                          > > > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to Yucca.
                          > Our
                          > > > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard
                          > is
                          > > > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage
                          > or
                          > > > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
                          > > > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON
                          > a
                          > > > suit
                          > > > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
                          > > > nuclear
                          > > > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee
                          > training
                          > > > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the
                          > tax-
                          > > > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying
                          > them
                          > > > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will
                          > pay
                          > > > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would
                          > > > they
                          > > > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention,
                          > the
                          > > > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who
                          > are
                          > > > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing,
                          > never
                          > > > got
                          > > > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say
                          > in
                          > > > the
                          > > > > matter at all.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to
                          > do
                          > > > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
                          > > > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be
                          > led,
                          > > > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would
                          > have
                          > > > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight
                          > this
                          > > > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to
                          > your
                          > > > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk
                          > to
                          > > > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
                          > > > > Insist that this madness end.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Peace,
                          > > > > Susan
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >

                        • Jay Ring
                          I don t like my new role as Mr Grim Reality ! I m not going to keep doing it either :) So this will likely be one of my last posts on this topic - But
                          Message 12 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I don't like my new role as "Mr Grim Reality"! I'm not going to keep
                            doing it either :) So this will likely be one of my last posts on
                            this topic -

                            But Thin-File tech? Does your company recommend or even sell that
                            stuff? Could you get your hands on it even if you wanted to?

                            It seems like wishful thinking to me. I'll grant you "forward
                            thinking". Maybe it is the way of the future - but that's my point -
                            we're talking about the future.

                            Meanwhile, waaaay back in the stone ages of late 2008 (today) - what
                            does a 4kw system cost, and what is the payback on it? Someone should
                            check my math, but:


                            4 kW DC (installed PV)
                            85% system efficiency

                            3.4 kW AC (available)

                            Houston is about 4.8 mean solar hours per day:
                            4.8 SH * 3.4WK = 16.32 kWH/day, 489.6kWH / month, or 5956.8 kWH/year

                            Market rate in my area is currently about $0.14 / kWH, So the value of
                            the electricity is about $833.95/year

                            Your own company, North Texas Renewable Energy, quotes on their
                            homepage an approximate cost of $8000 per installed KW, which is
                            maybe a little high, but about in line with other companies. So you
                            guys charge about $32000 for this system.

                            $32,000 / $833.95

                            38 years.

                            Q.E.D.


                            BTW - I am still going to get one :)


                            --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jim & Janet" <jhd1@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years,
                            then it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor
                            of 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years....
                            >
                            >
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            >
                            > The "payback" period for solar PV of 15 years is way old news.
                            > According to Justine Sanchez in her Home Power article (issue 127,
                            Oct-Nov 2008)
                            http://www.homepower.com/article/?file=HP127_pg32_Sanchez the Embodied
                            Energy, the correct term, in solar photovoltaic module production is
                            one to two years. Thin-film technology will generate significantly
                            lower embodied energy, while the more energy intensive
                            mono-crystalline manufacturing process doubles the energy involved.
                            > The article updates a Dec 2000 HP article that illustrates the
                            payback is 2.9- 6.5 years. *
                            > The analysis includes not just the electricity used in the
                            manufacturing process. Along with aluminum and glass making, the study
                            includes the minor processes and chemicals for cleaning, etching etc,
                            and wire for slicing silicon ingots into cells is also factored in.
                            > Losses from inverter inefficiencies, wire (voltage) losses dirty
                            modules on your roof will add up to approximately 20% kilowatt hour
                            output loss from the finished grid-active installation. These losses
                            are not considered a part of the embodied energy since they vary
                            depending on the quality and efficacy of the installation.
                            > I seriously doubt that the process of generating nuclear powered
                            electricity, starting at the mineshaft through to the electric grid
                            can come close to matching the efficiency of PV. I doubt that any
                            construction process that can take a decade to complete, that contains
                            hundreds of tons of steel and thousands of cubic yards of cement can
                            claim any payback at all.
                            > We welcome any rebuttal with references.
                            > Jim Duncan
                            > North Texas Renewable Energy Inc
                            > 4029 Aragon Drive
                            > Fort Worth, Texas 76133
                            > 817.917.0527
                            > ntrei@...
                            >
                            >
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            >
                            >
                            > * Authors: Karl E. Knapp, Ph.D., Energy & Environmental Economics,
                            Inc., 353 Sacramento St., Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111 .
                            415-391-5100
                            > Fax: 415-391-6500 . karl@... www.ethree.com
                            >
                            > Theresa L. Jester, Siemens Solar Industries, 4650 Adohr Ln.,
                            Camarillo, CA 93011 . 805-388-6500 Fax: 805-388-6557 .
                            terry.jester@... www.solar.siemens.com
                            >
                            > For further reading:
                            >
                            > Alsema, E.A., Energy Requirements of Thin-Film Solar Modules, A
                            Review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v2, 387-415, 1998.
                            >
                            > Fthenakis, V., K. Zweibel, and P. Moskowitz, ed., Photovoltaics and
                            the Environment 1998, BNL/NREL, July 23-24, 1998, Keystone, CO,
                            BNL-52557, Feb.1999
                            >
                            > K. Knapp and T. Jester, An Empirical Perspective on the Energy
                            Payback Time for Photovoltaic Modules, Solar 2000: ASES Annual
                            Conference, June 16-21, 2000, Madison, Wisconsin, American Solar
                            Energy Society
                            >
                            > www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/knapp/PVEPBTPaper.pdf K. Knapp, T. Jester,
                            and G. Mihalik, Energy Balances for Photovoltaic Modules: Status and
                            Prospects, 28th IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists Conference, September
                            17-22, 2000, Anchorage, Alaska www.solarpv.com/paybackstudy.pdf
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: Jay Ring
                            > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:09 AM
                            > Subject: [SPAM] [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                            >
                            >
                            > Unfortunately I have limited time (don't we all), so I can't give you
                            > the full length answer I would like to (and you deserve) But, very
                            > very briefly:
                            >
                            > Susan,
                            >
                            > No offense taken :) I said "coal", not "oil" but to a lesser extent
                            > it applies to oil too.
                            >
                            > Q: what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels?
                            > A: It is a substitute for them
                            >
                            > Q: How?
                            > A: Coal is a fossil fuel
                            >
                            > Q: But they (oil and energy) are seperate crises, are they not?
                            > A: Not really, particularly with the coming of Plug in electric
                            vehicles.
                            >
                            > The "cost economy" (as opposed to fuel economy) of a plug-in electric
                            > is going to be related to the price of gas and the price of
                            > electricity. The more expensive gas is, the more attractive the
                            > hybrid is. The cheaper electricity is, the more attractive the hybrid
                            > is. Cheap and plentiful electricity, which nuclear can provide, makes
                            > burning oil seem expensive and thus hastens the development away from
                            > these sources.
                            >
                            > Returning to the previous point - it's not just cars, in fact it's not
                            > even mainly cars, it's electricity for your home and office, plus the
                            > factories that produce the things you buy.
                            >
                            > Jim,
                            >
                            > I am not sure what point you are driving at with the the power
                            > statistics you posted :) Sorry! What is popular is not always right,
                            > and what is profitable is not always right either.
                            >
                            > The cost-effectiveness of of nuclear depends on the cost of it's
                            > competitors. When that competitor is coal, nuclear, solar, and wind
                            > ALL lose out. If you eliminate coal, nuclear is the cheapest of the
                            > remaining options. If you don't eliminate coal - then coal wins every
                            > time and the rest can go home and cry. They all need subsidies if
                            > they are to compete with coal. That doesn't make them bad!
                            > Optionally, you can tax the emissions of coal instead, which achieves
                            > the same goal.
                            >
                            > We are all familiar with the massive subsidies we get on solar. I for
                            > one am excited about the elimination of the cap! The fact that
                            > nuclear requires them too (and then actually -does- compete with coal)
                            > seems like a moot point.
                            >
                            > Finally, nuclear energy's output would not be stagnant if we could get
                            > some new construction approved. Without new construction, I don't see
                            > how they could possibly rise - so I guess I don't see the relevance.
                            >
                            > Kevin,
                            >
                            > I am actually an electrical engineer, not a nuclear :) I am
                            > significantly more familiar with how solar panels are made than I am
                            > with refining and enriching uranium. I do have a passing knowledge
                            > though.
                            >
                            > I will say that enriching electronics grade silicon is no small task
                            > and our current method involves tremendous energy - google for "float
                            > zone processing" for some idea.
                            >
                            > If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years, then
                            > it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor of
                            > 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years.
                            >
                            > I wish I could put better numbers together for you, but typically cost
                            > (in money) is at least roughly in line with the "true" costs. Since
                            > neither generates negative externalities, I'd say you can use the
                            > total payback period as a rough indicator.
                            >
                            > I wouldn't normally reply with such a worthless "no real data"
                            > response, except that I wanted to respond to something you raised
                            > earlier in your message: "I also understand that only a fraction of
                            > the stored energy is used, and the rods are not reprocessed to capture
                            > this lost energy."
                            >
                            > It is true that we don't recycle the spent rods. This is by federal
                            > law. I believe congress should immediately repeal this law - is there
                            > any reason for it to exist that I am not aware of?
                            >
                            > Conclusion:
                            >
                            > I still think PV is the best long term solution, but until the cost
                            > comes down, going nuclear is the best way to get off coal RIGHT NOW.
                            > We can't afford to wait the amount of time it will take to get PV on
                            > every home in the country, the cost is just too prohibitive - we are
                            > letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We are also forgetting
                            > that when we get to the nuclear waypoint, we will be in a tremendously
                            > better position to jump to the PV waypoint. Trying to make that jump
                            > all in one go is just a bridge too far.
                            >
                            > I wish I could explain more but I am out of time -
                            >
                            > Have a good one guys!
                            >
                            > - Jay
                            >
                            > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > I'm sorry if my choice of words belittled, again, it is JMO. I have
                            > > to say, though, unless some major factor in the energy crisis has
                            > > escaped me, what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels? It is
                            > > my contention that particular argument is one of the greatest smoke-
                            > > and-mirrors tactics the nuke industry has pulled off: Their mantra
                            > > has long been "Nukes will get us out of Iraq" "Nukes will make us
                            > > independent of foreign oil"
                            > >
                            > > How?
                            > >
                            > > TRANSPORTATION relies on fossil fuels, less than 2% of
                            > > homes/businesses/industry do.
                            > >
                            > > Fossil fuel consumption, basically, does not compete with
                            > > electricity generation in any form, yet we are led to believe it
                            > > does.
                            > >
                            > > Do we need to cut down on fossil fuel comsumption, develop
                            > > alternatives? Of course...
                            > >
                            > > Do we need to develop efficiency technologies, alternative power
                            > > ideas, and cut down on electrical usage? Of course...
                            > >
                            > > But they are seperate crises, are they not?
                            > >
                            > > And once again, my husband works out there, the industry is my
                            bread
                            > > and butter, and I'd like to see it cease to exist, at least see it
                            > > cease to expand. It took a lot to get my thinking to this point,
                            > > but with the nukes, the more you learn, the more sickening it is. I
                            > > have seen where the land of Native Americans was strip mined for
                            > > uranium (with the threat of losing government funding if they
                            > > resisted), I have stood in front of company execs and spokespersons
                            > > and repeatedy been
                            > > told "Its all about the money". And it is. And if they were making
                            > > widgets that's be okay. But they're making an extremely dangerous
                            > > situation even worse by the sole focus on profit, and we, via our
                            > > gov't, are being forced to participate in our own demise.
                            > >
                            > > Thank you for engaging me, caring enough to discuss it. If you have
                            > > a spare minute, go to www.mccnia.homestead.com "Food for Thought"
                            > > page. And please, let me know what you think.
                            > >
                            > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Ring" <txses@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > I am generally pro-nuclear.
                            > > >
                            > > > I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
                            > > > although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly". I
                            > > would
                            > > > have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the
                            > > charge
                            > > > because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite
                            > > the
                            > > > significant issues.
                            > > >
                            > > > I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
                            > > > greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun
                            > > burns
                            > > > out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What
                            > > I do
                            > > > focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon
                            > > output,
                            > > > low environmental impact, and high energy output.
                            > > >
                            > > > No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something,
                            > > we
                            > > > will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive
                            > > use
                            > > > of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different
                            > > than
                            > > > being pro-coal.
                            > > >
                            > > > Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation
                            > > wide.
                            > > > Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures
                            > > this.
                            > > > It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested.
                            > > Believe
                            > > > me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a
                            > > long
                            > > > time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national
                            > > doesn't
                            > > > make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
                            > > > don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That
                            > > whole
                            > > > time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to
                            > > use
                            > > > the existing power generation - coal.
                            > > >
                            > > > The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric
                            > > hybrids
                            > > > to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal
                            > > to
                            > > > nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a
                            > > much
                            > > > better position to be in when you start the long investing
                            phase to
                            > > > being the move to solar.
                            > > >
                            > > > If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
                            > > > because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
                            > > > sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures
                            > > that
                            > > > we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is
                            > > empirically
                            > > > no different than being pro-coal.
                            > > >
                            > > > Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > - Jay
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@>
                            > > wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more:
                            > > The "free"
                            > > > > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so
                            > > long
                            > > > > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents
                            > > and so
                            > > > > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their
                            > > well-
                            > > > > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
                            > > > > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1%
                            catastrophic
                            > > > > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
                            > > > >
                            > > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@>
                            > > > > wrote:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as
                            it's
                            > > > > safe and
                            > > > > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
                            > > > > brings up
                            > > > > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for
                            > > the
                            > > > > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would
                            > > decide
                            > > > > but
                            > > > > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any
                            > > luck,
                            > > > > when
                            > > > > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few
                            > > billion
                            > > > > our way
                            > > > > > :-).
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > ________________________________
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On
                            > > Behalf
                            > > > > Of
                            > > > > > texasblessings
                            > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
                            > > > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the
                            > > general
                            > > > > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
                            > > > > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables". Seems the
                            > > > > general
                            > > > > > consensus is "no". Good.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you
                            > > all
                            > > > > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband
                            > > is
                            > > > > an
                            > > > > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
                            > > > > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of
                            reactors
                            > > > > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
                            > > > > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
                            > > > > aired
                            > > > > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
                            > > > > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources.
                            > > They
                            > > > > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the
                            longest
                            > > > > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
                            > > > > > industry.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on
                            > > our
                            > > > > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
                            > > > > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the
                            backbone of
                            > > > > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a
                            > > moment
                            > > > > I
                            > > > > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds
                            and
                            > > > > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the
                            > > industry
                            > > > > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
                            > > > > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should
                            we,
                            > > the
                            > > > > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
                            > > > > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
                            > > > > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly
                            emits
                            > > > > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how
                            > > can
                            > > > > we
                            > > > > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise
                            > > be
                            > > > > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true
                            > > renewables?
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew
                            > > into
                            > > > > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to
                            > > its
                            > > > > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
                            > > > > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to
                            > > run
                            > > > > the
                            > > > > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season
                            > > &
                            > > > > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case
                            > > he
                            > > > > had
                            > > > > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security
                            > > over-
                            > > > > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in
                            from
                            > > > > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams
                            > > searched
                            > > > > the
                            > > > > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
                            > > > > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in
                            > > case". In
                            > > > > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
                            > > > > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years
                            > > back, it
                            > > > > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates
                            > > have
                            > > > > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother
                            > > and
                            > > > > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
                            > > > > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb
                            > > less
                            > > > > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the
                            > > industry
                            > > > > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect
                            > > ourselves
                            > > > > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
                            > > > > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and
                            even if
                            > > it
                            > > > > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of
                            > > waste
                            > > > > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
                            > > > > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to
                            Yucca.
                            > > Our
                            > > > > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard
                            > > is
                            > > > > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage
                            > > or
                            > > > > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The
                            nuclear
                            > > > > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON
                            > > a
                            > > > > suit
                            > > > > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
                            > > > > nuclear
                            > > > > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee
                            > > training
                            > > > > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the
                            > > tax-
                            > > > > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying
                            > > them
                            > > > > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will
                            > > pay
                            > > > > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck
                            would
                            > > > > they
                            > > > > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention,
                            > > the
                            > > > > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who
                            > > are
                            > > > > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing,
                            > > never
                            > > > > got
                            > > > > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say
                            > > in
                            > > > > the
                            > > > > > matter at all.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to
                            > > do
                            > > > > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
                            > > > > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be
                            > > led,
                            > > > > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would
                            > > have
                            > > > > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight
                            > > this
                            > > > > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to
                            > > your
                            > > > > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly,
                            talk
                            > > to
                            > > > > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
                            > > > > > Insist that this madness end.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Peace,
                            > > > > > Susan
                            > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • Garth & Kim Travis
                            Greetings, Actually, it all depends on how much the panels, batteries and accesories cost as well as if it is a diy or professional install. DIY can pay for
                            Message 13 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Greetings,
                              Actually, it all depends on how much the panels, batteries and
                              accesories cost as well as if it is a diy or professional install. DIY
                              can pay for itself in a year or two, starting with used panels and a
                              motley array of all different ones. Not as pretty as the bought set,
                              professionally installed, but far more sustainable for my wallet. While
                              I realize not everyone will find cheap panels, they do come up on
                              craig's list, ebay and other places at a 1/4 of their real value, now
                              and then.
                              Bright Blessings,
                              Kim

                              Jim & Janet wrote:
                              >
                              > If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years, then
                              > it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor of
                              > 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years....
                              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              >
                              >
                            • Garth & Kim Travis
                              Greetings, My rate is $0.187 per kwh, as long as I don t use much. Taking the listed rate to figure things out isn t reality, the real rate is the entire bill
                              Message 14 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Greetings,
                                My rate is $0.187 per kwh, as long as I don't use much. Taking the
                                listed rate to figure things out isn't reality, the real rate is the
                                entire bill divided by the total usage. Those hidden, extra charges
                                must be included. However, I could run on a 4KW system and have power
                                left over.

                                When I bought my place in 1992, I paid $0.07kwh so there is a dramatic
                                rise in rates, your math is faulty as you are not taking inflation and
                                rising rates into account when figuring out the payback. And while you
                                are at it, figure out the cost of power outages in spoiled food, eating
                                out, fuel to go and eat out as the power is out, etc.

                                Every time I get my usage down, the power company raises the rates, so
                                my bill never gets any smaller.

                                Bright Blessings,
                                Kim

                                Jay Ring wrote:
                                > I don't like my new role as "Mr Grim Reality"! I'm not going to keep
                                > doing it either :) So this will likely be one of my last posts on
                                > this topic -
                                >
                                > But Thin-File tech? Does your company recommend or even sell that
                                > stuff? Could you get your hands on it even if you wanted to?
                                >
                                > It seems like wishful thinking to me. I'll grant you "forward
                                > thinking". Maybe it is the way of the future - but that's my point -
                                > we're talking about the future.
                                >
                                > Meanwhile, waaaay back in the stone ages of late 2008 (today) - what
                                > does a 4kw system cost, and what is the payback on it? Someone should
                                > check my math, but:
                                >
                                >
                                > 4 kW DC (installed PV)
                                > 85% system efficiency
                                >
                                > 3.4 kW AC (available)
                                >
                                > Houston is about 4.8 mean solar hours per day:
                                > 4.8 SH * 3.4WK = 16.32 kWH/day, 489.6kWH / month, or 5956.8 kWH/year
                                >
                                > Market rate in my area is currently about $0.14 / kWH, So the value of
                                > the electricity is about $833.95/year
                                >
                                > Your own company, North Texas Renewable Energy, quotes on their
                                > homepage an approximate cost of $8000 per installed KW, which is
                                > maybe a little high, but about in line with other companies. So you
                                > guys charge about $32000 for this system.
                                >
                                > $32,000 / $833.95
                                >
                                > 38 years.
                                >
                                > Q.E.D.
                                >
                                >
                                > BTW - I am still going to get one :)
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • Jay Ring
                                Hey Kim :) My math isn t faulty - it is simplified. At least I hope it isn t faulty - someone should still check it :) My assumptions aren t perfect but you
                                Message 15 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hey Kim :)

                                  My math isn't faulty - it is simplified. At least I hope it isn't
                                  faulty - someone should still check it :)

                                  My assumptions aren't perfect but you -do- have to put some numbers on
                                  the page at some point. People will just keep talking about things in
                                  the abstract if you let them. Ask them to send you a quote and lets
                                  see how the numbers work out - people suddenly get more grounded in
                                  reality when they realize they are going to have to actually buy it or
                                  build it.

                                  I am very familiar with this because I am running the numbers for my
                                  own home!

                                  I picked $.14 because it was the going price on "Power To Choose".
                                  I'll go ahead and take it past your $.187 and make it $0.20 and that
                                  still makes the repayment period... 26.8 years.

                                  My point is that 15 year repayments are not old news, they are present
                                  reality - and actually pretty optimistic views of present reality,
                                  which I was "granting" the anti-nuclear crowd with all their most
                                  optimistic projections. 30 years is a lot more realistic.

                                  In the meantime, we will be burning coal and buying oil. We need to
                                  "exercise the nuclear option"!

                                  - Jay



                                  --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Garth & Kim Travis <gartht@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Greetings,
                                  > My rate is $0.187 per kwh, as long as I don't use much. Taking the
                                  > listed rate to figure things out isn't reality, the real rate is the
                                  > entire bill divided by the total usage. Those hidden, extra charges
                                  > must be included. However, I could run on a 4KW system and have power
                                  > left over.
                                  >
                                  > When I bought my place in 1992, I paid $0.07kwh so there is a dramatic
                                  > rise in rates, your math is faulty as you are not taking inflation and
                                  > rising rates into account when figuring out the payback. And while you
                                  > are at it, figure out the cost of power outages in spoiled food, eating
                                  > out, fuel to go and eat out as the power is out, etc.
                                  >
                                  > Every time I get my usage down, the power company raises the rates, so
                                  > my bill never gets any smaller.
                                  >
                                  > Bright Blessings,
                                  > Kim
                                  >
                                  > Jay Ring wrote:
                                  > > I don't like my new role as "Mr Grim Reality"! I'm not going to keep
                                  > > doing it either :) So this will likely be one of my last posts on
                                  > > this topic -
                                  > >
                                  > > But Thin-File tech? Does your company recommend or even sell that
                                  > > stuff? Could you get your hands on it even if you wanted to?
                                  > >
                                  > > It seems like wishful thinking to me. I'll grant you "forward
                                  > > thinking". Maybe it is the way of the future - but that's my point -
                                  > > we're talking about the future.
                                  > >
                                  > > Meanwhile, waaaay back in the stone ages of late 2008 (today) - what
                                  > > does a 4kw system cost, and what is the payback on it? Someone should
                                  > > check my math, but:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > 4 kW DC (installed PV)
                                  > > 85% system efficiency
                                  > >
                                  > > 3.4 kW AC (available)
                                  > >
                                  > > Houston is about 4.8 mean solar hours per day:
                                  > > 4.8 SH * 3.4WK = 16.32 kWH/day, 489.6kWH / month, or 5956.8 kWH/year
                                  > >
                                  > > Market rate in my area is currently about $0.14 / kWH, So the value of
                                  > > the electricity is about $833.95/year
                                  > >
                                  > > Your own company, North Texas Renewable Energy, quotes on their
                                  > > homepage an approximate cost of $8000 per installed KW, which is
                                  > > maybe a little high, but about in line with other companies. So you
                                  > > guys charge about $32000 for this system.
                                  > >
                                  > > $32,000 / $833.95
                                  > >
                                  > > 38 years.
                                  > >
                                  > > Q.E.D.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > BTW - I am still going to get one :)
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • Garth & Kim Travis
                                  Greetings, I do agree about putting numbers on pages, but I wish I had my accounting books still. There are tables that give present values of future payments
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Greetings,
                                    I do agree about putting numbers on pages, but I wish I had my
                                    accounting books still. There are tables that give present values of
                                    future payments etc. that could be useful. The thing is, if we take the
                                    rise of power costs for the last five years, as a trend, I bet your 26.8
                                    years rapidly becomes 15. Power companies have taken to applying for
                                    raises as often as possible and adding new fees to the bill yearly.

                                    I think power to choose is using the basic electric charge and ignoring
                                    all the extra charges that are on an electric bill. To me that is not
                                    reality, I have to pay all that other stuff as part of my eletric bill,
                                    it is part of the cost of the grid.

                                    I still don't see you making allowances for the cost of the grid being
                                    down, in you calculations. I am not picking on you, but trying to get a
                                    true picture of the cost of both. For me, the grid being down is super
                                    expensive. If I didn't have back up power of my own, I would have about
                                    500 dead fish, cattle walking the neighborhood [expensive to get back if
                                    impounded], freezers full of meat gone bad, not to mention the ordinary
                                    frustration of trying to eat without opening a fridge. Attaching
                                    monetary value to the benefits of being off grid, when crunching
                                    numbers, is a good thing.

                                    Bright Blessings,
                                    Kim

                                    Jay Ring wrote:
                                    > Hey Kim :)
                                    >
                                    > My math isn't faulty - it is simplified. At least I hope it isn't
                                    > faulty - someone should still check it :)
                                    >
                                    > My assumptions aren't perfect but you -do- have to put some numbers on
                                    > the page at some point. People will just keep talking about things in
                                    > the abstract if you let them. Ask them to send you a quote and lets
                                    > see how the numbers work out - people suddenly get more grounded in
                                    > reality when they realize they are going to have to actually buy it or
                                    > build it.
                                    >
                                    > I am very familiar with this because I am running the numbers for my
                                    > own home!
                                    >
                                    > I picked $.14 because it was the going price on "Power To Choose".
                                    > I'll go ahead and take it past your $.187 and make it $0.20 and that
                                    > still makes the repayment period... 26.8 years.
                                    >
                                    > My point is that 15 year repayments are not old news, they are present
                                    > reality - and actually pretty optimistic views of present reality,
                                    > which I was "granting" the anti-nuclear crowd with all their most
                                    > optimistic projections. 30 years is a lot more realistic.
                                    >
                                    > In the meantime, we will be burning coal and buying oil. We need to
                                    > "exercise the nuclear option"!
                                    >
                                    > - Jay
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Robert Johnston
                                    I may have missed something since I m only loosely following this topic, but are you guys talking apples and oranges? It looks to me like Jim Duncan is
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      I may have missed something since I’m only loosely following this topic, but are you guys talking apples and oranges?  It looks to me like Jim Duncan is talking about “energy payback” (using terms like “embodied energy”) while Jay Ring is talking about “financial payback”.  If so, they you will never agree!  I think you need to get on the same page before the discussion can continue.

                                       

                                      That said, I would think that in the end, embodied energy should be reflected in the price as a first approximation.  If nuclear power costs so much less to purchase ($/kwh) than solar, then I would think that must reflect a lower embodied energy.  I have no data to back that up…just speculation.  I suppose it depends partly on how you count the energy payback period for fuel (uranium) which is a nonrenewable resource (barring use of breeder reactors).  But if the embodied cost were a factor of 8-15x that of solar, I don’t see how it could be offered so inexpensively.  Government subsidies aren’t THAT big!


                                      Robert Johnston

                                       

                                       

                                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
                                      Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:49 AM
                                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

                                       

                                      I don't like my new role as "Mr Grim Reality"! I'm not going to keep
                                      doing it either :) So this will likely be one of my last posts on
                                      this topic -

                                      But Thin-File tech? Does your company recommend or even sell that
                                      stuff? Could you get your hands on it even if you wanted to?

                                      It seems like wishful thinking to me. I'll grant you "forward
                                      thinking". Maybe it is the way of the future - but that's my point -
                                      we're talking about the future.

                                      Meanwhile, waaaay back in the stone ages of late 2008 (today) - what
                                      does a 4kw system cost, and what is the payback on it? Someone should
                                      check my math, but:

                                      4 kW DC (installed PV)
                                      85% system efficiency

                                      3.4 kW AC (available)

                                      Houston is about 4.8 mean solar hours per day:
                                      4.8 SH * 3.4WK = 16.32 kWH/day, 489.6kWH / month, or 5956.8 kWH/year

                                      Market rate in my area is currently about $0.14 / kWH, So the value of
                                      the electricity is about $833.95/year

                                      Your own company, North Texas Renewable Energy, quotes on their
                                      homepage an approximate cost of $8000 per installed KW, which is
                                      maybe a little high, but about in line with other companies. So you
                                      guys charge about $32000 for this system.

                                      $32,000 / $833.95

                                      38 years.

                                      Q.E.D.

                                      BTW - I am still going to get one :)

                                      --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jim & Janet" <jhd1@...> wrote:

                                      >
                                      >
                                      > If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years,
                                      then it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor
                                      of 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years....
                                      >
                                      >
                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
                                      >
                                      > The "payback" period for solar PV of 15 years is way old news.
                                      > According to Justine Sanchez in her Home Power article (issue 127,
                                      Oct-Nov 2008)
                                      http://www.homepower.com/article/?file=HP127_pg32_Sanchez the Embodied
                                      Energy, the correct term, in solar photovoltaic module production is
                                      one to two years. Thin-film technology will generate significantly
                                      lower embodied energy, while the more energy intensive
                                      mono-crystalline manufacturing process doubles the energy involved.
                                      > The article updates a Dec 2000 HP article that illustrates the
                                      payback is 2.9- 6.5 years. *
                                      > The analysis includes not just the electricity used in the
                                      manufacturing process. Along with aluminum and glass making, the study
                                      includes the minor processes and chemicals for cleaning, etching etc,
                                      and wire for slicing silicon ingots into cells is also factored in.
                                      > Losses from inverter inefficiencies, wire (voltage) losses dirty
                                      modules on your roof will add up to approximately 20% kilowatt hour
                                      output loss from the finished grid-active installation. These losses
                                      are not considered a part of the embodied energy since they vary
                                      depending on the quality and efficacy of the installation.
                                      > I seriously doubt that the process of generating nuclear powered
                                      electricity, starting at the mineshaft through to the electric grid
                                      can come close to matching the efficiency of PV. I doubt that any
                                      construction process that can take a decade to complete, that contains
                                      hundreds of tons of steel and thousands of cubic yards of cement can
                                      claim any payback at all.
                                      > We welcome any rebuttal with references.
                                      > Jim Duncan
                                      > North Texas Renewable Energy Inc
                                      > 4029 Aragon Drive
                                      > Fort Worth, Texas 76133
                                      > 817.917.0527
                                      > ntrei@...
                                      >
                                      >
                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > * Authors: Karl E. Knapp, Ph.D., Energy & Environmental Economics,
                                      Inc., 353 Sacramento St., Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111 .
                                      415-391-5100
                                      > Fax: 415-391-6500 . karl@... www.ethree.com
                                      >
                                      > Theresa L. Jester, Siemens Solar Industries, 4650 Adohr Ln.,
                                      Camarillo, CA 93011 . 805-388-6500 Fax: 805-388-6557 .
                                      terry.jester@... www.solar.siemens.com
                                      >
                                      > For further reading:
                                      >
                                      > Alsema, E.A., Energy Requirements of Thin-Film Solar Modules, A
                                      Review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v2, 387-415, 1998.
                                      >
                                      > Fthenakis, V., K. Zweibel, and P. Moskowitz, ed., Photovoltaics and
                                      the Environment 1998, BNL/NREL, July 23-24, 1998, Keystone, CO,
                                      BNL-52557, Feb.1999
                                      >
                                      > K. Knapp and T. Jester, An Empirical Perspective on the Energy
                                      Payback Time for Photovoltaic Modules, Solar 2000: ASES Annual
                                      Conference, June 16-21, 2000, Madison, Wisconsin, American Solar
                                      Energy Society
                                      >
                                      > www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/knapp/PVEPBTPaper.pdf K. Knapp, T. Jester,
                                      and G. Mihalik, Energy Balances for Photovoltaic Modules: Status and
                                      Prospects, 28th IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists Conference, September
                                      17-22, 2000, Anchorage, Alaska www.solarpv.com/paybackstudy.pdf
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > From: Jay Ring
                                      > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:09 AM
                                      > Subject: [SPAM] [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Unfortunately I have limited time (don't we all), so I can't give you
                                      > the full length answer I would like to (and you deserve) But, very
                                      > very briefly:
                                      >
                                      > Susan,
                                      >
                                      > No offense taken :) I said "coal", not "oil" but to a
                                      lesser extent
                                      > it applies to oil too.
                                      >
                                      > Q: what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels?
                                      > A: It is a substitute for them
                                      >
                                      > Q: How?
                                      > A: Coal is a fossil fuel
                                      >
                                      > Q: But they (oil and energy) are seperate crises, are they not?
                                      > A: Not really, particularly with the coming of Plug in electric
                                      vehicles.
                                      >
                                      > The "cost economy" (as opposed to fuel economy) of a plug-in
                                      electric
                                      > is going to be related to the price of gas and the price of
                                      > electricity. The more expensive gas is, the more attractive the
                                      > hybrid is. The cheaper electricity is, the more attractive the hybrid
                                      > is. Cheap and plentiful electricity, which nuclear can provide, makes
                                      > burning oil seem expensive and thus hastens the development away from
                                      > these sources.
                                      >
                                      > Returning to the previous point - it's not just cars, in fact it's not
                                      > even mainly cars, it's electricity for your home and office, plus the
                                      > factories that produce the things you buy.
                                      >
                                      > Jim,
                                      >
                                      > I am not sure what point you are driving at with the the power
                                      > statistics you posted :) Sorry! What is popular is not always right,
                                      > and what is profitable is not always right either.
                                      >
                                      > The cost-effectiveness of of nuclear depends on the cost of it's
                                      > competitors. When that competitor is coal, nuclear, solar, and wind
                                      > ALL lose out. If you eliminate coal, nuclear is the cheapest of the
                                      > remaining options. If you don't eliminate coal - then coal wins every
                                      > time and the rest can go home and cry. They all need subsidies if
                                      > they are to compete with coal. That doesn't make them bad!
                                      > Optionally, you can tax the emissions of coal instead, which achieves
                                      > the same goal.
                                      >
                                      > We are all familiar with the massive subsidies we get on solar. I for
                                      > one am excited about the elimination of the cap! The fact that
                                      > nuclear requires them too (and then actually -does- compete with coal)
                                      > seems like a moot point.
                                      >
                                      > Finally, nuclear energy's output would not be stagnant if we could get
                                      > some new construction approved. Without new construction, I don't see
                                      > how they could possibly rise - so I guess I don't see the relevance.
                                      >
                                      > Kevin,
                                      >
                                      > I am actually an electrical engineer, not a nuclear :) I am
                                      > significantly more familiar with how solar panels are made than I am
                                      > with refining and enriching uranium. I do have a passing knowledge
                                      > though.
                                      >
                                      > I will say that enriching electronics grade silicon is no small task
                                      > and our current method involves tremendous energy - google for "float
                                      > zone processing" for some idea.
                                      >
                                      > If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years, then
                                      > it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor of
                                      > 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years.
                                      >
                                      > I wish I could put better numbers together for you, but typically cost
                                      > (in money) is at least roughly in line with the "true" costs.
                                      Since
                                      > neither generates negative externalities, I'd say you can use the
                                      > total payback period as a rough indicator.
                                      >
                                      > I wouldn't normally reply with such a worthless "no real data"
                                      > response, except that I wanted to respond to something you raised
                                      > earlier in your message: "I also understand that only a fraction of
                                      > the stored energy is used, and the rods are not reprocessed to capture
                                      > this lost energy."
                                      >
                                      > It is true that we don't recycle the spent rods. This is by federal
                                      > law. I believe congress should immediately repeal this law - is there
                                      > any reason for it to exist that I am not aware of?
                                      >
                                      > Conclusion:
                                      >
                                      > I still think PV is the best long term solution, but until the cost
                                      > comes down, going nuclear is the best way to get off coal RIGHT NOW.
                                      > We can't afford to wait the amount of time it will take to get PV on
                                      > every home in the country, the cost is just too prohibitive - we are
                                      > letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We are also forgetting
                                      > that when we get to the nuclear waypoint, we will be in a tremendously
                                      > better position to jump to the PV waypoint. Trying to make that jump
                                      > all in one go is just a bridge too far.
                                      >
                                      > I wish I could explain more but I am out of time -
                                      >
                                      > Have a good one guys!
                                      >
                                      > - Jay
                                      >
                                      > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com,
                                      "texasblessings" <texasblessings@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > I'm sorry if my choice of words belittled, again, it is JMO. I have
                                      > > to say, though, unless some major factor in the energy crisis has
                                      > > escaped me, what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels? It is
                                      > > my contention that particular argument is one of the greatest smoke-
                                      > > and-mirrors tactics the nuke industry has pulled off: Their mantra
                                      > > has long been "Nukes will get us out of Iraq" "Nukes
                                      will make us
                                      > > independent of foreign oil"
                                      > >
                                      > > How?
                                      > >
                                      > > TRANSPORTATION relies on fossil fuels, less than 2% of
                                      > > homes/businesses/industry do.
                                      > >
                                      > > Fossil fuel consumption, basically, does not compete with
                                      > > electricity generation in any form, yet we are led to believe it
                                      > > does.
                                      > >
                                      > > Do we need to cut down on fossil fuel comsumption, develop
                                      > > alternatives? Of course...
                                      > >
                                      > > Do we need to develop efficiency technologies, alternative power
                                      > > ideas, and cut down on electrical usage? Of course...
                                      > >
                                      > > But they are seperate crises, are they not?
                                      > >
                                      > > And once again, my husband works out there, the industry is my
                                      bread
                                      > > and butter, and I'd like to see it cease to exist, at least see it
                                      > > cease to expand. It took a lot to get my thinking to this point,
                                      > > but with the nukes, the more you learn, the more sickening it is. I
                                      > > have seen where the land of Native Americans was strip mined for
                                      > > uranium (with the threat of losing government funding if they
                                      > > resisted), I have stood in front of company execs and spokespersons
                                      > > and repeatedy been
                                      > > told "Its all about the money". And it is. And if they were
                                      making
                                      > > widgets that's be okay. But they're making an extremely dangerous
                                      > > situation even worse by the sole focus on profit, and we, via our
                                      > > gov't, are being forced to participate in our own demise.
                                      > >
                                      > > Thank you for engaging me, caring enough to discuss it. If you have
                                      > > a spare minute, go to www.mccnia.homestead.com "Food for
                                      Thought"
                                      > > page. And please, let me know what you think.
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com,
                                      "Jay Ring" <txses@> wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I am generally pro-nuclear.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views
                                      -
                                      > > > although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly".
                                      I
                                      > > would
                                      > > > have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the
                                      > > charge
                                      > > > because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite
                                      > > the
                                      > > > significant issues.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
                                      > > > greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun
                                      > > burns
                                      > > > out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What
                                      > > I do
                                      > > > focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon
                                      > > output,
                                      > > > low environmental impact, and high energy output.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something,
                                      > > we
                                      > > > will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive
                                      > > use
                                      > > > of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different
                                      > > than
                                      > > > being pro-coal.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar"
                                      nation
                                      > > wide.
                                      > > > Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures
                                      > > this.
                                      > > > It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested.
                                      > > Believe
                                      > > > me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes
                                      a
                                      > > long
                                      > > > time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national
                                      > > doesn't
                                      > > > make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most
                                      people
                                      > > > don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That
                                      > > whole
                                      > > > time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to
                                      > > use
                                      > > > the existing power generation - coal.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric
                                      > > hybrids
                                      > > > to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from
                                      coal
                                      > > to
                                      > > > nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a
                                      > > much
                                      > > > better position to be in when you start the long investing
                                      phase to
                                      > > > being the move to solar.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step
                                      simply
                                      > > > because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
                                      > > > sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and
                                      insures
                                      > > that
                                      > > > we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is
                                      > > empirically
                                      > > > no different than being pro-coal.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > - Jay
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com,
                                      "texasblessings" <texasblessings@>
                                      > > wrote:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more:
                                      > > The "free"
                                      > > > > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't
                                      compete so
                                      > > long
                                      > > > > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke
                                      proponents
                                      > > and so
                                      > > > > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about
                                      their
                                      > > well-
                                      > > > > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide,
                                      the
                                      > > > > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1%
                                      catastrophic
                                      > > > > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it
                                      "safe"!
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com,
                                      "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@>
                                      > > > > wrote:
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long
                                      as
                                      it's
                                      > > > > safe and
                                      > > > > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of
                                      course, that
                                      > > > > brings up
                                      > > > > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer
                                      subsidies for
                                      > > the
                                      > > > > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market
                                      would
                                      > > decide
                                      > > > > but
                                      > > > > > that's probably not going to work this time around.
                                      With any
                                      > > luck,
                                      > > > > when
                                      > > > > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a
                                      few
                                      > > billion
                                      > > > > our way
                                      > > > > > :-).
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > ________________________________
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                      [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On
                                      > > Behalf
                                      > > > > Of
                                      > > > > > texasblessings
                                      > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
                                      > > > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > > > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was
                                      the
                                      > > general
                                      > > > > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear
                                      power
                                      > > > > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables".
                                      Seems the
                                      > > > > general
                                      > > > > > consensus is "no". Good.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I
                                      hope you
                                      > > all
                                      > > > > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My
                                      husband
                                      > > is
                                      > > > > an
                                      > > > > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear
                                      Electric
                                      > > > > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the
                                      industry.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of
                                      reactors
                                      > > > > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear
                                      power's
                                      > > > > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the
                                      local community. CNBC
                                      > > > > aired
                                      > > > > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They
                                      say its
                                      > > > > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign
                                      sources.
                                      > > They
                                      > > > > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the
                                      longest
                                      > > > > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed
                                      by the
                                      > > > > > industry.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear
                                      bomb on
                                      > > our
                                      > > > > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already
                                      done,
                                      > > > > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long
                                      been the
                                      backbone of
                                      > > > > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Now one might argue, "That's just good
                                      business", and for a
                                      > > moment
                                      > > > > I
                                      > > > > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the
                                      hundreds
                                      and
                                      > > > > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies
                                      the
                                      > > industry
                                      > > > > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund
                                      overseas
                                      > > > > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$
                                      should
                                      we,
                                      > > the
                                      > > > > > American people, be required to feed into a fat,
                                      extremely
                                      > > > > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources,
                                      creates
                                      > > > > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste,
                                      constantly
                                      emits
                                      > > > > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable
                                      options, how
                                      > > can
                                      > > > > we
                                      > > > > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would
                                      otherwise
                                      > > be
                                      > > > > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true
                                      > > renewables?
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small
                                      plane flew
                                      > > into
                                      > > > > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds
                                      the plant (due to
                                      > > its
                                      > > > > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general
                                      riskiness)
                                      > > > > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet
                                      in to
                                      > > run
                                      > > > > the
                                      > > > > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin'
                                      season
                                      > > &
                                      > > > > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a
                                      rifle case
                                      > > he
                                      > > > > had
                                      > > > > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when
                                      security
                                      > > over-
                                      > > > > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement
                                      in
                                      from
                                      > > > > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T
                                      teams
                                      > > searched
                                      > > > > the
                                      > > > > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We
                                      have huge
                                      > > > > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us
                                      "just in
                                      > > case". In
                                      > > > > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a
                                      full 14
                                      > > > > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few
                                      years
                                      > > back, it
                                      > > > > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer
                                      rates
                                      > > have
                                      > > > > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great
                                      grand-mother
                                      > > and
                                      > > > > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to
                                      educate
                                      > > > > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll
                                      absorb
                                      > > less
                                      > > > > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although
                                      the
                                      > > industry
                                      > > > > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect
                                      > > ourselves
                                      > > > > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste.
                                      Yucca
                                      > > > > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and
                                      even if
                                      > > it
                                      > > > > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric
                                      tons of
                                      > > waste
                                      > > > > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric
                                      tons. Of
                                      > > > > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going
                                      to
                                      Yucca.
                                      > > Our
                                      > > > > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry
                                      standard
                                      > > is
                                      > > > > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making
                                      storage
                                      > > or
                                      > > > > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The
                                      nuclear
                                      > > > > > industry sued the federal government a few years back
                                      and WON
                                      > > a
                                      > > > > suit
                                      > > > > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to
                                      deal with
                                      > > > > nuclear
                                      > > > > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies,
                                      employee
                                      > > training
                                      > > > > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees,
                                      and the
                                      > > tax-
                                      > > > > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're
                                      paying
                                      > > them
                                      > > > > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public
                                      will
                                      > > pay
                                      > > > > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the
                                      heck
                                      would
                                      > > > > they
                                      > > > > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to
                                      mention,
                                      > > the
                                      > > > > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County
                                      folks who
                                      > > are
                                      > > > > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste
                                      hearing,
                                      > > never
                                      > > > > got
                                      > > > > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got
                                      no say
                                      > > in
                                      > > > > the
                                      > > > > > matter at all.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for
                                      good men to
                                      > > do
                                      > > > > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few
                                      minutes to educate
                                      > > > > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and
                                      don't be
                                      > > led,
                                      > > > > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry
                                      would
                                      > > have
                                      > > > > > you follow. It's important that we band together and
                                      fight
                                      > > this
                                      > > > > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves.
                                      Talk to
                                      > > your
                                      > > > > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most
                                      importantly,
                                      talk
                                      > > to
                                      > > > > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal
                                      government.
                                      > > > > > Insist that this madness end.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important
                                      stuff.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Peace,
                                      > > > > > Susan
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      >

                                    • Jim & Janet
                                      ummm I think you re right RJ. I read something into Jays post that was not the point. The issue of embodied energy has, for a long time, been a sore point with
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ummm I think you're right RJ. I read something into Jays post that was not the point. The issue of embodied energy has, for a long time, been a sore point with the PV industry. It used to be valid criticism but no more. Technology developed for the integrated circuit business, and adopted by the PV industry, has seen to that.
                                        As for the cost payback, it's high. But don't forget that on Jan 1 the residential PV 30% federal tax credit will begin.  That will take a chunk out of the installed cost.
                                        And up here in N. Texas, Oncor Electric Delivery (of all people) will begin a $2.46 PV rebate in November. That should work out to around another 25-30%.
                                        I have a cost calculator on my www site that will show the cost of a PV system per kilowatt hour. It also shows the length of time until the PV power is cheaper than utility power. http://www.ntrei.com/cost.html
                                        Jim

                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:06 PM
                                        Subject: [SPAM] RE: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

                                        I may have missed something since I’m only loosely following this topic, but are you guys talking apples and oranges?  It looks to me like Jim Duncan is talking about “energy payback” (using terms like “embodied energy”) while Jay Ring is talking about “financial payback”.  If so, they you will never agree!  I think you need to get on the same page before the discussion can continue.

                                        That said, I would think that in the end, embodied energy should be reflected in the price as a first approximation.  If nuclear power costs so much less to purchase ($/kwh) than solar, then I would think that must reflect a lower embodied energy.  I have no data to back that up…just speculation.  I suppose it depends partly on how you count the energy payback period for fuel (uranium) which is a nonrenewable resource (barring use of breeder reactors).  But if the embodied cost were a factor of 8-15x that of solar, I don’t see how it could be offered so inexpensively.  Government subsidies aren’t THAT big!


                                        Robert Johnston

                                        From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto:hreg@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
                                        Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:49 AM
                                        To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                                        Subject: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

                                        I don't like my new role as "Mr Grim Reality"! I'm not going to keep
                                        doing it either :) So this will likely be one of my last posts on
                                        this topic -

                                        But Thin-File tech? Does your company recommend or even sell that
                                        stuff? Could you get your hands on it even if you wanted to?

                                        It seems like wishful thinking to me. I'll grant you "forward
                                        thinking". Maybe it is the way of the future - but that's my point -
                                        we're talking about the future.

                                        Meanwhile, waaaay back in the stone ages of late 2008 (today) - what
                                        does a 4kw system cost, and what is the payback on it? Someone should
                                        check my math, but:

                                        4 kW DC (installed PV)
                                        85% system efficiency

                                        3.4 kW AC (available)

                                        Houston is about 4.8 mean solar hours per day:
                                        4.8 SH * 3.4WK = 16.32 kWH/day, 489.6kWH / month, or 5956.8 kWH/year

                                        Market rate in my area is currently about $0.14 / kWH, So the value of
                                        the electricity is about $833.95/year

                                        Your own company, North Texas Renewable Energy, quotes on their
                                        homepage an approximate cost of $8000 per installed KW, which is
                                        maybe a little high, but about in line with other companies. So you
                                        guys charge about $32000 for this system.

                                        $32,000 / $833.95

                                        38 years.

                                        Q.E.D.

                                        BTW - I am still going to get one :)

                                        --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Jim & Janet" <jhd1@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years,
                                        then it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor
                                        of 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years....
                                        >
                                        >
                                        ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
                                        >
                                        > The "payback" period for solar PV of 15 years is way old news.
                                        > According to Justine Sanchez in her Home Power article (issue 127,
                                        Oct-Nov 2008)
                                        http://www.homepowe r.com/article/ ?file=HP127_ pg32_Sanchez the Embodied
                                        Energy, the correct term, in solar photovoltaic module production is
                                        one to two years. Thin-film technology will generate significantly
                                        lower embodied energy, while the more energy intensive
                                        mono-crystalline manufacturing process doubles the energy involved.
                                        > The article updates a Dec 2000 HP article that illustrates the
                                        payback is 2.9- 6.5 years. *
                                        > The analysis includes not just the electricity used in the
                                        manufacturing process. Along with aluminum and glass making, the study
                                        includes the minor processes and chemicals for cleaning, etching etc,
                                        and wire for slicing silicon ingots into cells is also factored in.
                                        > Losses from inverter inefficiencies, wire (voltage) losses dirty
                                        modules on your roof will add up to approximately 20% kilowatt hour
                                        output loss from the finished grid-active installation. These losses
                                        are not considered a part of the embodied energy since they vary
                                        depending on the quality and efficacy of the installation.
                                        > I seriously doubt that the process of generating nuclear powered
                                        electricity, starting at the mineshaft through to the electric grid
                                        can come close to matching the efficiency of PV. I doubt that any
                                        construction process that can take a decade to complete, that contains
                                        hundreds of tons of steel and thousands of cubic yards of cement can
                                        claim any payback at all.
                                        > We welcome any rebuttal with references.
                                        > Jim Duncan
                                        > North Texas Renewable Energy Inc
                                        > 4029 Aragon Drive
                                        > Fort Worth, Texas 76133
                                        > 817.917.0527
                                        > ntrei@...
                                        >
                                        >
                                        ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > * Authors: Karl E. Knapp, Ph.D., Energy & Environmental Economics,
                                        Inc., 353 Sacramento St., Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111 .
                                        415-391-5100
                                        > Fax: 415-391-6500 . karl@... www.ethree.com
                                        >
                                        > Theresa L. Jester, Siemens Solar Industries, 4650 Adohr Ln.,
                                        Camarillo, CA 93011 . 805-388-6500 Fax: 805-388-6557 .
                                        terry.jester@ ... www.solar.siemens. com
                                        >
                                        > For further reading:
                                        >
                                        > Alsema, E.A., Energy Requirements of Thin-Film Solar Modules, A
                                        Review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v2, 387-415, 1998.
                                        >
                                        > Fthenakis, V., K. Zweibel, and P. Moskowitz, ed., Photovoltaics and
                                        the Environment 1998, BNL/NREL, July 23-24, 1998, Keystone, CO,
                                        BNL-52557, Feb.1999
                                        >
                                        > K. Knapp and T. Jester, An Empirical Perspective on the Energy
                                        Payback Time for Photovoltaic Modules, Solar 2000: ASES Annual
                                        Conference, June 16-21, 2000, Madison, Wisconsin, American Solar
                                        Energy Society
                                        >
                                        > www.ecotopia. com/apollo2/ knapp/PVEPBTPape r.pdf K. Knapp, T. Jester,
                                        and G. Mihalik, Energy Balances for Photovoltaic Modules: Status and
                                        Prospects, 28th IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists Conference, September
                                        17-22, 2000, Anchorage, Alaska www.solarpv. com/paybackstudy .pdf
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ----- Original Message -----
                                        > From: Jay Ring
                                        > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                                        > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:09 AM
                                        > Subject: [SPAM] [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Unfortunately I have limited time (don't we all), so I can't give you
                                        > the full length answer I would like to (and you deserve) But, very
                                        > very briefly:
                                        >
                                        > Susan,
                                        >
                                        > No offense taken :) I said "coal", not "oil" but to a lesser extent
                                        > it applies to oil too.
                                        >
                                        > Q: what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels?
                                        > A: It is a substitute for them
                                        >
                                        > Q: How?
                                        > A: Coal is a fossil fuel
                                        >
                                        > Q: But they (oil and energy) are seperate crises, are they not?
                                        > A: Not really, particularly with the coming of Plug in electric
                                        vehicles.
                                        >
                                        > The "cost economy" (as opposed to fuel economy) of a plug-in electric
                                        > is going to be related to the price of gas and the price of
                                        > electricity. The more expensive gas is, the more attractive the
                                        > hybrid is. The cheaper electricity is, the more attractive the hybrid
                                        > is. Cheap and plentiful electricity, which nuclear can provide, makes
                                        > burning oil seem expensive and thus hastens the development away from
                                        > these sources.
                                        >
                                        > Returning to the previous point - it's not just cars, in fact it's not
                                        > even mainly cars, it's electricity for your home and office, plus the
                                        > factories that produce the things you buy.
                                        >
                                        > Jim,
                                        >
                                        > I am not sure what point you are driving at with the the power
                                        > statistics you posted :) Sorry! What is popular is not always right,
                                        > and what is profitable is not always right either.
                                        >
                                        > The cost-effectiveness of of nuclear depends on the cost of it's
                                        > competitors. When that competitor is coal, nuclear, solar, and wind
                                        > ALL lose out. If you eliminate coal, nuclear is the cheapest of the
                                        > remaining options. If you don't eliminate coal - then coal wins every
                                        > time and the rest can go home and cry. They all need subsidies if
                                        > they are to compete with coal. That doesn't make them bad!
                                        > Optionally, you can tax the emissions of coal instead, which achieves
                                        > the same goal.
                                        >
                                        > We are all familiar with the massive subsidies we get on solar. I for
                                        > one am excited about the elimination of the cap! The fact that
                                        > nuclear requires them too (and then actually -does- compete with coal)
                                        > seems like a moot point.
                                        >
                                        > Finally, nuclear energy's output would not be stagnant if we could get
                                        > some new construction approved. Without new construction, I don't see
                                        > how they could possibly rise - so I guess I don't see the relevance.
                                        >
                                        > Kevin,
                                        >
                                        > I am actually an electrical engineer, not a nuclear :) I am
                                        > significantly more familiar with how solar panels are made than I am
                                        > with refining and enriching uranium. I do have a passing knowledge
                                        > though.
                                        >
                                        > I will say that enriching electronics grade silicon is no small task
                                        > and our current method involves tremendous energy - google for "float
                                        > zone processing" for some idea.
                                        >
                                        > If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years, then
                                        > it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor of
                                        > 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years.
                                        >
                                        > I wish I could put better numbers together for you, but typically cost
                                        > (in money) is at least roughly in line with the "true" costs. Since
                                        > neither generates negative externalities, I'd say you can use the
                                        > total payback period as a rough indicator.
                                        >
                                        > I wouldn't normally reply with such a worthless "no real data"
                                        > response, except that I wanted to respond to something you raised
                                        > earlier in your message: "I also understand that only a fraction of
                                        > the stored energy is used, and the rods are not reprocessed to capture
                                        > this lost energy."
                                        >
                                        > It is true that we don't recycle the spent rods. This is by federal
                                        > law. I believe congress should immediately repeal this law - is there
                                        > any reason for it to exist that I am not aware of?
                                        >
                                        > Conclusion:
                                        >
                                        > I still think PV is the best long term solution, but until the cost
                                        > comes down, going nuclear is the best way to get off coal RIGHT NOW.
                                        > We can't afford to wait the amount of time it will take to get PV on
                                        > every home in the country, the cost is just too prohibitive - we are
                                        > letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We are also forgetting
                                        > that when we get to the nuclear waypoint, we will be in a tremendously
                                        > better position to jump to the PV waypoint. Trying to make that jump
                                        > all in one go is just a bridge too far.
                                        >
                                        > I wish I could explain more but I am out of time -
                                        >
                                        > Have a good one guys!
                                        >
                                        > - Jay
                                        >
                                        > --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > I'm sorry if my choice of words belittled, again, it is JMO. I have
                                        > > to say, though, unless some major factor in the energy crisis has
                                        > > escaped me, what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels? It is
                                        > > my contention that particular argument is one of the greatest smoke-
                                        > > and-mirrors tactics the nuke industry has pulled off: Their mantra
                                        > > has long been "Nukes will get us out of Iraq" "Nukes will make us
                                        > > independent of foreign oil"
                                        > >
                                        > > How?
                                        > >
                                        > > TRANSPORTATION relies on fossil fuels, less than 2% of
                                        > > homes/businesses/ industry do.
                                        > >
                                        > > Fossil fuel consumption, basically, does not compete with
                                        > > electricity generation in any form, yet we are led to believe it
                                        > > does.
                                        > >
                                        > > Do we need to cut down on fossil fuel comsumption, develop
                                        > > alternatives? Of course...
                                        > >
                                        > > Do we need to develop efficiency technologies, alternative power
                                        > > ideas, and cut down on electrical usage? Of course...
                                        > >
                                        > > But they are seperate crises, are they not?
                                        > >
                                        > > And once again, my husband works out there, the industry is my
                                        bread
                                        > > and butter, and I'd like to see it cease to exist, at least see it
                                        > > cease to expand. It took a lot to get my thinking to this point,
                                        > > but with the nukes, the more you learn, the more sickening it is. I
                                        > > have seen where the land of Native Americans was strip mined for
                                        > > uranium (with the threat of losing government funding if they
                                        > > resisted), I have stood in front of company execs and spokespersons
                                        > > and repeatedy been
                                        > > told "Its all about the money". And it is. And if they were making
                                        > > widgets that's be okay. But they're making an extremely dangerous
                                        > > situation even worse by the sole focus on profit, and we, via our
                                        > > gov't, are being forced to participate in our own demise.
                                        > >
                                        > > Thank you for engaging me, caring enough to discuss it. If you have
                                        > > a spare minute, go to www.mccnia.homestea d.com "Food for Thought"
                                        > > page. And please, let me know what you think.
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Jay Ring" <txses@> wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > I am generally pro-nuclear.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
                                        > > > although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly". I
                                        > > would
                                        > > > have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the
                                        > > charge
                                        > > > because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite
                                        > > the
                                        > > > significant issues.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
                                        > > > greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun
                                        > > burns
                                        > > > out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What
                                        > > I do
                                        > > > focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon
                                        > > output,
                                        > > > low environmental impact, and high energy output.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something,
                                        > > we
                                        > > > will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive
                                        > > use
                                        > > > of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different
                                        > > than
                                        > > > being pro-coal.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation
                                        > > wide.
                                        > > > Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures
                                        > > this.
                                        > > > It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested.
                                        > > Believe
                                        > > > me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a
                                        > > long
                                        > > > time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national
                                        > > doesn't
                                        > > > make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
                                        > > > don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That
                                        > > whole
                                        > > > time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to
                                        > > use
                                        > > > the existing power generation - coal.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric
                                        > > hybrids
                                        > > > to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal
                                        > > to
                                        > > > nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a
                                        > > much
                                        > > > better position to be in when you start the long investing
                                        phase to
                                        > > > being the move to solar.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
                                        > > > because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
                                        > > > sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures
                                        > > that
                                        > > > we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is
                                        > > empirically
                                        > > > no different than being pro-coal.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > - Jay
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@>
                                        > > wrote:
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more:
                                        > > The "free"
                                        > > > > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so
                                        > > long
                                        > > > > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents
                                        > > and so
                                        > > > > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their
                                        > > well-
                                        > > > > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
                                        > > > > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1%
                                        catastrophic
                                        > > > > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@>
                                        > > > > wrote:
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as
                                        it's
                                        > > > > safe and
                                        > > > > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
                                        > > > > brings up
                                        > > > > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for
                                        > > the
                                        > > > > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would
                                        > > decide
                                        > > > > but
                                        > > > > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any
                                        > > luck,
                                        > > > > when
                                        > > > > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few
                                        > > billion
                                        > > > > our way
                                        > > > > > :-).
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On
                                        > > Behalf
                                        > > > > Of
                                        > > > > > texasblessings
                                        > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
                                        > > > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                                        > > > > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the
                                        > > general
                                        > > > > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
                                        > > > > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables". Seems the
                                        > > > > general
                                        > > > > > consensus is "no". Good.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you
                                        > > all
                                        > > > > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband
                                        > > is
                                        > > > > an
                                        > > > > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
                                        > > > > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of
                                        reactors
                                        > > > > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
                                        > > > > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
                                        > > > > aired
                                        > > > > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
                                        > > > > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources.
                                        > > They
                                        > > > > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the
                                        longest
                                        > > > > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
                                        > > > > > industry.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on
                                        > > our
                                        > > > > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
                                        > > > > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the
                                        backbone of
                                        > > > > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a
                                        > > moment
                                        > > > > I
                                        > > > > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds
                                        and
                                        > > > > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the
                                        > > industry
                                        > > > > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
                                        > > > > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should
                                        we,
                                        > > the
                                        > > > > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
                                        > > > > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
                                        > > > > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly
                                        emits
                                        > > > > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how
                                        > > can
                                        > > > > we
                                        > > > > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise
                                        > > be
                                        > > > > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true
                                        > > renewables?
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew
                                        > > into
                                        > > > > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to
                                        > > its
                                        > > > > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
                                        > > > > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to
                                        > > run
                                        > > > > the
                                        > > > > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season
                                        > > &
                                        > > > > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case
                                        > > he
                                        > > > > had
                                        > > > > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security
                                        > > over-
                                        > > > > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in
                                        from
                                        > > > > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams
                                        > > searched
                                        > > > > the
                                        > > > > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
                                        > > > > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in
                                        > > case". In
                                        > > > > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
                                        > > > > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years
                                        > > back, it
                                        > > > > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates
                                        > > have
                                        > > > > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother
                                        > > and
                                        > > > > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
                                        > > > > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb
                                        > > less
                                        > > > > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the
                                        > > industry
                                        > > > > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect
                                        > > ourselves
                                        > > > > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
                                        > > > > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and
                                        even if
                                        > > it
                                        > > > > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of
                                        > > waste
                                        > > > > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
                                        > > > > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to
                                        Yucca.
                                        > > Our
                                        > > > > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard
                                        > > is
                                        > > > > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage
                                        > > or
                                        > > > > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The
                                        nuclear
                                        > > > > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON
                                        > > a
                                        > > > > suit
                                        > > > > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
                                        > > > > nuclear
                                        > > > > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee
                                        > > training
                                        > > > > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the
                                        > > tax-
                                        > > > > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying
                                        > > them
                                        > > > > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will
                                        > > pay
                                        > > > > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck
                                        would
                                        > > > > they
                                        > > > > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention,
                                        > > the
                                        > > > > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who
                                        > > are
                                        > > > > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing,
                                        > > never
                                        > > > > got
                                        > > > > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say
                                        > > in
                                        > > > > the
                                        > > > > > matter at all.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to
                                        > > do
                                        > > > > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
                                        > > > > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be
                                        > > led,
                                        > > > > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would
                                        > > have
                                        > > > > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight
                                        > > this
                                        > > > > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to
                                        > > your
                                        > > > > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly,
                                        talk
                                        > > to
                                        > > > > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
                                        > > > > > Insist that this madness end.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > Peace,
                                        > > > > > Susan
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        >

                                      • Robert Johnston
                                        I wish we had a rebate like that here in the Houston area! Robert From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet Sent:
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment

                                          I wish we had a rebate like that here in the Houston area!

                                           

                                          Robert

                                           

                                          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
                                          Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:27 PM
                                          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

                                           

                                          ummm I think you're right RJ. I read something into Jays post that was not the point. The issue of embodied energy has, for a long time, been a sore point with the PV industry. It used to be valid criticism but no more. Technology developed for the integrated circuit business, and adopted by the PV industry, has seen to that.

                                          As for the cost payback, it's high. But don't forget that on Jan 1 the residential PV 30% federal tax credit will begin.  That will take a chunk out of the installed cost.

                                          And up here in N. Texas, Oncor Electric Delivery (of all people) will begin a $2.46 PV rebate in November. That should work out to around another 25-30%.

                                          I have a cost calculator on my www site that will show the cost of a PV system per kilowatt hour. It also shows the length of time until the PV power is cheaper than utility power. http://www.ntrei.com/cost.html

                                          Jim


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

                                          Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:06 PM

                                          Subject: [SPAM] RE: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

                                           

                                          I may have missed something since I’m only loosely following this topic, but are you guys talking apples and oranges?  It looks to me like Jim Duncan is talking about “energy payback” (using terms like “embodied energy”) while Jay Ring is talking about “financial payback”.  If so, they you will never agree!  I think you need to get on the same page before the discussion can continue.

                                          That said, I would think that in the end, embodied energy should be reflected in the price as a first approximation.  If nuclear power costs so much less to purchase ($/kwh) than solar, then I would think that must reflect a lower embodied energy.  I have no data to back that up…just speculation.  I suppose it depends partly on how you count the energy payback period for fuel (uranium) which is a nonrenewable resource (barring use of breeder reactors).  But if the embodied cost were a factor of 8-15x that of solar, I don’t see how it could be offered so inexpensively.  Government subsidies aren’t THAT big!


                                          Robert Johnston

                                          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
                                          Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:49 AM
                                          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

                                          I don't like my new role as "Mr Grim Reality"! I'm not going to keep
                                          doing it either :) So this will likely be one of my last posts on
                                          this topic -

                                          But Thin-File tech? Does your company recommend or even sell that
                                          stuff? Could you get your hands on it even if you wanted to?

                                          It seems like wishful thinking to me. I'll grant you "forward
                                          thinking". Maybe it is the way of the future - but that's my point -
                                          we're talking about the future.

                                          Meanwhile, waaaay back in the stone ages of late 2008 (today) - what
                                          does a 4kw system cost, and what is the payback on it? Someone should
                                          check my math, but:

                                          4 kW DC (installed PV)
                                          85% system efficiency

                                          3.4 kW AC (available)

                                          Houston is about 4.8 mean solar hours per day:
                                          4.8 SH * 3.4WK = 16.32 kWH/day, 489.6kWH / month, or 5956.8 kWH/year

                                          Market rate in my area is currently about $0.14 / kWH, So the value of
                                          the electricity is about $833.95/year

                                          Your own company, North Texas Renewable Energy, quotes on their
                                          homepage an approximate cost of $8000 per installed KW, which is
                                          maybe a little high, but about in line with other companies. So you
                                          guys charge about $32000 for this system.

                                          $32,000 / $833.95

                                          38 years.

                                          Q.E.D.

                                          BTW - I am still going to get one :)

                                          --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jim & Janet" <jhd1@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years,
                                          then it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor
                                          of 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years....
                                          >
                                          >
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------
                                          >
                                          > The "payback" period for solar PV of 15 years is way old news.
                                          > According to Justine Sanchez in her Home Power article (issue 127,
                                          Oct-Nov 2008)
                                          http://www.homepower.com/article/?file=HP127_pg32_Sanchez the Embodied
                                          Energy, the correct term, in solar photovoltaic module production is
                                          one to two years. Thin-film technology will generate significantly
                                          lower embodied energy, while the more energy intensive
                                          mono-crystalline manufacturing process doubles the energy involved.
                                          > The article updates a Dec 2000 HP article that illustrates the
                                          payback is 2.9- 6.5 years. *
                                          > The analysis includes not just the electricity used in the
                                          manufacturing process. Along with aluminum and glass making, the study
                                          includes the minor processes and chemicals for cleaning, etching etc,
                                          and wire for slicing silicon ingots into cells is also factored in.
                                          > Losses from inverter inefficiencies, wire (voltage) losses dirty
                                          modules on your roof will add up to approximately 20% kilowatt hour
                                          output loss from the finished grid-active installation. These losses
                                          are not considered a part of the embodied energy since they vary
                                          depending on the quality and efficacy of the installation.
                                          > I seriously doubt that the process of generating nuclear powered
                                          electricity, starting at the mineshaft through to the electric grid
                                          can come close to matching the efficiency of PV. I doubt that any
                                          construction process that can take a decade to complete, that contains
                                          hundreds of tons of steel and thousands of cubic yards of cement can
                                          claim any payback at all.
                                          > We welcome any rebuttal with references.
                                          > Jim Duncan
                                          > North Texas Renewable Energy Inc
                                          > 4029 Aragon Drive
                                          > Fort Worth, Texas 76133
                                          > 817.917.0527
                                          > ntrei@...
                                          >
                                          >
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > * Authors: Karl E. Knapp, Ph.D., Energy & Environmental Economics,
                                          Inc., 353 Sacramento St., Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111 .
                                          415-391-5100
                                          > Fax: 415-391-6500 . karl@... www.ethree.com
                                          >
                                          > Theresa L. Jester, Siemens Solar Industries, 4650 Adohr Ln.,
                                          Camarillo, CA 93011 . 805-388-6500 Fax: 805-388-6557 .
                                          terry.jester@... www.solar.siemens.com
                                          >
                                          > For further reading:
                                          >
                                          > Alsema, E.A., Energy Requirements of Thin-Film Solar Modules, A
                                          Review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v2, 387-415, 1998.
                                          >
                                          > Fthenakis, V., K. Zweibel, and P. Moskowitz, ed., Photovoltaics and
                                          the Environment 1998, BNL/NREL, July 23-24, 1998, Keystone, CO,
                                          BNL-52557, Feb.1999
                                          >
                                          > K. Knapp and T. Jester, An Empirical Perspective on the Energy
                                          Payback Time for Photovoltaic Modules, Solar 2000: ASES Annual
                                          Conference, June 16-21, 2000, Madison, Wisconsin, American Solar
                                          Energy Society
                                          >
                                          > www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/knapp/PVEPBTPaper.pdf K. Knapp, T. Jester,
                                          and G. Mihalik, Energy Balances for Photovoltaic Modules: Status and
                                          Prospects, 28th IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists Conference, September
                                          17-22, 2000, Anchorage, Alaska www.solarpv.com/paybackstudy.pdf
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ----- Original Message -----
                                          > From: Jay Ring
                                          > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:09 AM
                                          > Subject: [SPAM] [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Unfortunately I have limited time (don't we all), so I can't give you
                                          > the full length answer I would like to (and you deserve) But, very
                                          > very briefly:
                                          >
                                          > Susan,
                                          >
                                          > No offense taken :) I said "coal", not "oil" but to a lesser extent
                                          > it applies to oil too.
                                          >
                                          > Q: what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels?
                                          > A: It is a substitute for them
                                          >
                                          > Q: How?
                                          > A: Coal is a fossil fuel
                                          >
                                          > Q: But they (oil and energy) are seperate crises, are they not?
                                          > A: Not really, particularly with the coming of Plug in electric
                                          vehicles.
                                          >
                                          > The "cost economy" (as opposed to fuel economy) of a plug-in electric
                                          > is going to be related to the price of gas and the price of
                                          > electricity. The more expensive gas is, the more attractive the
                                          > hybrid is. The cheaper electricity is, the more attractive the hybrid
                                          > is. Cheap and plentiful electricity, which nuclear can provide, makes
                                          > burning oil seem expensive and thus hastens the development away from
                                          > these sources.
                                          >
                                          > Returning to the previous point - it's not just cars, in fact it's not
                                          > even mainly cars, it's electricity for your home and office, plus the
                                          > factories that produce the things you buy.
                                          >
                                          > Jim,
                                          >
                                          > I am not sure what point you are driving at with the the power
                                          > statistics you posted :) Sorry! What is popular is not always right,
                                          > and what is profitable is not always right either.
                                          >
                                          > The cost-effectiveness of of nuclear depends on the cost of it's
                                          > competitors. When that competitor is coal, nuclear, solar, and wind
                                          > ALL lose out. If you eliminate coal, nuclear is the cheapest of the
                                          > remaining options. If you don't eliminate coal - then coal wins every
                                          > time and the rest can go home and cry. They all need subsidies if
                                          > they are to compete with coal. That doesn't make them bad!
                                          > Optionally, you can tax the emissions of coal instead, which achieves
                                          > the same goal.
                                          >
                                          > We are all familiar with the massive subsidies we get on solar. I for
                                          > one am excited about the elimination of the cap! The fact that
                                          > nuclear requires them too (and then actually -does- compete with coal)
                                          > seems like a moot point.
                                          >
                                          > Finally, nuclear energy's output would not be stagnant if we could get
                                          > some new construction approved. Without new construction, I don't see
                                          > how they could possibly rise - so I guess I don't see the relevance.
                                          >
                                          > Kevin,
                                          >
                                          > I am actually an electrical engineer, not a nuclear :) I am
                                          > significantly more familiar with how solar panels are made than I am
                                          > with refining and enriching uranium. I do have a passing knowledge
                                          > though.
                                          >
                                          > I will say that enriching electronics grade silicon is no small task
                                          > and our current method involves tremendous energy - google for "float
                                          > zone processing" for some idea.
                                          >
                                          > If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years, then
                                          > it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor of
                                          > 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years.
                                          >
                                          > I wish I could put better numbers together for you, but typically cost
                                          > (in money) is at least roughly in line with the "true" costs. Since
                                          > neither generates negative externalities, I'd say you can use the
                                          > total payback period as a rough indicator.
                                          >
                                          > I wouldn't normally reply with such a worthless "no real data"
                                          > response, except that I wanted to respond to something you raised
                                          > earlier in your message: "I also understand that only a fraction of
                                          > the stored energy is used, and the rods are not reprocessed to capture
                                          > this lost energy."
                                          >
                                          > It is true that we don't recycle the spent rods. This is by federal
                                          > law. I believe congress should immediately repeal this law - is there
                                          > any reason for it to exist that I am not aware of?
                                          >
                                          > Conclusion:
                                          >
                                          > I still think PV is the best long term solution, but until the cost
                                          > comes down, going nuclear is the best way to get off coal RIGHT NOW.
                                          > We can't afford to wait the amount of time it will take to get PV on
                                          > every home in the country, the cost is just too prohibitive - we are
                                          > letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We are also forgetting
                                          > that when we get to the nuclear waypoint, we will be in a tremendously
                                          > better position to jump to the PV waypoint. Trying to make that jump
                                          > all in one go is just a bridge too far.
                                          >
                                          > I wish I could explain more but I am out of time -
                                          >
                                          > Have a good one guys!
                                          >
                                          > - Jay
                                          >
                                          > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > I'm sorry if my choice of words belittled, again, it is JMO. I have
                                          > > to say, though, unless some major factor in the energy crisis has
                                          > > escaped me, what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels? It is
                                          > > my contention that particular argument is one of the greatest smoke-
                                          > > and-mirrors tactics the nuke industry has pulled off: Their mantra
                                          > > has long been "Nukes will get us out of Iraq" "Nukes will make us
                                          > > independent of foreign oil"
                                          > >
                                          > > How?
                                          > >
                                          > > TRANSPORTATION relies on fossil fuels, less than 2% of
                                          > > homes/businesses/industry do.
                                          > >
                                          > > Fossil fuel consumption, basically, does not compete with
                                          > > electricity generation in any form, yet we are led to believe it
                                          > > does.
                                          > >
                                          > > Do we need to cut down on fossil fuel comsumption, develop
                                          > > alternatives? Of course...
                                          > >
                                          > > Do we need to develop efficiency technologies, alternative power
                                          > > ideas, and cut down on electrical usage? Of course...
                                          > >
                                          > > But they are seperate crises, are they not?
                                          > >
                                          > > And once again, my husband works out there, the industry is my
                                          bread
                                          > > and butter, and I'd like to see it cease to exist, at least see it
                                          > > cease to expand. It took a lot to get my thinking to this point,
                                          > > but with the nukes, the more you learn, the more sickening it is. I
                                          > > have seen where the land of Native Americans was strip mined for
                                          > > uranium (with the threat of losing government funding if they
                                          > > resisted), I have stood in front of company execs and spokespersons
                                          > > and repeatedy been
                                          > > told "Its all about the money". And it is. And if they were making
                                          > > widgets that's be okay. But they're making an extremely dangerous
                                          > > situation even worse by the sole focus on profit, and we, via our
                                          > > gov't, are being forced to participate in our own demise.
                                          > >
                                          > > Thank you for engaging me, caring enough to discuss it. If you have
                                          > > a spare minute, go to www.mccnia.homestead.com "Food for Thought"
                                          > > page. And please, let me know what you think.
                                          > >
                                          > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Ring" <txses@> wrote:
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I am generally pro-nuclear.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
                                          > > > although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly". I
                                          > > would
                                          > > > have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the
                                          > > charge
                                          > > > because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite
                                          > > the
                                          > > > significant issues.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
                                          > > > greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun
                                          > > burns
                                          > > > out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What
                                          > > I do
                                          > > > focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon
                                          > > output,
                                          > > > low environmental impact, and high energy output.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something,
                                          > > we
                                          > > > will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive
                                          > > use
                                          > > > of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different
                                          > > than
                                          > > > being pro-coal.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation
                                          > > wide.
                                          > > > Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures
                                          > > this.
                                          > > > It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested.
                                          > > Believe
                                          > > > me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a
                                          > > long
                                          > > > time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national
                                          > > doesn't
                                          > > > make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
                                          > > > don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That
                                          > > whole
                                          > > > time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to
                                          > > use
                                          > > > the existing power generation - coal.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric
                                          > > hybrids
                                          > > > to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal
                                          > > to
                                          > > > nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a
                                          > > much
                                          > > > better position to be in when you start the long investing
                                          phase to
                                          > > > being the move to solar.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
                                          > > > because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
                                          > > > sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures
                                          > > that
                                          > > > we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is
                                          > > empirically
                                          > > > no different than being pro-coal.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > - Jay
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@>
                                          > > wrote:
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more:
                                          > > The "free"
                                          > > > > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so
                                          > > long
                                          > > > > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents
                                          > > and so
                                          > > > > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their
                                          > > well-
                                          > > > > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
                                          > > > > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1%
                                          catastrophic
                                          > > > > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@>
                                          > > > > wrote:
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as
                                          it's
                                          > > > > safe and
                                          > > > > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
                                          > > > > brings up
                                          > > > > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for
                                          > > the
                                          > > > > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would
                                          > > decide
                                          > > > > but
                                          > > > > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any
                                          > > luck,
                                          > > > > when
                                          > > > > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few
                                          > > billion
                                          > > > > our way
                                          > > > > > :-).
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > ________________________________
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On
                                          > > Behalf
                                          > > > > Of
                                          > > > > > texasblessings
                                          > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
                                          > > > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                          > > > > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the
                                          > > general
                                          > > > > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
                                          > > > > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables". Seems the
                                          > > > > general
                                          > > > > > consensus is "no". Good.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you
                                          > > all
                                          > > > > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband
                                          > > is
                                          > > > > an
                                          > > > > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
                                          > > > > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of
                                          reactors
                                          > > > > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
                                          > > > > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
                                          > > > > aired
                                          > > > > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
                                          > > > > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources.
                                          > > They
                                          > > > > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the
                                          longest
                                          > > > > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
                                          > > > > > industry.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on
                                          > > our
                                          > > > > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
                                          > > > > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the
                                          backbone of
                                          > > > > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a
                                          > > moment
                                          > > > > I
                                          > > > > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds
                                          and
                                          > > > > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the
                                          > > industry
                                          > > > > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
                                          > > > > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should
                                          we,
                                          > > the
                                          > > > > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
                                          > > > > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
                                          > > > > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly
                                          emits
                                          > > > > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how
                                          > > can
                                          > > > > we
                                          > > > > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise
                                          > > be
                                          > > > > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true
                                          > > renewables?
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew
                                          > > into
                                          > > > > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to
                                          > > its
                                          > > > > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
                                          > > > > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to
                                          > > run
                                          > > > > the
                                          > > > > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season
                                          > > &
                                          > > > > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case
                                          > > he
                                          > > > > had
                                          > > > > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security
                                          > > over-
                                          > > > > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in
                                          from
                                          > > > > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams
                                          > > searched
                                          > > > > the
                                          > > > > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
                                          > > > > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in
                                          > > case". In
                                          > > > > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
                                          > > > > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years
                                          > > back, it
                                          > > > > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates
                                          > > have
                                          > > > > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother
                                          > > and
                                          > > > > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
                                          > > > > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb
                                          > > less
                                          > > > > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the
                                          > > industry
                                          > > > > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect
                                          > > ourselves
                                          > > > > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
                                          > > > > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and
                                          even if
                                          > > it
                                          > > > > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of
                                          > > waste
                                          > > > > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
                                          > > > > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to
                                          Yucca.
                                          > > Our
                                          > > > > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard
                                          > > is
                                          > > > > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage
                                          > > or
                                          > > > > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The
                                          nuclear
                                          > > > > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON
                                          > > a
                                          > > > > suit
                                          > > > > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
                                          > > > > nuclear
                                          > > > > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee
                                          > > training
                                          > > > > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the
                                          > > tax-
                                          > > > > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying
                                          > > them
                                          > > > > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will
                                          > > pay
                                          > > > > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck
                                          would
                                          > > > > they
                                          > > > > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention,
                                          > > the
                                          > > > > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who
                                          > > are
                                          > > > > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing,
                                          > > never
                                          > > > > got
                                          > > > > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say
                                          > > in
                                          > > > > the
                                          > > > > > matter at all.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to
                                          > > do
                                          > > > > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
                                          > > > > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be
                                          > > led,
                                          > > > > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would
                                          > > have
                                          > > > > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight
                                          > > this
                                          > > > > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to
                                          > > your
                                          > > > > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly,
                                          talk
                                          > > to
                                          > > > > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
                                          > > > > > Insist that this madness end.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > Peace,
                                          > > > > > Susan
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          >

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