GTcarz - Automotive forums for cars & trucks.

Page 7 of 9

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GTcarz - Automotive forums for cars & trucks. (https://www.gtcarz.com/)

- Honda Mailing List (https://www.gtcarz.com/honda-mailing-list-327/)

- - article: Plug-in Hybrid (https://www.gtcarz.com/honda-mailing-list-327/article-plug-hybrid-289090/)

Jim Yanik

08-18-2005 09:50 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:ayTMe.339$zD3.124@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> news:49AMe.2135$Z%6.1249@newssvr17.news.prodigy.co m:
>>
>>
>>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them.
>
> "New nuclear plants appear too pricey"
> http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...ackages/yucca/
> 6073891.htm "The last five U.S. nuclear power plants cost 11 times as
> much to build per kilowatt produced as do current natural-gas plants.
> Even if new next-generation nuclear plants can be built much more
> cheaply, their construction costs still are likely to be two to four
> times higher than natural gas, coal or wind plants, according to the
> U.S. Energy Information Administration."

Costs are high because of the ridiculous opperssive regulations forced upon
the nuclear industry by enviro-extremists.
>
>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>
>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>
>> Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.
>
> There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
> feel differently.

Purely NIMBY.

>
> "Yucca Mountain"
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in579696.shtml
> "... the battle is far from over, and the state of Nevada is in
> full-scale revolt. A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists
> and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they
> believe has been shoved down their throats."

The stuff HAS to go somewhere;and nobody came up with any better site.
Under a mountain in the middle of a vast empty land seems about right.

>
> "The Impacts of Sabotage and Terrorism on Nuclear Waste Shipments: A
> Critique of the U. S. Department of Energy's Draft Environmental
> Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0250D) for the Proposed Yucca Mountain,
> Nevada, Geological Repository"
> http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/eis/yucca/ballard01.htm
> "if one makes a cursory review of NRC’s Safeguards Summary Event List
> (SSEL) it becomes clear that sabotage is a much more common practice
> in nuclear related facilities than the public would assume and clearly
> a known factor transportation planners should address."

This would be an argument FOR Yucca Mtn. Having the present wastes located
allover the country in MUCH less secure sites than Yucca makes NO sense.
Transportation is a short-term window of "opportunity" that is difficult to
attempt with any chance of success.
>
> "Yucca radiation limits unveiled"
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...05/news/270262
> 44.html "Never in our wildest nightmares would we have anticipated
> such a ridiculous standard," Gov. Kenny Guinn said. "This is junk
> science at its worst."
>
> "YUCCA MOUNTAIN: 'Monkey wrench'"
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...05/news/270430
> 79.html "Thousands of fuel assemblies containing radioactive nuclear
> waste are expected to arrive damaged at Yucca Mountain, including some
> with undetected leaks and cracks, posing potential risks to workers
> and the public, according to a report prepared for the government."
>
> "Report says repository to bite county budget"
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...05/news/270628
> 00.html " The transportation of high-level nuclear waste to the
> planned Yucca Mountain repository could have a devastating effect on
> local government finances, according to a report accepted by Clark
> County commissioners Tuesday."
>
>>>Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump
>>>to your child, nephew, pregant relative?
>>>
>>>If you answer yes to these then more power to you but
>>>you'll be the first person I've met that does.
>
> My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless
> you personally are willing to have you and those you care
> about live near it.
>
> So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would
> be okay".
>

It's OK because it's far better than what we have now.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Brian Stell

08-19-2005 02:23 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in
> news:oTPMe.35516$Ji.3946@lakeread02:
>
>
>>"Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>news:8oJMe.197$L03.96@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net ...
>>
>>>>I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would
>>>>trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second.
>>>
>>>Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant?
>
>
> Chemical plants often have ACCIDENTS;releases of toxic chemicals.
> Remember Bhopal,India?

Yes, quite well. It was horrible. So was Chernobyl.

My point is: rather than suggest we should trade one
bad situation for another bad situation, wouldn't it
be better to put effort into cleaning things up?

Brian Stell

08-19-2005 02:23 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

Brian Stell

08-19-2005 02:32 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

>> Reprocessing is also expensive. Mining/enrichment of uranium remains far
>> cheaper than reprocessing.
>
> on the contrary, reprocessing is highly profitable.

General Electric spent a lot of time and money trying to
build a reprocessing plant. At first it was going to
make lots of money. Then, well it would make some money.
Then, at least we can break even. Then finally they
gave up.

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=583

"General Electric built a large reprocessing facility in Morris, Ill.
The plant, which never operated, now stores used nuclear fuel."

"Nuclear Fuel Services, while a subsidiary of Getty Oil, built and
operated a small reprocessing facility in West Valley, N.Y. The high
cost of meeting new regulations in the mid-1970s forced the company to
close the plant."

"Allied General Nuclear Services, an Allied Chemical and General Atomics
joint venture, invested more than $500 million dollars in a new
reprocessing plant in Barnwell, S.C. The Carter administration’s
reprocessing ban—coupled with costly new regulatory requirements—ensured
that it, too, never operated."

"In 1994, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
issued a study that concluded total life-cycle costs are virtually the
same for reprocessing and eventual disposal or direct disposal of used
fuel."

Brian Stell

08-19-2005 02:32 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

Brian Stell

08-19-2005 02:45 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>>
>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>>
>>>Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.
>>
>>There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who
>>feel differently.
>
> Purely NIMBY.

So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear
waste dump in YOUR town?

>>"Yucca Mountain"
>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in579696.shtml
>>"... the battle is far from over, and the state of Nevada is in
>>full-scale revolt. A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists
>>and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they
>>believe has been shoved down their throats."
>
> The stuff HAS to go somewhere;and nobody came up with any better site.

We need to stop producing it. We are passing on a problem
that has to be dealt with for 10,000+ years.

> Under a mountain in the middle of a vast empty land seems about right.

The people living in Nevada don't see it as a vast empty
land. They live there.

>>My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless
>>you personally are willing to have you and those you care
>>about live near it.
>>
>>So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would
>>be okay".
>
> It's OK because it's far better than what we have now.

Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's
backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?

If nuclear power is so wonderful let the people who
benefit from it live near it's waste. Don't shove it
down someone else's throat.

Brian Stell

08-19-2005 02:45 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

Leonard Caillouet

08-19-2005 06:49 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

"Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:AVeNe.524$GV7.75@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net.. .
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in
>> news:oTPMe.35516$Ji.3946@lakeread02:
>>>"Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>news:8oJMe.197$L03.96@newssvr27.news.prodigy.ne t...
>>>
>>>>>I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would
>>>>>trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second.
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant?
>>
>>
>> Chemical plants often have ACCIDENTS;releases of toxic chemicals.
>> Remember Bhopal,India?
>
> Yes, quite well. It was horrible. So was Chernobyl.
>
> My point is: rather than suggest we should trade one
> bad situation for another bad situation, wouldn't it
> be better to put effort into cleaning things up?

What do you think needs to be done? Do you have any idea why petro-chem
industry releases the toxics that they do? Do you have any idea what it
would take to make them clean and safe to the degree that the nuclear
industry already is? You make it sound like a weekend "pick up the garbage
project" but it is much more complex than this.

Leonard

Leonard Caillouet

08-19-2005 06:49 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

Michael Pardee

08-19-2005 08:59 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

"Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:AVeNe.524$GV7.75@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net.. .
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in
>> news:oTPMe.35516$Ji.3946@lakeread02: Chemical plants often have
>> ACCIDENTS;releases of toxic chemicals.
>> Remember Bhopal,India?
>
> Yes, quite well. It was horrible. So was Chernobyl.
>
> My point is: rather than suggest we should trade one
> bad situation for another bad situation, wouldn't it
> be better to put effort into cleaning things up?

What happened at Bhopal was no accident; it was deliberate sabotage by
somebody who knew how to do the most damage. And what happened at Chernobyl
is not possible at commercial power plants; Chernobyl was an uncontained
graphite moderated reactor and the graphite caught fire when an ill-advised
experiment went very wrong and fractured the fuel rods. Three Mile Island is
a better example of a terrible accident at a fairly modern nuclear power
plant - complete meltdown of the core and nobody injured, no contamination
outside the containment.

In the electric company I've worked for the past 21 years, there have been a
few fatalities from electric accidents, one fatality from steam at a coal
plant, and one serious injury from a transformer explosion at another coal
plant. In the entire US there has never been an injury from the nuclear side
of power production.

Mike

Michael Pardee

08-19-2005 08:59 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

"Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:AVeNe.524$GV7.75@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net.. .
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in
>> news:oTPMe.35516$Ji.3946@lakeread02: Chemical plants often have
>> ACCIDENTS;releases of toxic chemicals.
>> Remember Bhopal,India?
>
> Yes, quite well. It was horrible. So was Chernobyl.
>
> My point is: rather than suggest we should trade one
> bad situation for another bad situation, wouldn't it
> be better to put effort into cleaning things up?

What happened at Bhopal was no accident; it was deliberate sabotage by
somebody who knew how to do the most damage. And what happened at Chernobyl
is not possible at commercial power plants; Chernobyl was an uncontained
graphite moderated reactor and the graphite caught fire when an ill-advised
experiment went very wrong and fractured the fuel rods. Three Mile Island is
a better example of a terrible accident at a fairly modern nuclear power
plant - complete meltdown of the core and nobody injured, no contamination
outside the containment.

In the electric company I've worked for the past 21 years, there have been a
few fatalities from electric accidents, one fatality from steam at a coal
plant, and one serious injury from a transformer explosion at another coal
plant. In the entire US there has never been an injury from the nuclear side
of power production.

Mike

jim beam

08-19-2005 09:53 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

Brian Stell wrote:
>>> Reprocessing is also expensive. Mining/enrichment of uranium remains far
>>> cheaper than reprocessing.
>>
>>
>> on the contrary, reprocessing is highly profitable.
>
>
> General Electric spent a lot of time and money trying to
> build a reprocessing plant. At first it was going to
> make lots of money. Then, well it would make some money.
> Then, at least we can break even. Then finally they
> gave up.
>
> http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=583
>
> "General Electric built a large reprocessing facility in Morris, Ill.
> The plant, which never operated, now stores used nuclear fuel."
>
> "Nuclear Fuel Services, while a subsidiary of Getty Oil, built and
> operated a small reprocessing facility in West Valley, N.Y. The high
> cost of meeting new regulations in the mid-1970s forced the company to
> close the plant."
>
> "Allied General Nuclear Services, an Allied Chemical and General Atomics
> joint venture, invested more than $500 million dollars in a new
> reprocessing plant in Barnwell, S.C. The Carter administration’s
> reprocessing ban—coupled with costly new regulatory requirements—ensured
> that it, too, never operated."
>
> "In 1994, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
> issued a study that concluded total life-cycle costs are virtually the
> same for reprocessing and eventual disposal or direct disposal of used
> fuel."
>
>
so how come it's done in all these other places? charity?

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

jim beam

08-19-2005 09:53 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

Elle	08-19-2005 09:58 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

"Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote
Jim
E
> >> Reprocessing is also expensive. Mining/enrichment of uranium remains
far
> >> cheaper than reprocessing.
> >
> > on the contrary, reprocessing is highly profitable.
>
> General Electric spent a lot of time and money trying to
> build a reprocessing plant. At first it was going to
> make lots of money. Then, well it would make some money.
> Then, at least we can break even. Then finally they
> gave up.
>
> http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=583
>
> "General Electric built a large reprocessing facility in Morris, Ill.
> The plant, which never operated, now stores used nuclear fuel."
>
> "Nuclear Fuel Services, while a subsidiary of Getty Oil, built and
> operated a small reprocessing facility in West Valley, N.Y. The high
> cost of meeting new regulations in the mid-1970s forced the company to
> close the plant."
>
> "Allied General Nuclear Services, an Allied Chemical and General Atomics
> joint venture, invested more than $500 million dollars in a new
> reprocessing plant in Barnwell, S.C. The Carter administration’s
> reprocessing ban—coupled with costly new regulatory requirements—ensured
> that it, too, never operated."
>
> "In 1994, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
> issued a study that concluded total life-cycle costs are virtually the
> same for reprocessing and eventual disposal or direct disposal of used
> fuel."

Good ones. A more recent citation (this past month) is in the same vein:
---
The four witnesses at this [Congressional] hearing [on July 12] were very
cautious about the prospects for reprocessing (see
http://www.house.gov/science/hearing...2012/index.htm.) Richard
K. Lester of MIT testified that reprocessing would work against the
expansion of nuclear energy because of the higher cost that it would impose.
It would be "extremely unlikely" that within the next few decades
reprocessing and mining/enriching costs would be roughly equal. Lester
pointed to a MIT study that concluded reprocessing would not be attractive
for at least fifty years. Donald W. Jones of RCF Economic and Financial
Consulting, Inc. estimated that after the construction of the first few
power plants, nuclear energy could be competitive with fossil fuels,
particularly if carbon sequestration was required at fossil fuel plants.
Steve Fetter of the University of Maryland concluded that it was extremely
unlikely that the cost of uranium would be competitive with reprocessing,
and commercial operators of utility plants would be unlikely to embrace it.
Marvin Fertel of the Nuclear Energy Institute called for an additional five
to ten years of R&D, after which another decade would be required to
establish a reprocessing facility. Fertel predicted that it would require "a
couple of decades to honestly deploy the facilities that you want, assuming
that they are economic."

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/118.html
---

Elle	08-19-2005 09:58 AM

Re: article: Plug-in Hybrid

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:29 AM.

Page 7 of 9

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Page generated in 0.08198 seconds with 4 queries