[ RadSafe ] Erratum "There's No Such Thing As Nuclear Waste"

[Dale Boyce]

Ooops. Mistake on my part. The $200 per month is already several percent of 
the median income. Slipping a decimal point puts energy at close to 100% of 
a median income household. However, it only amplifies the conclusion.

If I haven't made another egregious error. Energy costs are close to 100% of 
the median income. OUCH! Thank God for rich people to make up the 
difference! I will go back to trying to document  each of my assumptions.

Glad I own a tent and sleeping bag!

Dale

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
To: "Radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] "There's No Such Thing As Nuclear Waste"


> Well written and true with the exception of some of the numbers. At least 
> the way I read it. It sounds like he is mixing up the content of one rod 
> with a whole core. His source probably gave him good information that was 
> misinterpretted.
>
> For example the "12 oz" number. A gigawatt-day is about a kilogram of U235 
> in fission. It is also about the output of one Hiroshima bomb per day.
>
> An energy hungry household uses of the order of 1000 kw-hrs per month. A 
> little unit conversion gives 0.5 Mw-days per year, or about half a gram of 
> U-235 per household per year. So about 1000 g / 0.5 g * 365 = 730,000 
> households can be supported on a 1 Gw reactor.
>
> However, it is somewhat worse than this. The last numbers I remember 
> seeing were that in the U.S. eight kw of generating capacity are required 
> per person (and someone please explain why all greater than one prefixes 
> in the metric system are capitalized except k) to support industrial and 
> public power usage.
>
> This means that each household really requires more like 20 times the 
> generating capacity that they see in their electric bill (buried in the 
> cost of goods and taxes), and about ten grams of U-235 per year.
>
> I don't have a reference at hand, but think of how much ash from coal 
> would be generated by a gigawatt of generating capacity per year. My 
> offhand guess is of the order of a cubic kilometer. I'll try to come back 
> with an answer in another email.
>
> I remember hearing a talk by a president-elect of the HPS quite a number 
> of years ago (step forward if you recognize yourself). He asked the 
> question, "what fraction of your income would you be willing to spend on 
> health care?". Most people respond in the range of 5-10% (I think closer 
> to 5%). Guess what? That was close to the cost of insurance at that point 
> in time. Probably still is, but less is covered now.
>
> Now take your $200/month electric bill (throwing out Dec., Jan., and Feb., 
> in cold climates, and July, Aug., and Sept. in hot climates), and multiply 
> by 20. Close to $5,000 a year per household. Hmm... in the range of 5 to 
> 10 percent of the income of the majority of households.
>
> Like in the conservation of energy, there is a conservation of income. One 
> can only spend what one makes (or a bank lends them). What fraction of the 
> pie chart would you be willing to spend on housing, food, clothing, fill 
> in the category?
>
> I have opened too many doors for one email, but the point is that the 
> recent explosion in energy prices and also health care is probably as much 
> to blame for the crash in the housing market (and therefore the economy 
> overall) as anything (even unbelievably greedy exec's).
>
> Isotope enrichment and nuclear power are one area where costs could be cut 
> with focus on research. Lowering the cost of nuclear power could also 
> potentially be cut by reprocessing waste into fuel. Foremost, though the 
> costs must be cut by honest, thoughful energy policy that is not crowded 
> out by ignorance.
>
> Our's and the world's economy can only be balanced by figuring out which 
> wedges of the pie chart can be cut without pain, and proceeding to do so. 
> As far as I can tell the only pain caused by increased use of nuclear 
> energy is felt in the ears due to the anti's blathering.
>
> My two centibucks,
>
> Dale
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "WILLIAM LIPTON" <wlipton at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "Radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:24 PM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] "There's No Such Thing As Nuclear Waste"
>
>
> I recommend reading this article in today's (March 13, 2009) Wall Street 
> Journal. See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690627522614525.html
>
> The author, William Tucker, makes the case for reprocessing better than 
> me; and I've tried.
>
> In addition, Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear 
> Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Long Energy 
> Odyssey" (Bartleby, 2008).
>
> Bill Lipton
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> Perception is reality.
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11 - Release Date: 3/12/2009 
> 12:00 AM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11 - Release 
> Date: 3/12/2009 12:00 AM
>
>