[ RadSafe ] Erratum "There's No Such Thing As Nuclear Waste"
HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Sat Mar 14 10:45:28 CDT 2009
I agree that exploding costs of over-regulated energy and health care add much to this recession.
It is caused largely by Congress dictating loans to incapable borrowers then blocking regulation,
requiring "mark to market" (a panic promoter)
and permitting blind derivative greed that spread the wealth.
What would energy costs be if "nuclear waste" were recycled like France
and the USNavy now do, and new reactor construction deregulated to
20rem/yr exposure levels now evidenced to be beneficial?
If this were done by Congress (read, term limits), I predict a boom.
Howard Long
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
To: "Radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:55:35 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Erratum "There's No Such Thing As Nuclear Waste"
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
>
>
_______________________________________________
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/
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list