[ RadSafe ] "Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?"
dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com
dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com
Mon Apr 19 08:02:32 CDT 2010
Stewart,
Here is another interesting commentary, by a Peter Bossew.
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/PeterBossew.html
"the operation of a single 1-gigawatt nuclear power plant, that is,
one large plant produces in one year 76 fatalities due to the radon
alone coming from the tailings. That's based on the numbers of the
IAEA. And that's not during the year that the energy is produced, but
rather, it's integrated throughout all eternity; that is, radon will
be released for millennia. So, this one year of energy production
results in these fatalities throughout the future."
Don Kosloff
License Renewalist
Oak Harbod OH
Stewart Farber
<radproject at sbcgl
obal.net> To
Sent by: Dan W McCarn
radsafe-bounces at h <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>,
ealth.phys.iit.ed radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
u cc
Peter Bossew
<Peter.Bossew at reflex.at>
04/17/2010 07:40 Subject
PM Re: [ RadSafe ] "Is Nuclear Energy
the Solution ?"
For anyone interested in the clearly stated agenda of one of the authors of
the editorial against nuclear energy development, they should refer
to a 2002 book of essays [ "Our Precarious Earth and Its Biosphere" ]
written by Milton H. Saier, Jr. of UCSD. --
http://www.amazon.com/Precarious-Biosphere-Professing-Population-Preservation/dp/B003E35F78/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271545658&sr=1-3
This book of essays can be found online at:
http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/~msaier/earthessays/
SAF COMMENT: Dr.
Saier's clearly written main desire is to reduce world population
dramatically, and despite his stated concern about the risk to humanity
of the greenhouse effect, he vehemently opposes nuclear energy. He
maintains in his essays that people should not be allowed to reproduce
unless approved by some unnamed authority who knows better than they.
His published book is quite informative in that it makes clear that he
begins any consideration of nuclear technologies with the mindset that
some elite group needs to coordinate an aggressive population reduction
program. Nuclear energy is opposed not
because of any one or more supposed problems, but because it offers the
world a way to help meet the energy demands of the earth's inhabitants
while other non-electric power issues are dealt with, something that does
meet his background agenda.
So he, and other
anti-nuclear activist opponents, are not honestly concerned with uranium
fuel cost,
or nuclear waste disposal, or accidents, but are motivated by a fear
that nuclear electric generation will help to meet present and near
future societal needs. Promoting, and exaggerating, the deficiencies of
nuclear technologies is merely a tactic to achieve a background agenda.
People like Dr. Saier would prefer shortages and future cataclysm
because ultimately it would help to advance their objectives.
Refer to:
Our Precarious Earth and Its Biosphere
(5th Edition) -A
set of Essays Professing Population Reduction for Earth Preservation -2002
By Milton H. Saier, Jr.
Milton H. Saier, Jr.
Division of
Biological Sciences
University of California at San Diego
La
Jolla, CA 92093-0116, USA
Phone: 858-534-4084
Fax: 858-534-7108
E-mail: msaier at ucsd.edu
Website: http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/~msaier/earthessays/
PREP website: http://acs.ucsd.edu/~prep
http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/~msaier/earthessays/Forward.html
Forward [from above link ]:
"Several years
ago, I was shocked out of my complacency when I learned that we humans
have
depleted the oceans of nearly 99% of the edible fish life and that
two-thirds
of the oceanic coral reefs are dead or dying. Later I learned that we
are destroying
the remaining forests at a rate of 2.5% per annum. We are also causing
the
extinction of an estimated 50,000 biological species every year.
Projections
suggest that in a mere 25 years, 50% of the human population will be
without
adequate drinking water, and that 25 years later, 50% of all humans will be
starving. Even more important, I became convinced that global warming
could
cause the virtual extinction of the human race within a mere 200-300
years
unless drastic preventative measures are taken.
I believe these
issues are far more important than terrorism, war, pestilence, the
economy, our
jobs, or individual human life, yours or mine. Careful consideration
has led
to the conviction that in only one way can we avoid the pending
disaster: by effecting
a drastic reduction in the human population. Other measures may delay
our
demise, but only this one solution will allow the human race to live
indefinitely in harmony with nature without destroying the beautiful
Earth we
have come to inherit. This unpopular view, never mentioned by our
politicians,
is virtually self evident when the data currently available are
carefully
evaluated.
The essays
presented here address these issues. They are written for the general
public
and can be understood by anyone. They may be read individually with
greatest
benefit. Each one presents novel but overlapping facts and views.
Please
read, ponder, evaluate, and act upon them as you see fit, and then pass
them on
to a friend. I hope you find them revealing, edifying, and even
entertaining.
Milton
Saier"
==========
Stewart Farber, MSPH
Farber Medical
Solutions, LLC
Bridgeport, CT 06604
[203] 441-8433 [o]
website: http://www.farber-medical.com
________________________________
From: Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Cc: Peter Bossew <Peter.Bossew at reflex.at>
Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 5:01:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] "Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?"
Lieber Peter:
For an editorial spewing so many "facts", there is not one single reference
to back them. Hmmmm. It's almost an embarrassment.
As far as the "front-end" of the nuclear fuel cycle, uranium has yet to
become a stable and predictable commodity. From 2003-present, there was a
great deal of speculation concerning the price of uranium giving a range of
$40-$145 / lb U3O8. However, there are two chief components driving price:
1) Availability of inventory; 2) Cost of fresh production. A third minor
component is the down-blending of HEU to LEU and MOX fuel production, but
this is only about 10% of supply and will probably not last that long. As
long as there is low-cost, excess inventory, new sources of uranium will be
brought on-line in fits and starts depending on the contract-deliverable
price, although the uranium industry is ramping-up for new production!
For over two decades, the overabundance of inventory, mainly held by
governments, controlled price, providing about 50% of the reactor-related
demand. The uncertainty of what is left as available inventory has created
an uncertainty for the mining companies of WHEN fresh production will be
driven by the normal supply-demand economics.
My guess has always been wrong, but I believe that the excess inventory
should be exhausted by 2015-2020 but the uncertainty fed by wildly
differing
opinions and lack of government forthrightness has confused the situation
(at least for me). But then my original prediction (McCarn, D. and
Mueller-Kahle, E. (1986): Long-Term Uranium Supply-Demand Analysis,
IAEA-TECDOC-395, 91 p., Vienna) was about the year 2000. Note that my
estimate of inventory was a pure "guess" in the above paper, although a
fairly reasonable guess at the time. Also note that the estimate did not
include Former Soviet Union (FSU) production since the FSU at the time was
not participating in IAEA/NEA Redbook discussions or data.
I believe that a stable price of uranium for the foreseeable future will be
about $75 / lb U3O8 based on what I consider to be the overall cost of
production for a number of planned or newly-started mining facilities.
However, since the "front-end" economics are not that important in the
overall costs of nuclear, the inflationary increases for power from nuclear
will be minimal compared to fossil fuels in which about 1/2 of the
annualized costs are for fuel.
One additional item: assuming a "once-through" fuel cycle, there is enough
uranium in "discovered" conventional deposits to last for probably 50-75
years at which time additional exploration will undoubtedly bring more
"Speculative" and "Estimated Additional" (EAR) resources into the
"discovered" or "Reasonably Assured" (RAR) category.
My opinion only.
Glückauf!
Dan ii
--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
2867 A Fuego Sagrado
Santa Fe, NM 87505
+1-505-310-3922 (Mobile – New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Bossew
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 10:28
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] "Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?"
Editorial, Water Air Soil Pollution, 208, 1-4, 2010
M. Saier and J. Trevors: Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?
www.springerlink.com/content/yr0548j054320377/ (open access)
Comments ?
In particular I would be interested in (qualified !) comments on the
economic arguments.
Peter Bossew
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an
agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that you have received this document in error
and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete
the original message.
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list