[ RadSafe ] "Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?"
gelsg at aol.com
gelsg at aol.com
Mon Apr 19 10:44:14 CDT 2010
Has Bossew made a similar calculation for coal and other fossil fuel plants? How do those numbers compare to 76?
Jerry Gels
-----Original Message-----
From: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com
To: Stewart Farber <radproject at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu; Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>; Peter Bossew <Peter.Bossew at reflex.at>; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:02 am
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] "Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?"
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
icense Renewalist
ak 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 ?"
or anyone interested in the clearly stated agenda of one of the authors of
he editorial against nuclear energy development, they should refer
o a 2002 book of essays [ "Our Precarious Earth and Its Biosphere" ]
ritten by Milton H. Saier, Jr. of UCSD. --
ttp://www.amazon.com/Precarious-Biosphere-Professing-Population-Preservation/dp/B003E35F78/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271545658&sr=1-3
his book of essays can be found online at:
ttp://www-biology.ucsd.edu/~msaier/earthessays/
SAF COMMENT: Dr.
aier's clearly written main desire is to reduce world population
ramatically, and despite his stated concern about the risk to humanity
f the greenhouse effect, he vehemently opposes nuclear energy. He
aintains in his essays that people should not be allowed to reproduce
nless approved by some unnamed authority who knows better than they.
His published book is quite informative in that it makes clear that he
egins any consideration of nuclear technologies with the mindset that
ome elite group needs to coordinate an aggressive population reduction
rogram. Nuclear energy is opposed not
ecause of any one or more supposed problems, but because it offers the
orld a way to help meet the energy demands of the earth's inhabitants
hile other non-electric power issues are dealt with, something that does
eet his background agenda.
So he, and other
nti-nuclear activist opponents, are not honestly concerned with uranium
uel cost,
r nuclear waste disposal, or accidents, but are motivated by a fear
hat nuclear electric generation will help to meet present and near
uture societal needs. Promoting, and exaggerating, the deficiencies of
uclear technologies is merely a tactic to achieve a background agenda.
eople like Dr. Saier would prefer shortages and future cataclysm
ecause ultimately it would help to advance their objectives.
Refer to:
Our Precarious Earth and Its Biosphere
5th Edition) -A
et of Essays Professing Population Reduction for Earth Preservation -2002
y Milton H. Saier, Jr.
Milton H. Saier, Jr.
ivision of
iological Sciences
niversity of California at San Diego
a
olla, CA 92093-0116, USA
hone: 858-534-4084
ax: 858-534-7108
-mail: msaier at ucsd.edu
Website: http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/~msaier/earthessays/
REP website: http://acs.ucsd.edu/~prep
http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/~msaier/earthessays/Forward.html
orward [from above link ]:
Several years
go, I was shocked out of my complacency when I learned that we humans
ave
epleted the oceans of nearly 99% of the edible fish life and that
wo-thirds
f the oceanic coral reefs are dead or dying. Later I learned that we
re destroying
he remaining forests at a rate of 2.5% per annum. We are also causing
he
xtinction of an estimated 50,000 biological species every year.
rojections
uggest that in a mere 25 years, 50% of the human population will be
ithout
dequate drinking water, and that 25 years later, 50% of all humans will be
tarving. Even more important, I became convinced that global warming
ould
ause the virtual extinction of the human race within a mere 200-300
ears
nless drastic preventative measures are taken.
I believe these
ssues are far more important than terrorism, war, pestilence, the
conomy, our
obs, or individual human life, yours or mine. Careful consideration
as led
o the conviction that in only one way can we avoid the pending
isaster: by effecting
drastic reduction in the human population. Other measures may delay
ur
emise, but only this one solution will allow the human race to live
ndefinitely in harmony with nature without destroying the beautiful
arth we
ave come to inherit. This unpopular view, never mentioned by our
oliticians,
s virtually self evident when the data currently available are
arefully
valuated.
The essays
resented here address these issues. They are written for the general
ublic
nd can be understood by anyone. They may be read individually with
reatest
enefit. Each one presents novel but overlapping facts and views.
lease
ead, ponder, evaluate, and act upon them as you see fit, and then pass
hem on
o a friend. I hope you find them revealing, edifying, and even
ntertaining.
Milton
aier"
==========
tewart Farber, MSPH
arber Medical
olutions, LLC
ridgeport, CT 06604
[203] 441-8433 [o]
ebsite: http://www.farber-medical.com
________________________________
rom: Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
o: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
c: Peter Bossew <Peter.Bossew at reflex.at>
ent: Sat, April 17, 2010 5:01:34 PM
ubject: Re: [ RadSafe ] "Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?"
Lieber Peter:
For an editorial spewing so many "facts", there is not one single reference
o back them. Hmmmm. It's almost an embarrassment.
As far as the "front-end" of the nuclear fuel cycle, uranium has yet to
ecome a stable and predictable commodity. From 2003-present, there was a
reat deal of speculation concerning the price of uranium giving a range of
40-$145 / lb U3O8. However, there are two chief components driving price:
) Availability of inventory; 2) Cost of fresh production. A third minor
omponent is the down-blending of HEU to LEU and MOX fuel production, but
his is only about 10% of supply and will probably not last that long. As
ong as there is low-cost, excess inventory, new sources of uranium will be
rought on-line in fits and starts depending on the contract-deliverable
rice, although the uranium industry is ramping-up for new production!
For over two decades, the overabundance of inventory, mainly held by
overnments, controlled price, providing about 50% of the reactor-related
emand. The uncertainty of what is left as available inventory has created
n uncertainty for the mining companies of WHEN fresh production will be
riven by the normal supply-demand economics.
My guess has always been wrong, but I believe that the excess inventory
hould be exhausted by 2015-2020 but the uncertainty fed by wildly
iffering
pinions and lack of government forthrightness has confused the situation
at least for me). But then my original prediction (McCarn, D. and
ueller-Kahle, E. (1986): Long-Term Uranium Supply-Demand Analysis,
AEA-TECDOC-395, 91 p., Vienna) was about the year 2000. Note that my
stimate of inventory was a pure "guess" in the above paper, although a
airly reasonable guess at the time. Also note that the estimate did not
nclude Former Soviet Union (FSU) production since the FSU at the time was
ot participating in IAEA/NEA Redbook discussions or data.
I believe that a stable price of uranium for the foreseeable future will be
bout $75 / lb U3O8 based on what I consider to be the overall cost of
roduction for a number of planned or newly-started mining facilities.
owever, since the "front-end" economics are not that important in the
verall costs of nuclear, the inflationary increases for power from nuclear
ill be minimal compared to fossil fuels in which about 1/2 of the
nnualized costs are for fuel.
One additional item: assuming a "once-through" fuel cycle, there is enough
ranium in "discovered" conventional deposits to last for probably 50-75
ears 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
--
an W McCarn, Geologist
867 A Fuego Sagrado
anta Fe, NM 87505
1-505-310-3922 (Mobile – New Mexico)
otGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)
-----Original Message-----
rom: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Bossew
ent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 10:28
o: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
ubject: [ RadSafe ] "Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?"
Editorial, Water Air Soil Pollution, 208, 1-4, 2010
. Saier and J. Trevors: Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?
www.springerlink.com/content/yr0548j054320377/ (open access)
omments ?
In particular I would be interested in (qualified !) comments on the
conomic arguments.
eter Bossew
_______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
adSafe rules. These can be found at:
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
isit:
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
adSafe rules. These can be found at:
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
isit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
adSafe rules. These can be found at:
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
isit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
-----------------------------------------
he information contained in this message is intended only for the
ersonal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
he reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an
gent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you
re hereby notified that you have received this document in error
nd that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
his message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
ommunication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete
he original message.
______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
adSafe 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:
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list