Re: Al Tschaeche's latest idea - NOT

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

My comments on your comments follow your comments below.

"Phil V. Egidi" wrote:

> Al,
> You certainly know how to spur discussion!   It's Friday and kinda slow, so
> here goes: I think your idea is myopic and is just plain wrong.

That's OK.  You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.  However, mine is
based on my experience with antis as I said.  Do you have experience that
contradicts that?

> I do not think your prediction that "they" will try to make everything
> related to energy cost more is valid at all.  Advances in wind power, solar
> power, and fuel cells are just a few examples of ways of generating energy
> that will eventually cost less because of their renewable
> pedigree.

Perhaps.  But cost is not the only reason those forms of electrical generation
won't provide but a small fraction of the electricity the world needs in the
future.  Two of the other reasons are: the source energy (wind, solar for sure,
fuel cells maybe) are too dilute.  You could never power a city like LA or San
Diego solely with wind or solar.  Perhaps with fuel cells some day long into the
future.  Nuclear and fossil fueled power plants are the only sources with energy
densities great enough to work.  Having said that, there is a way to use solar and
satellites to generate energy dense beams that might be useful, but the technology
isn't here yet.  The second reason is that all other forms of electrical generation
result in the emission of much more CO2 per megawatt  than nuclear plants.  IAEA
TECDOC 892 "Comparison of energy sources in terms of their full-energy-chain
emission factors of greenhouse gases" demonstrates this nicely.  If there is really
anthropogenic global warming nuclear is the least harmful way of generating
electricity vis-a-vis keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere.

> Research funding for alternate energy has been proportionally
> low compared to what nuclear and fossil has been given (anyone from NREL
> out there with figures??).

True.  I've often lobbied for more research money for developing a hydrogen fueled
personal vehicle and aircraft system and for more fuel cell development.

> Personally, I think we could practically
> eliminate the need for gasoline within a generation if research for fuel
> cells and alternate fuels are funded aggressively.

Yup, but the economics aren't here yet.  Neither are the politics.

> Of course, the fossil
> fuel folks have a little influence with those who dole that funding
> out!  Fossil fuels are being depleted at a rapid rate.

However, the latest figures I've seen say we have enough fossil fuel to power the
world for many hundreds of years.  Obviously not forever, but far longer than I
will live.  My kids and grand kids and great grandkids may have a problem, however.

> The concept of
> sustainable growth has merit and should be considered.

Depends on what one's goal for sustainable growth is.  Most of the people I've
experienced who believe in sustainable growth include world population reduction in
their thinking.  That, to me, is not included in my idea of sustainable growth.

> Renewable resources
> are clearly a good idea to develop.

Renewable is the wrong word.  The conversion systems for everything people call
renewable resources are NOT renewable and use non renewable sources for their
manufacture.  When one calculates the total energy cost of any "renewable" source,
they are all energy sinks, even hydrogen.

> Providing energy (along with
> everything else) for 20 billion people in the 22nd century is going to be
> very challenging.

The latest figures I've seen say we'll level off at about 12 billion.  Of course
AIDS may make that lower.

> As resources get more scarce because they were used up,
> things will get more expensive because of market forces.

Maybe.

> It's not the
> anti's that are going to be responsible for driving up the costs, it's the
> unregulated, profit driven, consume consume consume mentality of our
> economic business model that will be responsible.

Antis have been responsible for driving up the cost of nuclear power in the US.
Look at France and Japan to see the difference in cost.  Those countries haven't
had much anti input to their reactor design and operation.

> It will be the haves
> against the have-nots, something that history has shown is not conducive to
> peaceful coexistence.  I'm much more concerned about the deregulation (and
> consolidation) of the energy sector being responsible for higher prices in
> the future than anti-nukes.

Me too.  Look what happened to cable TV costs after deregulation.

> More comments below:
>
> >I just had a new idea and want to see what y'all think of it.  When you
> >look at
> >the big picture, the anti-everything crowd has an agenda.  From my experience
> >with them, the agenda is: we need fewer people on earth.  They will do
> >anything
> >and everything they can to forward that agenda.
>
> I couldn't disagree with you more.

As I said above, do you have experience with antis that demonstrates the falsehood
of what I said?

> Over population IS a big problem in the
> developing world, no doubt.   Are you familiar with the concept of
> sustainable growth?

Only too much.

> >  Getting rid of energy is one
> >thing they must do.  Making energy cost more is one way of doing
> >that.  They did
> >that with nuclear power in the US.
>
> You seem to lump anti's into one big group. Just because some folks are
> anti-nuclear doesn't mean they are anti-social, or anti-religion, or
> anti-anything else.

True.  The followers of the anti leaders have myriad points of view about a lot of
things.  But the anti LEADERS are the ones with the vision of no more nukes and
accomplishing that, in part, by making the cost go up.  The leaders just use the
followers for their own hidden agenda.

> Maybe they are pro-sustain ability, pro-ecology,
> pro-health (in their mind - not to go into risk or effects of low level rad
> here).  Quality of life for future generations is very important to some
> people, and they question how YOUR generation's practices affect future
> generation's resources. When someone comes up with a nuclear process that
> doesn't generate so much high-level waste (fusion???), you may get a shot
> at support from a wider base.

It might be worthwhile for you to join an anti nuclear group to see exactly what
the philosophy of their leaders is.  Sure, as I said, the followers may be
pro-something.  But they all are anti nuclear.  The only goal of all anti nukes is
the eradication of anything nuclear from the face of the earth.  Not, make nuclear
acceptably safe.  Eradicate it!  Talk to the anti leaders and see if that is not
the case.  It sure has been in my experience.

MY GENERATION developed nuclear power with the intention of doing good in the
world.  We knew fossil fuel was finite.  Back then we thought is more finite than
current projections.  We also developed nuclear weapons with the intent of
protecting the United States.  It is only people who came after that think
everything nuclear is bad.  It's sort of like the people around airports who bought
houses after the airport was there and now complain about the noise.

> Now they are after fossil fuels with the
> global warming because of man's actions thing.
>
> I'm not sure I can dignify this comment with a response.

Careful, that's close to an ad hominem attack :-)

> Do you really
> think that all the industrialization and consumption of fossil fuels
> DOESN'T have a negative affect on the ecosystem????

Depends on what you mean by negative.  Please enlighten me.

> >With  TENORM they have another
> >opportunity to make everything cost more.  If expensive regulations are
> >imposed
> >- in the name of health and safety of course - on mines and other things
> >such as
> >flying, everything will cost more and people won't be able to consume at the
> >current and projected rates.
>
> Since the proposed regs are mostly dose or risk-based, there are few
> situations where actual changes are going to take place (outside of the
> workplace) due to the control (manipulation?)of the scenarios in the models
> by those who will be running them.  It's pretty hard to get 15, 25, 30
> mrem/y from one source or practice when there are few pathways and little
> residence time (I'm generalizing here)!

I agree.  All of the regs and proposed regs are extremely conservative.  It starts
with the LNTH and continues until, as you say, it's hard to get much real dose at
all from one or many sources or practices.  But, we haven't been able to get the
regulators to used realistic assumptions in their models.

> As far as mines, etc., those
> workers deserve the same protections as other workers.

Have you read--------------------------------------------------

>

> Just because someone is anti-nuclear doesn't mean that they want us all to
> live in caves (there's the additional NORM exposure to deal with!) :-)

But the leaders do!

> >  We are already seeing this in the scrap metal
> >situation.
>
> Adding additional radioactivity to consumer products is not a justifiable
> practice.

By what standards?  I don't know that any standards exist for deciding what
practice is justifiable and what practice isn't.  Do you?  If not, how is one to
decide in an agreeable way?

>   But we are suggesting a practice that is ripe for
> abuse by others with less stringent values.

With proper regulation, the abuses should be minimal.

> I haven't personally been to
> Eastern Europe and the FSU, but my understanding is that there is a large
> black market in radioactive scrap metal over there.

The regulatory system in Eastern Europe is almost non existent.  I'm not
surprised.  But, we're talking about the US and TENORM here.

> I can't condone
> legalizing that practice, outside of recycling within the fuel cycle or DOE.
> Besides, the market won't accept it.  It's a bad idea that has no support
> outside of those who are in possession of radioactive scrap metal.

I got your point.

> ANSI
> N13.12 provides new figures for clearance from control of materials,
> including TENORM, (NORM is considered background).

And that standard, on which I worked, could be the basis for radioactive material
in scrap metal! as well as a lot of other things.

> Time will tell if they
> are accepted as de minimus, BRC, or whatever you want to call it.  I agree
> that there must be a lower limit of regulatory control due to the
> increasing ability to measure smaller and smaller quantities.

Hey, we agree on something.

> Still, the
> scrap thing is a bad precedent - what's next?  We can dilute our stockpile
> of liquid nerve agents maybe by just putting a couple drops on everyone's
> tax forms?

That's not analogous.  Nerve agents go directly through the skin.  Less than one
drop is immediately fatal.

> Dilution is not the solution to pollution is a bedrock of
> environmental policy and should be maintained.

Didn't used to be that way.  Since dose is everything, dilution still works.  But
it's not politically correct these days.  Too bad.

> >I predict that there will be a lot of pressure from the anti groups
> >for regulation anything remotely related to radiation or energy so as to make
> >everything man uses or needs cost more.
>
> I agree with the first part of your statement about radiation, but not the
> second.  They will oppose it because that's what they believe, right or wrong.

Only the followers, not the leaders.  They oppose it for reasons having nothing to
do with safety and health.  But they've gotten their followers to believe anything
nuclear is harmful no matter how low the dose.  And beliefs can get you in trouble.

> >   What do you think?  If you agree, how
> >do we counter the situation?
>
> We should continue to discuss the issues openly.

More agreement.

> Promote beneficial uses
> such as medical, materials imaging, basic radiation research for positive
> uses (not more damn weapons), quality of life improvements.

More agreement.

> Find some
> washed up movie star to be your spokesman (worked for the NRA), start a PR
> campaign showing how much radiation is naturally around us.

Why does it have to be a washed up movie star?  Maybe because all the young,
unwashed up ones have already been brain washed to believe the anti nuclear's
propaganda?

> Once people
> realize how much NORM they are exposed to, they will have a context to work
> from.

Hopefully.

> Stop opposing the cleanup of legacy sites, that is what the people
> demand.

Not too much agreement here.

> Start thinking of antis as sensitive people with emotions, and
> frame your discussion such as to debunk the base of those emotions, if they
> are in fact not true.

Ah, if only we had the technology to do that.

> Just my 2 cents

Pretty good 2 cents.  Thanks.  Ciao.  Al
begin:vcard 
n:Tschaeche;Al
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
version:2.1
email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Al Tschaeche
end:vcard