Norm's Alternate Energy Solutions

["DAVIS, MICHAEL W" <MDAVIS8@entergy.com>]

Norm et al.

First any thoughts presented here are strictly my own and are not
representative of any other person living or dead.

I appreciate your posting on the RADSAFE site.  I feel I have gained a
better insight into you and your fellows in these notes, than I have over
the years of facing protests and shouts.  I am also pleased to see that the
majority of the discourse has been of a courteous nature and there has been
an attempt at open communications.

One issue I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion of the increased use of
Natural Gas for power generation was the radioactive aspects of Natural Gas.
The reference materials I have state 10 - 20 pCi/liter of radon and radon
progeny are present in natural gas.  Consider the extremely large volumes of
gas currently used, and then increased to meet the needs of the idled nukes,
and then ponder if this approach will increase or decrease the amount of
radioactivity released to the environment.  I reside in an area (south
Louisiana) where there is a nuke (at which I am employed for the sake of
truth in advertising), a coal fired plant and a natural gas plant all within
a 10 mile radius.  Which do you suppose releases the most radioactivity to
the environment?

Also, south Louisiana is a major natural gas production area.  There are
many active and abandoned oil and gas wells in this area.  A flight over
this region and our beloved wetlands, shows the marked impacts this form of
energy production can have on an environment.  We also have gas rigs along
the horizon off the Gulf Coast.  Along with the rigs we experience the
occasional explosion,  blowouts and gas leaks, none of which occur at the
nuclear plant.  And lets not even delve into the issue of NORM (Naturally
Occurring Radioactive Material) where the mud and material brought to the
surface contains vast amounts of natural radioactivity.  

Most of us in this area appreciate the energy sector of the economy and the
modern approach to gas drilling minimizes the impact on our environment.  We
fully understand that our world needs the energy sources and that we need to
extract them in environmentally sounds ways.  Now I don't wish to seem
harsh, but by using the logic of the anti-nuc movement, wouldn't we here in
Louisiana be justified in starting a NIMB [Not In My Backyard] campaign
against a increased exploitation of natural gas at the expense of our local
area, if the gas was to be used in other parts of the country, notably the
Northeast, which refuse to embrace an alternate, clean renewable form of
energy on their own soil?

As a history note, in the 70's President Carter, alarmed by reports of
dwindling natural gas reserves, ordered electric utilities to build no more
gas fired plants and the ones in service were to be retired in 20 years.
Many utilities, including the one I work for, were forced to explore other
options for production as the majority of ours came from gas fired plants
and we had annual electrical demands growing at double digits in the 70's.
Many chose to go nuclear and coal because of this situation.  Now, thirty
years later, groups are demanding we shut down the nukes and go to gas fired
plants.  Will wonders ever cease?
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html