[Rhodes22-list] Politics and Technology

[Ronald Lipton]

There are several components to the debate, I would consider
politics, policy, economics and technology on a similar footing.
We have the technology to store nuclear waste in a safer environment
than the pools near reactors where they are currently stored.  The
economics of operating nuclear plants strongly benefits from such
a site, the politics (PR) of the plant operators also benefit.  The  
politics
is such that the local interests have effectively blocked the beginning
of operations, added to the costs by complication and  delay.  Not all  
of
this is bad. The overall safety has been improved by the detailed
studies necessitated by the active opposition.

It demonstrates how difficult it is to formulate an effective policy in  
the
absence of a national emergency. Part of the DOE "policy" was based
on Yucca mountain operations.  Nuclear policy in general faces similar
problems.  For the non-proliferation issue both technical solutions
(particular liquid metal reactor types) have been proposed as well as
political solutions (non-proliferation).  Nothing will happen to the
technical solutions until they become politically and economically
viable, or we are forced to act.

We have had a number of lectures on energy issues in the past that
are available as streaming video
new technologies:
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_02/Lectures/Colloquium/Sackett/ 
index.htm
and
plutonium proliferation:
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/Lectures/Colloquium/Leventhal/index.htm

Other scheduled lectures include
Apr 13
Steven Koonin
BP
A Physicist's View of the World's Energy Situation

Jul 6
John Turner
National Renewable Energy Lab
Sustainable Hydrogen Economy
T. Zimmerman
 
 I can post links to these lectures when they are posted if people are  
interested.
(I would also be happy to post links describing why missile defense is  
bad
policy.)

Ron


On Feb 20, 2005, at 4:11 PM, Roger Pihlaja wrote:

> Rummy,
>
> Isn't the other nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island (TMI) still  
> operating
> and producing power?  As the most serious nuclear power incident in the
> United States, TMI released no significant radiation, injured no one,  
> and
> the sister nuclear power plant on the same site is still operating?   
> The
> world is full of so-called "brown field" sites that are not suitable  
> for
> residential construction.  Some of the worst come from coal mining ,  
> crude
> oil/natural gas operations, and heavy industrial operations like steel  
> mills
> and chemical plants.  For example, the Dow Chemical Co. plant I used  
> to work
> in has been operating in Midland, MI for over 100 years.  It occupies  
> over 7
> square miles of prime real estate along the banks of the Tittabawassee  
> River
> (both sides).  Even if the Dow Chemical Co, were to cease operations  
> at the
> Midland site tomorrow, tear down every plant and building, the site  
> would
> never be suitable for residential construction.  There are hundreds of
> similar "brown fields" in every state in the union.
>
> Nuclear waste cannot be "permanently gotten rid of" in the manner other
> types of hazardous waste are disposed of.  A toxic chemical molecule or
> biological material can be incinerated or oxidized down to harmless  
> carbon
> dioxide and water vapor.  But, you can't do that with nuclear waste  
> because
> radioactivity is something that is toxic at the atomic level vs. the
> molecular level with other types of hazardous waste.  Radioactive decay
> occurs at its own pace.  There is nothing we can do to hurry  
> radioactive
> decay along or slow it down.  The rate of radioactive decay is not  
> affected
> by heat, pressure, or other chemical agents.  All you can do with  
> nuclear
> waste is safely store it in some manner for a sufficiently long period  
> of
> time.
>
> Big power and infrastructure projects are expensive and take time to
> implement.  For example:
>
> Nuclear Power Plant: 1500 MW
> Cost: About $3E9
> Time To Implement: 10+ years
> [% US Generation Capacity] = {[1500 MW] / [1.506E6 MW US Generating
> Capacity]} * 100 = 0.0996%
>
> Hydroelectric Dam + Power Plant: 500 MW
> Cost: Depends Upon Site, But About $2E9 to $4E9
> Time To Implement: 5-10 years
> [% US Generation Capacity] = {[500 MW] / [1.506E6 MW US Generating
> Capacity]} * 100 = 0.0473%
>
> World Scale Corn-To-Ethanol Plant: 60E6 gal EtOH/Yr
> Cost: About $35E6
> Time To Implement: 3-5 years
> [% US Gasoline Supply] = {[60E6 gal EtOH/yr] * [0.65 gal gasoline/gal  
> EtOH]
> / [136.4E9 gal US Gasoline Prod/yr]} * 100 = 0.0286%
> NOTE: Factor of 0.65 corrects for the differences between the energy  
> content
> and density of ethanol vs. gasoline
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that each big energy and infrastructure
> project takes many years to implement, costs millions or billions of
> dollars, and only incrementally affects the overall US energy capacity.
>
> The absolute worst thing we could do is what we are doing - nothing.   
> With
> no coherent national energy policy, our dependence on foreign oil and
> natural gas imports is already dangerously high and growing every year.
> This lack of strategy absolutely delivers our country into the hands  
> of OPEC
> and the terrorists.  It is the underlying root cause of our foreign  
> policy
> and a major cause of our negative balance of trade.
>
> Until the United States "fixes" its energy supply, things are only  
> going to
> get worse.
>
> Just because the lights still come on when you flip the switch and you  
> can
> still buy gasoline at the corner filling station is no reason to become
> complacent.  Take another look above at the tremendous costs, lengthy  
> lead
> times, and large numbers of facilities that would have to be built in  
> order
> to affect the overall US energy balance.  If we don't start working on  
> this
> issue now, by the time the problem is apparent to everyone will be way  
> too
> late.
>
> You haven't suggested a workable solution.  You've just stuck your  
> head in
> the sand and continued to wail about how you don't want nuclear power &
> don't trust the Yuka Mountain Long Term Nuclear Waste Repository while  
> not
> explaining how else energy independence can be accomplished.  C'mon,  
> Rummy,
> get in the game!
>
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <R22RumRunner at aol.com>
> To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 9:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] List abuse.
>
>
>> Roger,
>> Again you don't understand my position. I've tried several times to  
>> get
>> through to you, but obviously it's too complex for you to understand.  
>> I'm
> not
>> anti-nuke.
>> As for an energy policy, otay, here it goes. Fix what we've already
> broken,
>> get rid of the waste (permanently) and decrease demand for energy by
> lowering
>> the world population. Very simple if you ask me. Realistic? Probably  
>> not
>> today,  but someday it will make sense to someone.
>>
>> Futuristic real estate listing: Water front property, recently  
>> cleared of
>> nuclear power plant, ready to move into in 10,000 years, real bargain  
>> at
> today's
>>  prices, excellent view, no trees or wild life and great security  
>> system
>> already in place. Ready to subdivide.
>>
>> Rummy
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>