PART II: Innocently, and politely, they try to sneak in NUCLEAR as a key part in solving environmental problems. El Toro Poo Poo!
If this topic is of interest to you, please consider reading Part I, posted April 24 at 5:30 PM.
Thanks for the many comments; some of them posted to me personally.
Let me continue this with a look at Level I waste disposal.
Most important: Nuclear waste is divided into several categories. High-level waste (level I) consists mostly of spent nuclear reactor fuel from both commercial power plants and military facilities, as well as reprocessed materials which can emit large amounts of radiation for hundreds of thousands of years. Commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S. alone produce 3,000 tons of high-level waste each year.
For two decades, a ridge of volcanic rock 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas known as Yucca Mountain has been the sole focus of government plans to store highly radioactive nuclear waste.
Not anymore.
Despite the $13.5 billion that has been spent on the project, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing that the Yucca Mountain site no longer was viewed as an option for storing reactor waste.
Nevada ranks third in the nation for current seismic activity. Earthquake databases (the Council of the National Seismic System Composite Catalogue and the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network) provide current and historical earthquake information. Analysis of the available data in 1996 indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain.
A correction:The import of nuclear waste, mentioned in Part I, is from Italy, and not from France. Strangely enough, NRC says it doesn't have the authority to prevent foreign radioactive waste from being imported into the US. Is this a message to the rest of the world: "If you have time bombs that need to be cared for for thousands of years, just send them to America, pay a few months of storage - - - distribute all remaining moneys to the CEOs as reward for having this pulled of - - - then report bankruptcy. Who is stuck with this garbage, having to care for it? Unbelievable!
In addition we have decommissioning costs; they range from millions to billions; CLICK HERE if you'd like to read more about it. British decommissioning costs have been projected to be around 1 Billion pounds per reactor. Cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear Weapons reactor is budgeted at 5.6 Billion dollars but may cost 2 to 3 times this much.
How about costs of European Nuclear Reactors?
The Government has vastly underestimated the cost of building a new generation of nuclear power plants, according to the head of the world's largest power company. Wulf Bernotat, chairman and chief executive of E.ON, the German energy giant that owns Powergen, has told The Times that the cost per plant could be as high as €6 billion (£4.8 billion) - nearly double the Government's latest £2.8 billion estimate. His figures indicate that the cost of replacing Britain's ten nuclear power stations could reach £48 billion, excluding the cost of decommissioning ageing reactors or dealing with nuclear waste. “We are talking easily about €5 billion to €6 billion, or $ 7.5 to 9 billion [each],” Dr Bernotat said.
French nuclear group Areva is facing a 50 percent rise to the cost of building the world's first next-generation pressurised water reactor in Finland, the business daily Les Echos reported Thursday.
The cost of constructing the plant at Olkiluoto has risen from three billion to 4.5 billion euros (6.7 billion dollars), the paper reported citing an unidentified source.
But there is some (apparent) good news:Destroying nuclear waste with fusion/fission reactor - - Maybe Charles could comment on how realistic, and how expensive, this would/could be(?).
Texas University scientists propose destroying the waste using a fusion-fission hybrid reactor, the centerpiece of which is a high power Compact Fusion Neutron Source (CFNS) made possible by a crucial invention. The CFNS would provide abundant neutrons through fusion to a surrounding fission blanket that uses transuranic waste as nuclear fuel. The fusion-produced neutrons augment the fission reaction, imparting efficiency and stability to the waste incineration process.
THE major reason why I support the PICKENS PLAN is that it focuses on US energy independence; selling $ 300 to 700 billion of the US to foreign oil producers each year is such an unbelievable waste. Could you imagine what we could achieve with investing that amount of money into US clean energy industries? And besides, the PICKENS PLAN, put into action as proposed, is the single-most factor reducing the CO2 burden on the environment by about 4 billion pounds of CO2 PER DAY.
While we all have our own ideas about Nuclear, I believe that Amory Lovins, chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, has the best bottom-line information and his presentation at a Washington Energy hearing is what everybody should listen to.
There is much more information, but I better quit here.
And for all you pilots: 12 electric airplanes CLICK HERE.
Let's all pray for a better future.
Thanks for the many comments; some of them posted to me personally.
Let me continue this with a look at Level I waste disposal.
Most important: Nuclear waste is divided into several categories. High-level waste (level I) consists mostly of spent nuclear reactor fuel from both commercial power plants and military facilities, as well as reprocessed materials which can emit large amounts of radiation for hundreds of thousands of years. Commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S. alone produce 3,000 tons of high-level waste each year.
For two decades, a ridge of volcanic rock 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas known as Yucca Mountain has been the sole focus of government plans to store highly radioactive nuclear waste.
Not anymore.
Despite the $13.5 billion that has been spent on the project, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing that the Yucca Mountain site no longer was viewed as an option for storing reactor waste.
Nevada ranks third in the nation for current seismic activity. Earthquake databases (the Council of the National Seismic System Composite Catalogue and the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network) provide current and historical earthquake information. Analysis of the available data in 1996 indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain.
A correction:The import of nuclear waste, mentioned in Part I, is from Italy, and not from France. Strangely enough, NRC says it doesn't have the authority to prevent foreign radioactive waste from being imported into the US. Is this a message to the rest of the world: "If you have time bombs that need to be cared for for thousands of years, just send them to America, pay a few months of storage - - - distribute all remaining moneys to the CEOs as reward for having this pulled of - - - then report bankruptcy. Who is stuck with this garbage, having to care for it? Unbelievable!
In addition we have decommissioning costs; they range from millions to billions; CLICK HERE if you'd like to read more about it. British decommissioning costs have been projected to be around 1 Billion pounds per reactor. Cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear Weapons reactor is budgeted at 5.6 Billion dollars but may cost 2 to 3 times this much.
How about costs of European Nuclear Reactors?
The Government has vastly underestimated the cost of building a new generation of nuclear power plants, according to the head of the world's largest power company. Wulf Bernotat, chairman and chief executive of E.ON, the German energy giant that owns Powergen, has told The Times that the cost per plant could be as high as €6 billion (£4.8 billion) - nearly double the Government's latest £2.8 billion estimate. His figures indicate that the cost of replacing Britain's ten nuclear power stations could reach £48 billion, excluding the cost of decommissioning ageing reactors or dealing with nuclear waste. “We are talking easily about €5 billion to €6 billion, or $ 7.5 to 9 billion [each],” Dr Bernotat said.
French nuclear group Areva is facing a 50 percent rise to the cost of building the world's first next-generation pressurised water reactor in Finland, the business daily Les Echos reported Thursday.
The cost of constructing the plant at Olkiluoto has risen from three billion to 4.5 billion euros (6.7 billion dollars), the paper reported citing an unidentified source.
But there is some (apparent) good news:Destroying nuclear waste with fusion/fission reactor - - Maybe Charles could comment on how realistic, and how expensive, this would/could be(?).
Texas University scientists propose destroying the waste using a fusion-fission hybrid reactor, the centerpiece of which is a high power Compact Fusion Neutron Source (CFNS) made possible by a crucial invention. The CFNS would provide abundant neutrons through fusion to a surrounding fission blanket that uses transuranic waste as nuclear fuel. The fusion-produced neutrons augment the fission reaction, imparting efficiency and stability to the waste incineration process.
THE major reason why I support the PICKENS PLAN is that it focuses on US energy independence; selling $ 300 to 700 billion of the US to foreign oil producers each year is such an unbelievable waste. Could you imagine what we could achieve with investing that amount of money into US clean energy industries? And besides, the PICKENS PLAN, put into action as proposed, is the single-most factor reducing the CO2 burden on the environment by about 4 billion pounds of CO2 PER DAY.
While we all have our own ideas about Nuclear, I believe that Amory Lovins, chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, has the best bottom-line information and his presentation at a Washington Energy hearing is what everybody should listen to.
There is much more information, but I better quit here.
And for all you pilots: 12 electric airplanes CLICK HERE.
Let's all pray for a better future.
Add a Comment
-
Comment by W. Dan Chance on April 26, 2009 at 2:17pm - I'll take Amory's word for it. Nuclear is just much too expensive and takes too long.
-
Comment by Richard Barnard on April 26, 2009 at 11:39am -
Dr. Kugler:
My mission while in Antarctica (Deep Freeze 1961-1962) was support for the installation of the PM-3A nuclear reactor that powered the United States’ research base at McMurdo Sound in Antarctica. The following is a (small) history of America’s nuclear ambitions. America has obviously come a long way since then.
If you want I have other information that may be of interest.
Richard Barnard
In a message dated 7/15/2005 12:53:05 AM Central Standard Time, richardrb@comcast.net writes
Billy-Ace:
When Col. Prouty brought the VIP's to see our small nuke in a box were you able to meet Col. Jimmy Dolittle? He brought the VIP's to McMurdo the summer you were there. McNamara, Col. Prouty and our president Kennedy thought small nuclear power plants built by the Martin Company was a good idea. I can understand that - It seemed like a good idea at the time. What better place to try it then the South Pole. It just turned out to be an environmental disaster. Col. Prouty was head of the CIA appointed by McNamara replacing the OSO and everything nuclear seemed like a good idea in the 60's.
Richard Barnard
-------------- Original message --------------
Rich:
I did not know that Col Prouty came to the ice,
Billy-Ace
In a message dated 7/15/2005 11:43:12 PM Central Standard Time, richardrb@comcast.net writes:
PM-3A was actually shutdown September 1972 and never went critical again because chloride stress corrosion cracking was suspected. It wouldn't have been practical to try and fix. It was disassembled and shipped back with several tons of contaminated soil. It took 6-8 years to clean up the site before it could be occupied again. It had a history of minor radiation leakage in its short life span. Again - it sounded like a good idea at the time. I'm glad they tried it. The only reason I call it a nuke in a box is because it only took the Martin Company a little over a year to build. They then put it in a box, so to speak, and shipped it to McMurdo. It was then put in place by See Bees. Can you imagine building a nuclear power plant today in a little over 2 years and have it go critical .I like to think of PM-3A as being my baby. I was there at its birth - you were there at its death. I take a lot of pride in being a SMALL part of its life.
Richard
Rich:
The plant was closed down in DF-73 which started in Oct of 72. The PM-3A final report gives the operating dates of PM-3A as 12 March 1964 -- 20 October 1973. The plant was in operation when I wintered over during DF-63, but it was still in the acceptance phase. BUDOCKs, NNPU, and Martin Marietta where all on site and all they did was fight.
According to the final report the plant first went critical on 3 March 1962 and the first usable electricity was delivered to McMurdo on 10 July 1962. The Navy was officially authorized to operate the plant on 27 May 1964. The plant was shutdown during calendar year 1973 pending the resolution of the interconnect leak and chloride stress corrosion problems. In October of 1973 the decision was finalized to remove the plant.
22-26 October 1972 -- reactor critical
26 October 1972 - reactor shutdown
01 July 1973 - defueling procedure initiated
05 July 1973 - defueling successfully completed
06 July - 09 October PM-3A in cold iron status
10 Oct 1973 - Initiated PM-3A removal plan
I was at McMurdo when all the dirt/rock was removed from Ob Hill and I was at Port Hueneme when it arrived on the ship. Some of it was in 55 gallon drums and some was in the hold. Most of it was buried in the boondocks of CBC Port Hueneme and it's still there. They buried it in a big pit. Put blacktop over it and made it into a parking lot.
I actually have a lot of the messages about the removal of the plant and the contaminated soil.
Two years ago I went to a PM-3A/NNPU reunion in Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi. It was nice to see all those guys again. This past May in Biloxi Miss one of our guest speakers was Captain Chuck Fegley who was the OIC during DF-64 as a LT.
Billy-Ace
Featured Action
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
You need to be a member of PickensPlan to add comments!
Join this Ning Network