Which Cost More? Oil or ...

I believe you are confused again. Low level nuclear waste is not part of
the problem. Low level nuclear waste is currently being taken care of.
My reference to not filling a gym was to RAW nuclear waste. Contained
nuclear waste is what would be storage at Yucca.

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqZ7k.3076$is1.1013@trndny01...
> Mike hunt wrote:
>> The storage of nuclear waste is not a scientific problem, it is a
>> political problem. Other counties made arrangements years ago to store
>> their waste under the ground from which it came. Only the US is behind
>> because the environuts do not want us to use nuclear power, the least
>> expensive, safest and cleanest way to make electricity.
>>
>> Few people realize storage of nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain site is
>> far safer than the storage any place else in the world or were all of our
>> waste, for all of our nuclear power plants is currently stored, under six
>> feet of water at the generating site . How many realize the nuclear
>> fuel is taken TO the power station is by truck. By the way none of it
>> shipped to, or currently stored at the power stations, has ever been a
>> problem.
>>
>> The fact is ALL of the nuclear waste for all of our nuclear activates
>> since 1943 and ALL of our nuclear power stations, was held in one place
>> it would not fill up the average high school gym.
>
> It would fill up far more than a high-school gym. Not only does the
> nuclear waste include all of the waste at all of the nuclear power plants,
> waste from carriers and submarines, but it also includes waste from
> colleges, universities, research foundations and hospitals. If all it
> would fill up is a high-school gym, then when they dug the second Leigh
> tunnel on Route 9 (the Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike),
> in addition to make an area for neutrino detectors, they could have made a
> safe nuclear repository. However, the amount of nuclear waste is huge, and
> would fill far more than just a gymnasium-sized who off a tunnel.
>
> Note: The Northeast Turnpike Extension has since been renumber I476 from
> state route 9.
>
> Jeff
>
>> Ask any sailor who is or has served, on any of our aircraft carriers or
>> subs over the past thirty five or forty years, if they are afraid of
>> nuclear power
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Cathy F." <clfrclfr DeleteThis @adelphiadotdashdot.net> wrote in message
>> news:ptqdnaiLDvltkP3VRVn_vwA@giganews.com...
>>> "Mark A" <nobody DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:NYE7k.3226$NQ5.2297@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:rnC7k.4029$i5.2200@trndny07...
>> .
>>>> So are you going to support nuclear energy like France, Japan, and most
>>>> of Western Europe? France gets about 80% of its electricity from
>>>> nuclear, and is building new plants frequently.
>>> I'd be for nuclear energy if: only safe plants - not older, verging on
>>> decrepit ones which barely meet safety standards - were on-line, & the
>>> storage of the waste problem could be solved in a way which everyone
>>> could accept.
>>>
>>> Cathy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:04:40 +0000, Jeff wrote:

>> The only real reason you need to modify the car is to keep the grease from
>> solidifying. Once the temp gets above 75 degrees, that's not an issue.
>> Below 75 degrees you can mix it with diesel fuel, but only down to about
>> 70.
>
> The problem is that amount of grease generated by McDonalds and other
> restaurants is not enough to supply more than a tiny bit of the energy
> needed for vehicles.


This is true. But there's Burger King, and KFC, and all the chains, and
then there are the Mom and Pop places, and, what the hell! We can divert
*MORE* food to fuel!
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

Cathy F. wrote:

> I'd be for nuclear energy if: only safe plants - not older, verging on
> decrepit ones which barely meet safety standards - were on-line, & the
> storage of the waste problem could be solved in a way which everyone could
> accept.

Turning off all the existing nukes would cause a serious shortage of
electric power, and the newest commercial reactor in the US was built
about 30 years ago. On the bright side, that plant, Palo Verde, has
the NRC's worst safety rating and is one of only two US nuke plants on
probation.

It may be better to store nuclear waste at the reactor sites,
according to some nuclear scientists and engineers who believe better
methods of longterm storage will be developed in the coming decades.
BTW the contract for Yucca Mountain in Nevada was or is in the process
of being awarded to a company that plans to simply stack the
containers of nuclear waste and not secure them against earthquakes.
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

Mike hunt wrote:

> The storage of nuclear waste is not a scientific problem, it is a political
> problem. Other counties made arrangements years ago to store their waste
> under the ground from which it came. Only the US is behind because the
> environuts do not want us to use nuclear power, the least expensive, safest
> and cleanest way to make electricity.

Nuclear power is not the cheapest, safest, and cleanest way to make
electricity. That would be hydro power. In some places, hydro is so
cheap that resistance electric heating of homes can cost less than
natural gas heat.

> Few people realize storage of nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain site is
> far safer than the storage any place else in the world or were all of our
> waste, for all of our nuclear power plants is currently stored, under six
> feet of water at the generating site .

It's later put into tanks made of 6" thick welded stainless steel
tanks that sit upright in the open. The radiation level at the
surface of the tanks is just double background level.

> How many realize the nuclear fuel is taken TO the power station is by truck.

Actually a primary objection to Yucca Mountain is the shipment of the
spent fuel. I'd worry more about the tanks simply being stacked
unsecured because in the case of an earthquake that could injure
nuclear workers.

> The fact is ALL of the nuclear waste for all of our nuclear activates since
> 1943 and ALL of our nuclear power stations, was held in one place it would
> not fill up the average high school gym.

The industry's example is a football field a few yards high.

> Ask any sailor who is or has served, on any of our aircraft carriers or subs
> over the past thirty five or forty years, if they are afraid of nuclear power

The US Navy handles nuclear power more carefully than the commercial
power industry does, as some some nuclear migratory workers can tell
you. The largest commercial nuclear plant, Palo Verde, about 60 miles
from here, has been on NRC probation for a few years and has
apparently never been a particularly high-rated plant.
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

Mike hunt wrote:
> The storage of nuclear waste is not a scientific problem, it is a political
> problem. Other counties made arrangements years ago to store their waste
> under the ground from which it came. Only the US is behind because the
> environuts do not want us to use nuclear power, the least expensive, safest
> and cleanest way to make electricity.

Actually, what other nuclear countries do is to reprocess the spent fuel
into new fuel rods. In the U.S., reprocessing is not permitted.
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

What will happen if there is an earthquake? Will the mountain cave in and
cover up the stuff? LOL

"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly RemoveThis @my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a523ec66-957c-4927-930c-7dcc9ca03dd2@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Cathy F. wrote:
>
>> I'd be for nuclear energy if: only safe plants - not older, verging on
>> decrepit ones which barely meet safety standards - were on-line, & the
>> storage of the waste problem could be solved in a way which everyone
>> could
>> accept.
>
> Turning off all the existing nukes would cause a serious shortage of
> electric power, and the newest commercial reactor in the US was built
> about 30 years ago. On the bright side, that plant, Palo Verde, has
> the NRC's worst safety rating and is one of only two US nuke plants on
> probation.
>
> It may be better to store nuclear waste at the reactor sites,
> according to some nuclear scientists and engineers who believe better
> methods of longterm storage will be developed in the coming decades.
> BTW the contract for Yucca Mountain in Nevada was or is in the process
> of being awarded to a company that plans to simply stack the
> containers of nuclear waste and not secure them against earthquakes.
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

Obviously the reference was to purchased fuels. Today the environuts would
be apposing new hydro power sources because one would need to build a dam.
They are currently fighting the erection of new transmission lines, needed
to increase the available of electric power, to charge all those electric
cars and produce all of the other "alternative" fuels LOL



"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly RemoveThis @my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2ad3dceb-838a-4500-8cf9-dc7a45b95d68@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Mike hunt wrote:
>
>> The storage of nuclear waste is not a scientific problem, it is a
>> political
>> problem. Other counties made arrangements years ago to store their
>> waste
>> under the ground from which it came. Only the US is behind because the
>> environuts do not want us to use nuclear power, the least expensive,
>> safest
>> and cleanest way to make electricity.
>
> Nuclear power is not the cheapest, safest, and cleanest way to make
> electricity. That would be hydro power. In some places, hydro is so
> cheap that resistance electric heating of homes can cost less than
> natural gas heat.
>
>> Few people realize storage of nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain site is
>> far safer than the storage any place else in the world or were all of our
>> waste, for all of our nuclear power plants is currently stored, under six
>> feet of water at the generating site .
>
> It's later put into tanks made of 6" thick welded stainless steel
> tanks that sit upright in the open. The radiation level at the
> surface of the tanks is just double background level.
>
>> How many realize the nuclear fuel is taken TO the power station is by
>> truck.
>
> Actually a primary objection to Yucca Mountain is the shipment of the
> spent fuel. I'd worry more about the tanks simply being stacked
> unsecured because in the case of an earthquake that could injure
> nuclear workers.
>
>> The fact is ALL of the nuclear waste for all of our nuclear activates
>> since
>> 1943 and ALL of our nuclear power stations, was held in one place it
>> would
>> not fill up the average high school gym.
>
> The industry's example is a football field a few yards high.
>
>> Ask any sailor who is or has served, on any of our aircraft carriers or
>> subs
>> over the past thirty five or forty years, if they are afraid of nuclear
>> power
>
> The US Navy handles nuclear power more carefully than the commercial
> power industry does, as some some nuclear migratory workers can tell
> you. The largest commercial nuclear plant, Palo Verde, about 60 miles
> from here, has been on NRC probation for a few years and has
> apparently never been a particularly high-rated plant.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:46:25 -0400, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22.TakeThisOut@lycos.com>
wrote:

>The storage of nuclear waste is not a scientific problem, it is a political
>problem. Other counties made arrangements years ago to store their waste
>under the ground from which it came. Only the US is behind because the
>environuts do not want us to use nuclear power, the least expensive, safest
>and cleanest way to make electricity.

If it was a political problem, it would have been solved about 20
years ago. The truth is that it is an engineering problem. What you
fail to understand is that a lot of this 'waste' is not made up of
natural elements. Plutonium is only one of the products that does not
exist in nature or if it does, then only in extremely small amounts.
There are certain other isotopes that are 'unnatural' in that they do
not occur in nature. Some of these isotopes have half lives of more
than 10,000 years. One of Plutonium's isotopes has a half life of
around 80,000,000 years.

There is not any place on earth that has been stable for 80 million
years. Remember that the half life of a radioactive element is the
length of time that it takes for half of the element to decay into
something else. So at the end of 80 million years, half of the
material will still be around. It will take another 80 million years
for half of the remainder to decay. Plutonium is, in addition to
being radioactive, a chemical poison. None of this means that the
decay product is safe, only that it isn't what you had before.

The disposal problem is two-fold. What type of container do you put
it in so that you can isolate it from the environment for over
160,000,000 years and where do you put it? Most of the Rocky
Mountains will have eroded away in that length of time. No material
made by man is both durable and strong enough to last for that length
of time.

I don't see any solution to these problems. Yucca mountain is a
political solution to an engineering problem that will only make
things worse in the future. Heck, you can't even put a sign up that
says "Keep Out" and expect it to be understood by people in 1,000
years much less 1,000,000 years.
>
>Few people realize storage of nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain site is
>far safer than the storage any place else in the world or were all of our
>waste, for all of our nuclear power plants is currently stored, under six
>feet of water at the generating site . How many realize the nuclear fuel
>is taken TO the power station is by truck. By the way none of it shipped
>to, or currently stored at the power stations, has ever been a problem.
>
>The fact is ALL of the nuclear waste for all of our nuclear activates since
>1943 and ALL of our nuclear power stations, was held in one place it would
>not fill up the average high school gym.

You're wrong in that last statement. The nuclear waste isn't just the
poisoned fuel, it also includes (or soon will include) the reactor
vessels from power stations as well as nuclear powered navy and
commercial ships, the 'hot' side of the heat exchangers and the
machinery used to manufacture the fuel and fuel rods.
>
>Ask any sailor who is or has served, on any of our aircraft carriers or subs
>over the past thirty five or forty years, if they are afraid of nuclear
>power

No one is saying that properly operating reactors are unsafe. But
what happens when or if these ships are blown up and sunk in a wartime
engagement? You can't guarantee that the reactor vessel(s) will
remain undamaged.
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

Do you know where the used fuel rods are stored today? Do you know how
used fuel rod pellet are treated for disposal? Search THAT, then get bask
to us LOL



"Retired VIP" <jackj.extradots.180.DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:cjd26414gb29loqj16qh29gggishkosa20@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:46:25 -0400, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22.DeleteThis@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The storage of nuclear waste is not a scientific problem, it is a
>>political
>>problem. Other counties made arrangements years ago to store their waste
>>under the ground from which it came. Only the US is behind because the
>>environuts do not want us to use nuclear power, the least expensive,
>>safest
>>and cleanest way to make electricity.
>
> If it was a political problem, it would have been solved about 20
> years ago. The truth is that it is an engineering problem. What you
> fail to understand is that a lot of this 'waste' is not made up of
> natural elements. Plutonium is only one of the products that does not
> exist in nature or if it does, then only in extremely small amounts.
> There are certain other isotopes that are 'unnatural' in that they do
> not occur in nature. Some of these isotopes have half lives of more
> than 10,000 years. One of Plutonium's isotopes has a half life of
> around 80,000,000 years.
>
> There is not any place on earth that has been stable for 80 million
> years. Remember that the half life of a radioactive element is the
> length of time that it takes for half of the element to decay into
> something else. So at the end of 80 million years, half of the
> material will still be around. It will take another 80 million years
> for half of the remainder to decay. Plutonium is, in addition to
> being radioactive, a chemical poison. None of this means that the
> decay product is safe, only that it isn't what you had before.
>
> The disposal problem is two-fold. What type of container do you put
> it in so that you can isolate it from the environment for over
> 160,000,000 years and where do you put it? Most of the Rocky
> Mountains will have eroded away in that length of time. No material
> made by man is both durable and strong enough to last for that length
> of time.
>
> I don't see any solution to these problems. Yucca mountain is a
> political solution to an engineering problem that will only make
> things worse in the future. Heck, you can't even put a sign up that
> says "Keep Out" and expect it to be understood by people in 1,000
> years much less 1,000,000 years.
>>
>>Few people realize storage of nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain site is
>>far safer than the storage any place else in the world or were all of our
>>waste, for all of our nuclear power plants is currently stored, under six
>>feet of water at the generating site . How many realize the nuclear fuel
>>is taken TO the power station is by truck. By the way none of it shipped
>>to, or currently stored at the power stations, has ever been a problem.
>>
>>The fact is ALL of the nuclear waste for all of our nuclear activates
>>since
>>1943 and ALL of our nuclear power stations, was held in one place it would
>>not fill up the average high school gym.
>
> You're wrong in that last statement. The nuclear waste isn't just the
> poisoned fuel, it also includes (or soon will include) the reactor
> vessels from power stations as well as nuclear powered navy and
> commercial ships, the 'hot' side of the heat exchangers and the
> machinery used to manufacture the fuel and fuel rods.
>>
>>Ask any sailor who is or has served, on any of our aircraft carriers or
>>subs
>>over the past thirty five or forty years, if they are afraid of nuclear
>>power
>
> No one is saying that properly operating reactors are unsafe. But
> what happens when or if these ships are blown up and sunk in a wartime
> engagement? You can't guarantee that the reactor vessel(s) will
> remain undamaged.
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

"Retired VIP" <jackj.extradots.180 DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote in message
news:cjd26414gb29loqj16qh29gggishkosa20@4ax.com...

> You're wrong in that last statement. The nuclear waste isn't just the
> poisoned fuel, it also includes (or soon will include) the reactor
> vessels from power stations as well as nuclear powered navy and
> commercial ships, the 'hot' side of the heat exchangers and the
> machinery used to manufacture the fuel and fuel rods.

They have been burying the low level waste for years. The reactor vessels et
al are not particularly "hot" and don't have a particularly long radioactive
life. Of course we could take the Russian approach and just sink the old
stuff in the ocean. Back in the late 70's / early 80's Westinghouse had to
replace a lot of old steam generators. The ones they pulled out were mildly
radioactive. I assume they are buried at Barnwell, SC. I haven't seen any
consequences of that.....

>>Ask any sailor who is or has served, on any of our aircraft carriers or
>>subs
>>over the past thirty five or forty years, if they are afraid of nuclear
>>power
>
> No one is saying that properly operating reactors are unsafe. But
> what happens when or if these ships are blown up and sunk in a wartime
> engagement? You can't guarantee that the reactor vessel(s) will
> remain undamaged.

The US has lost at least two nuclear subs (Thresher and Scorpion). The
Russians have lost several others (not sure of the numbers). Any idea of the
long term consequences of the loss of the Thresher - it is off the Atlantic
coast and has been for 40 years. Multiple nuclear ships have been scrapped
(Virginia Class Frigates, numerous subs, Long Beach, Savannah, etc.). Any
idea of the consequences?

I live in Raleigh, NC. We have one nearby nuclear plant. I always thought it
was funny when people in Raleigh worried about the nuclear plant 10 miles
out of town operated by a major power company. Most of the worriers didn't
know that NC State has/had a research / teaching reactor within 3/4 of a
mile of the state capital building.....It is old and poorly monitored.
Hopefully it has been decommissioned, but I don't really know. When I was in
school there 30+ years ago, it was still hot.

Everything has consequenses - windmills kill birds, damns kill fish, tide
generation will probably wreck the oceans, imainge covering 1000000s of
acres with solar panels - think that will be enviromentally neutral? I'll
bet not (even if you ignore production related pollution for the paneks and
storage systems).

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:02:51 -0400, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22.RemoveThis@lycos.com>
wrote:

>Do you know where the used fuel rods are stored today? Do you know how
>used fuel rod pellet are treated for disposal? Search THAT, then get bask
>to us LOL

What has your answer got to do with what I said?
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

Why do you say that, did you forget what you said?


"Retired VIP" <jackj.extradots.180.TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:el1364tp53qdst8k5vgb2e3fd0cfb7p341@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:02:51 -0400, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22.TakeThisOut@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Do you know where the used fuel rods are stored today? Do you know how
>>used fuel rod pellet are treated for disposal? Search THAT, then get
>>bask
>>to us LOL
>
> What has your answer got to do with what I said?
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ... 

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:20:21 GMT, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax.RemoveThis@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

>
>"Mark A" <nobody.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:i8I7k.10929$3F5.1056@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> There are 42 gallons in barrel of oil. Although only about half of that is
>> made into gasoline during the refining process, the remaining half is made
>> into other products that sell for about the same price as gasoline (on
>> average). So you can either assume that a barrel of oil does produce 42
>> gallons (they could do that if they wanted to), or the price per barrel
>> should be cut in half, since the other half of the barrel is made into
>> other valuable petroleum products.
>>
>> Assuming we get 42 gallons per barrel and our car averages 25 miles per
>> gallon, that would be 1050 miles per barrel. That would last me more than
>> a month. You claim it only lasts 1 day.
>>
>> Now who is the moron?
>
> I'd have to go with "you" as the answer to that question (no offence
>meant <g>). You would only have 21 gallons of gas to use and depending on
>each individual's requirements, that would last some longer and others far
>less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I manage to
>squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in the fuel tank
>(at today's price).
>

Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes,
generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and
other merchandise you want and need?

The truth is that per capita consumption of oil in the US is little
more than two barrels a month. A typical family of four would go
through a barrel in about three days.
 >> Stay informed about: Which Cost More? Oil or ...