Roger Sowell;
A man who changes his mind on the unfounded assertions of a stranger is indeed a fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess there aren’t many fools on this thread then.
markx
August 4, 2013 12:32 am
Khwarizmi says: August 4, 2013 at 12:10 am
Roger Sowell is correct to compare nuclear plants to a “carbon tax.”
see Hooked on Subsidies – Why conservatives should join the left’s campaign against nuclear power: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hooked-subsidies
–”The only reason investors are interested: government handouts.”–
Also, nuclear power was supposed to make electricity production “too cheap to meter” – like the free electricity supplied throughout Qatar.
GHG is the primary focus of today’s nuclear proponent. The cost of subsidies, the cost of cleaning up after a disaster (including the cost of an exclusion zone), and the cost of decommissioning go unmentioned. http://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima%2C+cleanup%2C+cost
Thanks Khwarizmi …. interesting information, simply presented. … I take it you are perhaps not a lawyer? 😉
Perry
August 4, 2013 12:56 am
The Spanish government plans to tax people for private electricity generation using PV panels. http://www.davidjackson.info/2013/homeowners-to-be-taxed-for-producing-their-own-electricity.htm
Our lunatic UK government is going to pay up to £15,000 per megawatt (£50 per megawatt is the cost using conventional coal fired or gas fired power stations), using diesel generators, so they can continue to build windmills a a cost of £110 billion. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84224
It would seem that our politicians of all three hues are in on this stupidity , so voting them out of office isn’t going to work. The East German Democratic Republic existed for a while on these principals. At election time. voters had a choice of candidates, but they were all card carrying members of the Communist Party, so no choice there!
Fuel bills are rocketing all around; all part of the EU plan to subjugate its citizens who should be grateful to the elites for small mercies. Anyone have any ideas?
Perry
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 4, 2013 1:19 am
From Khwarizmi on August 4, 2013 at 12:10 am:
The cost of subsidies, the cost of cleaning up after a disaster (including the cost of an exclusion zone), and the cost of decommissioning go unmentioned.
(…) Although there are many factors that affect reactor decommissioning costs, generally they range from $300 million to $400 million. Approximately 70 percent of licensees are authorized to accumulate decommissioning funds over the operating life of their plants. These owners – generally traditional, rate-regulated electric utilities or indirectly regulated generation companies – are not required today to have all of the funds needed for decommissioning. The remaining licensees must provide financial assurance through other methods such as prepaid decommissioning funds and/or a surety method or guarantee. (…)
Before a nuclear power plant begins operations, the licensee must establish or obtain a financial mechanism – such as a trust fund or a guarantee from its parent company – to ensure that there will be sufficient money to pay for the ultimate decommissioning of the facility.
So one way or another, the decommissioning will be paid for by the licensee, normally by funds gathered during operation. In other words, it’s a planned-for normal business expense.
Philip Bradley
August 4, 2013 1:40 am
I’ll note that Roger sowell hasn’t touched my point that radioactive people kill more people than nuclear power stations.
DirkH
August 4, 2013 2:14 am
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm
“But please don’t worry yourself. The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up. We have far more attorneys now than in the 70s, and far more legal tools at our disposal. ”
Wonderfully candid admission, Roger.
But MAYBE you should switch sides someday and use your tricks to fight windmills, as the market in fighting nuclear will dry up.
But you know that.
DirkH
August 4, 2013 2:19 am
davidmhoffer says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:30 pm
“Roger Sowell;
The report for 2012 describes 15 near misses, a bit more than one per month.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You claim to be a CAGW skeptic and yet cite as a source a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists?
I didn’t think there was a way to drop your credibility any lower, but you found a way.”
He is a lawyer, his current customer seem to be the anti nuclear foundations and mvoements, and he will use any trick to accomplish what his customer wants.
Maybe presenting UCS material works in the average court.
Paul Schauble
August 4, 2013 2:47 am
> A Republican Case for Climate Action
> By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD > > WHITMAN
There’s a wonderful group. Ruckelshaus has more blood on his hands than Hitler or Mao (but not Stalin). He’s not someone I would take the time of day from.
++PLS
DirkH
August 4, 2013 3:00 am
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 9:24 pm
“No, my ideal world would not have wind and solar providing power, except where the cost for alternatives is too great. I would shut down all nukes immediately and ban any new nuclear plants. Navy can keep building theirs.”
Oh I see he has the windmills in his sight already.
DirkH
August 4, 2013 3:01 am
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 9:24 pm
“Navy can keep building theirs.”
And while nukes are EEEEVIL, he doesn’t have the slightest desire to fight the military about it. Smart career-protecting move there.
Robin Hewitt
August 4, 2013 3:03 am
“der Fuehrer thinks he can impose taxes without approval from Congress. George III all over again.”
As in “George was bonkers?”, or perhaps you are believing your own propaganda. George’s government spent a lot of money removing the French who were trying to box the American colonists in. They tried to get some of the money back by taxing the colony. Whethe colonists objected they withdrew every single tax apart from one luxury tax on tea. Unfortunately some Americans had become wealthy on the “French removal money” and started a power grab by rabble rousing. Meanwhile the French attacked England’s much more lucrative holdings in India. Foreign wars are hideously expensive and it was decided that India was the bigger prize. We handed India back in my lifetime.
Roger Sowell seems to [represent] the stereotype of everything that is bad about lawyers. Unprincipled, do anything for money, lie shamelessly.
I’ve said it before here. He’s an anti nuke kook. Best ignored.
Sorry that should be represent not resent. Damn iPad.
Patrick
August 4, 2013 4:01 am
“DirkH says:
August 4, 2013 at 2:19 am”
That could explain a few things. My advice to Roger is don’t go anywhere near Cornwall in the south west of Britain as you’d be exposed to more radiation there than anywhere near Fukushima.
Doug Huffman
August 4, 2013 4:27 am
Speaking of Fukushima, I note: M5.8 – 57km ESE of Ishinomaki, Japan
Grey Lensman
August 4, 2013 4:47 am
Roger speaks some sense but needs to stop lawyering.
Quote
Since CO2 is not an issue of concern, I would build coal and natural gas power plants with appropriate scrubbers for proven toxic emissions such as sulfur, NOx, and flyash. I would also build many more hydroelectric plants in mountainous regions, including pumped storage hydro. Finally. I would devote tax funds for developing power from ocean currents. The ocean currents are far better than any other power source: huge, inexhaustible, pollution-free, and zero energy cost.
Unquote
Pity the designers do not understand the reverse engineering required. Current bird shredders are just bigger better designed ww2 fighter props, built for thrust not power. Nor are they efficient energy collectors.
For marine versions it gets even worse. Why an earth do they not even look at ships propellers. They might notice that they look nothing like bird shredders. Thus in the East River experiment, lordy me, they keep breaking. Why also do they insist upon separating turbine from generator. With modern materials and magnets both can be combined, with intelligent blade design into a compact neutral buoyancy device. Using oilfield experience they can be anchored in suitable ocean currents, remote controlled and left to generate gigawatts. But perhaps that is too logical.
An Aussie poster here did an incredible analysis of a real modern coal plant that cuts co2 emissions by 30% plus and generates more cleaner power. its a reply to a post so dont know how to find it.
davidmhoffer says:
August 3, 2013 at 10:18 pm
Ric Werme;
Natural thorium, which is fairly cheap and abundant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My understanding is that some coal deposits are so high in thorium that recovery from the fly ash is commercially viable. Cheap power that generates cheap fuel. Win-win! http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html is an article everyon interested in coal and nuclear power should read. While it does have a bit of pro-nuke and anti-coal propaganda, the data it looks at is very interesting. It says in part:
The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.
Finally, radioactive elements released in coal ash and exhaust produced by coal combustion contain fissionable fuels and much larger quantities of fertile materials that can be bred into fuels by absorption of neutrons, including those generated in the air by bombardment of oxygen, nitrogen, and other nuclei with cosmic rays; such fissionable and fertile materials can be recovered from coal ash using known technologies. These nuclear materials have growing value to private concerns and governments that may want to market them for fueling nuclear power plants. However, they are also available to those interested in accumulating material for nuclear weapons. A solution to this potential problem may be to encourage electric utilities to process coal ash and use new trapping technologies on coal combustion exhaust to isolate and collect valuable metals, such as iron and aluminum, and available nuclear fuels.
Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million (ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium. … The concentration of fissionable uranium-235 (the current fuel for nuclear power plants) has been established to be 0.71% of uranium content.
… the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.
An average value for the thermal energy of coal is approximately 6150 kilowatt-hours(kWh)/ton. Thus, the expected cumulative thermal energy release from U.S. coal combustion over this period totals about 6.87 x 10E14 kilowatt-hours. The thermal energy released in nuclear fission produces about 2 x 10E9 kWh/ton. Consequently, the thermal energy from fission of uranium-235 released in coal combustion amounts to 2.1 x 10E12 kWh. If uranium-238 is bred to plutonium-239, using these data and assuming a “use factor” of 10%, the thermal energy from fission of this isotope alone constitutes about 2.9 x 10E14 kWh, or about half the anticipated energy of all the utility coal burned in this country through the year 2040. If the thorium-232 is bred to uranium-233 and fissioned with a similar “use factor”, the thermal energy capacity of this isotope is approximately 7.2 x 10E14 kWh, or 105% of the thermal energy released from U.S. coal combustion for a century. Assuming 10% usage, the total of the thermal energy capacities from each of these three fissionable isotopes is about 10.1 x 10E14 kWh, 1.5 times more than the total from coal. World combustion of coal has the same ratio, similarly indicating that coal combustion wastes more energy than it produces.
Third, large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste. These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities. Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner. Collected nuclear wastes that accumulate on electric utility sites are not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes through air and water movement and the food chain.
But please don’t worry yourself. The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up. We have far more attorneys now than in the 70s, and far more legal tools at our disposal.
I was wondering when someone would bring up this as one of the reason nuke plants are so expensive to build. I’m very surprised it was you. I won’t dig it up, but the protests from folks like the clamshell alliance (members mostly general public), Conservation Law Foundation (I think they were involved, evil legal group), et al stopped one of the two plants from being built forced much greater scrutiny from the NRC and others.
Why don’t you and your friends should apply as much attention to coal plants as you do to nukes.
With luck it will all become moot when E-Cats (and others) take over, if they aren’t the scam of the century.
No person who is “aware” of the realities of nuclear power is “against” it.
Having worked at a nuclear facility for several years, I was trained as a part of my employment. As most people who have ever been required to be trained in what is basically a trade are aware, one of the first things you learn is everything that can possibly go wrong. For example, a few years back while installing wiring in a Best Buy store our company was required to be trained on scissor lift operations, even though we’d been renting and using them regularly for years. The first day of training was showing us all of the safety features of a scissor lift, and how to bypass them. Not one of us ever even considered messing with safety features or attempting to bypass them, but now we know how.
Unlike the coal industry which grew organically over a long period of time acquiring experience the hard way, the entire nuclear industry was arrived at scientifically. Nobody ever dumps a pound of fissionable material on some sort of measuring device to determine its energy content, that is known to several decimal places ahead of time. There are very accurate measures of safe and unsafe radioactivity tolerances for people, animals, plants, and equipment.
The anti-nuke people lie to us, every time they open their mouths. Radioactivity is like any other poison: it’s the dose that matters. Grand Central Station in NYC has higher radioactivity levels due to the natural stone in its construction than is legally allowed in a nuclear facility. Sitting in downtown Banff, my radioactivity meter showed higher than in the work area where I worked. Bananas have measurable levels of radioactivity.
The basic message from anti-nuclear activists is that the only safe level of radioactivity is zero. But this is absurd. Nature showers us with radioactivity every day, from radon gas in basements to natural granite (high end homes with granite countertops are measurably radioactive), to atmospheric radiation and cosmic rays. We’re pelted with the stuff. Our bodies have a level of, not only tolerance to radioactivity but indeed a minimum requirement.
Most people who study the issue are aware them many coal seams are radioactive, and coal plants using this coal emit more radioactivity than would be allowed by a nuclear plant.
Pop quiz: Number of people killed by nuclear power in North America?
Fukushima was old technology, scheduled for decommissioning soon. It was, like any tragedy, a combination of errors and circumstances. There will never be a repeat of that combination, mostly because the nuclear industry learns from accidents and does what they can to ensure there is never a repeat.
I worked with a man who was a nuclear trainer for the IAEA. His job was to train people in safely working around nuclear materials and reactors. He was one of the people who put boots on the ground in Fukushima, and we talked about his experiences there at length. Personally, I don’t care what you’ve heard or read, unless you were either there or personally know someone who was, your opinion about what happened there is second-hand.
Yes, radioactivity was released. No, there will be no long-term result. Yes, the amount is measurable. No, it’s not a harmful amount. Yes, it’s a tragedy that any radioactivity was released. No, it’s not a harmful amount. No, nobody died. No, nobody WILL die from the radioactivity, although we all know that every cancer death for the next 50 years in the area will be blamed on it.
Sowell is dishonest with his naive and ignorant “7 questions”.
A new Nuclear power plant, proposed to double the South Texas plant, was scrapped for being too costly. Fact.
Nuclear power plant, licensed and operating with years remaining on its license, was shut down because it is not economic. Fact.
These claims being made by someone who is part of the reason nuclear power is so expensive is childish. Just like 0bama, if your goal is to make coal plants uneconomical, you’ll go ahead no matter the reality.
Fukushima reactors melted down and poisoned the countryside as well as yet unknown radiation to people. Radiation continues to pour into the ocean. Fact.
The amount is known. It is quantified. Mitigation is in place. Just because radiation is released does not mean it’s the bloody apocalypse.
Nuclear industry lied and continues to lie about reactor safety. Fact.
Turning this one around: the anti-nuclear INDUSTRY of which you are a part lied and continues to lie about the dangers of nuclear power. Whoppers, too. Not just sweeping some numbers under the carpet, but exaggeration and fear-mongering of the highest order.
Power prices zoomed due to the nuclear death spiral in the 70s and 80s along the US gulf coast, due to new nuclear power plants. Fact.
Thanks to luddites like yourself, no doubt.
No island with 1 million population (nominal) has a nuclear power plant, instead they use diesel or similar and pay 25 to 30 cents for their power. Fact.
There was a reactor in Antarctica from 1962-1972. However I haven’t read enough of your stuff to know what you’re getting at here.
Nuclear powered naval vessels rest on the bottom of the oceans, spewing forth their radiation. Fact.
The ocean is filled with uranium and other radioactive substances, at high enough concentrations that it will be economical to extract it in the near future. “Spewing” is one of those emotional weasel words so loved by alarmists and lawyers of all exaggerating levels. The oceans are the majority of this planet. They are more than able to handle the comparatively tiny amounts of radioactivity these reactors are emitting.
I’ve never yet met a lawyer who wasn’t 100% certain he was right. Until the next paying client came along, at which point they could make a 180 degree turn and still be 100% certain they were right.
Actively blocking nuclear power development should be considered a crime against humanity.
Doug Huffman
August 4, 2013 5:59 am
The law is an ass that lawyers ride to work, don’t try to be one, no one is smart enough.
Roger Sowell;
A man who changes his mind on the unfounded assertions of a stranger is indeed a fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess there aren’t many fools on this thread then.
Khwarizmi says: August 4, 2013 at 12:10 am
Thanks Khwarizmi …. interesting information, simply presented. … I take it you are perhaps not a lawyer? 😉
The Spanish government plans to tax people for private electricity generation using PV panels.
http://www.davidjackson.info/2013/homeowners-to-be-taxed-for-producing-their-own-electricity.htm
Our lunatic UK government is going to pay up to £15,000 per megawatt (£50 per megawatt is the cost using conventional coal fired or gas fired power stations), using diesel generators, so they can continue to build windmills a a cost of £110 billion.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84224
It would seem that our politicians of all three hues are in on this stupidity , so voting them out of office isn’t going to work. The East German Democratic Republic existed for a while on these principals. At election time. voters had a choice of candidates, but they were all card carrying members of the Communist Party, so no choice there!
Fuel bills are rocketing all around; all part of the EU plan to subjugate its citizens who should be grateful to the elites for small mercies. Anyone have any ideas?
Perry
From Khwarizmi on August 4, 2013 at 12:10 am:
For the US at least, the decommissioning info is easy to find from the NRC.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html
Decommissioning Funds section:
So one way or another, the decommissioning will be paid for by the licensee, normally by funds gathered during operation. In other words, it’s a planned-for normal business expense.
I’ll note that Roger sowell hasn’t touched my point that radioactive people kill more people than nuclear power stations.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm
“But please don’t worry yourself. The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up. We have far more attorneys now than in the 70s, and far more legal tools at our disposal. ”
Wonderfully candid admission, Roger.
But MAYBE you should switch sides someday and use your tricks to fight windmills, as the market in fighting nuclear will dry up.
But you know that.
davidmhoffer says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:30 pm
“Roger Sowell;
The report for 2012 describes 15 near misses, a bit more than one per month.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You claim to be a CAGW skeptic and yet cite as a source a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists?
I didn’t think there was a way to drop your credibility any lower, but you found a way.”
He is a lawyer, his current customer seem to be the anti nuclear foundations and mvoements, and he will use any trick to accomplish what his customer wants.
Maybe presenting UCS material works in the average court.
> A Republican Case for Climate Action
> By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD > > WHITMAN
There’s a wonderful group. Ruckelshaus has more blood on his hands than Hitler or Mao (but not Stalin). He’s not someone I would take the time of day from.
++PLS
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 9:24 pm
“No, my ideal world would not have wind and solar providing power, except where the cost for alternatives is too great. I would shut down all nukes immediately and ban any new nuclear plants. Navy can keep building theirs.”
Oh I see he has the windmills in his sight already.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 9:24 pm
“Navy can keep building theirs.”
And while nukes are EEEEVIL, he doesn’t have the slightest desire to fight the military about it. Smart career-protecting move there.
“der Fuehrer thinks he can impose taxes without approval from Congress. George III all over again.”
As in “George was bonkers?”, or perhaps you are believing your own propaganda. George’s government spent a lot of money removing the French who were trying to box the American colonists in. They tried to get some of the money back by taxing the colony. Whethe colonists objected they withdrew every single tax apart from one luxury tax on tea. Unfortunately some Americans had become wealthy on the “French removal money” and started a power grab by rabble rousing. Meanwhile the French attacked England’s much more lucrative holdings in India. Foreign wars are hideously expensive and it was decided that India was the bigger prize. We handed India back in my lifetime.
Roger Sowell seems to [represent] the stereotype of everything that is bad about lawyers. Unprincipled, do anything for money, lie shamelessly.
I’ve said it before here. He’s an anti nuke kook. Best ignored.
Sorry that should be represent not resent. Damn iPad.
“DirkH says:
August 4, 2013 at 2:19 am”
That could explain a few things. My advice to Roger is don’t go anywhere near Cornwall in the south west of Britain as you’d be exposed to more radiation there than anywhere near Fukushima.
Speaking of Fukushima, I note: M5.8 – 57km ESE of Ishinomaki, Japan
Roger speaks some sense but needs to stop lawyering.
Quote
Since CO2 is not an issue of concern, I would build coal and natural gas power plants with appropriate scrubbers for proven toxic emissions such as sulfur, NOx, and flyash. I would also build many more hydroelectric plants in mountainous regions, including pumped storage hydro. Finally. I would devote tax funds for developing power from ocean currents. The ocean currents are far better than any other power source: huge, inexhaustible, pollution-free, and zero energy cost.
Unquote
Pity the designers do not understand the reverse engineering required. Current bird shredders are just bigger better designed ww2 fighter props, built for thrust not power. Nor are they efficient energy collectors.
For marine versions it gets even worse. Why an earth do they not even look at ships propellers. They might notice that they look nothing like bird shredders. Thus in the East River experiment, lordy me, they keep breaking. Why also do they insist upon separating turbine from generator. With modern materials and magnets both can be combined, with intelligent blade design into a compact neutral buoyancy device. Using oilfield experience they can be anchored in suitable ocean currents, remote controlled and left to generate gigawatts. But perhaps that is too logical.
An Aussie poster here did an incredible analysis of a real modern coal plant that cuts co2 emissions by 30% plus and generates more cleaner power. its a reply to a post so dont know how to find it.
King Coal is dead….Long live the king! The Carbon Market Connie….
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/
davidmhoffer says:
August 3, 2013 at 10:18 pm
Ric Werme;
Natural thorium, which is fairly cheap and abundant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My understanding is that some coal deposits are so high in thorium that recovery from the fly ash is commercially viable. Cheap power that generates cheap fuel. Win-win!
http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html is an article everyon interested in coal and nuclear power should read. While it does have a bit of pro-nuke and anti-coal propaganda, the data it looks at is very interesting. It says in part:
The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.
Finally, radioactive elements released in coal ash and exhaust produced by coal combustion contain fissionable fuels and much larger quantities of fertile materials that can be bred into fuels by absorption of neutrons, including those generated in the air by bombardment of oxygen, nitrogen, and other nuclei with cosmic rays; such fissionable and fertile materials can be recovered from coal ash using known technologies. These nuclear materials have growing value to private concerns and governments that may want to market them for fueling nuclear power plants. However, they are also available to those interested in accumulating material for nuclear weapons. A solution to this potential problem may be to encourage electric utilities to process coal ash and use new trapping technologies on coal combustion exhaust to isolate and collect valuable metals, such as iron and aluminum, and available nuclear fuels.
Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million (ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium. … The concentration of fissionable uranium-235 (the current fuel for nuclear power plants) has been established to be 0.71% of uranium content.
… the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.
An average value for the thermal energy of coal is approximately 6150 kilowatt-hours(kWh)/ton. Thus, the expected cumulative thermal energy release from U.S. coal combustion over this period totals about 6.87 x 10E14 kilowatt-hours. The thermal energy released in nuclear fission produces about 2 x 10E9 kWh/ton. Consequently, the thermal energy from fission of uranium-235 released in coal combustion amounts to 2.1 x 10E12 kWh. If uranium-238 is bred to plutonium-239, using these data and assuming a “use factor” of 10%, the thermal energy from fission of this isotope alone constitutes about 2.9 x 10E14 kWh, or about half the anticipated energy of all the utility coal burned in this country through the year 2040. If the thorium-232 is bred to uranium-233 and fissioned with a similar “use factor”, the thermal energy capacity of this isotope is approximately 7.2 x 10E14 kWh, or 105% of the thermal energy released from U.S. coal combustion for a century. Assuming 10% usage, the total of the thermal energy capacities from each of these three fissionable isotopes is about 10.1 x 10E14 kWh, 1.5 times more than the total from coal. World combustion of coal has the same ratio, similarly indicating that coal combustion wastes more energy than it produces.
Third, large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste. These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities. Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner. Collected nuclear wastes that accumulate on electric utility sites are not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes through air and water movement and the food chain.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm
I was wondering when someone would bring up this as one of the reason nuke plants are so expensive to build. I’m very surprised it was you. I won’t dig it up, but the protests from folks like the clamshell alliance (members mostly general public), Conservation Law Foundation (I think they were involved, evil legal group), et al stopped one of the two plants from being built forced much greater scrutiny from the NRC and others.
Why don’t you and your friends should apply as much attention to coal plants as you do to nukes.
With luck it will all become moot when E-Cats (and others) take over, if they aren’t the scam of the century.
Coal is radioactive and the radioactivity is concentrated when it it burned. Here’s a cite from the greenie-progs’ favorite Un-Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
The first NORM radiation caution sign I saw was at a dinofuel refinery.
Time to add a little levity to the nuke debate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/in-light-of-radiation-fears-i-offer-this-repost/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/going-bananas-over-radiation/
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
Lets not mention Minamata and mercury poisoning.
Chad Wozniak says:
August 3, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Chad, I know wind very well. It was my profession at one time. Here’s a little something I wrote:
http://dailybail.com/home/why-wind-power-wont-work.html
http://dailybail.com/home/the-mafia-is-moving-into-green-energy.html
http://dailybail.com/home/obama-fires-up-his-green-energy-sales-pitch.html
http://dailybail.com/home/green-corruption-the-five-circles-of-carbon-tax-hell.html
Lots more to be found there. At the bottom of each article you can click to see the last weeks edition.
john
No person who is “aware” of the realities of nuclear power is “against” it.
Having worked at a nuclear facility for several years, I was trained as a part of my employment. As most people who have ever been required to be trained in what is basically a trade are aware, one of the first things you learn is everything that can possibly go wrong. For example, a few years back while installing wiring in a Best Buy store our company was required to be trained on scissor lift operations, even though we’d been renting and using them regularly for years. The first day of training was showing us all of the safety features of a scissor lift, and how to bypass them. Not one of us ever even considered messing with safety features or attempting to bypass them, but now we know how.
Unlike the coal industry which grew organically over a long period of time acquiring experience the hard way, the entire nuclear industry was arrived at scientifically. Nobody ever dumps a pound of fissionable material on some sort of measuring device to determine its energy content, that is known to several decimal places ahead of time. There are very accurate measures of safe and unsafe radioactivity tolerances for people, animals, plants, and equipment.
The anti-nuke people lie to us, every time they open their mouths. Radioactivity is like any other poison: it’s the dose that matters. Grand Central Station in NYC has higher radioactivity levels due to the natural stone in its construction than is legally allowed in a nuclear facility. Sitting in downtown Banff, my radioactivity meter showed higher than in the work area where I worked. Bananas have measurable levels of radioactivity.
The basic message from anti-nuclear activists is that the only safe level of radioactivity is zero. But this is absurd. Nature showers us with radioactivity every day, from radon gas in basements to natural granite (high end homes with granite countertops are measurably radioactive), to atmospheric radiation and cosmic rays. We’re pelted with the stuff. Our bodies have a level of, not only tolerance to radioactivity but indeed a minimum requirement.
Most people who study the issue are aware them many coal seams are radioactive, and coal plants using this coal emit more radioactivity than would be allowed by a nuclear plant.
Pop quiz: Number of people killed by nuclear power in North America?
Fukushima was old technology, scheduled for decommissioning soon. It was, like any tragedy, a combination of errors and circumstances. There will never be a repeat of that combination, mostly because the nuclear industry learns from accidents and does what they can to ensure there is never a repeat.
I worked with a man who was a nuclear trainer for the IAEA. His job was to train people in safely working around nuclear materials and reactors. He was one of the people who put boots on the ground in Fukushima, and we talked about his experiences there at length. Personally, I don’t care what you’ve heard or read, unless you were either there or personally know someone who was, your opinion about what happened there is second-hand.
Yes, radioactivity was released. No, there will be no long-term result. Yes, the amount is measurable. No, it’s not a harmful amount. Yes, it’s a tragedy that any radioactivity was released. No, it’s not a harmful amount. No, nobody died. No, nobody WILL die from the radioactivity, although we all know that every cancer death for the next 50 years in the area will be blamed on it.
Sowell is dishonest with his naive and ignorant “7 questions”.
These claims being made by someone who is part of the reason nuclear power is so expensive is childish. Just like 0bama, if your goal is to make coal plants uneconomical, you’ll go ahead no matter the reality.
The amount is known. It is quantified. Mitigation is in place. Just because radiation is released does not mean it’s the bloody apocalypse.
Turning this one around: the anti-nuclear INDUSTRY of which you are a part lied and continues to lie about the dangers of nuclear power. Whoppers, too. Not just sweeping some numbers under the carpet, but exaggeration and fear-mongering of the highest order.
Thanks to luddites like yourself, no doubt.
There was a reactor in Antarctica from 1962-1972. However I haven’t read enough of your stuff to know what you’re getting at here.
Nuclear powered naval vessels rest on the bottom of the oceans, spewing forth their radiation. Fact.
The ocean is filled with uranium and other radioactive substances, at high enough concentrations that it will be economical to extract it in the near future. “Spewing” is one of those emotional weasel words so loved by alarmists and lawyers of all exaggerating levels. The oceans are the majority of this planet. They are more than able to handle the comparatively tiny amounts of radioactivity these reactors are emitting.
I’ve never yet met a lawyer who wasn’t 100% certain he was right. Until the next paying client came along, at which point they could make a 180 degree turn and still be 100% certain they were right.
Actively blocking nuclear power development should be considered a crime against humanity.
The law is an ass that lawyers ride to work, don’t try to be one, no one is smart enough.