tomhye and I have had this discussion before.

I remain skeptical --- and this article while it has gone a long way to convince me that there are much safer alternatives than what the US presently employs nuclear energy wise --- and the French example is a good illustration -- there are still many problems.

What do you think?

Is the French nuclear power system a viable clean energy?

It is not purely clean energy since malfunctions can contaminate water systems, etc.

And then there is the poltical alternative...

Can we legitimately promote the use of nuclear technology for all nations?

Is it fair that we discriminate against naitons like Iran?

How do we make certain that nations like Iran can use these systems too since clearn energy use is important to a clean atmosphere?

And what about the US which seems to use a dirtier means of nuclear power...which produces much more waste?

How close are we to having a clean and secure nuclear waste disposal system?

It seems we should convert to the French system.

I am starting to be persauded from my rigid anti-nuclear power philosophy, but I am not convinced yet.

The biggest problem I have is with oversight, reporting of accidents (see the article) and the propensity of the private sector to cut corners to maximize profit.

What do you think?

August 17, 2008
France Reaffirms Its Faith in Future of Nuclear Power
By STEVEN ERLANGER
FLAMANVILLE, France — It looks like an ordinary building site, but for the two massive, rounded concrete shells looming above the ocean, like dusty mushrooms.

Here on the Normandy coast, France is building its newest nuclear reactor, the first in 10 years, costing $5.1 billion. But already, President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced that France will build another like it.

Flamanville is a vivid example of the French choice for nuclear power, made in the late 1950s by Charles de Gaulle, intensified during the oil shocks of the 1970s and maintained despite the nightmarish nuclear accidents of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Nuclear power provides 77 percent of France’s electricity, according to the government, and relatively few public doubts are expressed in a country with little coal, oil or natural gas.

With the wildly fluctuating cost of oil, anxiety over global warming from burning fossil fuels and new concerns about the impact of biofuels on the price of food for the poor, nuclear energy is getting a second look in countries like the United States and Britain. Even Germany, committed to phasing out nuclear power by 2021, is debating whether to change its mind.

France is way ahead. Électricité de France, or EDF, is in talks to buy British Energy, for about $24 billion, to renovate Britain’s nuclear plants and build new ones. The French have already contracted to build a third-generation European Pressurized Reactor of the Flamanville type — the world’s safest and most powerful — in Abu Dhabi and China.

There is pride in French exceptionalism and in the technical skill that has produced an industry with no major accidents. In a recent op-ed article in Le Figaro, for example, Yves Thréard boasted: “France hasn’t any oil, but she knew how to exploit a rich idea. In the whirlwind of globalization, civil nuclear power became a weapon, commercial and political, that allowed the country to remain at the avant-garde in the concert of nations.”

A senior aide to Jean-Louis Borloo, the minister of ecology, sustainable development and planning, said that France “sees a wide trend developing” toward more use of nuclear energy.

“A lot of countries realize that with the rising price of fossil fuels and energy, and the climate emergency, nuclear can be part of the solution,” said the aide, who spoke anonymously under the rules of his ministry.

He said that France’s choice for a “closed fuel cycle” — reprocessing used nuclear fuel to recover plutonium made in the reactors so it can be reused — was safer. “This way, nuclear energy can bring a lot — it’s CO2-free energy.”

Mr. Sarkozy said that each European Pressurized Reactor that “replaces a gas-powered electricity plant saves two billion cubic meters of gas each year, and each E.P.R. replacing a coal plant means cutting 11 million tons of CO2.”

France generates half of its own total energy, up from 23 percent in 1973, despite increased consumption.

Electrical power generation accounts for only 10 percent of France’s greenhouse gases, compared with an average of 40 percent in other industrialized countries, according to EDF.

France has 58 operating nuclear reactors, the highest number of any nation besides the United States. In America, where nuclear construction has been moribund, there is also new interest. At the moment, 19.4 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is from 104 nuclear plants, according to the Department of Energy.

The Nuclear Regulatory Agency has in hand or expects applications to build 34 reactors, of which seven are European pressurized water reactors of the Flamanville type — and, unlike current American reactors, allow output to vary to meet fluctuating demand.

The Flamanville reactor is based on a French-German design, which itself is based on an earlier Westinghouse design. EDF has an American partner, Constellation Energy, to sell the new model as a joint venture called UniStar Nuclear, which has already ordered some of the larger parts for one reactor. Ironically, its main competitor is Westinghouse, now owned by Toshiba.

For all the happy talk in France, however, there are continuing doubts and confusion about nuclear power, accentuated by a series of accidents and alerts in July. At a nuclear plant in Tricastin, in Provence, 163 pounds of untreated uranium in liquid leaked from a faulty tank during a draining operation, seeping into the ground and then into rivers that flow into the Rhône.

While the two-year-old Authority for Nuclear Security, an independent body overseeing civilian nuclear activities, called it a category one (out of seven) incident that posed no health risk, the local prefect banned fishing, irrigation, swimming and the use of well water. The ban lasted 14 days, and the government criticized Areva, the nuclear group that is mostly state-owned, for not informing local authorities quickly or adequately. The treatment station, which was old, was being replaced, and remains shut.

Other minor accidents occurred in quick succession: a burst underground pipe at another site north of Tricastin, which leaked a tiny amount of uranium inside plant grounds, and then another accident at Tricastin itself, when 100 employees were contaminated by radioactive particles that escaped from a pipe.

The government, Areva and EDF have played down the accidents. Mr. Borloo said there were 86 category-one nuclear incidents in France in 2007 and 114 in 2006. Mr. Borloo’s aide, pointing to the Authority for Nuclear Security, said the Tricastin “microevent” showed that “our system of security is extremely responsive and transparent, and that the media and public opinion needed a training period to understand how the system of nuclear security works in France.”

Still, there is continuing nervousness. Sales of bottled water increased, and even a nearby appellation of local wine, Côteaux du Tricastin, is exploring whether to change its name, according to Henri Bour, who runs the local wine council.

A prominent French anti-nuclear lobby, Sortir du Nucléaire, is pressing to phase out nuclear power, which it considers too dangerous and too expensive because of the need to manage nuclear waste. The group wants a “sustainable transition” to renewable energy options like solar, hydro and wind power. Last year, on the 21st anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown, 30 protesters at Flamanville blocked entrances and chained themselves to cranes.

There have also been some construction issues. In April, the Authority for Nuclear Safety criticized some of the welds and the quality of the concrete work at Flamanville, but work resumed in June. Philippe Leynié, the site manager here for EDF, said the problem involved missing pins on the metal rebar and was not serious.

Nonetheless, an IFOP opinion poll conducted for Le Monde after the Tricastin leaks showed that 67 percent of the French considered it vital to keep nuclear power in the country’s energy mix, compared with 52 percent in 2002. Only 27 percent judged the risks of nuclear energy to be the most worrying, compared with 50 percent who thought global warming was the predominant risk. In 2002, 33 percent worried most about nuclear risks and only 20 percent about global warming.

For Flamanville, though, a village of 1,780 people, nuclear power has re-energized the town. There are no pretty beaches here, just granite cliffs above a cold sea. For hundreds of years, the village lived off the granite, cutting and selling it, shipping it first by boat, then by railroad. Flamanville granite, said Mayor Patrick Fauchon, was used to pave the Place de la Concorde in Paris.

But by the middle of the 19th century it became too expensive compared with other sources, and the village survived by digging iron from an undersea mine, said Mr. Fauchon, who has been mayor since 1983. “It was always a company town,” he said.

But the mine closed in 1962, and the population of the village dropped to 1,150 people. When the idea of a nuclear plant arose, in 1975, there was considerable debate. But residents voted for the nuclear plant, which meant new jobs.

The granite cliffs and cold sea, while not hospitable to bathers, were ideal for these nuclear reactors, which need a hard foundation and access to plentiful cold water.

Now, after so many years, a generation of workers here has already retired from the nuclear industry.

“At the regional level, some towns accept having nuclear plants and others oil refineries,” Mr. Fauchon said. “I don’t ask Bretons if they’re happy about having pigsties and raising pigs, which creates another source of pollution.”

Still, he thinks these days of the effect on towns that are losing their regiments as France’s military modernizes. “At least when we speak of energy, it’s a permanent need,” Mr. Fauchon said. “When we speak of an industrial tool with a lifespan of 60 years, we have economic activity for two generations.”

Maïa de la Baume contributed reporting from Paris, and Matthew L. Wald from Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/world/eu...amp;oref=slogin

Not safe enough to me.

I don't want a nuclear reactor in my back yard.

Then there's the problem with nuclear waste, terrorist attacks, etc... not to mention how long it takes to bring one online... while solar and alternative e3nergy is becoming cheaper by the day, is safe, enviromentally friendly... and takes power generation out of the hands of corporate control.

Well, reading this article it seems in France they have largely addressed the nuclear waste problem by reusing the waste.

There are still the other issues that are relevant, though IMHO...

Hrmm I thought part of this whole Save the planet and energy thing was because we have so much less rain and water now, too? With water being needed in such big quantities I'd suggest that the desert part of the U.S. go solar and wind - cause we're in our 8th year of drought.

I'm an engineer and I think that going with more nuclear energy is just plain ridiculous ....

It is the waste heat every day that they put off that is the real environmental hazard, not the fuel ....

And they need water for cooling ....

HUGE amounts of water ....

And then that water goes back into the environment much hotter than it began ....

And it is transferring heat to the environment 24/7 ....

And that is screwing the be-jaysus out of our atmospheric conditions here where I am ...

But you never see any commentary on that aspect of nuclear power ....

It is kept largely hushed up ...

The more ignorant people are of their true hazard, the better for the nuclear industry and politicians on the make like John McCain who wants to plaster America with nuclear power plants ....

And so ...

I'd have one in my back yard.

Total civilian deaths from nuke power plants to date = 0

Check out:

CANDU (Canadian reactor). Uses UNREFINED Uranium.

Westinghouse Modular Reactor (phase III now ready, phase IV coming soon). Fast breeder type, gets about 10 times more energy from a given fuel input - therefore much less nuke waste.

GE Modular Reactor. Same idea.

These designs are already approved. And because they are all identical, the long EIR and installation process is cut in half.

Yes, Livy is right - you need cooling water. Which is why they need to be on oceans, rivers, big lakes, etc.

But there is NO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION.

And when we go to plug-in hybrid cars, we can charge them in our garages at night (when rates are low) and rarely ever have to by gasoline.

BigOil/CorporateMedia/Fearmongers have brainwashed us.

Had we started with nukes in 79 when Jimmy Carter told us what we didn't want to hear, we would not be in Iraq.

Something to think about.

I would support that --- and AZ has the largest solar power effort in US history under way -- small problem is --- despite 2,000 construction jobs being at issue in McCain's home state John McCain missed eight votes to extend the alternative renewable energy tax credits which are set to expire this year putting the effort in jeopardy...

Is that the leadership of a maverick?

No. That is the action of a coward who is tied to big oil and the failed energy policies of the past. IMHO.

jeff and livyjr -- I am tied between your two frames of mind...

I hear that it can be safe buit there are accidents...

This is the real problem I have. How do we deal with the concern that the private sector will cut corners or not engage in the maintenance necessary without regulating the life out of such facilities?

Jeff -- didn't people die from Chernobyl?

People died in Chernobyl.

Many.

And that type of reactor would NEVER EVER be built here. The Russians did so (RBMK reactor) so they could enrich uranium for weapons without shutting the whole works down. Here in America, the NRC requires an inherently safe design.

Even TMI which was destroyed by morons at the control panel, let only a few balloons worth of gas escape from the containment vessel. (Chernobyl didn't even HAVE a containment vessel). No one died or got sick or had any ill effects in Harrisburg.

Only a lingering FEAR of nukes, brought to you by TV and Hollywood.

Why don't you come back to New York, jeffmoskin, and then say that after you have been buried in TEN FEET of snow in just one snowfall east to the nuke plants on Lake Ontario ...

If I recall, when those plants were first built, the maximum temperature of the lake water affected by cooling water coming back from those plants was 75 degree F.

Now, it is at least 83 degrees F.

And there have been absolutely no environmental reviews of any of that change over time ....

Instead, the feds allowed the operators to exceed their previous permit limits on an emergency basis with no public notice or review ....

83 degree water is like bath water, jeffmoskin ....

A cubic foot of water weighs 64 pounds roughly, so for every degree F. that that cubic foot has been heated up, that represents 64 BTU's of thermal energy ...

Assume the original lake temperature was somewhere around 60 degrees for a lake that far north in the United States ...

So that is a 23 degree temperature rise for just one cubic foot of water ....

Now that cubic foot of water has 23 x 64 BTU's of thermal energy associated with it ....

In the winter, when the air temperature is down around 10 degrees F., you have a temperature differential of 73 degrees between the heated lake waters and the air temperature ...

Evaporation, of course, is a function of surface area and temperature ....

So you now have a huge moisture-laden thermal plume rising up from Lake Ontario in the winter that is the essence of an IDEAL SNOW MACHINE ...

In just one fall last winter, there was TEN FEET of snow, jeffmoskin ...

Several times, the NYS Thruway had to be closed out that way because of white-outs which made driving impossible ...

I attribute all of that to that heated water in Lake Ontario, water which is being constantly heated, 24/7 ....

I am to the east of Lake Ontario ....

Just the other day, right near me, there was five inches of rain in one fall that did an estimated $20 million in damage ....

That is unprecedented up here, jeffmoskin, getting five inches of rain in one fall like that .....

It is my belief that that can also be attributed in some part to that heated water in Lake Ontario, which is putting up a plume of water vapor, 24/7 ....

So our whole climate and environment are being adversely impacted up here, jeffmoskin ...

ADVERSELY ....

I did my engineering master's degree research on the fluid mechanics and thermodynamics of nuclear cooling tower plumes ....

I studied them extensively back in 1975 when they were already beginning to cause atmospheric problems, which is why I had funding to do my research .......

And my master's was obtained on a USEPA fellowship so that I could become an expert on these things to protect and safeguard HUMAN life, health and property OVER CORPORATE PROFITS for people who live somewhere other than where their sources of income are ROYALLY ******* UP the lives of common citizens ......

And all of that research was subsequently buried, as if it had never been done in the first place ....

HUSH!

To me, this whole bidness about GREENHOUSE gases is a bunch of HOO-HAH ....

It is a distraction from the real problem, which is THERMAL EMISSIONS ....

Greenhouse gases might be a part of the problem, but they are not the source of the problem ....

The production and emission of heat energy is the problem, jeffmoskin ...

Converting the potential energy of oil into kinetic and thermal energy ....

So to say that nuke plants produce no greenhouse gases really is a meaningless statement when you are looking at adverse environmental impacts on a daily recurring basis from nuke plants ....

Just as getting all hung up on the spent fuel rods is a distraction, since the fuel rods are not changed every day ...

And so ...

Every time another nuke plant is brought on line, there is going to be more heat energy and water vapor introduced into the environment and atmosphere on top of what is already being put there as a surcharge by the existing plants now operating, and NOBODY is considering what those impacts are going to be ....

NOBODY!

Maybe this year, we'll get fifteen feet of snow in one fall, and maybe the NYS thruway will be closed all winter, because you can't see to drive out that way ....

That is real cost-effective, isn't it, jeffmoskin?

How are you supposed to run a business here in NYS when you can't drive during the winter, and your employees can't get to work, or back home again, and you can't ship your product or receive raw materials?

And so ...

Well, they have had some problems in France.

You believe it would be unlikely that those problems would happen in the US?

Does the NRC monitor construction closely?

Is it possible to infiltrate the NRC with Brownie types to make them less effective for the industry?

Do you think the French reactors are superior to ours because they provide for the reuse of nuclear waste?

This inquiring mind wants to know.

I'm very appreciative of your input, Livy. This data and detailed understanding of things nuclear is not something the average citizen would know or understand in depth as you do.

Very, very interesting and thought provoking.

I wonder how much of the temperature change is due to global warming and how much to the nuclear plant...

It's thought provoking if you are five feet ten inches tall in a ten foot snowfall, alright ....

The amount of horsepower in a nuclear cooling tower plume alone is staggering ....

Back in the early-1970's, when the problems with the plumes were becoming apparent, somebody tried to fly a small instrumented plane into a plume to get some real-time data ....

When the plane got to the boundary layer of the plume, it was wrenched violently upward to the point of where the airframe was actually bent ...

It was a miracle that the people on-board survived, but the plane was ruined ....

When you are down around Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and you look west, you can see a nuclear cooling tower plume and it looks like a volcano erupting ....

The original problems which spurred the research that I worked on had to do with the plumes as a hazard for aircraft, due to their opaqueness ....

Planes would have to veer around them just as they would for thunder clouds ....

And you are correct when you say that the average person is not going to have any initial comprehension of any of this ....

Because we are dealing with energy, which is essentially "invisible", it is an "out of sight, out of mind" kind of problem ...

And it is exacerbated by the fact of no public information or public reviews by the feds when they allow these changes as was the case on Lake Ontario ....

And so ...

Imagine Lake Tahoe at 83 dgrees F., Terra, and then consider that Tahoe might be considered smallish in size to Lake Ontario, and that will start to give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem as it exists now, because the water has been heated, PAST TENSE ....

And continues to be heated each and every day ....

And so ...

Lake Tahoe would not exist as we know it with temperatures of 83 degrees, period. Which means either the entire area would be snowbound almost all year long or the snow would all melt and ..

nevermind, it's not a pretty picture at all.

Out of sight, out of mind ....

Until the chickens come home to roost ....

And then it is not, any longer ....

I thought the picture would become a bit more clear to you people way out west of here if we considered siting a nuke plant or three on Lake Tahoe, using its water as cooling water for the nuke plants ....

And so ...

Well, Livy raises a valid point about the heat byproduct in the generation of electric power.

But that heat is going to be produced NO MATTER WHAT SOURCE IS USED ---

Coal will produce X megawatts and release Y million BTUs into the atmosphere plus Z million tons of CO2.

Natural gas will likewise have its contribution.

There is no heat-free lunch.

As to the 10 feet of snow on the ground, who knows whether the heating of lake Erie or the heating of the atmosphere or the CO2 or the methane from termite farts and cow manure is doing it?

It could also be the 40 year climate sub-cycles that have been known for centuries.

This planet has never ever before supported 6.5 billion people, one fifth of whom live a high-energy consumption life style, and four fifths of whom want the same thing.

Better get out your shovel, Livy.

There is no escape.

But I still think nuclear with its thermal pollution is better than the others with all three kinds.

Well, jeffmoskin, yes ....

That is the SECOND LAW of THERMODYNAMICS in action there in your words ....

FIRST LAW: You can't get something for nothing ....

SECOND LAW: You can't break even ....

No system is 100% efficient ...

Every system has losses ....

For every BTU of energy that you provide, you only get the benefit of a fraction of that BTU ...

Licensed engineers in the State of New York are required to know this before they can get an engineering license from the State of New York ....

It is a part of the engineering licensing exam up here ....

The purpose of licensing engineers in New York State, according to our laws, is to protect and safeguard life, health and property ....

As an engineer, you protect life, health and property, and not corporate profits ....

In a contest between the two, to a RESPONSIBLE engineer, profits come last ....

And you do not protect life, health and property by lying to people about the adverse impacts of this or that process ....

Nor do you protect life, health and property by covering up things, by burying facts and evidence ....

That is if you are a responsible engineer ....

But let us indeed face reality, jeffmoskin ....

We are all over 18 years of age, afterall ....

YES ....

PROFITS DO COME FIRST ....

Protection of life, health and property does not happen ...

Common people have no lobby, afterall .....

NO CLOUT!

So they don't count ....

And as you say, we have too many of them ....

So they are expendable ....

And hey!

Engineers want to be able to live in luxury, too ....

So why shouldn't they take some corporate money to tell lies and cover over things?

And so ...

jeffmoskin ...

Rain and snow are a product of what is called the HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE ....

Methane production does not cause rain or snow ...

The condensation of water vapor in the earth's atmosphere is what causes rain and snow ....

It has been that way for many centuries now, and I first studied the hydrological cycle in earth science in the 9th grade in HS, I believe it was ....

Engineers are required to know the hydrological cycle up here where I am to become qualified as I am to serve as public health engineers in NYS to apply engineering principles for the detection, evaluation, control and management of THOSE FACTORS IN THE ENVIRONMENT WHICH INFLUENCE MAN'S HEALTH .....

One of the biggest factors in the environment which influences man's/woman's health is water ....

The hydrological cycle is an engineering principle ....

It is immutable ....

Water does not simply go away, nor is water trainable ....

You cannot command water to do your bidding, for it does not lend itself to being commanded ....

Generally, as was the case in the city of Rensselaer up here recently, it is water that asserts its will on mankind ....

Water exists either as a solid, a liquid, or a gas, and it is constantly shifting back and forth between the three .....

If all of a sudden, all the water in a river is "gone", then it has to be somewhere else ....

If ice is gone, then the amount of water or water vapor has had to increase ....

And all of this is known ...

As a qualified public health engineer, if I see the rain in my area to the east of Lake Ontario steadily increasing as the water temperature of Lake Ontario is steadily being increased, thanks to the nuclear industry and the United States gummint, then I immediately suspect cause and effect based on the hydrological cycle, rather than going off on some wild goose chase to see if maybe methane from termite farts could be the culprit, instead ....

Who is trying to blame it all on termite farts, of course, to mislead people, is the nuclear industry and the federal gummint .....

PROFITS ABOVE ALL ELSE ....

The nuclear industry and the federal gummint are not in the bid-ness of protecting and safeguarding life, health and property, afterall ...

It is a capitalistic country over here ....

MONEY IS GOD ...

And we have too many people ...

So **** them if they can't afford a good lawyer and lobbyist .....

And so they have been, jeffmoskin ....

No surprise there, is it?

And so ....

Yes, jeffmoskin, I have ....

As I have said, I have seen this **** coming down the pike for a long, long time now ....

Since at least 1975 when my research got buried for the good of the nuclear industry here in America ....

You can bury facts and evidence, jeffmoskin, but burying facts and evidence does not alter reality ....

It only limits who has awareness of reality ....

I have lived here where I am since 1949 ....

I have seen the climate change greatly in that time, becoming more and more unpredictable and unstable as it goes ....

Tornados where we did not have them before ....

High winds ....

Destructive hail ....

Warming which has made it possible for destructive insects to survive the winter, so that the trees up here are being killed off by them ....

So like the third little pig in that story, I began building myself a structure that the wolf cannot easily blow down, and I am in a place that drains, so I can't readily be flooded out ....

I designed my roofs to stand a foot of ice, or about 80 poinds per square foot ....

My north facing roofs are a double layer of 3/4-inch tongue and groove exterior grade plywood that is screwed down ...

The roofs are supported by a truss structure built out of full-thick 2x6's, 2x8's and 2x10's all screwed and bolted together to make the equivalent of a monocoque structure, akin to an egg shell which does not crush easily ....

I have foot thick concrete basement walls and anchor bolts every couple of feet ....

Is that all going to be sufficient for what is yet to come?

Who really knows, jeffmoskin ...

But I am betting that I am going to be better off than somebody whose house is under five or more feet of water, or whose flimsy has been blown down by a tornado that that came up out of nowhere in a place that didn't use to have tornados ....

The one thing I can't protect against, of course, is having my crops smashed to **** by six inches of hail in August up here ....

So maybe I'll starve ....

You talk about one fifth of the people here in America who live a high-energy consumption life style, and four fifths of whom want the same thing.....

And I am in neither category, actually, jeffmoskin ....

And those people who want are going to get ....

In spades ....

That's another immutable law of science, jeffmoskin ....

What you throw up into the air above your own head is going to come back down right on top of it ....

Be sure to wear a good helmet then is my thought ....

And another immutable law of science that we country folks know is when you let a bobcat out of a bag inside a closed room, you're going to have a damn hard time of it getting it back in there, and if you do, likely you're going to be clawed and bloody ....

And so it goes, jeffmoskin ....

I hope that you are not heavily invested in any bid-nesses up here in northern NY that need to be able to operate 24/7, 365 to make a profit ....

If you are, maybe you ought to divest while the divesting is good ....

And so ...

Ah yes, the law of gravity.

Well, it seems to me that we have a very GRAVE situation here, Livy.

We have created a land of 300 million souls, most of whom REQUIRE 1000 gallons of gasoline a year just to get to the store, get to work, get their kids to school, and so forth.

I don't think it was a SMART way to design a country, and the Europeans seem to have done a much better job of it (and they need about one third the energy that we need) but you can't go back and do it differently.

IT HAS BEEN DONE.

CASE CLOSED.

Those ex-urban housing tracts that are 25 miles from the nearest gas station ARE GOING TO BE OCCUPIED. Nothing is going to change that.

So, taking off the table the option of having half our people freeze, bake, or starve to death, we are faced with how to get through the next few decades in a new era marked by diminished oil and gas reserves.

A: we must use less. Conservation is a lot more than a "personal virtue", a mindless quotation from that great shotgunner Dickhead Cheney.

B: we must find alternative sources. Wind (doesn't always blow) Solar (sun ain't out at night), hydro (we have very little un dammed canyons, and we get droughts) ALL HAVE LIMITATIONS for availability. The only one that IS ALWAYS THERE, 24/7, is NUKULAR (as George Worstpresidentever Bush pronounces it)

IT HAS BEEN DONE ....

But the case is not closed, jeffmoskin ...

The case is only just now starting to open ...

Your model assumes that everybody has unlimited financial resources ...

They don't, jeffmoskin ...

And so ...

"TVA directors to consider big rate increase - TVA directors to consider hike in quarterly charge, possibly base electricity rate increase"

Associated Press

Last updated: 1:13 p.m., Tuesday, August 19, 2008

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- Tennessee Valley Authority directors are considering budget proposals that could hike electric rates sharply for millions of consumers across the agency's seven-state region.

TVA officials said two weeks ago that a quarterly fuel adjustment charge of 10 to 20 percent, which would take effect Oct. 1, will be on the TVA board's agenda Wednesday in Knoxville.

It could be TVA's largest single hike in decades.

But directors may be weighing an increase in TVA's base rates as well for fiscal 2009.

TVA spokesman Gil Francis said both are on the agenda, "but no decision has yet been made."

The combined impact could boost TVA electric rates in the next year by nearly $2 billion and raise the average homeowner's electric bill by more than $15 a month.

TVA's last general rate increase was a 7 percent jump that took effect April 1.

Meanwhile, the agency has lowered its fluctuating quarterly charge for fuel only once since it adopted the approach in 2007.

In recent days, agency officials have been briefing major industrial customers and TVA's 159 power distributors serving some 8.8 million consumers in Tennessee and parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia.

The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that TVA officials estimate the quarterly fuel allowance will boost rates about 17 percent this fall for most customers.

The increase is in response to rising coal prices, which have more than doubled, and natural gas prices, which are up by more than 60 percent this year.

About 60 percent of TVA's electricity comes from its 11 coal-fired power plants.

Natural gas supplies small turbine plants that meet peak power demands on the system.

But even a fuel adjustment charge may not be enough.

TVA is spending more for fuel inventory and for hedge contracts to limit future fuel-rate increases, and those costs are not included in the quarterly fuel adjustments, TVA officials reportedly told their major customers.

In addition, a three-year drought has cut sharply into TVA's ability to generate cheap hydroelectric power from its 29 generating dams.

TVA is spending $3.3 million a day to buy power from other producers.

The fuel adjustment charge "is going to be fairly substantial," said Jack Simmons, president of the Tennessee Valley Public Power Association in Chattanooga, which represents TVA distributors.

"The jury is still out if there is also going to be an increase in base rates or not."

But John Van Mol, spokesman for the Nashville-based Tennessee Valley Industrial Committee, said it was clear that "the crunch on TVA and its customers is very, very tough."

------

TVA: http://www.tva.gov

AND YOU NOTICE, jeffmoskin, THAT IN THIS ARTICLE ABOVE HERE, THEY MAKE MENTION OF THE DROUGHT IN THE SOUTHEAST AFFECTING TVA'S ABILITY TO PRODUCE CHEAP HYDROELECTRIC POWER FROM ITS 29 GENERATING DAMS ....

BUT ....

MO MENTION OF THE SAME DROUGHT CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR THE NUKE PLANTS WHICH ALSO SUPPLY POWER TO THE TVA ....

SO LET'S LOOK JUST A BIT FURTHER HERE, SHALL WE ....

And so ..

"Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns"

By MITCH WEISS, Associated Press

Last updated: 12:52 p.m., Wednesday, January 23, 2008

LAKE NORMAN, N.C. -- Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.

Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn't result in blackouts.

But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region's utilities could be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies.

Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer.

"Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power.

"You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants."

He added: "This is becoming a crisis."

An Associated Press analysis of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought.

All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants' turbines.

Because of the yearlong dry spell gripping the region, the water levels on those lakes and rivers are getting close to the minimums set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Over the next several months, the water could drop below the intake pipes altogether.

Or the shallow water could become too hot under the sun to use as coolant.

"If water levels get to a certain point, we'll have to power it down or go off line," said Robert Yanity, a spokesman for South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., which operates the Summer nuclear plant outside Columbia, S.C.

Extending or lowering the intake pipes is not as simple at it sounds and wouldn't necessarily solve the problem.

The pipes are usually made of concrete, can be up to 18 feet in diameter and can extend up to a mile.

Modifications to the pipes and pump systems, and their required backups, can cost millions and take several months.

If the changes are extensive, they require an NRC review that itself can take months or longer.

Even if a quick extension were possible, the pipes can only go so low.

If they are put too close to the bottom of a drought-shrunken lake or river, they can suck up sediment, fish and other debris that could clog the system.

An estimated 3 million customers of the four commercial utilities with reactors in the drought zone get their power from nuclear energy.

Also, the quasi-governmental Tennessee Valley Authority, which sells electricity to 8.7 million people in seven states through a network of distributors, generates 30 percent of its power at nuclear plants.

While rain and some snow fell recently, water levels across the region are still well below normal.

Most of the severely affected area would need more than a foot of rain in the next three months -- an unusually large amount -- to ease the drought and relieve pressure on the nuclear plants.

And the long-term forecast calls for more dry weather.

At Progress Energy Inc., which operates four reactors in the drought zone, officials warned in November that the drought could force it to shut down its Harris reactor near Raleigh, according to documents obtained by the AP.

The water in Harris Lake stands at 218.5 feet -- just 3 1/2 feet above the limit set in the plant's license.

Lake Norman near Charlotte is down to 93.7 feet -- less than a foot above the minimum set in the license for Duke Energy Corp.'s McGuire nuclear plant.

The lake was at 98.2 feet just a year ago.

"We don't know what's going to happen in the future."

"We know we haven't gotten enough rain, so we can't rule anything out," said Duke spokeswoman Rita Sipe.

"But based on what we know now, we don't believe we'll have to shut down the plants."

During Europe's brutal 2006 heat wave, French, Spanish and German utilities were forced to shut down some of their nuclear plants and reduce power at others because of low water levels -- some for as much as a week.

If a prolonged shutdown like that were to happen in the Southeast, utilities in the region might have to buy electricity on the wholesale market, and the high costs could be passed on to customers.

"Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour," said Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with New York-based Dahlman Rose & Co.

"It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power -- especially during the summer."

At a nuclear plant, water is also used to cool the reactor core and to create the steam that drives the electricity-generating turbines.

But those are comparatively small amounts of water, circulating in what are known as closed systems -- that is, the water is constantly reused.

Water for those two purposes is not threatened by the drought.

Instead, the drought could choke off the billions of gallons of water that pass through the region's reactors every day to cool used steam.

Water sucked from lakes and rivers passes through pipes, which act as a condenser, turning the steam back into water.

The outside water never comes into direct contact with the steam or any nuclear material.

At some plants -- those with tall, Three Mile Island-style cooling towers -- a lot of the water travels up the tower and is lost to evaporation.

At other plants, almost all of the water is returned to the lake or river, though significantly hotter because of the heat absorbed from the steam.

Progress spokeswoman Julie Hahn said the Harris reactor, for example, sucks up 33 million gallons a day, with 17 million gallons lost to evaporation via its big cooling towers.

Duke's McGuire plant draws in more than 2 billion gallons a day, but most of it is pumped back to its source.

Nuclear plants are subject to restrictions on the temperature of the discharged coolant, because hot water can kill fish or plants or otherwise disrupt the environment.

Those restrictions, coupled with the drought, led to the one-day shutdown Aug. 16 of a TVA reactor at Browns Ferry in Alabama.

The water was low on the Tennessee River and had become warmer than usual under the hot sun.

By the time it had been pumped through the Browns Ferry plant, it had become hotter still -- too hot to release back into the river, according to the TVA.

So the utility shut down a reactor.

David Lochbaum, nuclear project safety director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, warned that nuclear plants are not designed to take the wear and tear of repeatedly stopping and restarting.

"Nuclear plants are best when they flatline -- when they stay up and running or shut down for long periods to refuel," Lochbaum said.

"It wears out piping, valves, motors."

Both the industry and NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said plants can shut down and restart without problems.

You assume, jeffmoskin, that mankind is the master of the earth ...

I, on the other hand, scoff at that notion ...

And so ..

Wave a magic wand and make the drought go away, jeffmoskin ....

Or maybe FROGGIE can pluck his magic twanger and make it happen ....

In the meantime ....

And so ...

The irony, jeffmoskin, if it can be called irony, is that the electric industry that you say people rely on so much is the one industry that is taking a real beating up here because of all the violent weather we now have ....

Power outages because of storms are becoming almost a weekly occurrence up here, and usually in the same areas, where the storms blow through the fiercest ....

Electric power is becoming another luxury item ....

And it is becoming very unreliable, as well ...

Of course, in your system, where everybody has unlimited financial resources ....

Well ...

And so ...

Of course I never said that.

What I said was that this country has painted itself into a corner, where the availability of CHEAP energy is a given.

What hath been a given may also become a taken.

You have enlightened me about the serious need for large bodies of cold water when fusion reactors are being discussed.

When I was a little boy, there was a car called the Crosley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosley

which got some ridiculous MPG (like 60).

There was a showroom right next to my school. I left many nose prints on the glass window.

A car whose time had not come.

Maybe now it has.

A debating point only, jeffmoskin ....

Not a personal attack ....

To an engineer trained like myself, jeffmoskin, the atmosphere is viewed and modeled as a very powerful thermodynamic engine ...

It can be very unpredictable and quite deadly ...

It is that which is going to do the taking ...

And it already is ....

And it is unforgiving, jeffmoskin ....

Especially when "provoked" to change as it has been in these last 100 years or so by the activities of mankind ...

And so ...

AND SPEAKING OF THE TVA ...

"TVA approves largest rate increase in 34 years - Tennessee Valley Authority OKs rate increase of 20 percent; largest hike in more than 30 years"

By DUNCAN MANSFIELD, Associated Press

Last updated: 4:42 p.m., Wednesday, August 20, 2008

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- The Tennessee Valley Authority on Wednesday approved its largest electric rate increase in more than 30 years, citing skyrocketing fuel costs and a three-year drought that has sharply reduced its ability to generate cheap hydroelectric power.

Directors for the nation's largest public utility adopted a 20 percent rate increase worth about $2 billion.

The increase is expected to be passed along by TVA's 159 distributors to some 8.8 million consumers in Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia.

The change will raise monthly electric bills between $15.80 and $19.80 beginning Oct. 1 for the average residential customer, based on the use of 1,320 kilowatt hours a month.

Most of the rate hike is a temporary fuel adjustment charge that varies quarterly, though TVA officials predicted the charges will continue to grow through smaller increases in the future.

A smaller portion of the hike is a base rate increase taking affect under a $12.6 billion budget adopted Wednesday.

The combined rate increase is the largest at Knoxville-based TVA since a 20.2 percent hike in 1974, and follows a 7 percent increase in April.

TVA officials said similar increases are being implemented throughout the utility industry.

"My message to the typical homeowner is the same thing to my wife," TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore said.

"And that is: prepare to live with this until something changes."

The drought has reduced the flows of rivers and the level of lakes that feed hydroelectric power plants, forcing the agency to buy expensive additional power from other producers.

The utility also has been burdened by the rising cost of coal, which supplies about 60 percent of TVA's generation mix.

The utility will spend about $4.3 billion this year on fuel and purchased power.

It expects to spend $6.3 billion next year.

TVA's distributors were resigned about the increase.

"If the cost of fuel is going up, there is not much we can do about it."

"That is just reality," said Jerry Collins, president and CEO of Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division.

But Collins, who represents TVA's biggest distributor, urged TVA directors to delay a base rate increase, especially because of the impact on the poor.

Bobby Glenn, general manager of a 300-employee Panasonic aluminum foil operation in Knoxville, told the TVA board the increases will add about $3 million to his plant's annual power bill and "threatens the very survival of our business."

TVA is anticipating flat growth in power sales next year, a reflection of the national economy.

A $2 billion capital budget next year includes more than $1 billion to build, buy or expand generating sources, including the continued construction of a second reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Tennessee -- the only reactor construction project under way in the United States.

It also includes $232 million for clean-air improvements at its coal-fired power plants.

Another $99 million next year is earmarked for energy efficiency and conservation programs.

------

On the Net:

http://www.tva.gov

It would never pass the federally imposed safety and pollution standards. My 1951 Chevrolet half ton pick-up truck gets about 32 MPG and has about none of the safety or pollution requirements just a 20 year newer truck would be required to have. Fuel tank's inside the cab so if I'm in an accident I'm guaranteed to be incinerated, straight post steering column so in a head on I'd be impaled by it. No seat beats, no crumple zones, it barely has safety glass. But the straight six 216 cubic inch 85 HP engine was built by American craftsmen to last and provide it's owner with an economical, efficient, and long lasting power plant. Pollution control? The engineers who designed that engine would a said "What's that?" Top speed is about 65 mph, downhill with a tailwind. It gets me where I want to go plenty fast enough for me. And I found out when I was deployed for hurricane Dolly, it will smoke a HumVee.

I don't know about other states, but in New York, your vehicle has to be inspected once a year, and a part of that is a tailpipe test ....

If the vehicle doesn't pass, then you can't drive it ....

That forces people into newer vehicles ...

But I would assume that jeffmoskin's Crosley would come out today with all the new safety standards in it ....

And it may have had some back then ....

I believe as jeffmoskin intimates that the car was technologically advanced for its time ...

But I had a Toyota Corolla that got over 40 mpg back in 1992 ....

I loved that little car ....

Unfortunately, the top of the block got pitted and it began leaking water into the the cylinders and the oil, and that was that ....

There is no mystery to making very fuel efficient cars ....

The Japanese have been doing it for years ....

Americans have wanted to drive these HUGE HULKING VEHICLES instead, however ....

So you get what you get ....

And so ....

And what is up with all of these petite blond women driving these HUGE vehicles that look like the QUEEN MARY on land?

Is that a COMMUNIST PLOT or something?

And so ...

They drive those land yachts because there must be problems with the roads to the mall.

And those yachts must feature a very advanced guidance system because the women have a cell phone in one hand and a starbucks in the other.

That's where I see them, too, jeffmoskin, at STARBUX ....

There is a STARBUX across from the Home Depot I go to, and invariably, in the parking lot when I go by, there is a petite blond-haired woman in one of those HUGE things ....

Do they beam up, I wonder?

Or does a ladder lower down for them to climb up and get in?

Maybe it makes them feel like the Admiral on the bridge of an aircraft carrier when they are driving one of those HUGE things ...

And so ...

Luckily, we HAVE those pollution standards. Here in LA, we have 3 times as many cars as we did in the 60s, yet the air is better now. Oh, and every so often I get behind one of those 51 Chevy classics. I can smell it for blocks.

And I'll bet your 51 Chevy only gets 32 MPG going downhill.

"Study finds new earthquake dangers for NYC"

By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press

Last updated: 4:42 p.m., Friday, August 22, 2008

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- An analysis of recent earthquake activity around New York City has found that many small faults that were believed to be inactive could contribute to a major, disastrous earthquake.

The study also finds that a line of seismic activity stretching from Stamford, Conn., to Peekskill comes within two miles of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan.

Another fault line near the plant was already known, so the findings suggest Indian Point is at an intersection of faults.

The study's authors, who work at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory in Palisades, acknowledge that the biggest earthquakes -- in the 6 or 7 magnitude range -- are rare in the New York City region.

They say a quake of magnitude 7 probably comes about every 3,400 years.

But they note that no one knows when the last one hit, and because of the population density and the concentration of buildings and financial assets, many lives and hundreds of billions of dollars are at risk.

Co-author Leonardo Seeber said in an interview that although the metropolitan area does not have a single great fault like the San Andreas fault in California, "Not having a major fault is not a reason not to worry about earthquakes."

"Instead of having a single major fault or a few major faults, we tend to have a lot of very minor and sort of subtle faults," he said.

"It's a family of faults, and that can contribute to the severity of an earthquake."

John Ebel, director of seismology at Boston College's Weston Observatory, said he agreed with the study's finding that small faults can contribute to large earthquakes.

"A quake can jump from one fault to another," he said.

The study, published in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, analyzed 383 known earthquakes over the past 330 years in or near New York City.

The biggest were three that reached magnitude 5 in 1737, 1783 and 1884.

Data on earthquakes since the early 1970s, when Lamont deployed dozens of new detectors, enabled the authors to see patterns from smaller quakes, including the magnitude 4.1 quake that was centered on Ardsley, in Westchester County, in 1985.

The report inferred from the data that there is a seismic zone, previously undetected, running from Stamford to Peekskill and intersecting with the large, well-known Ramapo fault near Indian Point.

Lynn Sykes, the lead author, said the finding means the danger of a big quake near the nuclear plants is greater that had been thought.

Sykes acknowledged in an interview with The Associated Press that he is opposed to an application from Entergy Nuclear, which owns the nuclear plant, to extend the licenses of the two reactors, but he said, "I try to keep that as independent from my work as possible."

Columbia spokesman Kevin Krajick said the study had been provided before publication to state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who argued unsuccessfully earlier this year that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should consider the new earthquake data as it decides whether to extend the licenses.

Ebel said the report's suggestion of a fault line was "a purely circumstantial, speculative argument, but while it's speculative it's within the scientific bounds of reason."

He praised the study and urged other scientists to build on it.

Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, said the plant was designed to withstand a seismic event.

He said that even if the frequency and intensity of earthquakes is greater than was believed when the plant was built, it wouldn't drastically change the outlook for plant safety.

He said the plant "may very well be among the safest places to go during a seismic event."

------

On the Net:

Seismological Society of America, http://www.seismosoc.org/

Try tens of Trillions.

Those old 100 year-old brick buildings would be ruined by even a mild quake.

Here in Kah-Lee-FAWN-Yah, all our houses are made of 2 x 4s and stucco. They shake like jello during quakes. During the 94 quake, I was sure they were going to find me in the garage buried under sheet rock and studs. That was a real "E-Ticket Ride".

In actual fact, we broke a few plates.

That was the extent of it.

And I had a TV in the bedroom that used to hiss and sputter. It did a half-gainer onto the floor. That fixed the hiss problem. It worked perfectly until we replaced it last year.

Thanks for that technical tip, jeffmoskin ....

It is known that a good swift kick can indeed fix television problems, but it is not just the kick ....

It has to be delivered with just the right degree of finesse to the right place - a kind of vectored force issue ....

That information about the half-gainer I think might be critical here ....

At least it serves to give us some added insight into how to solve TV problems ....

And these are not the kinds of solutions that you can just go out and find in a how-to-do-it kind of book ....

This is knowledge that can only come through experience ....

And so ...

By the way, you are an electrical engineer ....

What the heck is up with lead cords?

You can take a 50-foot lead cord and very carefully roll it up, and when you reach for it to use it the next time, it will be wrapped all around itself in a snag and tangle that takes an hour to unravel ....

And you can be dragging a lead cord across a perfectly smooth floor with nothing around, and it will still find something to snag on ...

Are these some kind of corrollaries to Ohm's Law or something?

And so ...

I used to be in a technical book club and while a member, I had an opportunity to pick up a book on structure design in accordance with the California earthquake code ....

I read the book through and I incorporated its thoughts and ideas into my own structure ....

One of the keys is damping the vibrations of the structure, the way shock absorbers damp the oscillatory movement of a car...

One of the things that I got from the book is that it makes a big difference what kind of waves are affecting your structure, whether horizontal or vertical or "bucking" in nature ....

You can design for both and I did, although some might say that what I did was overly redundent, which it is, by intent ....

I'm curious as to which kind of waves you get down where you are ....

The stucco on your house would allow for some damping, I would think ....

You can't build out of wood and have it be totally rigid ....

The structure is going to vibrate, you just don't want those vibrations to be destructive ...

And if the soil under you liquifies, then your whole structure could stay together as was the case in the Marina in SF, but the structure itself then sinks into the ground ...

I'm on rock ...

It would likely ring like a bell, and transmit vertical forces into my structure ....

I have pilasters incorporated into my foundation walls to help resist against that ....

Hopefully, in my lifetime, my system will never get tested ....

But why assume that it won't?

As we engineers say, don't have time to do it right, always have time to do it twice ....

And so ...

Not Ohm's law.

It is the Law of the Cussibility of Inanimate Objects.

It's taught in the 2nd year.

And it is a law because it is immutable .....

A perfectly rolled-up 50-foot electrical lead cord will have gotten itself into an unfathomable snaggle and tangle the next time you need it, just by sitting or hanging there waiting ....

And an electrical cord being pulled across a perfectly smooth floor in an otherwise empty room will still find something to snag on ....

And so ...

AND SPEAKING ABOUT THE LAW ....

"Jury: Worker covered up damage at Ohio nuke plant"

By JOHN SEEWER, Associated Press

Last updated: 2:23 p.m., Tuesday, August 26, 2008

TOLEDO, Ohio -- Jurors on Tuesday convicted a former nuclear plant engineer of hiding information from government regulators about the worst corrosion ever found at a U.S. reactor.

Prosecutors said Andrew Siemaszko and two other workers lied in 2001 so the plant along Lake Erie could delay a shutdown for a safety inspection.

Months later, inspectors found an acid leak that nearly ate through the reactor's 6-inch-thick steel cap.

Siemaszko covered up the damage to the plant's reactor vessel head and lied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal jury said.

It's not clear how close the plant, midway between Toledo and Cleveland, was to an accident.

Siemaszko faces up to five years in prison and $250,000 fines.

He was convicted on three of five counts, including concealing material information from the government.

The jury cleared him on two counts of making false statements.

Following the discovery of the leak, the NRC beefed up inspections and training and began requiring detailed records of its discussions with plant operators.

Siemaszko's attorneys said that he was being set up as a scapegoat by the plant's owner because he spoke out about safety concerns.

They will consider an appeal.

"I'm disappointed," Siemaszko said.

When asked what message the verdict sends, he said in a thick Polish accent:

"Do not go against a big company."

Defense attorney Billie Pirner Garde said nuclear workers will be less likely to raise concerns about safety.

"This makes the nuclear industry less safe," she said.

The plant's operator, Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., said Siemaszko deserved to be fired and should have caught the damage.

FirstEnergy paid a record $28 million in fines a year ago while avoiding federal charges.

It also spent $600 million making repairs and buying replacement power while the plant was closed from early 2002 until 2004.

None of the company's senior leaders were charged in the investigation.

Another former worker at the Davis-Besse plant was sentenced to three years' probation in May for concealing information from the government.

A private contractor was acquitted by the same federal jury.

Siemaszko was responsible for making sure the reactor vessel head was cleaned and inspected.

He said he was wrongly fired and that he had told supervisors the reactor needed to be cleaned.

He said managers rejected his requests.

OK -- if it can be disposed of safely ---- the questions that seem to remain involve the transpotation of hazardous waste to the site and the plants themselves...

And I guess this is where the human error factor could come in whether profit driven or otherwise.

Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Safe for 1 Million Years, EPA Claims
Waste safe from quakes, volcanoes and floods
By Robert Longley, About.com

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicalnews/a/yuccamillion.htm

Dateline: August 2005

The EPA has stated that its proposed public health standards for the high-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada will protect public health for 1 million years. Under the standards, claims EPA, people living close to the facility would not receive total radiation higher than natural levels people experience routinely in other areas of the country.

"It is an unprecedented scientific challenge to develop proposed standards today that will protect the next 25,000 generations of Americans," said EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Jeffrey Holmstead in a press release. "EPA met this challenge by using the best available scientific approaches and has issued a standard that will protect public health for a million years."

The proposed standards set a maximum dose level for the first 10,000 years, more than twice as long as recorded human history. To provide safety beyond 10,000 years to 1 million years, EPA is proposing a separate, higher dose limit based on natural background radiation levels that people currently live with in the United States. The proposed standards also require that the facility must withstand the effects of earthquakes, volcanoes and significantly increased rainfall while safely containing the waste during the 1 million-year period.

Congress authorized different federal agencies to perform different functions related to Yucca Mountain. EPA sets standards to protect human health and safety. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for implementing EPA's standards and determining if the Yucca Mountain facility can be safe enough to contain nuclear waste. The Department of Energy (DOE) owns, constructs, applies for licenses, and will operate the facility, should it be approved. The Yucca Mountain facility will be allowed to open only if it meets EPA's standards to protect human health and the environment.

To learn more about the Yucca Mountain standards, visit http//www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca or call 1-800-331-9477.

More Yucca Mountain Articles
Here are a few highlights from more than 20 years of debate on the feasibility and safety of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility:

USGS May Have Falsified Yucca Mountain Research - The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) initiated an investigation into allegations by its own employees that data used in suitability studies on the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository located in Nevada may have been falsified.

DOE Approves Nevada Nuclear Waste Site - Citing "compelling national interests," the Department of Energy decided to recommend to President Bush that construction of the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump go ahead. Nevada Gov. Guinn stated, "This decision stinks."

Nuclear Waste: Coming sooner to a cave near you? - A 1999 amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 puts Yucca Mountain on the fast track, reducing the time required for environmental assessments.

Nuclear Waste: From Both Sides Now - Can radioactive waste be shipped safely across the county through some of our most densely populated cities and towns?

Congress Gives Yucca Mountain Final Okay - Overriding Nevada's veto by a vote of 60-39, the U.S. Senate cleared the way for final licensing and construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility, located some 90 miles northwest of Las Vega

NO!! This is an issue almost every citizen in Southern Nevada will fight, it's been what we've been fighting for 10 years. And, I don't want to hear some lalala bullshit about how I'm over exaggerating. My husband worked those tunnels and that exact area for nearly 20 years. He knows them inside out, where the underwater leads and where it bubbles to the surface in Death Valley, we've been there - and his word is all I need. And this issue is what got Obama into a pissing match interview with the highly respected by all parties here locally, Jon Ralston. I originally came to this board with the "Just say NO to Yucca Mtn" signature, and it appears that's how I'll be leaving.

And should we get it, may the "safe" trains that never go off the tracks, and the trucks that never overturn zip safely by your homes.

OK -- it can not be stored safely -- I'm easy -- so the solution then would be a French type reactor which reuses the old waste...

I guess just because the government says it can be stored safely is no reason to actually believe them...where's my usual skepticism?

And leaving...please do not leave...

Nuclear surge needs waste plan
Wednesday, August 27, 2008



The bipartisan support of nuclear power expressed last week by Rep. James Clyburn and Sen. Lindsey Graham should be an indication of real movement toward a new national energy policy. In comments at a Charleston conference, both acknowledged the state's long background in nuclear power.

The state also has a long background in nuclear waste disposal, and any advance for more nuclear power production will require even more progress on waste management. Federal efforts toward safe, secure waste disposal continue to face obstruction in Congress.

S.C.'s Savannah River Site has long served as a "temporary" disposal site for high-level radioactive waste. More recently it has added tons of weapons-grade plutonium to be reprocessed for nuclear power generation. That will create additional waste by-products to be managed on site.

The continued failure of the federal government to provide a permanent repository for nuclear waste will effectively make the SRS a permanent place for disposal. That can't be allowed to happen.

The Energy Department recently concluded that waste storage needs for existing nuclear power generation will cost $96.2 billion more than anticipated, in part because of the inability to advance the Yucca Mountain (Nev.) disposal site in a timely manner. A waste solution won't come cheaply.

The most effective opponent to that project, which will provide permanent storage at a remote desert location, has been Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Sen. Reid has fought the project at every turn, and his obstructionism has been made more effective by his leadership role in the Senate.

The apparent energy accord between Rep. Clyburn, the third-ranking member of the House majority, and Sen. Graham, the state's senior senator, reflects the growing recognition that nuclear power must be part of any domestic energy solution that limits the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

A meaningful plan also will recognize that nuclear power creates nuclear waste, and will accommodate those by-products as part of the national energy solution. Increasing production capacity for nuclear power has to be accompanied by broad congressional support for the responsible management of nuclear waste.

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/aug/27...aste_plan52063/