From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:40:07 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug24.203103.24036@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
[I wrote]
>>Oil is just stored biomass, biomass is just stored solar energy, solar
>>energy is just nuclear energy, why not just cut out the middlemen?
>
>Because the 'reactor' (the sun) is convenienctly located a 'safe'
>distance from the earth (skin cancer aside ...) and any nuclear waste
>is recycled at the 'reactor'... Reactor accidents (flares) are also
>a 'safe' distance away, though I understand that towared the end
>of the 'reactor' design life some more massive failure modes ('nova')
>are projected, but this is millenia away and a new design may be
>built by then which is passively safe ;-)

Well we *think* it's a millenia away, but there *is* that pesky neutrino
problem to explain..... And the lack of shielding is causing some
problems... I don't think the builder filed an environmental impact 
statement... And I'm sure that AEC inspectors haven't been allowed
on site.... Maybe we should think about moving.

>Simply put, I'd be a strong supporter of a nuclear program that put the
>reactors on the moon or a mile or two under ground and had on site
>recycle of fuel.  The present system of surface reactors on earthquake
>faults with a small burn percentage on a once through cycle and 
>needing constant tending by human operators to prevent a screw-up
>(and 'managed' and monitored by some rather lax organizations ...)
>gives me the creeps! 

Well I don't want the reactors on the Moon, might as well use the
Sun if we're going to have to beam power through space. And I don't
think underground sites are all that much safer or nearly as convienient 
for maintenance work. I like them right out in the open inside their 
concrete domes where costs are lower and access is better. I do
support breeders and passively safe designs. And I do think putting
nuke plants on fault lines is pushing it a bit. Of course we do put
them on boats, and that seems to be working out all right, so maybe
a little shaking and rolling isn't such a problem after all.

>Show me a closed system where the 'crap' that has to be disposed of
>contains little or no remaining fuel value and is of short life (under
>400 years to less than original ore radioactivity) with on site
>recycle of fuel and put the whole thing under enough dirt that a
>well placed nuke (the bomb kind) won't scatter its guts all over
>the countryside, and I'll advocate it's immediate construction
>(provided the quality control and managment problems can be shown
>corrected as well...).

If the only reason you want to bury the plant is fear of a nuclear
war, then I'm not convinced. If the nukes start flying, we've
got lot's more serious concerns than a few power plants going splat.
I don't think recycling necessarily has to be on site either. It's
probably more economical to use one or two reprocessing plants and
ship the fuel elements back and forth. The volume isn't that great.
I do think that the current way nuclear materials are shipped is 
insane. I'd take a chapter from the ex-Soviets and use an Army convoy.

>Yes, I'm in favor of something like the liquid metal fast breeder
>reactor (hope I got the right one!) that does online fuel recycle.
>
>Yes, I'm in favor of spent fuel recycling.
>
>Yes, I'm in favor of the CONCEPT of nuclear power (especially things
>like the HTGR for process heat to make motor fuel).
>
>No, I'm not in favor of the present system of burn a few percent
>of the Uranium, make a big pile of radioactive crap, stick it in
>a hole in the ground, and do the whole works in 1960s designs
>that are built poorly (and, IMHO, often run by charlatans.)

Well, I like most of those ideas too, but current plants don't
scare me. The risks they have are less than the guaranteed ill
effects of the plants they replace. We don't have to bury the
fuel elements after a single pass. That was a political decision
by Jimmy Peanut not a commercial or technical decision by plant
builders or operators.

>So, what nuke plant meets my criterion for acceptance?  Old Sol does
>it nicely... though the need to use SPF 15 in the Summer is a pain ;-)

I don't like unshielded plants that are inaccessable for maintenance
or upgrades, no matter how passively safe their design is supposed to
be. 

I lived for four years across the street from one reactor and down
the block from another. They were run by *students* and I don't glow
in the dark. If college sophmores can run reactors without killing
me, that's safe enough.

Gary