From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Nuclear power Re: Crime Re: Perot?
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 05:41:33 GMT

COLIN WRITES THIS:

>From howell@astrosun.TN.CORNELL.EDU Wed Aug 19 23:52:07 1992
>Subject: Re: Crime (Re: Perot ?
>Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
>In-Reply-To: <1992Aug18.180211.18389@usl.edu>
>References: <1992Aug17.190424.11850@uwm.edu> <1992Aug17.223817.17281@usl.edu> <92231.023450MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
>Organization: Cornell University Astronomy Dept., Ithaca, NY
>Cc: 
>Status: R
>
>In article <1992Aug18.180211.18389@usl.edu> you write:
>>In article <92231.023450MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
>>Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug17.223817.17281@usl.edu>,
>>>das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) says:

>>For example, some people whine about nuclear power being wasteful, cost
>>way to much.  I'd argue that those issues would not exist if it were not
>>for the 'whiners'.  See?
>
>This really isn't true (and I was a nuclear power supporter until a
>few months ago).  While safety protests have certainly increased the
>cost of nuclear power in recent years, causing plant operation delays,
>closings, and other such events, and generally helping to increase the
>costs of the industry, nuclear power really is inherently expensive.

I wouldn't call lawsuits going on for years and years, and no new
plants being made since the '70s trivial.  I HAVE heard stories
of protestors and lawsuits taking so long and adding SO SO much cost
to nuclear power plants that the whole thing is scrapped.

[...]

>A nuclear power plant is an inherently complex beast.  You have a
>fission reaction which must be carefully controlled to prevent either
>shutdown or runaway core melting.  You have two independant cooling
>systems: one transfers heat from the reactor to the primary coolant
>(giving you radioactive water), and the other transfers that heat to
>the turbines so the turbines don't become contaminated.  (Fossil-fuel
>fired plants should only need one, since there's no contamination
>risk.)  You must have some shielding and safeguards built into the
>system, since you are dealing with inherently dangerous material and
>you at least want to keep your workers healthy.  The radiation can
>even have deteriorating effects on the plant materials--high-energy
>particles can wreak havoc with the crystal structure of most metals,
>seriously weakening them over time.  All this leads to a plant which
>costs a lot more to build and run than a fossil-fuel fired plant of
>similar power output.  Mining, processing, and shipping the fuel also
>can be hazardous (and therefore costly), as is waste disposal.  Note I
>have not counted any effects of "whiners".

Commenting on your post:  are you considering the output from
nuclear reactors in considering reactors not being cost effective?
Were you indicating only that the initial costs were high?  Nuclear power
is on the whole not NEARLY as polluting as coal-burning (which is the
major electricity producer in the US).  Was that factored in the 
book you read?  Roughly, for example, _about_ 20,000 people dies or will die
as a result on the Chernobyl accident.  That was ONE case, mind you.  A one-shot.

Unless I m horrible mistaken, there are _roughly_ that same number (20K) 
who die per year due to diseases implicitly resulting from the incredible
pollution fromcoal-burning plants. (Remember, the vast majorty of US power come
from burning coal (Also, I DO center on the US in all this))  I wonder
how much the 'costs' are in terms of losing all those people every year due
to coal-burning pollution.  Was that considered in the book?  It is true that
nuclear wastes are very dangerous, but when you think of it are *trivial*
compared to coal-burning.  I've seen some pretty promising proposals
wrt disposal  of the wastes.  One is burying it mile(s) under rock.  The
only problem is getting arond the WHINERS :) of that state (Nevada) to
agree, etc.  It's a big mess in that regard.

[Colin suggests a book]

>I would not be mentioning this book if he didn't eventually argue for
>getting rid of nuclear power plants (he does not argue for getting rid
>of all the other systems mentioned, although marine transport comes
>under especially scathing criticism), but his reasons are far more
>clear and intelligent than those of most people.  They certainly led

I see it more as high-tech accidents are more hype than anything.
The news media will go on and on about disaterous high tech failures,
but hardly mention successes.  Take the Challenger accident.  Shut
down te whole shuttle program (NOT discussing the merits of manned flight)
for YEARS is plain dumb.  As it stood, very freezing weather was the problem
with the O-Rings.  Now that it is 'fixed', do you think they'd dare
take off a mission in that weather again anyway?  So what is the difference,
now?

Concerning marine transports:  how else would you propose transporting overseas?
Send automobiles by PLANE?  Operating vessels is pretty cheap, I'd imagine.
Where rail or truck won't go, or won't go easy, boats are great.

>me to change my mind on nuclear power plants.  The book, while a
>little academic (not surprising, considering the author's background)
>is nevertheless very interesting, and while you may not agree with all
>of the author's opinions, I think you'll find it enlightening.  One
>intriguing point: this book was written back in 1984, before the major
>disasters of Chernobyl, Bhopal--India (a huge chemical leak in a
>heavily populated area), and Challenger, yet all three are
>foreshadowed somewhat in the book.  This guy really knows what he's
>talking about.  (It would have been interesting to see an analysis of
>computers and computer networks in this book, as I think they would
>definitely fall under his classification of complex, tightly- coupled
>systems, although they are usually not hazardous.  But that may have
>to wait for another book.)

I VERY much disapprove of a 'trash technology' reactions to tech acccidents.
While said accidents can be quite awful (like wrt Bhopal), it isn't cause for
ridding whole chemical 'systems'.  I've heard arguements like this from 
people before, and it mostly winds up being trash, implying that we'd all
have sucha better time living without technology.  Like the AMIGA (There!
I said it! :)  ).  This author must present a convincing case, justified
or not.

>The biggest advantage of nuclear power has always been its inherent
>ability to pack a large amount of ready-to-use energy into a small
>space.  This makes it extremely useful for powering warships, for whom
>cruising range is vital, and submarines, which to be most useful must
>stay under for long periods.  It is also useful in spacecraft, both
>for satellites which need a large, long-lasting power supply but do
>not have access to the sun (as in the outer solar system), and for
>rockets which require very powerful engines.  It might have even found
>a use in long-duration aircraft flight if the shielding requirements
>hadn't posed prohibitive weight restriction.  It will always be hard
>to deal with, but for certain purposes it will be indispensable.
>Generating electric power for cities just isn't one of those purposes.

...and as it stands coal burning is now by far the largest electricity
producer in the US.  I think oil-burning (another polluter and causes
a trade deficit) make 10%.  I'm afraid I've forgotten
about muclear. Got some figures?

>If you want to know what I think will eventually be the primary power
>source for cities, I think it will be solar.  It carries no
>limitations on fuel supply or risks of greenhouse warming.  It is
>relatively cheap to build--and promises to be even cheaper with
>emerging technologies.  It requires fair amounts of land, but the
>total land area required to support the planet's needs is about the
>size of one large Western state, and that could be distributed over
>building rooftops.  It need not even be influenced much by weather, if
>you provide plenty of reserve capacity and distribute the power cells
>over a wide area.  And if you consider the entire solar system, the
>potential power available is far more than we will need or use for a
>VERY long time.

And solar is VERY EXPENSIVE.  The costs for those panels aren't cheap.  
I'm not so sure about the size of a large Western state, but there *might*
be a concern of the essientially increased albedo from the panels.  The
Earth would relatively cool.  Concerning greenhouse warming, I have YET
to see any convincing proof that it is so.  Cited examples are always
single readings, and do not take into account long term trends.  Like:
what is a GOOD temperature?  The Earth was a lot colder 500 years ago-
does that mean they were doing anything wrong compared to people living in
the years before them?  You having to take this issue into CLOSE perpective.
An increase of XX years has zero bearing on the end result, and even less
bearing on the cause or ability to curb or prevent it.

>--Colin Howell			email to howell@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
>--Cornell Astronomy Dept.	(hopefully switching to computer science)

Hey, isn't Cornell where that mega-whacko anti-nuclear Carl Sagan teaches?
:-)

NOTE SMILEY

--
Dan Stephenson das9674@usl.edu 
"Is it that Blake has a genius for leadership, or merely that *you* have a 
 genius for being led?" -Avon, from Blakes 7