--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "K.Feete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html
>
>This is from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, >which I
>presume is a pretty credible organization; and it was >written by a Ph.D,
>later published as a book, and contains full references and footnotes. I
>don't know what *kind* of Ph.D, but I >think it can safely qualify as
>credible.
Well, I looked at the site, and let me tell you what I found. The author
does have a Phd in physics, but I don't know from where and I don't know
what branch. From a Washington Post report that was referenced, I'm guessing
plasma physics, but that's a guess. Second, the description of the
organization on the main page was:
Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research
Where Science and Democracy Meet
and
The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) is dedicated to
increasing public involvement in and control over environmental problems
through the democratization of science
I have a problem with that idea. Do we vote on the value of Planck's
constant?
Finally they have a slam of the peer review process in the header of their
reports section:
IEER's technical work is independently reviewed prior to publication (by a
wide range of people, not just a narrow field of scientific experts).....
They don't say who the wide range of people are. I'm guessing that they
select people supportive of their cause. This doesn't lend credibility.
Indeed, it is similar to the creation research website.
Having said that, the stuff I read didn't seem wild or crazy. I think that
he made a reasonable arguement that, at 90s prices, fossil fuel plants are a
more cost effective solution to our energy needs than nuclear. But, that
does not factor in global warming. He also made a reasonable arguement that
nuclear power was hyped in the '50s and '60s.
So, on the whole, the feel of the site bothered me more than what he wrote.
But, even if you accept his arguements, one would only conclude that
conventional fossil fuel plants are cheaper. I won't argue with that.
However, I think that global warming is an important issue.
Speaking of this site, contrast it with the official sites of the
investigation of the health effects of the Chernobyl disaster that I
referenced. I hope the difference in tone and technique is obvious. I
realize that he has footnotes, but the references I give to websites are
very close to footnotes too. :-)
>
>Nuclear power *is* green, and there are a lot of regulations to make >it
>safe. However, it is silly to claim that it is perfect.
I would never call it perfect. My arguement is that it is, at present, our
best shot at balancing the need for power to promote world economic growth
and the need to preserve the environment.
>First, there is the oft-referenced problem of what happens when the
> >things *do* blow, not to mention the waste products and their nasty
> >health effects if they make it into the environment.
Chernobyl was a reasonable worst case scenario, and less than 100 people
died. If they even had a containment building, the damage would have been
far less. The environment was not as badly damaged as it was by the growth
of Houston that year.
>Waste disposal isn't just a bit risky; if done properly it's >*expensive*.
>Massively expensive.
Per ton, yes. But,there are not that many tons of nuclear fuel per plant
per year. With 3.3 billion kWh @ $0.03/ per kWh, one can generate a $100
million/year income from a plant. A few million per plant for storage for a
few tons of waste isn't that expensive, but its a lot of money spent per ton
of waste.
>There's transport, there's storage containers, there's the costs of
>monitoring... all expensive as hell.
Monitoring should be fairly cheap as a % of total income from nuclear power
plants. I've done stuff like this personally.
>Plus, nuclear power plants do not last forever- what's the figure, fifty
>years? (Memory, memory, >where are you?) Once they go out they must be
>decommissioned, which >is at *least*- if my memory serves, considerably
>*more*- as >expensive as building the things in the first place.
Well, let me do some calculating. Jeroen gave a cost that I translated into
about $80 million for decommissioning. I looked at a world list of reactors
at
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm
and obtained 1 reactor for the Netherlands, which produced 3.7 billion kwH
last year. Assuming that this is the reactor in question (or the power
output of the one in question is similar, and assuming a 30 lifetime, one
should get 100 billion kwH in total. Dividing the 80 million in cost by
this, one obtains a decommissioning cost of under $0.001 per kwH. That
actually sounds a bit low, most estimates are in the 5% range of total
costs. A website from a pro-nuclear advocacy group that discusses costs is
given at:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.htm
If these numbers are optimistic, and you can determine why, then they claim
that they will correct all known mistakes in their header. It would be
worthwhile bringing it to their and our attention, and have us monitor how
closely they comply.
I'd be curious to see as well documented an explanation of why the
decommissioning costs equal the total operating costs, particularly since a
number of reactors are in the process of being decommissioned now.
>
>Once you add up the costs- we did this in class, dammit, where are my notes
>when I need 'em?- you'll find that the cost of nuclear power, looked at
>holistically, is flat-out astronomical.
I'd like to see the professor's sources on this.
>Add this to the admittedly statistically slender chances of a goof >and I
>think you'll find that even Jeroen's solar panel system isn't that far off
>in >price.
>
According to a US solar advocacy site:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/millionroofs/breakevn.html
the price of solar power is $6-$7 per kwH. That is about 60x-70x the price
I pay for my power that comes mostly from a nuclear power plant.
>As the costs go down, the risks go up. As people stop using >expensive
>galvanized steel canisters to store wastes, or haul the >stuff to a site
>that's just a *little* bit less stable but an >awfully long way closer,
>the chances of a leak- and those serious >health risks- go up.
We've been running commercial nuclear plants in the US for about 40 years
now. Isn't that a good time frame to judge what the companies will do?
Frankly, the cost-benefits of having a storage price that is only a few
percent of total income vs. having a chance of having that income shut off
should be a no-brainer for any good capitalist.
> My position has been to at least try to listen to both sides and hope
><sigh> for cold fusion....
>
If you are talking about Ponds-Fleischmann type cold fusion instead of muon
catalyst cold fusion, then I think you have only a slightly better chance of
having your hopes fulfilled than having our power problems solved by a
perpetual motion machine of the second kind.
If you are talking about muon catalyst, then it is theoretically possible,
but devilishly tricky.
Dan M.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
