Byron Jeff wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:44AM -0400, W. Jacobs wrote:
>   =

> BTW I know it sounds like I'm talking about an exclusively nuclear
> infrastructure. I really don't have a problem with solar, wind, or hydro.
> But at the end of the day each present significant limitations in their
> ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of different situations.
> Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and the water don't
> flow. Use it where it's appropriate. But nuclear needs to be a part of the
> mix.
>
> BAJ
>   =


In a coal fired power plant, they burn coal. Somewhere buried in the =

cost of the every millions tons of coal, is a small addition for the =

cost of a miner that was killed in the mining process. It is regrettable =

but it exist and we, the users of electric from coal must pay for it. =

The power plant burns the coal and makes electric. At the end of the =

day, they back a truck up to a chute and load the ash. They sell the ash =

to the road department who mix salt with it and put it on the roads in =

the winter and they sell some of it to cement block people and they make =

block out of it. When the day is done, The sale of the electric and the =

ashes minus the cost of the coal and other expenses net a profit or loss =

for the power plant. If they see a loss, they will increase the cost of =

electric. And tomorrow will have a profit. This is simple. It works

In a nuclear plant, they =93burn=94 nuclear. I would think that somewhere i=
n =

the cost of every fuel exchange they have the cost of some person that =

was killed on the job. This person could be run over by a fork truck. I =

am not saying he is killed by radiation, but he is there. It is called =

an industrial accident. And again it is regrettable but it exist and we, =

the users of electric from nuclear plant must pay for it. Again, the =

power plant burns the fuel and makes electric. However in this case, no =

one hauls the ashes away. They sit in this pool awaiting reclamation. =

The spent fuel is degrades by only about 5% . That means it is 95% good =

fuel. If this spent fuel was reclaimed, it would be reused and the cost =

of reclaiming must be much cheaper than making new fuel however we do =

not do that.

We must haul the ashes. We must bring this process to a close. Until we =

do, we do not know what the cost of the electric is. Since the cost of =

hauling the ash is not figured in the cost of the electric, we do not =

know what it cost for electric. This is what I object to.

People talk about sending the ashes to Yucca Mountain. The people at =

Yucca Mountain don't want the ashes. It is their property, they have a =

right not to have it. The Yucca Mountain Repository is a government =

facility used to store spent fuel, the ashes out of a nuclear reactor. =

This is a government facility. I pay for this. I am subsidizing nuclear =

power and I do not want to.

This facility needs to be operated by a consortium of nuclear power =

plants. The cost has to be born not by the public but by the user. This =

is my objection.

We should not permit any more plants until we know what the power cost. =

We assume that nuclear power is completive with coal and wind and solar =

and all the other sources but we do not know.

Because we do not know the cost of the power from the nuclear plant, =

because it is subsidized, we think it is cheap. When we think it is =

cheap, we tend to build more. There is a problem with this strategy.

Right now, we build wind mills. They may or may not be completive. There =

is a 2 cent per kWh subside for every kWh made(I can buy electric for =

2.3 cents per kWh). It comes as a tax credit. Also in most states, the =

property tax on the wind mill is subsidized(you probably pay more for =

your house than a power company pays for a wind mill).

Because of this, all monies to be invested in alternate energy are put =

in wind mills. This deprives money for research into solar thermal, =

geothermal, or other forms of such energy. This is a shame. However, =

economically, if you have money to spend on alternate energy, you will =

get a better return on wind mills.

I can understand this subsidy to get a start, but it should be reduced =

as time go on. With wind mills, it is increased. The subsidized used to =

be 1.7 cents per kWh.

So, Haul the ashes. Find out what the true cost of the nuclear power is. =

End the subsidy. If nuclear energy is profitable, the market will do the =

rest. Only then should we permit new units.

Bill
I like geothermal. It is 24/7. It may not be endless as it cools the =

earth. It will go for a long time.

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist