Well said, Mr Jacobs. --Bob A W. Jacobs wrote: > 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 t= he >> 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= in = > 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