Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

nuclear energy is just as safe as anything else

nuclear energy is just as safe as anything else

our ever increasing hunger for power in general.

According to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Mineral Management Service, there are nearly 68 million acres of federal lands (onshore and off) that are part of non-producing leases as of fiscal year 2007. This is in contrast to 25.7 million acres of leased lands that are producing oil. So, there are 68 million acres of leased land on which companies aren't extracting oil, but Obama went too far when he said oil companies "haven't touched" them. As Bureau of Land Management Petroleum Engineer Bill Gewecke, who manages the onshore sites, told us, he "wouldn't say untouched, would say undeveloped."

That's because these leased lands that don't contain productive drilling operations likely are not lying idle as Obama implies. There are a lot of steps and procedures involved in setting up a productive oil well on leased land, both onshore and off. The Bureau of Land Management's Web site lists the regulatory hurdles that need to be cleared as part of the larger five-step life cycle of a well. The path to setting up an offshore drilling operation is even longer, as shown in a large flow chart developed by the MMS.

I have no issue Bill except that I don't think the assertion-

Quote:

nuclear energy is just as safe as anything else

can be equated with a scientific statement. It is an opinion. Many don't agree with it. Some think it downright dangerous. Which is a long way from "exactly right".

The costs of Chernobyl are unquantifiable.

These are matters beyond our capacity on here to meaningfully discuss.

Does the decrease in costs due to improved technology of nuclear power plants which you speak of so casually include the costs of safe decommissioning, security, insurance against accidents and relocation of people to out of the way places. The insurance liabilities are such that only the Government can carry them and thus you will end up nationalised insurance.

Wouldn't a simpler solution lie in doing something about-

Quote:

our ever increasing hunger for power in general.

?

It seems to me Bill that you are up for taking the risks of nuclear power plants to prop up a certain lifestyle and landing your children and grandchildren with the clean up costs of both worn out plant and ones which go "bump" all of a sudden.

The costs of Chernobyl are unquantifiable.

US Oil Consumption is 21,000,000 bbl/day (2004).

How long would it take to replace a significant amount of that with NPPs?

The figure also means that each American uses 0.07 bbl/day. So a baby born today living 80 years is projected to consume 0.07x 365x80 bbl. which is about 2,000 bbl. ($240,000).

A population of 300,000,000 will thus use in that 80 years about 42,000,000,000 bbls. which, at current prices will cost $ 1,260,000,000,000. (I think).

The Russian population is decreasing.

And if NPPs are "damn near perpetual motion ", they would, as the Luddites said, create mass unemployment which could only be avoided by new jobs involving the consumption of more energy. (Parkinson's Law).

None of the above yet applies to the vast majority of the babies born in the world today. They are not as privileged as American babies. But they will be required to suffer whatever the consequences are of your policies.

If that's not racist I'm the Flying Dutchman.

And I have no issues with any of it. I'm just laying out a few of the simple and more obvious facts to help you know what you are talking about. The facts have nothing to do with me and asserting I'm an arsehole does nothing to counter them. There are no magic wands.

O'Bill makes the really stupid statement that we should let the auto companies alone because the free market will make the needed corrections. Of course, that is the Bush (Rep) position with everything that has led us into the mess we are in today.

spendius wrote:
I have no issue Bill except that I don't think the assertion-

Quote:
nuclear energy is just as safe as anything else


can be equated with a scientific statement. It is an opinion. Many don't agree with it. Some think it downright dangerous. Which is a long way from "exactly right".

I accept that this is your opinion but challenge you to substantiate it. This isn't going to cut it:

spendius wrote:
The costs of Chernobyl are unquantifiable.

Chernobyl was a predictable, in fact, predicted disaster, because the facility was unsafe by design. 3 Mile Island was an example of fail-safes working. You could have stood at the fence during the whole episode, and did more damage with the cigarettes you smoked. The French get 80% of their power from Nukes. Remember when they had a great disaster? Nope... you sure don't.

spendius wrote:
These are matters beyond our capacity on here to meaningfully discuss.

Speak for yourself. Farmerman is an expert, and I'm comfortable with the amount of research I've done to play the part of the reasonably well informed lay person.

spendius wrote:
Does the decrease in costs due to improved technology of nuclear power plants which you speak of so casually include the costs of safe decommissioning, security, insurance against accidents and relocation of people to out of the way places. The insurance liabilities are such that only the Government can carry them and thus you will end up nationalised insurance.

You really need to read up on the newer technologies. In short; YES.

spendius wrote:
Wouldn't a simpler solution lie in doing something about-

Quote:
our ever increasing hunger for power in general. ?


Simpler to say perhaps. That's like saying we can reduce health care costs by living healthier lifestyles. Great thing to encourage, but that's hardly a solution.

spendius wrote:
It seems to me Bill that you are up for taking the risks of nuclear power plants to prop up a certain lifestyle and landing your children and grandchildren with the clean up costs of both worn out plant and ones which go "bump" all of a sudden.

Safe designs don't go bump; some are even walk away safe. Others are automated by design, buried in the ground. You really need to read up on this stuff to alleviate your irrational fear of Chernobyl-like accidents. That type of accident would be utterly impossible with some designs. Really.

Fearing nukes because of Chernobyl is like fearing Airplanes because some moron glued some feathers to his arms and flapped like nuts when he jumped off a building.

Advocate, modern pebble-bed reactor designs obviate the worry about meltdowns. They require intervention to keep the reaction going; in the event of a failure, the reaction stops altogether. The technology's been in place for many years. ;p

Upgrading and strengthening of plant design and equipment requirements. This includes fire protection, piping systems, auxiliary feedwater systems, containment building isolation, reliability of individual components (pressure relief valves and electrical circuit breakers), and the ability of plants to shut down automatically;Much of this technology was developed as a result of TMI.

Identifying human performance as a critical part of plant safety, revamping operator training and staffing requirements, followed by improved instrumentation and controls for operating the plant, and establishment of fitness-for-duty programs for plant workers to guard against alcohol or drug abuse(Homer Simpson need not even apply);

Improved instruction to avoid the confusing signals that plagued operations during the accident;

Enhancement of emergency preparedness to include immediate NRC notification requirements for plant events and an NRC operations center which is now staffed 24 hours a day. Drills and response plans are now tested by licensees several times a year, and state and local agencies participate in drills with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and NRC;

Establishment of a program to integrate NRC observations, findings, and conclusions about licensee performance and management effectiveness into a periodic, public report;

Regular analysis of plant performance by senior NRC managers who identify those plants needing additional regulatory attention;

Expansion of NRC's resident inspector program -- first authorized in 1977 -- whereby at least two inspectors live nearby and work exclusively at each plant in the U.S to provide daily surveillance of licensee adherence to NRC regulations;

Expansion of performance-oriented as well as safety-oriented inspections, and the use of risk assessment to identify vulnerabilities of any plant to severe accidents;

Strengthening and reorganization of enforcement as a separate office within the NRC;

The establishment of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), the industry's own "policing" group, and formation of what is now the Nuclear Energy Institute to provide a unified industry approach to generic nuclear regulatory issues, and interaction with NRC and other government agencies;

The installing of additional equipment by licensees to mitigate accident conditions, and monitor radiation levels and plant status;

Employment of major initiatives by licensees in early identification of important safety-related problems, and in collecting and assessing relevant data so lessons of experience can be shared and quickly acted upon;

Expansion of NRC's international activities to share enhanced knowledge of nuclear safety with other countries in a number of important technical areas