Question:
Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main points are 1. Some companies buy up nuclear power plants and operate them. A few years ago, they got plants for a few percent of their value. Now they are bidding a billion dollars, still short of what the plants cost. 2. Nuclear power plants operate at 80 percent of their rated capacity over the year. Another story said 90 percent. 3. The NRC received a preliminary proposal to build a new plant, the first in many years. The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti-nuke organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate. Recently John Holdren, who had been anti-nuke, mentioned the possibility of new plants rather neutrally. He’s one of the big enviros in the academic establishment (Harvard). — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Response:
Yes, the winds they are a changin’… I can’t believe how salutary the effects of the energy crisis has been. — Doug – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > 1. Some companies buy up nuclear power plants and operate them. A few > years ago, they got plants for a few percent of their value. Now they > are bidding a billion dollars, still short of what the plants cost. > 2. Nuclear power plants operate at 80 percent of their rated capacity > over the year. Another story said 90 percent. > 3. The NRC received a preliminary proposal to build a new plant, the > first in many years. > The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of > natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti-nuke > organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate. > Recently John Holdren, who had been anti-nuke, mentioned the > possibility of new plants rather neutrally. He’s one of the big > enviros in the academic establishment (Harvard). > — > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > 1. Some companies buy up nuclear power plants and operate them. A few > years ago, they got plants for a few percent of their value. Now they > are bidding a billion dollars, still short of what the plants cost. > 2. Nuclear power plants operate at 80 percent of their rated capacity > over the year. Another story said 90 percent. > 3. The NRC received a preliminary proposal to build a new plant, the > first in many years. > The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of > natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti-nuke > organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate. > Recently John Holdren, who had been anti-nuke, mentioned the > possibility of new plants rather neutrally. He’s one of the big > enviros in the academic establishment (Harvard). > — > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Holy cow! The NRC has a preliminary proposal? Can’t be but days ’till the groundbreaking! Wayne
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > 1. Some companies buy up nuclear power plants and operate them. A few > years ago, they got plants for a few percent of their value. Now they > are bidding a billion dollars, still short of what the plants cost. > 2. Nuclear power plants operate at 80 percent of their rated capacity > over the year. Another story said 90 percent. > 3. The NRC received a preliminary proposal to build a new plant, the > first in many years. > The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of > natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti-nuke > organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate.
It’s getting harder for the people running anti-nuclear groups to soak their supporters for big wages. It must have been great in the 70s. Just say, "plutonium is dangerous, give me money" and you had a livelyhood. Something happens in some groups sometimes. The radicals get tired of the moderates & break away and form a more radical group. The moderate group doesn’t make the news with stuff like, "we feel that nuclear energy may have some health concerns," as the radicals catch the headlines with stuff like "Cassini will kill everyone! And then some!!" > Recently John Holdren, who had been anti-nuke, mentioned the > possibility of new plants rather neutrally. He’s one of the big > enviros in the academic establishment (Harvard). > — > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
Karl Johanson
Response:
Look at www.nirs.org Their last big promotion/flop was the Y2K scare. And now the German environment minister Juergen Trittin supports vitrified high level waste shipments between Germany and France, wow what a change. John Hughes – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > 1. Some companies buy up nuclear power plants and operate them. A > few > years ago, they got plants for a few percent of their value. Now > they > are bidding a billion dollars, still short of what the plants cost. > 2. Nuclear power plants operate at 80 percent of their rated capacity > over the year. Another story said 90 percent. > 3. The NRC received a preliminary proposal to build a new plant, the > first in many years. > The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of > natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti- nuke > organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate. > It’s getting harder for the people running anti-nuclear groups to soak > their supporters for big wages. It must have been great in the 70s. > Just say, "plutonium is dangerous, give me money" and you had a > livelyhood. > Something happens in some groups sometimes. The radicals get tired of > the moderates & break away and form a more radical group. The moderate > group doesn’t make the news with stuff like, "we feel that nuclear > energy may have some health concerns," as the radicals catch the > headlines with stuff like "Cassini will kill everyone! And then some!!" > Recently John Holdren, who had been anti-nuke, mentioned the > possibility of new plants rather neutrally. He’s one of the big > enviros in the academic establishment (Harvard). > — > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 > Karl Johanson
– Shutdown a nuke, kill a tree
Response:
> The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of > natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti-nuke > organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate.
The Greenhouse effect is caused mainly by the CO2 emanating from the mouth of politicians hungry for new sources of taxation!!
Response:
> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are
Nuclear power generation is limited by a shortage of fuel: "Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth’s crust, at about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant expansion of nuclear power — even the five-fold expansion widely canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile Island and (much more disturbing) at Chernobyl — would out-run readily accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known high concentration pockets that could be opened up quite quickly. Therefore, the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on course the development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion technology." [ p. 90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD; World Energy Council, 1993 ] The USA, UK, and France have all dropped their "fast-breeders" because they are "too costly and of doubtful value"! http://dieoff.com/page155.htm Do you still work for the Hudson Institute John? Jay
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > Nuclear power generation is limited by a shortage of fuel: > "Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth’s crust, at about 4 > parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant expansion of nuclear > power — even the five-fold expansion widely canvassed before the incidents > at Three Mile Island and (much more disturbing) at Chernobyl — would > out-run readily accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits > previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known > high concentration pockets that could be opened up quite quickly. Therefore, > the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on > course the development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion > technology." [ p. 90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD; World Energy Council, > 1993 ] > The USA, UK, and France have all dropped their "fast-breeders" because they > are "too costly and of doubtful value"! http://dieoff.com/page155.htm > Do you still work for the Hudson Institute John?
I have never worked at the Hudson Institute but would not be ashamed if I had. The Japanese are still developing their fast breeder, although there is no urgency, because uranium supplies are adequate for the ordinary kind. The development problems will be solved and the somewhat higher costs accepted when the need arises. These costs are much less than the current spot prices of electicity in Califoria. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Response:
> Therefore, > the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on > course the development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion > technology." [ p. 90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD; World Energy Council, > 1993 ]
And as we’ve pointed out before, Jay, this isn’t necessarily true. Among the nuclear alternatives would be thermal near-breeders based on thorium, and moderate advances in the economics of extracting uranium from sea water. Paul
Response:
Breeders aren’t needed yet because disposal of cold-war surplus HEU by mixing it with unenriched uranium has created a glut of reactor grade fuel. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are >Nuclear power generation is limited by a shortage of fuel: >"Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth’s crust, at about 4 >parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant expansion of nuclear >power — even the five-fold expansion widely canvassed before the incidents >at Three Mile Island and (much more disturbing) at Chernobyl — would >out-run readily accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits >previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known >high concentration pockets that could be opened up quite quickly. Therefore, >the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on >course the development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion >technology." [ p. 90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD; World Energy Council, >1993 ] >The USA, UK, and France have all dropped their "fast-breeders" because they >are "too costly and of doubtful value"! http://dieoff.com/page155.htm >Do you still work for the Hudson Institute John? >Jay
Response:
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > Do you still work for the Hudson Institute John? > I have never worked at the Hudson Institute but would not be ashamed > if I had.
Sorry, I later remembered it was the "Hoover Institute" that you used to do some work for. Are you still on their payroll? Jay http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/homepage/about.html About the Hoover Institution The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, is a world-renowned library and archives, and a unique center of scholarship and public policy research, committed to generating ideas that define a free society. The defining principles of individual, economic and political freedom, private enterprise, and representative government were fundamental in the vision of the Institution’s founder, Herbert Hoover. By advancing these principles through the collection of knowledge and generation of ideas, Herbert Hoover steadfastly described the Institution’s mission as contributing to the pursuits of securing and safeguarding peace, improving the human condition, and limiting government intrusion into the lives of individuals. (For Mission Statement.)
Response:
> And as we’ve pointed out before, Jay, this isn’t necessarily true. > Among the nuclear alternatives would be thermal near-breeders > based on thorium, and moderate advances in the economics of > extracting uranium from sea water.
There "would be". I leave Disneyland scenarios to Disney. When you have one up an running long enough to measure the net energy of the system, give me a call. Failing that, you are just having a wet dream. Jay [ pp. 132-135 MANKIND AT THE TURNING POINT: The Second Club of Rome Report, by Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel; E.P. Dutton, 1974 ] Assume, as the technology optimists want us to, that in one hundred years all primary energy will be nuclear. Following historical patterns, and assuming a not unlikely quadrupling of population, we will need, to satisfy world energy requirements, 3000 "nuclear parks" each consisting of, say, eight fast-breeder reactors. The eight reactors, working at 40 percent efficiency, will produce 40 million kilowatts of electricity collectively. Therefore, each of the 3000 nuclear parks will be converting primary nuclear power equivalent to 100 million kilowatts thermal. The largest nuclear reactors presently in operation convert about 1 million kilowatts (electric), but we will give progress the benefit of doubt and assume that our 24,000 worldwide reactors are capable of converting 5 million kilowatts each. In order to produce the world’s energy in one hundred years, then, we will merely have to build, in each and every year between now and then, four reactors per week! And that figure does not take into account the lifespan of nuclear reactors. If our future nuclear reactors last an average of thirty years, we shall eventually have to build about two reactors per day simply to replace those that have worn out. The implications of such a development in the Developed World will be even more pronounced, as it is shown in the case of the United States in Fig. 10.1. [ By 2025, sole reliance on nuclear power would require more than 50 major nuclear installations, on the average, in every state in the union. ] For the sake of this discussion, let us disregard whether this rate of construction is technically and organizationally feasible in view of the fact that, at present, the lead time for the construction of much smaller and simpler plants is seven to ten years. Let us also disregard the cost of about $2000 billion per year — or 60 percent of the total world output of $3400 billion — just to replace the worn-out reactors and the availability of the investment capital. We may as well also assume that we could find safe storage facilities for the discarded reactors and their irradiated accessory equipment, and also for the nuclear waste. Let us assume that technology has taken care of all these big problems, leaving us only a few trifles to deal with. In order to operate 24,000 breeder reactors, we would need to process and transport, every year, 15 million kilograms of plutonium-239, the core material of the Hiroshima atom bomb. (Only ten pounds of the element are needed to construct a bomb.*) As long as it is not inhaled or otherwise introduced into the bloodstream of human beings, plutonium-239 can be safely handled without any significant radiological hazards. But if it is inhaled, ten micrograms * of plutonium-239 is likely to cause fatal lung cancer. A ball of plutonium the size of a grapefruit contains enough poison to kill nearly all the people living today. Moreover, plutonium-239 has a radioactive life of more than 24,000 years. Obviously, with so much plutonium on hand, there will be a tremendous problem of safeguarding the nuclear parks — not one or two, but 3000 of them. And what about their location, national sovereignty, and jurisdiction? Can one country allow inadequate protection in a neighboring country, when the slightest mishap could poison adjacent lands and populations for thousands and thousands of years? And who is to decide what constitutes adequate protection, especially in the case of social turmoil, civil war, war between nations, or even only when a national leader comes down with a case of bad nerves. The lives of millions could easily be beholden to a single reckless and daring individual. [ Needless to say, we missed the "turning point". ] Jay — www.dieoff.org
Response:
> Breeders aren’t needed yet because disposal of cold-war surplus HEU by > mixing it with unenriched uranium has created a glut of reactor grade > fuel.
No one except the Russians have even debugged one! I haven’t seen any calculations to show the so-called "glut" is enough to make much difference. Have you? Jay
Response:
> There "would be". I leave Disneyland scenarios to Disney.
This kind of mental error is why you’re mostly ignored, Jay. Paul
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > > Do you still work for the Hudson Institute John? > I have never worked at the Hudson Institute but would not be ashamed > if I had. > Sorry, I later remembered it was the "Hoover Institute" that you used to do > some work for. Are you still on their payroll? > Jay > http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/homepage/about.html > About the Hoover Institution > The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, is > a world-renowned library and archives, and a unique center of scholarship > and public policy research, committed to generating ideas that define a free > society. The defining principles of individual, economic and political > freedom, private enterprise, and representative government were fundamental > in the vision of the Institution’s founder, Herbert Hoover. By advancing > these principles through the collection of knowledge and generation of > ideas, Herbert Hoover steadfastly described the Institution’s mission as > contributing to the pursuits of securing and safeguarding peace, improving > the human condition, and limiting government intrusion into the lives of > individuals. (For Mission Statement.)
I agree with the above mission statement of the Hoover Institution. However, I have never been on the payroll of the Hoover Institution either. I am a Senior Fellow by Courtesy, but this involves neither pay nor office space. I am also Professor of Electrical Engineering by Courtesy, and this doesn’t pay either. What paid my salary was being Professor of Computer Science. My main web site is http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/, and it contains my work on artificial intelligence. My web site on sustainability of material progress http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ is maintained as a public service. Fortunately, academic freedom in the United States allows faculty to express their opinions on any subject without control by the college or university. I note that Jay Hanson is obsessed with the possibility that I am paid for my work on sustainability. I got enough pay as a professor of computer science. Were this not the case, I might have applied to the Manhattan Institute for a job or asked the Hoover Institution to make me an ordinary Senior Fellow, which is a paid position. Hanson should say why his delusion that I was paid for my work on sustainability excused him from answering its arguments. But there is compensation. Now that he knows I am not paid for this work, I am confident that he now believes what I said about there being enough energy for the next billion years obtainable from breeder reactors. Now that he believes me, I trust he will abandon this dieoff nonsense. By the way, I officially retired January 1 from being professor of computer science, but I continue research in computer science. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Response:
> > Breeders aren’t needed yet because disposal of cold-war surplus HEU by > mixing it with unenriched uranium has created a glut of reactor grade > fuel. > No one except the Russians have even debugged one! I haven’t seen any > calculations to show the so-called "glut" is enough to make much difference. > Have you? > Jay
If a calculation were offered, I doubt Jay Hanson would look. I offer Jay an exercise, since he likes drawing graphs. Look up the figures and post on sci.environment a graph of the price of yellowcake, the basic uranium fuel for nuclear reactors. The last 40 years would be most informative. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Response:
Jay Hanson includes [ pp. 132-135 MANKIND AT THE TURNING POINT: The Second Club of Rome Report, by Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel; E.P. Dutton, 1974 ] Assume, as the technology optimists want us to, that in one hundred years all primary energy will be nuclear. Following historical patterns, and assuming a not unlikely quadrupling of population, we will need, to satisfy world energy requirements, 3000 "nuclear parks" each consisting of, say, eight fast-breeder reactors. The eight reactors, working at 40 percent efficiency, will produce 40 million kilowatts of electricity collectively. Therefore, each of the 3000 nuclear parks will be converting primary nuclear power equivalent to 100 million kilowatts thermal. The largest nuclear reactors presently in operation convert about 1 million kilowatts (electric), but we will give progress the benefit of doubt and assume that our 24,000 worldwide reactors are capable of converting 5 million kilowatts each. In order to produce the world’s energy in one hundred years, then, we will merely have to build, in each and every year between now and then, four reactors per week! And that figure does not take into account the lifespan of nuclear reactors. If our future nuclear reactors last an average of thirty years, we shall eventually have to build about two reactors per day simply to replace those that have worn out. The implications of such a development in the Developed World will be even more pronounced, as it is shown in the case of the United States in Fig. 10.1. [ By 2025, sole reliance on nuclear power would require more than 50 major nuclear installations, on the average, in every state in the union. ] For the sake of this discussion, let us disregard whether this rate of construction is technically and organizationally feasible in view of the fact that, at present, the lead time for the construction of much smaller and simpler plants is seven to ten years. Let us also disregard the cost of about $2000 billion per year — or 60 percent of the total world output of $3400 billion — just to replace the worn-out reactors and the availability of the investment capital. We may as well also assume that we could find safe storage facilities for the discarded reactors and their irradiated accessory equipment, and also for the nuclear waste. Let us assume that technology has taken care of all these big problems, leaving us only a few trifles to deal with. In order to operate 24,000 breeder reactors, we would need to process and transport, every year, 15 million kilograms of plutonium-239, the core material of the Hiroshima atom bomb. (Only ten pounds of the element are needed to construct a bomb.*) As long as it is not inhaled or otherwise introduced into the bloodstream of human beings, plutonium-239 can be safely handled without any significant radiological hazards. But if it is inhaled, ten micrograms * of plutonium-239 is likely to cause fatal lung cancer. A ball of plutonium the size of a grapefruit contains enough poison to kill nearly all the people living today. Moreover, plutonium-239 has a radioactive life of more than 24,000 years. Obviously, with so much plutonium on hand, there will be a tremendous problem of safeguarding the nuclear parks — not one or two, but 3000 of them. And what about their location, national sovereignty, and jurisdiction? Can one country allow inadequate protection in a neighboring country, when the slightest mishap could poison adjacent lands and populations for thousands and thousands of years? And who is to decide what constitutes adequate protection, especially in the case of social turmoil, civil war, war between nations, or even only when a national leader comes down with a case of bad nerves. The lives of millions could easily be beholden to a single reckless and daring individual. That was what the Club of Rome said in 1974. The last time I looked it had turned pro-nuclear. Its web site even had a link to my http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html. [ Needless to say, we missed the "turning point". ] Jay — www.dieoff.org No. And we have disappointed Jay by not starting to die off either. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Response:
> > Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > Nuclear power generation is limited by a shortage of fuel:
No, it isn’t. > "Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth’s crust, at about 4 > parts per million on average.
No, 4 ppm in granite, 1.4 ppm in earth’s crust. "Uranium is ubiquitous on the earth. "It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea. Some typical concentrations are: (ppm = parts per million) . High-grade orebody 2% U, 20,000 ppm U Low-grade orebody 0.1% U, 1,000 ppm U Granite 4 ppm U Sedimentary rock 2 ppm U Average in earth’s continental crust 1.4 ppm U Seawater 0.003 ppm U "An orebody is, by definition, an occurrence of mineralisation from which the metal is economically recoverable. It is therefore relative to both costs of extraction and market prices. "Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up. A doubling of price from present contract levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources. http://www.uic.com.au/ne3.htm#3.3 > Therefore, a significant expansion of nuclear > power — even the five-fold expansion widely canvassed before the incidents > at Three Mile Island and (much more disturbing) at Chernobyl — would > out-run readily accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits > previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known > high concentration pockets that could be opened up quite quickly.
Among others. "Neutron efficient reactors, such as CANDU, are capable of operating on a thorium fuel cycle, once they are started using a fissile material such as U-235 or Pu-239. Then the thorium (Th-232) captures a neutron in the reactor to become fissile uranium (U-233), which continues the reaction. Thorium is about three times as abundant in the earth’s crust as uranium. http://www.uic.com.au/ne3.htm#3.3 > Therefore, > the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on > course the development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion > technology." [ p. 90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD; World Energy Council, > 1993 ] > The USA, UK, and France have all dropped their "fast-breeders" because they > are "too costly and of doubtful value"! http://dieoff.com/page155.htm
Too costly at current uranium prices. Too costly at double current uranium prices? Doubtful. The failure to achieve a five-fold expansion of nuclear power world-wide would be too costly and of doubtful value: environmental impact, immiseration of the poor, dieoff, and all that, you know. Aloha, -dl — * Replace "never.spam" with "dlibby" to reply by e-mail *
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And as we’ve pointed out before, Jay, this isn’t necessarily true. > Among the nuclear alternatives would be thermal near-breeders > based on thorium, and moderate advances in the economics of > extracting uranium from sea water. > There "would be". I leave Disneyland scenarios to Disney. When you have > one up an running long enough to measure the net energy of the system, give > me a call. Failing that, you are just having a wet dream. > Jay > [ pp. 132-135 MANKIND AT THE TURNING POINT: The Second Club of Rome Report, > by Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel; E.P. Dutton, 1974 ] > Assume, as the technology optimists want us to, that in one hundred > years all primary energy will be nuclear. Following historical patterns, and > assuming a not unlikely quadrupling of population, we will need, to satisfy > world energy requirements, 3000 "nuclear parks" each consisting of, say, > eight fast-breeder reactors. The eight reactors, working at 40 percent > efficiency, will produce 40 million kilowatts of electricity collectively. > Therefore, each of the 3000 nuclear parks will be converting primary nuclear > power equivalent to 100 million kilowatts thermal. The largest nuclear > reactors presently in operation convert about 1 million kilowatts > (electric), but we will give progress the benefit of doubt and assume that > our 24,000 worldwide reactors are capable of converting 5 million kilowatts > each. In order to produce the world’s energy in one hundred years, then, we > will merely have to build, in each and every year between now and then, four > reactors per week! And that figure does not take into account the lifespan > of nuclear reactors. If our future nuclear reactors last an average of > thirty years, we shall eventually have to build about two reactors per day > simply to replace those that have worn out. The implications of such a > development in the Developed World will be even more pronounced, as it is > shown in the case of the United States in Fig. 10.1. [ By 2025, sole > reliance on nuclear power would require more than 50 major nuclear > installations, on the average, in every state in the union. ] > For the sake of this discussion, let us disregard whether this rate of > construction is technically and organizationally feasible in view of the > fact that, at present, the lead time for the construction of much smaller > and simpler plants is seven to ten years. Let us also disregard the cost of > about $2000 billion per year — or 60 percent of the total world output of > $3400 billion — just to replace the worn-out reactors and the availability > of the investment capital. We may as well also assume that we could find > safe storage facilities for the discarded reactors and their irradiated > accessory equipment, and also for the nuclear waste. Let us assume that > technology has taken care of all these big problems, leaving us only a few > trifles to deal with. > In order to operate 24,000 breeder reactors, we would need to process > and transport, every year, 15 million kilograms of plutonium-239, the core > material of the Hiroshima atom bomb. (Only ten pounds of the element are > needed to construct a bomb.*) As long as it is not inhaled or otherwise > introduced into the bloodstream of human beings, plutonium-239 can be safely > handled without any significant radiological hazards. But if it is inhaled, > ten micrograms * of plutonium-239 is likely to cause fatal lung cancer. A > ball of plutonium the size of a grapefruit contains enough poison to kill > nearly all the people living today. Moreover, plutonium-239 has a > radioactive life of more than 24,000 years. Obviously, with so much > plutonium on hand, there will be a tremendous problem of safeguarding the > nuclear parks — not one or two, but 3000 of them. And what about their > location, national sovereignty, and jurisdiction? Can one country allow > inadequate protection in a neighboring country, when the slightest mishap > could poison adjacent lands and populations for thousands and thousands of > years? And who is to decide what constitutes adequate protection, especially > in the case of social turmoil, civil war, war between nations, or even only > when a national leader comes down with a case of bad nerves. The lives of > millions could easily be beholden to a single reckless and daring > individual. > [ Needless to say, we missed the "turning point". ] > Jay — www.dieoff.org
Thankyou Jay for a lucid expos