LINKMEISTER: You are so correct about the crux of the issue with respect to "The New England Heat Wave." I had originally intended to post this deep in the bowels of the thread in which you made your astute one-line observation.

The people in New England are to be the first recipients of the coming home to roost of the "anti-nuclear" chickens that were set loose beginning in the sixties.

The ability of utilities to build low cost electrical capacity has effectively been stymied for years by those organizations that are loosely identified as "pro-environment/pro-nature." Touting the banner of "pro-nature," and because one of their fundamental premises is that man is not "natural" but represents instead something "unnatural," they logically must be anti-industry, anti-energy, anti-capitalist, - i.e., anti-human.

Take heed. The ever-shrinking availability of "surplus" electricity is only going to get worse - regardless of whether Y2K is a "1" or greater. Even if it became a national priority to immediately rescind the obstacles that have been erected to the building of additional generating capacity, it would take many years to complete the construction of these facilities. Facilities that would once again allow us to enjoy the comfort, convenience, and security, made available by virtually unlimited electricity. Facilities without which we shall find the cost of electricity more expensive, and with the ever-increasing intrusion of "authorities" that will be interjected between supplier and consumer, the allocation of what will have become a "scarce' resource.

To those people living in New England, I quote from Ayn Rand's epic novel Atlas Shrugged. "Brother you asked for it."

With respect

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), June 08, 1999

Answers

Dave, As one of the New England recipients, I'm not sure I quite follow your point. Are you saying that more nukes would have meant cheaper electricity?

I can agree that the regulatory scheme is *very* cumbersome here, but there are several kinds of plants here, and the issues are different.

The costs associated with the Seabrook nuclear plant in Seabrook, NH have guaranteed the folks of NH the highest utility rates in the country.

One of the problems we have in Massachusetts is the plethora of commercial-scale trash-to-energy combustion. They became popular about 15 years ago when there was a shortage of landfill capacity. It was assumed the landfill tipping fees would keep going up, so that the trash plants could become an income producer for the communities they served. My town is one of 23 towns that were suckered into that logic. We have a put-or-pay contract with the incinerator (thanks in large part to bungling by the state environmental agency!) with such extreme penalties for withdrawing, that there is no incentive to do so. Meanwhile, our tipping fees at the incinerator (in addition to hauling costs) are in the range of $100/ton and heading skyward because there isn't enough trash. It's extortion.

We are also a long ways away from the sources of the standard fuels - natural gas, coal and fuel oil. More gas pipeliens are on their way from Canada, but we are very susceptible to a distribution glitch.

And we are downwind from the high-sulfur coal-burning plants in the midwest, so it is that much more difficult to meet EPA's overall air emissions standards in New England.

Meanwhile, I don't see our recalcitrance being the entire answer. Isn't the grid supposed to even out the supply issue? Can anyone explain how those contracts work?

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 08, 1999.

BROOKS: I cannot explain how Massachusetts "contracts" function in the service to your local market. I can only suggest to you that the high cost of nuclear generating capacity is not in the least related to what the cost "ought to be." The cost of Seabrook was a direct result of the punishing impact of "legalities" made mandatory by those us of who, ostensibly, are trying to protect the us (the planet!) using the power of law/regulation. It is no accident that it was the last nuclear plant built in the U.S. No one in their right mind would put up additonal capital to attempt another. That too is no accident.

Have you ever wondered why the safest, cleanest, most efficient means of producing energy ever devised by the mind of man has been effectively ended (temporarily I might add) in this country? If you think it is because it is not safe, compare the safety record of nuclear power to that of oil, gas, coal. The same comparison can be made for cost, utility, and efficiency (a typical coal-fired plant requires a train load of coal each day to continue production. A nuclear plant of the same generating capacity could be supplied for decades with an amount of fuel less than 1/10 the volume.)

I don't know about your particular situation, but if I wished to find out the actual causal chain leading to the fact that one of the most necessary, useful, inexpensive, and beneficial products of our wonderful civilization, ELECTRICITY!, is in short supply in Massachusetts, I would likely have to look no further than the EPA and those "special interests" to whom the EPA pays homage. All done in the name of our own (MAKE THAT YOUR OWN IN THIS CASE!) good of course.

As I previously indicated, New England is first in line but make no mistake we are all in line. If there is to be "Good" to come out of the rolling brownouts that awaits those areas not able to purchase satisfactory amounts of electricity, it will be that those of us that can still do so may wake up and stop this anti-technology madness before there actually begins to be fatalities occuring because of shortages of power. I love nature as well as anyone - but PLEASE, ONLY IN CONTEXT!

If you wish to read a perspective on nuclear power that you will not likely find anywhere in the mainstream press, read "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear, by Dr. Peter Beckmann. It is available from Golem Press.

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), June 08, 1999.

Brooks - The United States is becoming a third world superstitous backwater as far as science as it relates to government goes. Junk science and emtionalism are in control, truth and honesty take a back seat to sound bites. This is most apparent in nuclear power generation. The so called environmentalists have decided that the easiest way to destroy nuclear power is through over-regulation specific to nuclear power. Example, it would be illegal to build a nuclear power plant in Grand Central Station or the Capitol building becuase the background radiation from the granite exceeds the allowed radiation for a nuclear plant. Every single coal-fired power plant in the US would have to be shut down due to excess radiation release if they were held to the same standard as nuclear power plants because every ton of coal (about 2 megawatts for one hour) has a tiny amount of radium, ytterium, etc.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), June 08, 1999.

Preach on Brother Walden! The econazis have really fouled things up. Over in France and Japan they build nuclear plants for one third the cost. Is their labor that much cheaper? No, their governments do not change the regulations half way through the construction phase. The newer designs on the drawing books are far superior to what we have today. Unfortunately we won't see them due to the neo-Luddites like Gore, Unabom, etc.

-- Joe O (ozarkjoe@yahoo.com), June 08, 1999.

a Dick Mills column which addressed the increasing demand for generation compared to output, regardless of Y2K. Go to:

http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/PP/RC/dm9830.htm

(thanks Bonny)

-- a (a@a.a), June 08, 1999.

These days it costs more to decommission a nuclear power reactor than it cost to build it. And we still have no safe place to store spent fuel.

I've never heard of a coal-fired power plant experiencing the catastrophic failures seen at Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and elsewhere in the world.

From http://cid.u nomaha.edu/~ajuska/SOC3850/nuclear.htm:

Oct. 7, 1957 A fire in the Windscale plutonium production reactor N of Liverpool, England, spread radioactive material throughout the countryside. In 1983, the British government said that 39 people probably died of cancer as a result.

1957 A chemical explosion in Kasli, USSR (now in Russia), in tanks containing nuclear waste, spread radioactive material and forced a major evacuation.

Jan. 3, 1961 An experimental reactor at a federal installation near Idaho Falls, Id., killed three workersthe only deaths in U.S. reactor operations. The plant had high radiation levels but damage was contained.

Oct. 5, 1966 A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial core meltdown at the Enrico Fermi demonstration breeder reactor near Detroit, Mich. Radiation was contained.

Jan. 21, 1969 A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, resulted in the release of a large amount of radiation into a cavern, which was then sealed.

Mar. 22, 1975 A technician checking for air leaks with a lighted candle caused a $100 million fire at the Brown's Ferry reactor in Decatur, Ala. The fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels.

Mar. 28, 1979 The worst commercial nuclear accident in the U.S. occurred as equipment failures and human mistakes led to a loss of coolant and partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island reactor in Middletown, Pa. Thousands living near the plant left the area before the 12-day crisis ended, during which time some radioactive water and gases were released.

Feb. 11, 1981 Eight workers were contaminated when over 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant leaked into the containment building of the TVA's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

Apr. 25, 1981 Some 100 workers were exposed to radioactive material during repairs of a nuclear plant at Tsuruga, Japan.

Jan. 6, 1986 A cylinder of nuclear material burst after being improperly heated at a Kerr- McGee plant at Gore, Okla. One worker died and 100 were hospitalized.

Apr. 26, 1986 In the worst accident in the history of the nuclear power industry, fires and explosions resulting from an unauthorized experiment at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant near Kiev, USSR (now in Ukraine), left at least 31 people dead in the immediate aftermath of the disaster and spread significant quantities of radioactive material over much of Europe. An estimated 135,000 people were evacuated from areas around Chernobyl, some of which were rendered uninhabitable for years. As a result of the radiation released into the atmosphere, tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths (as well as increased rates of birth defects) were expected in succeeding decades.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), June 08, 1999.

If the Pyramids of Egypt had been nuclear power generating plants, we would still have 22,000 years to go keeping them totally shielded from emitting radiation into our present living environment.

"Eco-nazis" -- you asshole. [Go ahead censor me.] GI on y2k doesn't mean you "got" much else, I guess. (It helps to have a healthy distrust of the system, but wasn't nuke power part of the system? Last time I checked, it sure was.)

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), June 09, 1999.

Excuse me Tom,

Have you ever mined coal?

How many coal workers have died from black lung and other mining accidents relative to the amount of power generated?

And Jorel:

The actual real Nazis in Germany who followed Hitler for over a decade were environmentalists.

-- nothere nothere (nothere@nothere.com), June 09, 1999.

Two things really bother me about our energy policy. The gradual environmental degradation caused by the fossil fuel plants (there are days I would prefer a big nuclear bang), and Reagan's destruction of alternative energy research to appease the big oil lobby. It made defending our oil interests in the Gulf War inevitable, when natural security should have promoted national self-reliance instead. IMO, the debate shouldn't be fossil v. nuclear because there are serious issues with both. It should be expanding non-polluting opportunities like wind and solar power to make them more affordable.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

BROOKS: First I wish to apologize to you for placing in capital letters "for your own good" in my previous reply to you. I read again the thread and was immediately struck with the awareness that it "sounded" as if I were "yelling" at you at that juncture in my post. I am sorry for that impression; it was not my intention.

Regarding your latest response. Unfortunately, we are presently stuck with all of the "pollution," logistical problems, and deaths/related safety dilemmas, associated with the burning of fossil fuel for the production of electricity. Eventually however, the anti-nuclear hysteria must eventually confront the fact that in addition to all of its other virtues - safety being foremost, nuclear power is also "clean." It is the cleanest by far of any practical source of energy currently devised.

In terms of "the oil interests." Keep in mind that interest in oil is potentially an issue of life and death for each of us individually. Without the steady supply of oil, and the products derived from it, the planet is not capable of sustaining the present population. Food, water, medicine, chemicals, and all manner of life-sustaining products come from this resource. Without it a prompt return to the eighteenth century is at hand.

In the case of solar and wind, etc, these are all fine for limited application. The fundamental problem with each of them, the problem for which the laws of physics remain the final arbiter, is that even if you were capable of extracting 100% (perfect efficiency) of the available energy in these sources, you would have to resurface/reconfigure a significant portion of the surface of the earth to obtain enough solar collectors and/or wind generators to replace the existing generating capacity - let alone provide for future growth!

TOM CAREY: As you review your list of the various incidents that you cite dating back to 1957, I wonder what the list would look like when compared to the incidents that have occurred in the mining, production, transportation, distribution, and use of coal, oil. Gas, etc. The deaths would be over six figures, perhaps seven! The deaths/damage/devastation would make the incidents you have listed seem insignificant.

Finally, as if to underscore the case that has been "engineered" against nuclear power, I will make the following point. I live along the Front Range of Colorado (+5000 feet). Because of this location, I receive on a daily basis, more radiation from the sun than I would receive were I living in close proximity to a nuclear power plant. That fact alone should give pause to anyone that, seeking to understand the facts behind the various claims made for and against nuclear power, is genuinely interested in whether or not it is a safe and beneficial source of energy. The interested person will find that this seemingly bizarre fact associated with "the radiation bogey" is but the tip of the iceberg in terms of misrepresentation, distortion, and outright lies that surround the anti-nuclear hysteria.

No source of energy, by definition is 100% safe. Nuclear power has already demonstrated, over a period of 40+ years, that it is certainly in a league by itself. Far superior in all respects to anything previously conceived.

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), June 09, 1999.

Dave Walden:

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

-- nucpwr (nucpwr@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

Dave - You're not the yelling type - I realized you were simply emphasizing my location as a token New Englander...

I agree with the non-energy needs for petroleum. Do you have any idea what percentage of consumption that represents? What I want to see is more effort to wean us off foreign oil where possible, and that to me means energy-related. At least there shouldn't be any barriers in seeing how far we could progress. The answer to limited fossil fuel was supposed to be that a radically new source of energy was discovered every 40 years or so. Cold fusion (if I am remembering that correctly) was supposed to be the next answer, but hasn't panned out that I know of.

I also agree that nuclear is clean, and that is why (as a rabid environmentalist) I generally support nuclear over fossil fuel, with huge caveats relating not only to problems of long-term disposal, but also to thermal water pollution which makes it very difficult to site these beasts.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

Dear Individual that needs to do a lot more learning before they try to scare people with boogeymen that don't exist,

Do you have any concept of relative risk what so ever? Do you understand anything about radiation and how it affects living organisms. Let's look at that little list!

"These days it costs more to decommission a nuclear power reactor than it cost to build it. And we still have no safe place to store spent fuel." If I pass a law stating that all used auto tires must be wrapped in gold leaf and put in a silver chest, tires would be expense to decommison also. Have you ever noticed that countries that are not ruled by junk science don't have the same problems that the US does? Do the laws of physics change as you pass over borders? NO they do not. Gee the French which have a higher %age of nuclear power reactor have no problem with waste disposal, because the problems of disposal are political based on ignorance rather then technical, thanks to scaremongers. If the shoe fits.....

"I've never heard of a coal-fired power plant experiencing the catastrophic failures seen at Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and elsewhere in the world." Was windscale a power plant, nope. Was Chernobyl design and built primarily as a power plant, nope. How many people died at Three Mile Island (this IS a trick question!) Zero! How many have died in the explosion at coal fired plants in the last 12 months! More than zero! Where is your outrage at that?

1957 England 39 probably died? Proof? None? If you understand hormesis (I am fairly certain you don't and probably don't even know what it means) you'ld probably know that more people's lives were extended than reduced.

A listing of incidents at places that are not power plants, as if these represented power plants?

1975 Inspecting with a candle?!? We should outlaw candles, or at least regulate and license them. Damage was monetary only. The same can not be said of house fires.

Mar. 28, 1979 The worst commercial nuclear accident in the U.S. occurred. Whoopee! and the body count is what? I can't hear you! You of course realize that a person standing downwind of the plant at the property line recieved less radiation than the nearby residents that flew to Wash. D. C. to testify of the terror and horror of the "worst commercial accident in the U.S." due to the increased exposure to radiation from flying in the plane up there.

1981 And the results? Please cross reference to the number of black lung deaths that year from coal mining.

1986 A thermal explosion. Related to temperature or related to radioactivity?

Chernobyl - Anybody that confuses a nuclear power plant with the weapons grade plutonium production plants at chernobyl in which the waste heat is used to generate electricity needs to do a lot of reading.

Life has its hazards. Real hazards are a concern, false hazards are not. Pardon my tone of this posting, but I really do get steamed at people that wish to scaremonger because basing the actions of an individual or a nation on junk science is reprehensible in that it leads directly to the loss or premature loss of life. I consider human life as a primary good and actions that diminish it to be evil.

I'll cease now because I'm so angry I'm having to type ever fifth word or so over again because of typos.

One final broadside. Learn about the amount of radiation that is daily being put into the environment from coal fired plants. Also learn about the effects of polyaromatic hydrocarbons that are released by coal fired plants. Learn about ash and fly ash problems from coal fired plants. Learn about toxins from coal fired plants that have an infinate half-life. Now to reload......

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), June 10, 1999.