The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?

Jürgen Exner wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In the last 40 years, if we had spent the money that went to avoiding
nuclear energy, into reclaiming nuclear waste we would not have an
energy problem today and have an nearly inexhaustible amount of energy.

If we had started research and investing in renewable energies 40 years
ago and had spent all that money that went into trying to make nuclear
energy save on renewable energy development instead, then we would not
have an energy problem today and would have an unlimited, inexhaustable
amount of energy.

BZZZZZZTTTTTT.

Next player please.

On 10/13/09 16:37 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using
nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a
century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision.

I suggest you read up on US military nuclear safety. They've had some
doozies.


That's 'duesy.' After Duesenberg.



US Navy nukes are relatively small and used well below peak power output
most of the time. They have a fairly benign life. The safety culture in
the US Navy is highly reputed, no doubt this contributes to their
overall excellent record.


Then maybe we should take that lesson.


Civilian nuke baseload power gen runs at near peak for as long as the
fuel cycle will permit.

Comparing US Navy ship/sub reactors to civilian baseload generation is a
non starter.



Yes. Because one is civilian working at or near peak, and lowest
bidder construction that has, in one case failed before reaching
full deployment, and the other is military working within safety
margins, with a culture of safety operation.

Comparing the two might reveal precisely why civilian nuclear
energy has gone so wrong.


By all means, a non-starter.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/13/09 16:37 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using
nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a
century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision.

I suggest you read up on US military nuclear safety. They've had some
doozies.


That's 'duesy.' After Duesenberg.



US Navy nukes are relatively small and used well below peak power output
most of the time. They have a fairly benign life. The safety culture in
the US Navy is highly reputed, no doubt this contributes to their
overall excellent record.


Then maybe we should take that lesson.

You can only to a degree because naval ship/sub operations have limited
application to civil baseload gen, but as I say below...



Civilian nuke baseload power gen runs at near peak for as long as the
fuel cycle will permit.

Comparing US Navy ship/sub reactors to civilian baseload generation is a
non starter.



Yes. Because one is civilian working at or near peak, and lowest
bidder construction that has, in one case failed before reaching full
deployment, and the other is military working within safety margins,
with a culture of safety operation.

Over generalized. Point is that civil power gen is economical WHEN the
reactor is operated at peak load. Time is money. Nuke fuel is dirt
cheap. The monster capital investment of power gen nuke is a TIME to
recover investment problem. So: peak operations.

There are more deaths per energy-unit in US oil, gas and coal operations
than in nuclear operations.

Comparing the two might reveal precisely why civilian nuclear energy
has gone so wrong.

You are so wrong as to laugh at. 104 US nuke plants show how well it
has done in the first half century of operation. New designs,
materials, systems, procedures, training, etc. are only making
refurbished facilities better and new facilities better still.

On 10/13/09 17:17 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/13/09 16:37 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using
nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a
century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision.

I suggest you read up on US military nuclear safety. They've had some
doozies.


That's 'duesy.' After Duesenberg.



US Navy nukes are relatively small and used well below peak power output
most of the time. They have a fairly benign life. The safety culture in
the US Navy is highly reputed, no doubt this contributes to their
overall excellent record.


Then maybe we should take that lesson.

You can only to a degree because naval ship/sub operations have limited
application to civil baseload gen, but as I say below...



Civilian nuke baseload power gen runs at near peak for as long as the
fuel cycle will permit.

Comparing US Navy ship/sub reactors to civilian baseload generation is a
non starter.



Yes. Because one is civilian working at or near peak, and lowest
bidder construction that has, in one case failed before reaching full
deployment, and the other is military working within safety margins,
with a culture of safety operation.

Over generalized. Point is that civil power gen is economical WHEN the
reactor is operated at peak load. Time is money. Nuke fuel is dirt
cheap. The monster capital investment of power gen nuke is a TIME to
recover investment problem. So: peak operations.

There are more deaths per energy-unit in US oil, gas and coal operations
than in nuclear operations.

Comparing the two might reveal precisely why civilian nuclear energy
has gone so wrong.

You are so wrong as to laugh at.

But then, you're a pompous bigoted ass. So pardon me for not
being offended.


104 US nuke plants show how well it has
done in the first half century of operation. New designs, materials,
systems, procedures, training, etc. are only making refurbished
facilities better and new facilities better still.


And when does this come on-line? Nuclear is stalled in the US due
to the blizzard of misinformation, and bad press of a couple of
accidents. Nuclear isn't even on the administration's agenda.

If the Navy can do it well, and civilian has a bad rep, then
there is a lesson to take. Profit and investment recovery aside.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/13/09 17:17 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/13/09 16:37 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using
nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a
century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision.

I suggest you read up on US military nuclear safety. They've had some
doozies.


That's 'duesy.' After Duesenberg.



US Navy nukes are relatively small and used well below peak power
output
most of the time. They have a fairly benign life. The safety culture in
the US Navy is highly reputed, no doubt this contributes to their
overall excellent record.


Then maybe we should take that lesson.

You can only to a degree because naval ship/sub operations have limited
application to civil baseload gen, but as I say below...



Civilian nuke baseload power gen runs at near peak for as long as the
fuel cycle will permit.

Comparing US Navy ship/sub reactors to civilian baseload generation
is a
non starter.



Yes. Because one is civilian working at or near peak, and lowest
bidder construction that has, in one case failed before reaching full
deployment, and the other is military working within safety margins,
with a culture of safety operation.

Over generalized. Point is that civil power gen is economical WHEN the
reactor is operated at peak load. Time is money. Nuke fuel is dirt
cheap. The monster capital investment of power gen nuke is a TIME to
recover investment problem. So: peak operations.

There are more deaths per energy-unit in US oil, gas and coal operations
than in nuclear operations.

Comparing the two might reveal precisely why civilian nuclear energy
has gone so wrong.

You are so wrong as to laugh at.

But then, you're a pompous bigoted ass. So pardon me for not being
offended.

Since you've been flying IFR on this issue with a VFR license, it's not
my fault you're plain wrong.


104 US nuke plants show how well it has
done in the first half century of operation. New designs, materials,
systems, procedures, training, etc. are only making refurbished
facilities better and new facilities better still.


And when does this come on-line? Nuclear is stalled in the US due to
the blizzard of misinformation, and bad press of a couple of accidents.
Nuclear isn't even on the administration's agenda.

License applications are up (26 reactors in queue) in the US and most
applications will go ahead with the first reactors expected on line ca
2018. Some of these will have federal loan guarantees.

So you're wrong about stalled. And you're wrong about policy.



If the Navy can do it well, and civilian has a bad rep, then there is
a lesson to take. Profit and investment recovery aside.

Civilian only has a bad rep from the nuke-naysayers.

Please do some reading.

Really.

Alan Browne wrote:
Civilian only has a bad rep from the nuke-naysayers.

Then I suppose it was the nuke-naysayers who blew up Tschernobyl, caused
Three Mile Island, Sellafield, Kyschtym, and the dozens of other
incidents where radioactivity escaped into the environment, sometimes
prompting large-scale evacuations and very often long-term
contaminations.

jue

Jürgen Exner wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Civilian only has a bad rep from the nuke-naysayers.

Then I suppose it was the nuke-naysayers who blew up Tschernobyl, caused
Three Mile Island, Sellafield, Kyschtym, and the dozens of other
incidents where radioactivity escaped into the environment, sometimes
prompting large-scale evacuations and very often long-term
contaminations.

And what would one say about:

Coal: 100,000+ dead over the last 200 years in mines alone. Never mind
deaths from pollution, coal dust explosions and effects from metals like
mercury and ... wait for it ... URANIUM released into the atmosphere by
coal burning plants. Much more than all nuke facilities together.

Oil: Hmm, hard to put a death number on this one ... but easily
10,000+ in the last hundred years for accidents and so on. Not to
mention those dead for wars over oil and the pollution released.

Natural gas... an order of magnitude less than oil, I would guess.

As to Three Mile Island, that is blown way out of proportion and
resulted in no deaths.

Chernobyl was not built by Western engineers. 1) The Russians did not
believe in containment buildings. 2) The shift responsible for the
reactor explosion (non-nuclear) were running a procedure that was
supposed to be done by the prior shift. They were not supposed to try
that procedure.

Really. Read. Lots.

On 10/13/09 17:40 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/13/09 17:17 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/13/09 16:37 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using
nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a
century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision.

I suggest you read up on US military nuclear safety. They've had some
doozies.


That's 'duesy.' After Duesenberg.



US Navy nukes are relatively small and used well below peak power
output
most of the time. They have a fairly benign life. The safety
culture in
the US Navy is highly reputed, no doubt this contributes to their
overall excellent record.


Then maybe we should take that lesson.

You can only to a degree because naval ship/sub operations have limited
application to civil baseload gen, but as I say below...



Civilian nuke baseload power gen runs at near peak for as long as the
fuel cycle will permit.

Comparing US Navy ship/sub reactors to civilian baseload generation
is a
non starter.



Yes. Because one is civilian working at or near peak, and lowest
bidder construction that has, in one case failed before reaching full
deployment, and the other is military working within safety margins,
with a culture of safety operation.

Over generalized. Point is that civil power gen is economical WHEN the
reactor is operated at peak load. Time is money. Nuke fuel is dirt
cheap. The monster capital investment of power gen nuke is a TIME to
recover investment problem. So: peak operations.

There are more deaths per energy-unit in US oil, gas and coal operations
than in nuclear operations.

Comparing the two might reveal precisely why civilian nuclear energy
has gone so wrong.

You are so wrong as to laugh at.

But then, you're a pompous bigoted ass. So pardon me for not being
offended.

Since you've been flying IFR on this issue with a VFR license, it's not
my fault you're plain wrong.



I may be flying with an VFR license, but I can get an SVFR
clearance where you can't.



104 US nuke plants show how well it has
done in the first half century of operation. New designs, materials,
systems, procedures, training, etc. are only making refurbished
facilities better and new facilities better still.


And when does this come on-line? Nuclear is stalled in the US due to
the blizzard of misinformation, and bad press of a couple of
accidents. Nuclear isn't even on the administration's agenda.

License applications are up (26 reactors in queue) in the US and most
applications will go ahead with the first reactors expected on line ca
2018. Some of these will have federal loan guarantees.

So you're wrong about stalled. And you're wrong about policy.


I"m going to have to see that.

Our state reps and our Congressional representatives have all
declared that they will opposed implentation of any new nuclear
facilities. Period. I've heard this not only in Illinois, but
Missouri, New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Activist groups are
interfering with process, and the lawsuits to stop nuclear
implementation are real.

Meanwhile, Dresden 1 has been closed since '78. Zion was last
operational in 1997. In all, 23 plants have been closed nationwide.
63 have been cancelled. Meanwhile prices for electric service skyrocket.

Consider also, that Illinois has enacted legislation prohibiting
transmission companies from buying energy outside of specified
proportions from sources including gas, oil, coal and nuclear.
Exelon, the primary generating company in the state, owns most of
the nuclear plants, but is prohibited from selling their nuclear
generated electricity to Edison, the transmission company, in
sufficient quantities to reduce electric rates. Edison may not
purchase but a specified percentage of nuclear from Exelon (between
10 and 20%), but must purchase the bulk of its operating supplies of
energy from coal, oil and gas generation in specified proportions.

That, Mr Browne, would be stalled. And it would be stalled as a
matter of policy.






If the Navy can do it well, and civilian has a bad rep, then there is
a lesson to take. Profit and investment recovery aside.

Civilian only has a bad rep from the nuke-naysayers.


Ya THINK?




Again, if the Navy can do it, and we can't, we need to take that
lesson.

Overcoming the obstacles, the policies, and the bad reputation
becomes a matter of ancillary process once it's shown how the
situations creating concern can be practically and replicably avoided.

On 10/13/09 18:06 , Alan Browne wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Civilian only has a bad rep from the nuke-naysayers.

Then I suppose it was the nuke-naysayers who blew up Tschernobyl, caused
Three Mile Island, Sellafield, Kyschtym, and the dozens of other
incidents where radioactivity escaped into the environment, sometimes
prompting large-scale evacuations and very often long-term
contaminations.

And what would one say about:

Coal: 100,000+ dead over the last 200 years in mines alone. Never mind
deaths from pollution, coal dust explosions and effects from metals like
mercury and ... wait for it ... URANIUM released into the atmosphere by
coal burning plants. Much more than all nuke facilities together.

Oil: Hmm, hard to put a death number on this one ... but easily 10,000+
in the last hundred years for accidents and so on. Not to mention those
dead for wars over oil and the pollution released.

Natural gas... an order of magnitude less than oil, I would guess.





All of which are true, but besides the point of the discussion at
hand.




As to Three Mile Island, that is blown way out of proportion and
resulted in no deaths.


You know it. I know it. Nuclear proponents know it. Engineers
know it. Even the producers of the NPR documentaries advocating the
abandonment of nuclear energy know it. What's more, 3 Mile Island
actually HAD a core melt down. 8 feet of the core...gone. And yet,
the process was stopped because procedures and systems in place
worked. There was a nuclear accident. But not a nuclear disaster.
The systems worked. As they were intended to.

Nonetheless, between the inanity of "The China Syndrome" which is
STILL quoted in testimony before Congress in nuclear issues, and the
frenetic press about 3 Mile Island--over which I left a radio
station, btw--there is still more hysteria in the public mind about
nuclear, than there is fact.

And that creates obstacles which persist today in reestablishing
nuclear as a viable alternative to current generation methods. As I
said at the beginning, if the French can do it, we may want to their
methocs.

If the Navy can do it, with, by your own admission, an excellent
safety record, then there is a lesson for civilian power generators.

Take the lesson. Instead of presiding over the kingdom of 'It
Can't Be Done..'

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/13/09 16:37 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using
nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a
century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision.

I suggest you read up on US military nuclear safety. They've had some
doozies.


That's 'duesy.' After Duesenberg.



US Navy nukes are relatively small and used well below peak power
output most of the time. They have a fairly benign life. The safety
culture in the US Navy is highly reputed, no doubt this contributes
to their overall excellent record.


Then maybe we should take that lesson.


Civilian nuke baseload power gen runs at near peak for as long as the
fuel cycle will permit.

Comparing US Navy ship/sub reactors to civilian baseload generation
is a non starter.



Yes. Because one is civilian working at or near peak, and lowest
bidder construction that has, in one case failed before reaching
full deployment, and the other is military working within safety
margins, with a culture of safety operation.

If you think that the Navy doesn't buy from the lowest bidder you've never
bid a Navy contract.

Working "at or near peak" doesn't make any real difference in the safety of
a reactor you know. It just sits there and generates heat.

Comparing the two might reveal precisely why civilian nuclear
energy has gone so wrong.


By all means, a non-starter.

The only way that civilian nuclear power has "gone so wrong" is by letting
the ecoloons delay plant starts to the point that it's not cost effective to
build them anymore.