Re: Apprenticeship for our Future

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:09:17 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:30:58 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, F.
George McDuffee <gmcduffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> quickly quoth:
<snip>
For the first time in history, humans can produce more food than
they can eat (or at least is good for them to eat -- i.e. problem
obesity), more clothes than they can wear, more health care than
they can use, etc. etc. So what do we have? The Samo-Samo of
increasing numbers of starving, sick and naked people, falling
standards of living for the vast majority, and obscenely
increasing fortunes for the very few.

Can you say "politics"? I knew you could.
Which more or less terminates the discussion about a "land of
milk and honey" based on nano- and replicator technology....


Nuclear power encapsulates this problem. The technology is here,
the demand is here, but the infrastructure and more importantly
the culture to use the technology to safely meet the demand was
marginal in the 1950s/1960s, and today no longer exists.

You do't think so? The French use 80% nuke power, EU 50%. We have over
100 NPPs (nuke power plants) here in the USA. Time between accidents
mesure in the thousands of man years. What's not safe? Gov't
employees, perhaps? We need to let power generation go into the public
arena (with oversight.)
My Bad. Should have stressed *DOMESTIC* US capacity/capability.



<snip>
A review of the news over the last few years indicates that the
U.S. no longer has the capability to manage complex or intricate
operations that produce a concrete, measurable good or service in
the long term, nor can they adhere to commonly accepted standards
of safety, decency and utility. Examples are recent refinery
explosions, train derailments, airline bankruptcies, and the
impending bankruptcy of GM and Ford.

A review of the news over the last few years indicates what? Do you
believe everything you read from them? I thought not.
No but I know people that worked in two of the refineries.

Indeed, the record of financial firms dealing in abstractions
such as derivatives and futures such as Enron, Tyco, Global
Crossing, WorldCom, the use post-dated stock options, and the
collusion of the mutual funds in "late trading" with favored
hedge funds indicates serious, even critical moral and morale, as
well as competency problems with all sectors and levels of
American management.

Yes, things do point in that nasty direction, don't they?


In a perfect world, we would have long ago phased-out the use of
carbon fuels for large-scale power generation. Nuclear power
plants could have been constructed 2,000 (or more) feet
underground eliminating the need for a containment vessel that is
a major portion of the costs. Deep underground plants are
extremely secure, and if everything does turn to dodo, you simply
start backing up the RediMix trucks and filling up the hole. On

...Hoping that it seals and cures before the core meltdown? <g>


site fuel reprocessing eliminates the waste storage problem and
any need to transport highly radioactive materials. It also
greatly reduces the need for additional uranium mining and
processing. From numbers I have seen, the U.S. currently has at
least a 100 years supply of Uranium, allowing for increases in
power demand.

True, but I've heard that it's cheaper to use new than to reprocess.
Hmmm...
Problem here is cheaper for who, and "cost externalization"
[shifting costs from the electricity producers to the tax
payers]. When considered on an aggregate life-cycle basis,
on-site reprocessing is much cheaper. There is also the factor
of relative independence as in not having to buy additional
uranium from foreign sources.


Short of a revolution with large numbers of executions, this will
never occur. Too many powerful people are getting too rich from
the present arrangements, and entire industries have grown up
such as pollution control for the coal-fired plants. Railroads
would take a big hit if the massive quantities of coal were no
longer transported, but rather were converted to synthetic
petroleum using the Sasoil [or other] process for petrochemical
feed stocks, and especially low sulfur diesel fuel. The
railroads are close to maximum capacity, and their management,
the bankers, the freight car builders, etc. are all "licking
their chops" but large-scale implementation of nuclear power
would eliminate this need, further augmenting the constituency
against nuclear power.

Yeah, without a revolution, it's a bummer scenario.


Other problems include:

(1) The almost irresistible impulse of American management to
build "bigger and better bespoke" plants, no two of which are the
same, thus eliminating any "economies of scale" in construction
or training, and preventing evolutionary improvement. This
included not only the nuclear components but also the
turbines/generators. [See "Big Alice" for one example of this
particular disaster.]

The trend is for smaller nuke plants which also reduces our chance
that Tangoes could shut down an entire coast with a few well placed
grenades. <g> Eliminate the need for thousands of extra power
transmission lines and you reduce a lot of costs & vulnerabilities.


(2) The infiltration of corporate America, particularly the
construction industry, by organized crime, with the resulting
pay-offs, shoddy workmanship and sub-standard materials, and
compromised/intimidated inspectors.

This has been going on for decades, I fear.


(3) Even if the plants were turned over to the operating
companies in perfect condition, American management is innately
unable to follow through on its commitments, even those directly
impacting life and limb. Recent examples are the refinery
explosions, train derailments, and aircraft crashes, all directly
traceable to "deferred" [that is not performed] maintenance
and/or inspections because of short-run cost savings.

That needs to be changed NOW.
No argument but *HOW*?


(4) American management is unwilling to pay adequate wages,
enough staffing, and provide satisfactory working conditions to
attract and keep the caliber of personnel required for safe
operation of nuclear plants. The resulting rotating shifts used

Are you out of your freaking mind? Nuke wages are about double that of
any other industry, with high-risk jobs (jumpers, as a friend was) at
triple or better.
How does the pay/hours compare with the air line pilots and who
has the bigger potential for disaster? Does federal licensure
exist? Mandatory physical and psychological testing on an annual
or semi-annual basis? Most importantly minimum rest requirements
before going on duty?


to minimize labor costs are another area of concern as this
seriously impacts the employee's family/social life, and is a
major contributor to accidents because of sleep disturbances.
Several serious "events" at U.S. nuclear plants, as well as

Which events?


recent rails crashes, one of which released a large amount of
toxic material [chlorine] were traced directly to "sleep
deprivation." It was only by the "grace of god," that major
disaster did not result, such as the rail incident occurring in a
rural area with good communications and roads that allowed prompt
evacuation. In a constricted urban environment, such a release
would have resulted in hundreds if not thousands of casualties,
possibly dwarfing Bhopal.

Unca G, you're sounding a whole lot like a liberal scaremonger here.
If one plays "Russian roulette" long enough they are bound to
take one in the head. My objection is when they finely take "one
in the head," they take out everybody 10 miles downwind. Indeed,
in this context, the person responsible will most likely be
setting in an office 500 miles away from the carnage.


Now that we have destroyed our domestic construction industry,
perhaps we can hire the French to build and safely operate our
nuclear plants for us. We have had to hire the Arabs to run our
ports?.

That's good bait, but I'll pass on it. <g>

Unka George
(George McDuffee)

There is something to be said for government by a great aristocracy
which has furnished leaders to the nation in peace and war for generations;
even a democrat like myself must admit this.

But there is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy,
for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with the "money touch,"
but with ideals which in their essence are merely those of so many glorified pawnbrokers.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), U.S. Republican (later Progressive) politician, president. Letter, 15 Nov. 1913.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: This months popular science - hydrogen powered hyper jet
    ... fuel and petro-based ag-chems vs. ethanol yield. ... However the nuclear plant has an economic lifespan of less than 40 years. ... Nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to ... Nuclear power plants in a "war" situation are very attractive targets. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: About renewable energy
    ... mature nuclear power technology than the US and commissioning plants ... anti-nuclear power, period, but siting/building plants is not QED. ... Actually, TMI I, almost 5 years older than TMI 2 is still in operation, ...
    (misc.rural)
  • Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
    ... > cheaper power, cleaner air, water and land, more abun- ... government because decisions my government makes can affect my health ... If I am offered the choice of nuclear power plants dotting my country ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Westinghouse to begin work on 4 nuclear plants for CHINA
    ... KW/hr of power used in an average US home. ... The two Areva plants will output, together, 3200 MWs --David] ... Westinghouse to begin work on 4 nuclear plants ... Monroeville-based Westinghouse and its consortium partner, ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Mooks quote about nuclear being a "low grade heat". Is it true?
    ... >> Current nuclear fuel prices are for the supply side of the cycle only. ... > costs on the economics of energy. ... plants put in something like $800 million into the fund. ... > enough to displace fossil fuels. ...
    (sci.energy)
Loading