Re: McCain's energy plan

Islander wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein wrote:

Islander wrote:

( previous post snipped-follow thread )

Heat pollution is a consequence of all forms of energy conversion. Basic thermodynamics.



I don't consider the fact that systems left to their own devices increase the energy of the universe, but by pollution, I meant the production of excess energy in a local environment where it upsets the ecological balance. Such is the only problem with nuclear energy when the plants vent the excess heat into the environment. However, local recognition has been successful in reducing the affected area with minimal ecological effects on the living organisms.



I'm afraid that you have a basic misunderstanding of power generation.


I think not. The storage of the small quantities of solid waste remaining notwithstanding, nuclear power plants have to vent excess heat in the water used to generate the steam which drives the turbines. the most common venting technique is into the environment, which is why early nuclear power plants were built close to rivers and other natural sources. This venting produced undesirable ecological effects, which has to a large degree, been remedied with experience and study to the point where IMHO, they no longer are the problem of earlier days.

All turbine-based power plants introduce heat pollution. There is essentially no difference between the nuclear plant and fossil fuel powered plants in that respect.


The energy involved from nuclear fission is considerably greater than what chemical energy produces from a reaction, making the excess heat produced in nuclear plants greater than in those powered by burning some kind of fossil fuel, or from energy conversion by water.


No, that is simply not how they work. Nuclear power plants essentially drive steam turbines. They have a higher temperature primary circuit since it is possible to generate higher temperatures in the core than with fossil fuels, but that has nothing to do with venting excess heat. The steam cycle, by the second law of thermodynamics, cannot transfer all of the energy in the steam into the turbine and hence the need to vent that heat into the environment. There is no difference in this respect between a fossil fuel plant and a nuclear plant. To assert that they need to vent any excess heat due to nuclear fission is ridiculous.

Again, I disagree. Many plants use a source of water from a liver or other water body which is the transfer mechanism. This water, which does not absorb radioactive materials is recycled into the environment along with the excess heat that creates local abnormalities in environmental conditions for the living things in that given environment, causing adverse effects on the ecology. However, those factors have been minimized and even still, they apply to earlier plants. More recent plants not situated to obtain their sources of water from the environment due to more efficient transfer systems are not so located.

I regret that i didn't fully explain that, but i saw no need to do so as you apparently seemed to have some familiarity with this method of power generation. As far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned it has nothing to do with anything that I've stated.

And besides, when you look at it, uranium exists in nature and is undergoing the same fission all by itself. All we're doing essentially is gathering it in one place. So in reality, nuclear plants aren't doing anything that isn't already being done all by itself in nature.

Now if you want to get into a philosophical and semantic argument about the mad-made isotopes which are used, why we can do that, however, that argument is not really germane, as per my assertion above.


Little Freudian slip there, "mad-made." :-)

But, the man-made isotopes are not a philosophical or semantic issue. They are dangerous materials that require very careful handling. My concern is not that they are dangerous, per se, but that the industry has not done a satisfactory job of assuring the public that they can be trusted to safely handle these materials or to dispose of them in a safe way.


Which is why we need Government regulation, and standards which will occur with a decision to use this power source. I note McCain makes no issue of this, leaving me skeptical of implementation of his plan. Also, I note Ron Peterson's post detailing the extent of the 'waste' problem, which is, IMHO a bugaboo and an excuse illustrative of the fallacy of appeal to belief, or appeal to emotion and fear, as you so aptly describe above.


No, Ron did not detail the extent of the waste problem. He corrected my error in referring to Zirconium 96 instead of zirconium 95 and he added a note on plutonium indicating that it can be recycled in breeder reactors. The overall problems of safe operation and safe waste disposal are vastly more complex than these two issues. This has nothing to appeal to belief, emotion or fear, but simply paying attention to the science.

I believe he added that the long-lasting wastes are minimal in quantity. I had already asserted that much of the 'waste' is reprocessed into more fuel by breeder reactors.

And I disagree that the overall problem is more complex. What you are doing is making a mountain out of a molehill whose only purpose is to avoid having to use this source. other countries have apparently solved this problem with no adverse effects, and their experience should be the norm, rather than having to resort to the use of fallacious reasoning such as appeal to fear and emotion and appeal to belief, which is apparently what you're doing.

The argument that uranium decays naturally is a red herring. It is the concentration of uranium needed for nuclear fuel that makes it dangerous.


Hardly a red herring. These isotopes would decay all by themselves producing the same wastes all by themselves if nothing was done. Concentrating them in one location does not in one iota diminish the production of these dangerous isotopes. But concentrating them in one location does permit us to utilize their energy output for energy conversion, which we need. So my argument is not a red herring, but merely a refutation of your fallacious appeal to fear.


Once again, you are not understanding the problem and are confusing two issues.

I think I understand the problem far better than for your comfort, as the apparent contradictions in your view are exposed.

First the isotopes produced in the reactor core are not
naturally occurring.

True, they aren't. But the naturally occurring elements which serve as the basis for fuel are, and if left alone in nature, would decay all by themselves, producing the wastes that have relatively long half lives. given the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, and assuming that there is a given quantity of these materials in the universe, nuclear plants do no more than gather these materials in a central location. the gathering of these materials in a concentrated location permits the decay process to change to a fission process, and this process is what generates the energy. Now I'll grant you that the fission process produces somewhat different products from that of natural decay, but even still, decay does produces these wastes on a different time scale. So in reality, we're doing nothing that nature wouldn't do all by itself.

You do know the difference and similarities between natural and artificial decay and fission, I presume?

They are a product of the nuclear reaction.

Obviously, as is both natural and artificial decay.

Secondly, the concentration of naturally occurring uranium is what makes it dangerous. Most uranium, thinly distributed throughout the earth, is not dangerous at all. Once again, you are accusing me of appeal to fear when all I am doing is describing the science.

Hardly. You're selectively using the science to create the perception that if we didn't build nuclear plants, then we'd be in no danger from these isotopes. i am merely correcting that erroneous perception, which IS an appeal to fear and emotion as well as an appeal to belief.

Now, since you apparently have admitted that the real problem is concentration of these isotopes in one place, which would be produced whether or not we built nuclear plants, then we can discuss this issue.

On the other hand, your
argument that uranium decays naturally attempts to direct the discussion away from the danger associated with the highly pure uranium required in the reactors. And that is a red herring.

Hardly. It's merely presenting the facts of nature which you conveniently left out. In fact, what it prevents YOU from doing is introducing the red herring.

A friend, ex Navy submariner and a conservative, argues against allowing private industry to build and operate nuclear power plants. He feels strongly that it is only the discipline that an organization like the Navy applies that can be trusted with this technology.


But the bottom line is that HE SUPPORTS NUCLEAR ENERGY. We have good regulation now, but as you point out, it could be better. I've visited the Navy's nuclear power school and am familiar with the standards they use. I have no objection to simply incorporating those standards into public policy.


Did I say that he supports nuclear energy? His position (and mine) is that he doesn't trust private industry to do this safely.

Arguing against private industry building the plants is not akin to saying he's against nuclear energy. Which is precisely what I interpreted the assertion to be. Unfortunately, you had no way of knowing that I was somewhat familiarly with the Navy's standards, hence, it sort of took the wind out of your sails( no pun intended ).

But regardless, it really doesn't make any difference what he thinks. I MHO, I believe that with rigorous regulation and inspection as well as standards, I have no problem with private industry building nuclear power plants. After all, private industry built your friend's power plants. He seems to have no trouble with those products. He only quibbles about their operation. I think that can be sufficiently assuaged with appropriate regulation, which I have already agreed is needed.

---[snip]---


Well, then we agree that his plan lacks necessary ambition. But surely you must realize that 150 billion dollars is not a drop in the ocean, and if he was going to spend that sum, or perhaps increase it, as I believe it should have been, don't you think that he should have set some quite specific goals? Because if you don't, his plan becomes essentially no different from John McCain's who says give tax credits to industry and let them develop it without government interference. And McCain's plan is cheaper. If government is going to foot the bill, then it should set quite specific goals. McCain is giving tax credits to industry, and Obama is giving handouts to the scientific community, both with no specifics as to any kind of product they want to see produced. Surely, Islander, you recognize the similarity with both plans. Which is one of the shortcomings I see in both camps. Except Obama's costs a lot more.





A good manager describes programs in terms of the results desired, not the approach used. When JFK set the goal of "a man on the moon in this decade," he didn't specify how it would be done, for example.




Wrong. When Government gave money to Boeing and Grumman, it was for a VERY specific objective. When money was given to education is was for VERY specific curriculum objectives. Such is NOT the case here. His plan is far too open ended, and becomes a great waste of money if those objectives are not defined.

If anything, Obama has been too specific in his energy plan, IMV. The extent to which his plan lacks "ambition" is that his long term goals are not ambitious enough. In that respect, Gore's plan is better (zero carbon emissions in 10 years), but has no chance of getting sufficient support to be transformed into a funded program.




Actually, Gore's plan is unrealistic, as we currently do not have the technology, nor will we in 10 years to create sufficient personal transportation vehicles to achieve that goal. It's going to take a bit longer because the technology doesn't exist. And I do not agree that his plan is specific in every respect. it is specific in some, but where the need lies, is not so.

Fact of the matter, Obama is going to have to accept some version of the
"Gang of 10's" plan, and he's moving in that direction right now.

So much for his ambition.


Sorry, Alan, but we disagree on something pretty fundamental. A leader sets the goal and it is up to the government, the industry, and the research community to define the details. I realize that you would feel more comfortable if this was all spelled out in advance, but this is not how it works. In the JFK example, he did not spell out the terms and conditions of the contracts with Boeing and Grumman. It would have been gross incompetence to do so. JFK, with the assistance of Congress, tasked NASA to solve the problem and allocated funds to make it possible. NASA, in turn, defined more refined requirements and solicited contractors to propose solutions to meet the requirements. It is not rocket science - it is simply good management.



I have no problem with that. But Obama hasn't even stated that as part of his plan. If he did, we would have more specifics. In order to task a government agency, you need to spell out what you want. He hasn't. You may think he has, but he has to give whatever government agency he is going to task more direction. You seem to think what he has done is sufficient. i disagree, and in fact assert that without that lack of specificity, his plan, objective wise is EXACTLY the same as McCain's.

You might also refresh your memory as to the definition of a "strawman" before accusing me of using that tactic. I have not misrepresented your position or attacked a distorted version of your position.



You're correct. So please allow me to correct myself and accuse you of an appeal to belief or appeal to the consequences of a belief. they both seem to apply.



Since management is not a science, then you are correct. We clearly prefer different styles of leadership.


Yes. I prefer more concrete things on which to spend my money. You pin yours on wishful thinking and good intentions. In fact, your position is EXACTLY what McCain wants to do. He says 'give private enterprise the money through tax cuts, and they'll solve the problem without government interference.' Same lack of direction as Obama has, but to a greater degree. Obama says give science the money and they'll solve the problem. Same principal, except Obama's program costs more. It will probably get more results, but not the bang for the buck we could get if he bothered to set specific goals. You cite Kennedy's lack of specifics, but Kennedy stated specifically that he wanted to put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. Now, with the possibility of developing a new technology which doesn't exist, it would be foolhardy to set a time line in the near future, but still and all, the goal of developing that should be stated. It has not.


Did you read Obama's energy plan?

I did and I read what his supposed representative stated it was as well. And I listened to what he said last night as well, so I got it from the horse's mouth. I find the goal admirable, and I trust that he will spend the money he says he will. I don't think his goal is realistic, because we will not, in 10 years, develop any technology to substantially reduce the consumption of fossil fuels by personal transportation vehicles to the point where those needs can be fully satisfied by domestic means. However, for the moment, let us assume that he can, but that leaves industry with their needs. So in reality, his plan would then assume that all industry is going to be powered by some alternative energy source within 10 years. I find that highly unrealistic, although altruistic. But then again, what would you expect from the magical mystery messiah and agent of false hope?

The goals are on the first page including specific dates for specific accomplishments!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: McCains energy plan
    ... I don't consider the fact that systems left to their own devices increase the energy of the universe, but by pollution, I meant the production of excess energy in a local environment where it upsets the ecological balance. ... The storage of the small quantities of solid waste remaining notwithstanding, nuclear power plants have to vent excess heat in the water used to generate the steam which drives the turbines. ... his plan becomes essentially no different from John McCain's who says give tax credits to industry and let them develop it without government interference. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: More Nukes on the Bay?
    ... Let's also not forget how union construction workers on those early plants sabotaged critical systems during construction, requiring multi-million dollar reworks to correct, which they pocketed with triple overtime. ... memories have faded of the 1979 radioactive leak at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania that threw the US nuclear industry into disarray. ... Meanwhile, energy security concerns and worries about climate change have reshaped the debate, and financial incentives and a new licensing process have altered the economics. ... The first full application for two new reactors, in southern Texas, was submitted at the end of September. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Solar, not nuclear
    ... Improved lifestyles can be had at a third of their energy consumption, ... old batteries no longer fit. ... nuclear power plants. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: McCains energy plan
    ... In Monday's WSJ Personal Journal Section which was devoted to Debating the Issues, and which covered four issues debated by representatives of both campaigns, Obama's representative was reported to have stated that Senator Obama is not opposed to nuclear energy unless congress passes a 'larger energy plan.' ... As far as his support for other sources is concerned, I've given my objections to that support, which although is better than McCain's plan by a long shot, is really quite similar in the sense that the guidelines and objectives are not very clearly spelled out. ... Just under 50% is produced from coal fired plants. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT ~ Dr. Bill Wattenburg On Quick Build Of Nuclear Power and Oil
    ... going to be part of how they get the nuclear plants built. ... that money is added to whatever else we spend for energy. ... It's not excess power thus viewed. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
Loading