[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: Clean air is the issue, not global warming
You spoke my mind when you said that the problem should be addressed at the
waste source. I just though it was a little too bold, and valid only for
future plants, when solving the problems will also consider the effects due
> From: English, Andrew[SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:47 AM
> To: 'Pomirleanu, Radu'; English, Andrew
> Cc: 'cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA'
> Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: Clean air is the issue, not global
> Importance: High
> Hi Radu,
> Well, I don't like big trucks either. But that's beside the point. In
> the US, there are six million reported traffic accidents per year with one
> percent of those involving fatalities. For argument's sake, let's say
> fifty or sixty thousand deaths. Nobody seems to get up in arms over that.
> And speaking of getting up in arms, about another thirty-five to forty
> thousand Americans are killed with firearms each year. And not too many
> people appear to get excited about that.
> But just mention a truck with SNF and some people get REALLY excited.
> Yet, we calmly drive by trucks carrying gasoline, propane, logs, what have
> you. We cross railway tracks without a second thought.
> We seem to have a phobia. A phobia that the anti's play on. And it's a
> natural human trait to fear the unknown. Anyway, put the trucks in
> perspective. A truck carrying SNF is not going to come apart and spill
> it's cargo like any of the others will if involved in an accident. It
> will be the safest truck to have a collision with! The TRUCK might kill
> YOU, but it's cargo won't cause damage to others the way a gasoline tanker
> As for when the repository fills up.... Find another one...
> My solution.....
> I believe that garbage should be taken care of where it's produced! And
> that applies to ALL types of garbage (waste to some). It applies to
> garbage from coal-fired power plants, gas-fired plants, automobiles,
> homes, factories, whatever... We spend way too much money and cause all
> kinds of problems by spewing it into the atmosphere, trucking it all over
> the countryside, or shipping it all over the ocean, as New York did a few
> years ago.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pomirleanu, Radu [ mailto:PomirlR@westinghouse.com]
> Sent: Thursday April 25, 2002 3:06 PM
> To: 'English, Andrew'
> Cc: 'cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA'
> Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: Clean air is the issue, not global warming
> Here would be some long-term problems:
> - transporting of the SNF to Nevada and through Nevada, for the following
> 50-300 years
> - what will happen with the repository after 300-500 years, after
> would have forgotten about the regulations set for the repository.
> More simpler, I wouldn't like trucks with SNF (and I am not talking about
> tens or hundreds), with or without caskets, to go on the same highways as
> am driving. That maybe is just me - maybe there are people who would like
> pass by trucks carrying caskets everyday on the way to work. If it is so,
> maybe after they convince all their neighbors, they can request the
> repository to be built somewhere closer to them.
> The second point concerns with the attention span that seems to get
> and narrower everyday. Right now there are regulations about the safe
> operation of the repository, but for myself, I haven't seen an engineering
> project operated for several hundred years. Not in modern times. This
> me doubt whether the science and the safety that are now so obviuos will
> still be sought after 300 years. Based on humans history, the answer will
> If I had known solutions to this problem, probably others would have known
> them too, and they would be already applying them. With the little reading
> that I've done, re-processing fuel (MOX) and new reactors would help reuse
> the waste we have already generated (George Standford mentioned Advanced
> Fast Reactors that have a higher efficiency - we'd burn less uranium then,
> and thus, less waste per provided energy. I have to do more reading before
> can support this idea though). While the reprocessing would still maintain
> (and double) the transport problem (you have to take it to the MOX
> and back) , it will disperse the traffic that would now be convergent to
> What solutions do you propose Andy, after we fill the mountain?
> > ----------
> > From: English, Andrew[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:47 PM
> > To: 'Pomirleanu, Radu'; 'cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA'
> > Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: Clean air is the issue, not global
> > warming
> > Importance: High
> > Hi Radu,
> > Please explain what you see as the "permanent problem for the Nevada
> > state" in all this? Also, what do you see as a solution to this
> > "problem"?
> > Regards,
> > Andy
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pomirleanu, Radu [ mailto:PomirlR@westinghouse.com]
> > Sent: Thursday April 25, 2002 8:24 AM
> > To: 'cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA'
> > Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: Clean air is the issue, not global warming
> > "What bothers me about many of the strong supporters of Kyoto is that
> > seem to focus on CO2 and "global warming".
> > Clean air is the issue - eliminating the polluted air, as described
> > Also, these activists exclude nuclear energy as part of the solution. "
> > While it is true that on SHORT TERM the local pollution is the more
> > obvoius
> > problem, let's not forget that conservation laws are applicable
> > everywhere.
> > That means that if you produce something and don't consume it somehow,
> > will accumulate somewhere (dear Reynolds theorem). While it is still
> > debatable that the CO2 layer high above in the atmosphere has something
> > do with global warming, let's not forget that it is nonetheless
> > accumulating
> > upthere, because the Earth was probably not designed to consume the CO2
> > produced by humans, and in the end it may become a problem (show me
> > something that continuosly accumulates and it's not becoming a
> > Summarizing, while the focus on the clean air is just and must be
> > addressed
> > for our sake, it is in the same time near sighted. I think this is what
> > the
> > Kyoto agreement is about.
> > As for the nuclear industry as the part of the solution, I think that it
> > can
> > be indeed a solution as long as it is not generating other long-term
> > problems, such as spent nuclear fuel storage. Stucking the spent fuel in
> > the
> > depth of a mountain after transporting it 3,000 miles through half of US
> > is
> > just a temporary "long-term solution", and it will actually be a
> > problem for the Nevada state (again a conservation law).
> > I think the engineering education and practice should start be geared
> > towards sustainable solutions, i.e. solutions that will be contained
> > within
> > themseves and will not generate headaches for future generations. This
> > of
> > course if we don't consider the Earth as our rightfull good, for our
> > immediate pleasure and consumption.
> > Sincerely,
> > Radu Pomirleanu
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdn-nucl-l mailing list
> > cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
> > http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l