Andrew
Yes, you are right. He doesn't "get it" after all.
Solomon is not an environmentalist. He's just plain anti-nuclear (but he hides it cleverly). I think his green activities are intended to pave the way for more gas-fired generation.
We have the technologies that could make breeder reactors economically feasible. It's the political/ideological barriers that are so difficult to overcome. These barriers favour more hydrocarbon combustion.
Jerry
From: larry.at.large@gmail.com [mailto:larry.at.large@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Larry Solomon
Sent: September-13-11 8:51 AM
To: Jerry Cuttler
Subject: Re: National Post, Solomon, Why spend billions to store used fuel that won't kill anyone?
By the same logic, you could cite the limitless amount of solar energy that drives the planet.
The issue isn't the availability of energy -- we have energy in limitless amounts. The issue is the relative cost. I don't nuclear reactors becoming competitive soon in generating electricity. It would be nice if the used fuel had some practical use.
********
Larry Solomon's National Post columns are available at Energy Probe, ranked #1 among Canadian environmental websites by Alexa. Energy Probe depends on charitable donations from those who support our policies -- less than 1% of our funding comes from governments, corporations, or unions.
Tens of thousands of customers around the world patronize Green Beanery, a non-profit company that offers more than 100 varieties of coffee beans, the world's largest selection. All profits from Green Beanery support the work of Probe Intrernational, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Jerry Cuttler <jerrycuttler@rogers.com> wrote:
As you know, the splitting of one uranium nucleus releases 160,000,000 eV of recoverable energy, while the burning of one atom of carbon releases only 4.1 eV of energy.
So the slightly used nuclear fuel contains an enormous amount of energy that future generations of Canadians will unlock. The products from burning coal, oil and methane are many millions times greater in mass and volume. Do we really need a menu of alternate uses for this valuable and very compact fuel?
From: larry.at.large@gmail.com [mailto:larry.at.large@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Larry Solomon
Sent: September-13-11 12:17 AM
To: Jerry Cuttler
Cc: Lawrence Solomon
Subject: Re: National Post, Solomon, Why spend billions to store used fuel that won't kill anyone?
Hello Jerry,
Are there potential uses for the used fuel, apart from in power reactors? I'd love to see a menu of alternate uses.
Larry
********
Larry Solomon's National Post columns are available at Energy Probe, ranked #1 among Canadian environmental websites by Alexa. Energy Probe depends on charitable donations from those who support our policies -- less than 1% of our funding comes from governments, corporations, or unions.
Tens of thousands of customers around the world patronize Green Beanery, a non-profit company that offers more than 100 varieties of coffee beans, the world's largest selection. All profits from Green Beanery support the work of Probe Intrernational, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation.
Signature powered by WiseStamp 
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Jerry Cuttler <jerrycuttler@rogers.com> wrote:
Hello Lawrence
I enjoyed very much your article in the Opinion part of Saturday's Financial Post.
For more than a decade, I've been writing to the NWMO and providing submissions arguing that it would be unwise to put used CANDU fuel in a deep geologic repository.
As a result of the inputs from me and others, the NWMO changed its original plan into an adaptive phased management approach. It recognizes that our present method of isolating our used nuclear fuel in above-ground, sealed, robust containers does not harm anyone.
This approach allows time for future generations of Canadians to decide whether it would be economic to recycle this (slightly) used fuel in advanced reactors (when natural uranium becomes an expensive commodity).
As for the economics of nuclear energy, the capital cost of the well-managed Bruce B Project is about $6 billion. This amounts to less than $2000/kW. My home uses about 1 kW, and I would be happy to pay my $2000 "share" of this capital amount, which is less than the amount I paid for my home furnace. I hope my furnace lasts 30 years.
Regards
Jerry
------------------------
"... my reasoning has changed. Twenty years ago, I thought the wastes too risky to bury. Today, I think them too safe."
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/09/09/lawrence-solomon-just-a-nuclear-waste/