Algore says he is not running

[spdirty]

good. I wish he'd just go away.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198888,00.html

CHRISTOPHE KARABA—EPACannes man Gore makes the scene among the glitterati at the French film festival in mid-May.
From the Magazine | Nation
Lights, Camera, Al Gore!
The ex-Vice President is enjoying an unlikely heyday as a movie star. All that buzz invites the question: Will he audition again for President?
By KAREN TUMULTY
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHORRelated Blogs: Click here for blog postings from around the web that are related to the topic of this article.

Posted Sunday, May 28, 2006
Al Gore used to joke that it was easy to pick him out in a roomful of Secret Service agents: He was the stiff one. So he was the first to say how surreal it was to find himself the toast of Cannes last week. Over two days at the celebrated film festival, the former Vice President conducted what he figures were 48 interviews, many of them roundtable sessions, to accommodate the kind of interest that entertainment reporters usually bestow on people named Halle and Beyoncé. And then there was that encounter with Hugh Jackman, the Australian heartthrob whose expected summer blockbuster, X-Men: The Last Stand, was set to open in some 16,000 theaters around the world. "It was just a random comment, and here's how I remember it--Hugh Jackman saying, 'Well, I look forward to your movie,'" Gore told TIME with a lusty chortle. "And I thought to myself, Oooo-kay."

Then again, Gore's new movie has something of a mutant-action-hero plotline of its own. It's the tale of a scorned, washed-up politician transformed into a laptop-wielding ninja whose PowerPoint could rescue the planet from the forces of greed and indifference. The slide-show warning about the risks of global warming that Gore, 58, has been giving to audiences for years has been turned into a 92-min. documentary called An Inconvenient Truth. The film opened in New York City and Los Angeles to better-than-decent reviews, expands to all the 10 biggest markets this week and will go nationwide by the Fourth of July weekend. Laurie David, wife of Seinfeld creator Larry David, is one of the producers; it's being distributed by Paramount.

Already there are spin-offs. A book with the same title has been published. The money Gore makes from the film will go toward a bipartisan media and grassroots education campaign whose participants include Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to the first President Bush. Viewers of the film are directed to a website: www.climatecrisis.net (http://www.climatecrisis.net) And at the end of the summer, Gore plans to begin a training program in Nashville, Tenn., that will enable 1,000 activists "to give my slide show in their voices," with a limited-use license to remix its music and images. But the best measure of the potential impact of the Gore film may be the fact that there's already an oil-industry-financed ad campaign to discredit it.

This is not a movie that is likely to draw many people who don't agree with its premise. And yet Gore says, "I actually hold out hope even President Bush and Vice President Cheney could change their minds before their term is up." As some Evangelicals and business leaders--both Republican constituencies--worry publicly about climate control, Gore says, "I think that the small bubble of unreality in which [Bush and Cheney] are living is getting more uncomfortable and a little lonely for them."

[errand]

In the mid 70's Al was one of those who claimed the world was headed towards another ice age...and advocated we melt the polar ice caps in order to prevent it. Go figure.....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

good. I wish he'd just go away.

What's so bad about Al Gore?

[spdirty]

What's so bad about Al Gore?

He annoys me. Thats all. And all he does is whine and moan about the environment. And you know how I feel about the damn environment.:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He annoys me. Thats all. And all he does is whine and moan about the environment. And you know how I feel about the damn environment.:D

Ah, right - I forgot.

[Dudeskey]

Ahh damn. Now the only Democrat worth a **** is out.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ahh damn. Now the only Democrat worth a **** is out.

That's what I was thinking.

You never know - Al might change his mind.

[Dudeskey]

That's what I was thinking.

You never know - Al might change his mind.

Doubt it, he's stepping aside for Hillary who does more 180's than a stunt driver.

[spdirty]

Doubt it, he's stepping aside for Hillary who does more 180's than a stunt driver.


I think Algore and Hillary hate each other though, so I doubt he'd ever try to do her any favors.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Doubt it, he's stepping aside for Hillary who does more 180's than a stunt driver.

If Hillary decides to run and gets the nomination then there will be no doubt in my mind that the Democrats have a death wish.

[Dudeskey]

I think Algore and Hillary hate each other though, so I doubt he'd ever try to do her any favors.

I hope you're right, but I know Hillary would try to put the spotlight on his pothead son in the primaries. Other than that, I think he has a real good chance if he decides to give it a go.

[Dudeskey]

If Hillary decides to run and gets the nomination then there will be no doubt in my mind that the Democrats have a death wish.

Meaning what? Other Dems jumping ship?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Meaning what? Other Dems jumping ship?

All the maneuvering she's been doing has been an effort to appeal to moderates while assuming that the party's base is just going to follow along.

Just the opposite is happening: She has done nothing but piss the base off, and the moderates don't trust her as they (rightly) see her as too calculating.

[Dudeskey]

All the maneuvering she's been doing has been an effort to appeal to moderates while assuming that the party's base is just going to follow along.

Just the opposite is happening: She has done nothing but piss the base off, and the moderates don't trust her as they (rightly) see her as too calculating.

Well, if she doesn't have the party on her side, then perhaps she runs as a VP on a ticket at best then. From what I hear she has a hell of a campaign war chest though.

[mosca]

All the maneuvering she's been doing has been an effort to appeal to moderates while assuming that the party's base is just going to follow along.

Just the opposite is happening: She has done nothing but piss the base off, and the moderates don't trust her as they (rightly) see her as too calculating.
It's a ways away, but if a viable third party candidate runs, someone different than Nader or other third partiers from years past who never really seem to reach out both ways across the poli-spectrum, do you see a good percentage of the Democrat base voting for him/her?

[Play2win]

It's a ways away, but if a viable third party candidate runs, someone different than Nader or other third partiers from years past who never really seem to reach out both ways across the poli-spectrum, do you see a good percentage of the Democrat base voting for him/her?

Somebody needs to start the "CENTRALIST" Party...

[Rohirrim]

Al Gore is not running for president...


yet.

[BroncoInferno]

Ahh damn. Now the only Democrat worth a **** is out.

I think Biden is a good man, but I doubt the Democrats will have the sense to nominate him.

[defenseman]

Looks like "Hilary" is going to have to step up to the plate LOL...oh thats going to be fun..LOL...dman

[BroncoInferno]

Looks like "Hilary" is going to have to step up to the plate LOL...oh thats going to be fun..LOL...dman

There are always guys on the state level who end up running that no one knows anything about nationally until it's nomination time. Clinton was such a person. Warner from VA is a guy I expect to make a lot of noise this go-round. A Warner/Biden ticket would be ideal, IMHO.

[defenseman]

There are always guys on the state level who end up running that no one knows anything about nationally until it's nomination time. Clinton was such a person. Warner from VA is a guy I expect to make a lot of noise this go-round. A Warner/Biden ticket would be ideal, IMHO.

Biden shuts that ticket down for me.....no way would I vote for him as VP...dman

[Rohirrim]

There are always guys on the state level who end up running that no one knows anything about nationally until it's nomination time. Clinton was such a person. Warner from VA is a guy I expect to make a lot of noise this go-round. A Warner/Biden ticket would be ideal, IMHO.

I'd like to see and Al Gore/Wesley Clark ticket. Of course, I know the Dems too well. It will be Hillary/Dean, or something equally as stupid.

[Garcia Bronco]

I'd like to see and Al Gore/Wesley Clark ticket. Of course, I know the Dems too well. It will be Hillary/Dean, or something equally as stupid.


Anything Reid/Clinton/Dean/Kennedy/Edwards from the Democrats will get a no vote from me.

[Raider Bill]

Joe Biden? Heh, the only things that keep Delaware afloat are Dupont, and usury laws so lax that everyone is incorporated there (especially credit card companies like MBNA) most other states have laws against raping people on interest charges like that.

[bendog]

nce leaving politics, there's something Gore appears to have discovered he is very good at, and that is earning a living. Friends say he has come to enjoy the luxury of a private life. He has a busy schedule on the lecture circuit, earning as much as $150,000 a speech. The technophile former Vice President has been a part-time adviser to Google since 2001, and while he refuses to say how he is compensated, the guessing in Washington is that Gore has accumulated a hefty chunk of its stock. Forbes magazine reports that the 60,000 options he holds in Apple Computer, where he is on the board, are worth $2 million.

Current TV, the youth-oriented cable network that Gore launched last August, has been picked up by Comcast for its digital tier, and will reach 28 million homes as of this week, says Gore's business partner Joel Hyatt. The network is in negotiations with cable systems in France, Germany and Italy, and expects to achieve the relatively rare feat of becoming profitable in its first year. Says Hyatt: "We are just on fire." Additionally, Gore has begun a London-based equity firm with former Goldman Sachs Asset Management CEO David Blood. It's a partnership that, despite its nickname Blood & Gore, aims to invest in socially responsible ventures.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198888-4,00.html

[Rohirrim]

nce leaving politics, there's something Gore appears to have discovered he is very good at, and that is earning a living. Friends say he has come to enjoy the luxury of a private life. He has a busy schedule on the lecture circuit, earning as much as $150,000 a speech. The technophile former Vice President has been a part-time adviser to Google since 2001, and while he refuses to say how he is compensated, the guessing in Washington is that Gore has accumulated a hefty chunk of its stock. Forbes magazine reports that the 60,000 options he holds in Apple Computer, where he is on the board, are worth $2 million.

Current TV, the youth-oriented cable network that Gore launched last August, has been picked up by Comcast for its digital tier, and will reach 28 million homes as of this week, says Gore's business partner Joel Hyatt. The network is in negotiations with cable systems in France, Germany and Italy, and expects to achieve the relatively rare feat of becoming profitable in its first year. Says Hyatt: "We are just on fire." Additionally, Gore has begun a London-based equity firm with former Goldman Sachs Asset Management CEO David Blood. It's a partnership that, despite its nickname Blood & Gore, aims to invest in socially responsible ventures.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198888-4,00.html

Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who can actually succeed on his own merits? ;D

[bendog]

He got google at like 80 and it's over 400 now. Rumor is he got tens of thousands of shares. Newsmax says he can "buy the election," but he can't seriously have money to match the bush cabal.

[Rohirrim]

He got google at like 80 and it's over 400 now. Rumor is he got tens of thousands of shares. Newsmax says he can "buy the election," but he can't seriously have money to match the bush cabal.

His good buddy Soros does.

[bendog]

Naw, soros tried but failed. Now if the dems get the code of diebold ..... (-:

[W*GS]

If Hillary decides to run and gets the nomination then there will be no doubt in my mind that the Democrats have a death wish.

Yeah - pity for you Chavez can't run for President.

[BroncoInferno]

Biden shuts that ticket down for me.....no way would I vote for him as VP...dman

What's wrong with Biden? He's always struck me as a pretty honest guy (relative to the political world, anyway), and his stategy for Iraq is the most sensible and coherent plan I've heard from either side.

[defenseman]

What's wrong with Biden? He's always struck me as a pretty honest guy (relative to the political world, anyway), and his stategy for Iraq is the most sensible and coherent plan I've heard from either side.

Two questions? What is his policy on energy needs in the future? (wind,solar, coal, oil, nuclear) What's up? What is his thought process behind sustaining the economy, ie...taxes, budgetary constraints WITHIN programs OPERATED by the government? IS he a "true" fiscal conservative or not?..dman

*You'll see a push for nuclear over the next 5 to 10 years. I'm guessing some 7 to 10 plants WILL be authorized by the end of 2007. 2 to 3 will start building during the same time period. Dman has long term employment following retirement thats for sure..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/global_monkey.jpg

[defenseman]

IF Big Al, is promoting wind , solar, etc.......he's barking up the wrong tree. NO WAY we can get this stuff in place to ensure it's going to support the US energy needs. Nuclear, as of right now, is the ONLY way to ensure we have enough energy AND DO NOT damage the enviroment..dman

[bendog]

IF Big Al, is promoting wind , solar, etc.......he's barking up the wrong tree. NO WAY we can get this stuff in place to ensure it's going to support the US energy needs. Nuclear, as of right now, is the ONLY way to ensure we have enough energy AND DO NOT damage the enviroment..dman
Maybe so on nukes. Wind has some allure, though the cost of a grid to move it around is prolly prohibitive, so it's really more a local source, like solar.

An irony of Al Gore is Ford. Young William Ford was a Gore supporter, and he was ok with higher mileage requirements. Yet, when he took over Ford, it was really too late to get product development revamped. Gore's investment advice is partly about investing in firms that have less carbon exposure. Toyota beat GM and Ford, and it shows in their profits.

[defenseman]

You see somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 new reactors get licensed in the US by the end of 2007, it's gotta happen...dman

*as in building new ones I'd say about 7 or so. HOPEFULLY, some of them are the new style PBMR exelon is experimenting with down in South Africa, nice design, NO MELTDOWN POSSIBLE.

[bendog]

I belive the last one completed was Grand Gulf for entergy in Miss. There's actually a second silo started, but just the one nearly bankrupted Entergy, and they only survived by borrowing some expensive european money.

I'm not really negative on nukes. Natl Geog did a story on them within the last 6 mos. Where to store the waste seems the issue.

[Swedish Extrovert]

I'd like to see and Al Gore/Wesley Clark ticket. Of course, I know the Dems too well. It will be Hillary/Dean, or something equally as stupid.


We can always dream. God, I would LOVE to see Al Gore/Wesley Clark as our next president/vice president.

[defenseman]

We can always dream. God, I would LOVE to see Al Gore/Wesley Clark as our next president/vice president.

God help us if this comes to fruition.....dman

[defenseman]

I belive the last one completed was Grand Gulf for entergy in Miss. There's actually a second silo started, but just the one nearly bankrupted Entergy, and they only survived by borrowing some expensive european money.

I'm not really negative on nukes. Natl Geog did a story on them within the last 6 mos. Where to store the waste seems the issue.

Yucca mountain , just NW of Las Vegas is where expended fuel and such will be stored eventually. Cost? IF, the US approves the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) design for construction in the US, the design has no primary containmnet required. It will be built virtually under ground. Inexpensive as reactors go. Lot of bang for a small reactor. Helium cooled reactor vice the light and heavy water cooled reactors of today. The Advanced pressurized water reactors, conventional cooling tower type you see today, are very expensive due to the containment requirements and a few other additional issues. Don't get me wrong, their safe and sound, but expensive. In the long run though, they are still cheaper than coal, gas, and everything else. In addition, based on the PBMR's design, it virtually shuts it self down in case of emergency and failure of protective systems , preventing a meltdown. Very nice design...dman

[bendog]

The 80s were not good music wise but

Timbuk 3
From the album Greetings From Timbuk 3, © 1988
Lyrics by Pat MacDonald.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I study nuclear science
I love my classes
I got a crazy teacher, he wears dark glasses
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades

I've got a job waiting for my graduation
Fifty thou a year -- buys a lot of beer
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades

Well I'm heavenly blessed and worldly wise
I'm a peeping-tom techie with x-ray eyes
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades

I study nuclear science
I love my classes
I got a crazy teacher, he wears dark glasses
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades
I gotta wear shades, I gotta wear shades

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

God help us if this comes to fruition.....dman

:oyvey:

Riiiiight - everyone remembers what terrible shape the country was in last time Gore and the Dems controlled the WH.

Gee, if this were to happen again, we might have some more of those awful things like balanced budgets and the greatest economic expansion in U.S. history.

We might just get a guy like Wes Clark who actually knows something about winning wars.

Awful, I tell ya!

[W*GS]

Riiiiight - everyone remembers what terrible shape the country was in last time Gore and the Dems controlled the WH.

And the GOP controlled the Congress and the SCOTUS.

For some reason, you seem to think the President is God.

Why?

[ClevelandBronco]

Wind has some allure, though the cost of a grid to move it around is prolly prohibitive, so it's really more a local source, like…

…in front of Al Gore. Plenty of wind there.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

IF Big Al, is promoting wind , solar, etc.......he's barking up the wrong tree. NO WAY we can get this stuff in place to ensure it's going to support the US energy needs. Nuclear, as of right now, is the ONLY way to ensure we have enough energy AND DO NOT damage the enviroment..dman
Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can we put the nuclear waste in your backyard for your kids and grand kids to play with?

How does nuclear power plants reduce our oil dependence?

You do know that they cost 2 to 3 times as much as clean coal technology power plants, take 5 times as long to construct and we can NEVER get rid of the radioactive waste they generate, correct?

[SoCalBronco]

I would strongly consider voting for Gore if he runs, and I dont take this statement as reflective of his true intent. I am not a fan of his environmental views but most other things I can accept. The only other Dems I would seriously consider would be Bayh and Lieberman.

[Rohirrim]

:oyvey:

Riiiiight - everyone remembers what terrible shape the country was in last time Gore and the Dems controlled the WH.

Gee, if this were to happen again, we might have some more of those awful things like balanced budgets and the greatest economic expansion in U.S. history.

We might just get a guy like Wes Clark who actually knows something about winning wars.

Awful, I tell ya!

How could the Dems do any better? After all, they are not devotees in the Holy Free Market Fixes Everything Fundamentalist Church. ;D

[Raider Bill]

Biden is no better then the rest of them, he's just a shill for MBNA.

[BroncoInferno]

Biden is no better then the rest of them, he's just a shill for MBNA.

Any evidence for that, or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

[BroncoInferno]

I am not a fan of his environmental views but most other things I can accept.

Can someone please explain to me why the environmental views of Gore and other Democrats are so offensive? I mean, even if you do not believe the majority of the scientific community who think global warming is a very real danger, is it not better to play it safe? If not, why not?

[Raider Bill]

Here ya go

Biden has attracted little Democratic support, thusfar, in his race for the White House, in part due to liberal blogosphere anger over Biden's 2005 vote for the Republican-supported, credit card industry-friendly Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The bill diluted the law's ability to protect consumers from predatory lending practices, and strengthened corporations' ability to collect from consumers already suffering from extreme financial and medical hardships.


Also, per blogger Attytood in 2005, "Hunter Biden joined MBNA as a management trainee after graduating from Yale Law School and rose to be an executive vice president. Now a partner in Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a lobbying and law firm, he receives a $100,000 annual retainer from MBNA...." Hunter Biden is son of Senator Joe Biden.

Senator Biden was one of only four Democrats to vote for the bill, which was seen as highly favorable to credit card giant MBNA, the largest single contributor to the Republican party. Turns out that MBNA is also the single largest contributor to Senator Joseph Biden, with $147,700 in contributions from 1999 to 2004.


But let's return to Biden, shall we? If you're not troubled by campaign contributions, there's more. Eyebrows were raised in 1996 when Biden sold his house for $1.2 million -- his asking price and more than a couple of a similar neighboring homes went for around the same time -- to an MBNA executive named John Cochran.

[defenseman]

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can we put the nuclear waste in your backyard for your kids and grand kids to play with?

How does nuclear power plants reduce our oil dependence?

You do know that they cost 2 to 3 times as much as clean coal technology power plants, take 5 times as long to construct and we can NEVER get rid of the radioactive waste they generate, correct?

I am more than well versed on the plusses and I might add, minuses on the nuclear power issue. I suggest, you get up to speed before you start calling somebody wrong. Get informed, then come talk ....dman

*I say this with all due respect to you and your opinion, you really do need to get informed before starting this discussion.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I am more than well versed on the plusses and I might add, minuses on the nuclear power issue. I suggest, you get up to speed before you start calling somebody wrong. Get informed, then come talk ....dman

*I say this with all due respect to you and your opinion, you really do need to get informed before starting this discussion. Hilarious!
I've built and repaired power plants (nuclear, coal-fired, co-gen and natural gas), oil refineries and chemical plants for over 25 years.

I suggest YOU get informed before you make an arse out of yourself again. Now, are disputing any points I made or did you let your mouth overload your arse again (kinda like your ignorant statement on flood insurance).

[defenseman]

Hilarious!
I've built and repaired power plants (nuclear, coal-fired, co-gen and natural gas), oil refineries and chemical plants for over 25 years.

I suggest YOU get informed before you make an arse out of yourself again. Now, are disputing any points I made or did you let your mouth overload your arse again (kinda like your ignorant statement on flood insurance).

Ok hotshot. Describe to me in detail how and where nuclear waste is stored. the half life of the isotopes involved, design criteria wrt the storage facilities. All facets of the enviroment researched and it's impact on any waste storage facility. The amount of "true" waste produced by a civilian power plant every ten years or so. EXACTLY how this waste is produced, rad levels on contact, tenth thickness of different sheilding materials. Quality factor of different types of radiation, and their exact affect on the human cell dependent on energy level of the incident particle. Detailed operation of a Pressurized and Boiling water reactor plant. In addition, the design and theoretical operation of a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. Why theoretically the PBMR's cannot melt down. For that case, what is a "meltdown" exactly. What is a reactor scram. What does scram stand for? whats heavy and light water. Discuss in detail how that affect reactor operations and design. What is tritium? What is boron? What is xenon? whats the decay chain for telerium? What is the moderator of a reactor? Whats a control rod and how does it work in a reactor. Detailed discussion of Nuclear fission, fusion and the energy level of the nuetron most likely to cause additional fission. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Granted , building them is one thing, understanding them, how they work, from every facet right down to the last gram of uranium is another. If you can answer the above "tip of the iceberg" then we can converse....dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ok hotshot. Are you going to ignore my points in the original post (because you can't address them)?

Tell me the cost of a nuclear 1000 MW power plant as compared to the same 1000 MW coal-fired plant.

Tell me how long permitting takes for construction for both plants.

Tell me how nuclear power plants will save the country from importing oil.

Tell me where nuclear waste will be stored if not on site, since Nevada's governor said he would use the National Guard to stop delivery at state lines.

[defenseman]

First, Pressurized water reactors are much more than coal fired, by alot I might add. Second, coal fired are actually reasonably inexpensive. Problem: coal fired emit CO and CO 2 to the enviroment, Nuclear power plants do not. Second, The new style of reactor you "should" see is a design called a PBMR. Very low cost plant for a nuclear power plant, again no "green house gases" and built to last 60 years plus. Coal fired plants , overall require just as high maintenance if not more than nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants , if built correctly with the proper QA could last much longer. But, the real trick is the green house gases are non existant in a nuke plant , no gas, coal, plant can lay claim to that.

Permits, much faster for a coal plant, agreed. However, legislation has been streamlined recently in addition to tax breaks for the power companies to build them "MUCH" faster than in the past. Conservative estimates , 5 to 7 years if not less to reactor operations. In addition, the govt. is basically providing insurance for the power companies in case it were to take longer to build to enable them to absorb cost. IF, and I do believe this will happen, the PBMR reactors cost will be cut down significantly due to the fact that NO primary containment is required. Estimations , I recall anyway are 1/8 the cost of a conventional nuke plant with time for construction once perfected about 3 to 4 years. These plants will last at a minumum 60 years. By then, to be honest, we'll be well on our way to nuclear fusion plants, in that case, the energy problems will be solved permanently.

Will you need some oil. Sure. But, the fact of the matter is a "mixture" of nukes, gas, etc...will probably be where we end up. The fact that alot more nuclear is around , emitting much less green house gases is a good thing. The only way to ensure we get off the oil "tit" is to change our transportation methods by that I mean source of power for transportation. On that note, coal helps the same amount as nuclear energy wrt oil requirements, the only difference, one directly affects the enviroment, the other doesn't.

Nevadas governor can try and stop delivery, it will eventually happen. The fact of the matter is, nuclear waste will not end up in your back yard like so many "ill informed" pundits claim. Waste, will end up in an elaborate storage area, under lock and key, hermetically sealed, for all intents and purposes forever. You'll never see it, I'll never see it. Bottom line, the designs and facilities the waste will see are state of the art, and totally protect all in our country. politicians will dispute this, however it quite honestly is indisputable.
The waste storage facilities are really quite good.

So, in summary, coal,gas vs. nuclear, one is a LONG term investment, the other shorter (enviromental issues i believe). Second, One belches green house gases , the other doesn't. Maintaining the plants ends up pretty much a wash in the long term due to initial design criteria and the need for preventative maintenance over time. New designs of Nukes have become very, very efficient much better than in the past with significant increases in quality factors. Waste storage will NOT hazard the public in anyway shape or form. Nuclear in the long run will last well into mid century and past. By that time, if we do it right, nuclear fusion will have taken over , at that point , to be honest, the energy problems are solved with nuclear fusion. In addition, the byproducts of Nuclear Fusion? Helium and water, NO NUCLEAR WASTE. I'll agree with you it will be more of a financial burden at the outset, and they will take longer to bring on line (we appear to disagree on how long to a point), however, when calculated out over 60 to 75 years and the cost of operations and maintenance, nuclear will win out. Uranium is actually a very compact , powerful fuel that is very inexpensive for what it produces......

*OIL. Anything powered by other than oil /fossil fuels helps out in the long run. Changing the power source for our countries main transportation mode will be the key to dropping oil dependancy.

That said, the real question is, do you invest for the long term with nuclear, or short term with coal, gas...etc...etc... Continuing to produce the CO and CO2 has to stop, including automobiles. If you go long term on nuclear, yes more expensive, but they will last again a very, very long time. I will say the PBMR's are outstanding and would significantly decrease the cost of nuclear power overall. Mid century? your into nuclear fusion anyway. It will happen, I have no doubt about it. Once fusion is cost effective, they'll ween off ALL other forms of power generation, gauranteed...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

First, Pressurized water reactors are much more than coal fired, by alot I might add. Second, coal fired are actually reasonably inexpensive. Problem: coal fired emit CO and CO 2 to the enviroment, Nuclear power plants do not.
No idea what that means....


You didn't address the costs of either plants and also you didn't acknowledge that we have enough coal to run this country for 400 years (which we won't need to do because new, alternate and renewable energies will be developed within the next century.

There is not ONE nuclear power plant in any stage of any permit process now.

You didn't address my yucca mountain statement either. Radioactive waste will have to be stored on site (in our backyards) or transported constantly through our backyards. There is NO way to get rid of it.
I give you link a little later to read on the cons of Pebble Bed Modular Reactors.

You also aren't aware of clean coal technology, apparently (zero emissions will soon be possible). We are building CCT plants NOW, with the newest one in Pueblo starting this fall.
I'll give you some links to read.



Clean Coal Technology (CCT)
New programs in clean coal technology—such as the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)—are essential for building on the progress of the original Clean Coal Technology Program, finding solutions for reducing trace emissions of mercury; reducing or eliminating carbon dioxide emissions; and increasing fuel efficiencies. Over the longer term, research in clean coal technology will be directed toward developing coal-based hydrogen fuels. If coupled with sequestration, this will allow greater use of coal with zero emissions. The U.S. Department of Energy has announced a Presidential initiative to build "FutureGen," a $1 billion project that will lead to the world's first emission-free plant to produce electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing greenhouse gases.
cont (http://tinyurl.com/n7b23)


Clean coal technology: How it works
When burned, coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels but a range of technologies are being used and developed to reduce the environmental impact of coal-fired power stations.
Collectively, they are known as clean coal technology (CCT).

COAL PREPARATION
GASIFICATION
REMOVING POLLUTANTS
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE
Cont (http://tinyurl.com/nvvg9)

[defenseman]

I hear ya. 1) The technology is up to 99% effective. Not 100%. 2) Mercury emmissions are the latest problem with coal. Again, while leaps and bounds have been made, still have a ways to go with me. Lots of reports out there on the time it will last. Seeing as our energy consumption DOUBLES right now every twenty years, we have some work to do. We could tit for tat this all day, I could come up with all kinds of articles on the pro/con for both. In short, you want coal, thats fine. Have at it , theres pros and cons to coal and nuclear. BUT, in the long run, we will shift to nuclear fusion , I gaurantee that. Second, better gear up soon or a future generation will be gearing up what we should be doing now. Lastly, at some point we MUST digress and cut off all ties to fossil fuels, the rest of the world must also. Coal is fossil and is not renewable. 400 years from , they'll have museums with the coal fired plants from centuries before, while nuclear fusion will be providing the power for the museum..dman

[Rohirrim]

You also have to take into account that nuclear power plants are the number one NIMBY alarm ringer. For those who don't know, that means Not In My Back Yard. Number two on the list are oil refineries. The American people want cheaper gas and cheaper power, as long as you build the refineries and power plants in somebody else's neighborhood. Politically, the American people go nuts when one of their local pols suggest building either one of these in their districts.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I hear ya. 1) The technology is up to 99% effective. Not 100%. 2) Geezus, 0 emissions means 0.


Mercury emmissions are the latest problem with coal. Latest? you mean it just started being a problem?
It's always been a problem but SI injector technology (http://tinyurl.com/ryql3) today is eliminating it.


Again, while leaps and bounds have been made, still have a ways to go with me. Lots of reports out there on the time it will last. Seeing as our energy consumption DOUBLES right now every twenty years, we have some work to do. We could tit for tat this all day, I could come up with all kinds of articles on the pro/con for both. In short, you want coal, thats fine. Have at it , theres pros and cons to coal and nuclear. BUT, in the long run, we will shift to nuclear fusion , I gaurantee that. No we won't, not unless someone devises a nuclear plant that doesn't create radioactive waste. Bring on your "con" articles on CCT, I'd like to read them (though I already have).


Second, better gear up soon or a future generation will be gearing up what we should be doing now. Lastly, at some point we MUST digress and cut off all ties to fossil fuels, the rest of the world must also. Coal is fossil and is not renewable. 400 years from , they'll have museums with the coal fired plants from centuries before, while nuclear fusion will be providing the power for the museum..dman I already pointed out within a century we will be using a new, RENEWABLE energy source(s). Nuclear power is the dinosaur (and the most dangerous one). No one wants that sh*t in their backyard.

[defenseman]

You also have to take into account that nuclear power plants are the number one NIMBY alarm ringer. For those who don't know, that means Not In My Back Yard. Number two on the list are oil refineries. The American people want cheaper gas and cheaper power, as long as you build the refineries and power plants in somebody else's neighborhood. Politically, the American people go nuts when one of their local pols suggest building either one of these in their districts.

Fact or fallacy: Nuclear is more expensive than coal. True. Not by much though, very slight increase over coal.

Fact or fallacy: Nuclear power damages the enviroment. False. It does not.

Fact or fallacy: Nuclear waste is hazardous to the american public. False. The american public will never see nuclear waste.

Fact of fallacy: Nuclear power plants are extremely expensive. False. They're just more costly than other plants. Prevailing interest rates and the economy have alot to do with the cost of a nuclear power plant. 70's and 80's saw plants running with 15% + interest rates on loans to build the power plants causing them to be very expensive due to interest accrued. Todays estimating cost wrt interest rates alone are much, much less then back then.

Fact or fallacy: Reactors can explode. False. They cannot explode.

Fact or fallacy: Reactors can meltdown. True...some can meltdown. New designs prohibit the ability of the reactor to meltdown built and engineered inherently into the design of the reactor.

Fact or fallacy: Coal plants have no emmissions. False. CO and CO2 (greenhouse gases) presently, sulfer dioxide (acid rain) and such. Mercury is the latest element which they have to find a way of eliminating.

Fact or fallacy: Coal plants can be filtered to 99% efficiency. True to a point. Capable but not necessarily will get there. Maximum efficiency is 99%. Filtration and atmosphere controls equipment is costly (Scrubbers and such)/.

Fact or fallacy: coal plants are cheaper than nuke plants. True. Approximate figures to date ....Nuclear $30.00/Mw-hr Coal $29.10/Mw-hr. New PBMR's will drive cost of nuclear power plant construction down to about 1/8th of the total cost of a conventional Press. water reactor nuke plant.

Fact or fallacy: Nuclear FUSION is the future of power. True. Once perfected (about 40 yrs approx.) it will revolutionize the power generation industry. Massive power output for size.

Fact or fallacy: Nuclear Fusion has rad waste. False...byproducts of Nuclear fusion are Helium or 4 He 2, and water....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Fact or fallacy: Nuclear is more expensive than coal. True. Not by much though, very slight increase over coal.

Fact or fallacy: Nuclear power damages the enviroment. False. It does not.

Fact or fallacy: Nuclear waste is hazardous to the american public. False. The american public will never see nuclear waste.

Fact of fallacy: Nuclear power plants are extremely expensive. False. They're just more costly than other plants. Prevailing interest rates and the economy have alot to do with the cost of a nuclear power plant. 70's and 80's saw plants running with 15% + interest rates on loans to build the power plants causing them to be very expensive due to interest accrued. Todays estimating cost wrt interest rates alone are much, much less then back then.

Fact or fallacy: Reactors can explode. False. They cannot explode.

Fact or fallacy: Reactors can meltdown. True...some can meltdown. New designs prohibit the ability of the reactor to meltdown built and engineered inherently into the design of the reactor.

Fact or fallacy: Coal plants have no emmissions. False. CO and CO2 (greenhouse gases) presently, sulfer dioxide (acid rain) and such. Mercury is the latest element which they have to find a way of eliminating.

Fact or fallacy: Coal plants can be filtered to 99% efficiency. True to a point. Capable but not necessarily will get there. Maximum efficiency is 99%. Filtration and atmosphere controls equipment is costly (Scrubbers and such)/.

Fact or fallacy: coal plants are cheaper than nuke plants. True. Approximate figures to date ....Nuclear $30.00/Mw-hr Coal $29.10/Mw-hr. New PBMR's will drive cost of nuclear power plant construction down to about 1/8th of the total cost of a conventional Press. water reactor nuke plant.

Fact or fallacy: Nuclear FUSION is the future of power. True. Once perfected (about 40 yrs approx.) it will revolutionize the power generation industry. Massive power output for size.

Fact or fallacy: Nuclear Fusion has rad waste. False...byproducts of Nuclear fusion are Helium or 4 He 2, and water....

WOW, you wrote all this yourself? Plagiarizing isn't cool!

[defenseman]

Dinosaur? Your opinion only, there are plenty of opinions to go around I believe the opposite of course. Renewable energy? Examples please....I've heard some good things about solar, however , still far from cost affective. Solar panel size of Texas for city of LA power won't cut it... Hydrogen cell type is also not cost effective. NOT even close. Second , Nuclear Fusion (about 40+ yrs) produces no nuclear waste. Byproducts are helium and water. Thats about it. If your thinking coal is renewable , well your wrong, unless you want to wait another million years or so. Again, you have your opinion on this, I have mine. I know enough about nuclear power today (not 20 yrs ago design) to know it is very safe, and it is very competitive. Even to coal. Cost? Interest rates in the 70's and 80's were outrageous, had a great effect on cost of plant construction. No longer issue today.

Continue research on renewable. Absolutely as much we can. Totally discount nuclear. That's crazy. energy consumption is doubling every twenty or so years. We cannot discount based on not being informed or just not wanting to listen. Fossil fuels the way to go...no way. We need to drop them as soon as we can, we all I believe can agree on that. Everything I read said 99% effective, not 100% and it's very costly to ensure this even happens. CO and CO2 are bad. In the end , they'll be a mix of sources in about 50 years some more than others. Nuclear FUSION will be there , I gaurantee it. Can't explode, can't meltdown, and has no nuclear waste. Enormous source of power. I have no doubt about it. Renewable? We'll see, it will depend on how much money we pour into research. I will tell you, continue on with fossil fuel consumption like we are now and forget everything else except pouring money into renewable? Just plain nuts. We've done enough damage to the enviroment, we gotta stop spewing crap into the atmosphere...dman

[defenseman]

WOW, you wrote all this yourself? Plagiarizing isn't cool!

Beerslug, this came right out of the ole noggin...no lie...If you can't buy that, well , you can't buy that , feel free to call me on it if thats your desire with something to back you up of course..dman

*I can't recall the last time I plagerized anything to be honest. I read stuff and it sometimes sticks in the grey matter permanently. I have TRIED to forget damn formulas etc...etc...you name it, and can't . It really sucks sometimes...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Beerslug, this came right out of the ole noggin...no lie...If you can't buy that, well , you can't buy that , feel free to call me on it if thats your desire with something to back you up of course..dman
.
Nope, half the stuff you wrote was outdated and or inaccurate If you want to prove me wrong, link to some sources that verify what you wrote.

[defenseman]

I'm not proving anybody wrong or right at this point in time. The brain is tired. WAY too much bouncing keys. You want to dissect , have at it...I know what i know, and thats about it...dman

*I get back around to this subject once I get back to battery

[defenseman]

Couple of new ones:

-did you know?
* you recieve higher radiation doses living near coal fired plants than any nuclear power plant meeting government regulations?
* effective dose to the population from coal plants is 100x greater than that from nuclear power plants.
* the energy content of nuclear elements (thorium & uranium) released from coal combustion is greater than the coal consumed.
* Uranium 235 dispersed by coal combustion is equivalent to dozens of reactor fuel loadings.

Bottom line: facts be known, once you cinch up the nuclear industry so tight it can't breath, I gaurantee the coal burning industry will be feeling shortly thereafter some sort of very strigent regulations on their radioactive releases 24 hrs/day , 7 days a week...dman

Then again, the facts are the facts. Coal does release both uranium and thorium to the atmosphere. Let alone mercury.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Couple of new ones:

-did you know?
* you recieve higher radiation doses living near coal fired plants than any nuclear power plant meeting government regulations?
* effective dose to the population from coal plants is 100x greater than that from nuclear power plants.
* the energy content of nuclear elements (thorium & uranium) released from coal combustion is greater than the coal consumed.
* Uranium 235 dispersed by coal combustion is equivalent to dozens of reactor fuel loadings.

Bottom line: facts be known, once you cinch up the nuclear industry so tight it can't breath, I gaurantee the coal burning industry will be feeling shortly thereafter some sort of very strigent regulations on their radioactive releases 24 hrs/day , 7 days a week...dman

Then again, the facts are the facts. Coal does release both uranium and thorium to the atmosphere. Let alone mercury. What did I tell you about plagiarizing?

How come you forgot all about the information I gave you on ZERO emission CCT plants?

[defenseman]

LOL.....I knew you couldn't resist.....yeah those are results of research...however, the other was off the top so to speak....dman..LOL

[Bronco_Beerslug]

LOL.....I knew you couldn't resist.....yeah those are results of research...however, the other was off the top so to speak....dman..LOL

Here's some reading for you on Pebble Bed Modular Reactors...

---------------------------------------------------------------
Critics also often point out an accident in Germany in 1986, which involved a jammed pebble. This accident released radiation into the surrounding area, and led to a shutdown of the research program by the West German government.

Several critics of pebble bed reactors have claimed that encasing the fuel in potentially flammable graphite poses a hazard. The reactor's use of an inert gas as a coolant possibly alleviates this issue.

Additionally, current designs for pebble bed reactors lack a containment building, potentially making such reactors more vulnerable to outside attack and allowing radioactive material to spread in the case of an explosion.

Defects in the production of pebbles may also cause problems.

Since the fuel is contained in graphite pebbles, the actual volume of radioactive waste is greater, although the waste tends to be less hazardous.

The strength of silicon carbide is known from its use in abrasion and compression, but public debators may misrate this material by quoting not its strength against expansion and shear force but its hardness. Crystalline materials such as diamond can be cut with a sharp blow, and since the disintegration products such as Xenon have a limited absorbance in carbon, after some point the nugget accumulates a large amount of gas and may rupture. The system needs to be actively purged of oxygen, and the points at which the fuel pellets inserted, and more importantly, are removed, are an opportunity for disastrous introduction of air, and need to be specifically and sturdily enclosed.

The containment structure must be capable of serving as a secondary tank capable of containing the hot reaction products that would result from a breach of the primary container, should oxygen enter the system. High temperature for extended periods may produce gas reactions that may have not been well studied because of the expense of maintaining such conditions over long periods of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

-----------------------------------------------------------

A new nuclear technology called the pebble-bed modular reactor is getting considerable mention as the type of nuclear reactor most likely to be built in the United States in the future. The pebble-bed reactor does offer certain safety advantages -- at least, on paper. Proponents claim that the pebble-bed reactor cannot experience the meltdown-type accident as occurred at Three Mile Island in 1979. Perhaps, but can the pebble-bed reactor, which will use more graphite in each reactor module than is presently used in all existing US nuclear power plants combined, catch on fire and burn as happened at Windscale in 1957 and Chernobyl in 1986?

Can plant workers, either by mistake or by design, trigger an accident as occurred at the SL-1 nuclear reactor in 1961 and Dresden Unit 3 in 1974 and Browns Ferry in 1975? Can some unexpected component failure cause fuel damage, as occurred at Fermi Unit 1 in 1966?

The pebble-bed reactor is rumored to be competitive with other energy technologies. It appears from a preliminary design review that the proposed reactor achieves its economic advantages by replacing the steel-lined, reinforced-concrete containment structures used for our existing nuclear plants with a far less robust enclosure building. The NRC's own Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards characterized this as "a major safety trade-off."

The safety problem with the proposed "containment-lite" pebble-bed reactor design Is compounded by the existing security weaknesses. Imagine the consequences from a fertilizer truck bomb detonated next to a "containment-lite" reactor with millions of curies of lethal radioactivity to contaminate the environment for many decades. That would truly be a nuclear nightmare.

[/B]Cost projections by the nuclear industry must be taken with a grain of salt, if not an entire salt shaker. According to the US Department of Energy, the actual construction costs for 75 nuclear power plants started between 1966 and 1977 were more than three times higher than their estimated costs. Thus, claims that the projected costs of electricity from a proposed pebble-bed reactor are competitive with the actual costs of electricity from operating renewable energy technologies must be viewed with skepticism.
[/b]
It cannot be overemphasized that a facility like the proposed pebble-bed modular reactor has never been constructed or operated in the world. Consequently, its expected performance characteristics are highly speculative. It would not be prudent at this time to place undue reliance on a risky technology with unproven safety performance. Nuclear experiments belong in the laboratory, not within the US electricity marketplace.
Conclusions and Recommendations

Nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous. If nuclear power is to play an expanded role in the future, it is imperative that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission become a consistently effective regulator. UCS believes that this goal is attainable. The Maintenance Rule (10 CFR 50.63) and the revised reactor oversight process demonstrate that the agency is capable of effective regulation. That capability must be extended across all of the NRC's oversight functions and consistently sustained.

This transformation may require that the agency receive additional resources, particularly during the transformation phase. Because the agency is currently a fee-based agency, it may require legislative changes to supplement the existing resources with taxpayer money.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/n...cfm?pageID=191

------------------------------------------------------
If one could predict with confidence that severe accidents or sabotage attacks were so unlikely as to be incredible, then protection against them might not be justified. However, in the case of the PBMR, significant uncertainties remain, both in the likelihoods of potential severe accidents and in the identification of every potential accident sequence. The PBMR designers have not yet carried out a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and do not even have estimates of the risks of more severe accidents.

Among the largest sources of uncertainty for the PBMR are the potential for and consequences of a graphite fire. The large mass of graphite in the PBMR core must be kept isolated from ingress of air or water. Graphite can oxidize at temperatures above 400 C, and the reaction becomes self-sustaining at 550 C (the maximum operating temperature of the fuel pebbles is 1250 C)[1]. Graphite also reacts when exposed to water vapor. These reactions could lead to generation of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, both highly combustible gases.

If a pipe break were to occur, leading to a depressurization of the primary system, it has been shown that flow stratification through the break can cause air inflow and the potential for graphite ignition[2]. While the PBMR designers claim that the geometry of the primary circuit will inhibit air inflow and hence limit oxidation, this has not yet been conclusively shown.

The consequences of an extensive graphite fire could be severe, undermining the argument that a conventional containment is not needed. Radiological releases from the Chernobyl accident were prolonged as a result of the burning of graphite, which continued long after other fires were extinguished[3]. Even though the temperature of a graphite fire might not be high enough to severely damage the fuel microspheres, the burning graphite itself would be radioactive as a result of neutron activation of impurities and contamination with "tramp" uranium released from defective microspheres. An even worse consequence would be combustion of carbon monoxide, which could damage and disperse the core while at the same time destroying the reactor building, which is not being designed to withstand high pressure. In contrast, the large-volume concrete containments utilized at most pressurized-water reactors can withstand explosive pressures of about 9 atmospheres.

Another important source of uncertainty comes from the complexity of the PBMR core, which is constantly in motion. A PBMR operator must be able to accurately compute the pebble flow, neutron flux and core temperature distributions without the benefit of in-core instrumentation (since there are no structures to support such instrumentation). Previous experience with the AVR test reactor in Germany, a precursor to the PBMR, indicates cause for concern. Experiments measuring the He coolant temperature in the AVR found numerous "hot spots" in the coolant that exceeded 1280 C, whereas the maximum predicted temperature was only 1150 C[4]. After NRC staff highlighted these findings, Exelon raised the design maximum fuel temperature limit during PBMR normal operation from 1060 C to 1250 C. This is of concern because above 1250 C the SiC layer of the TRISO fuel coating will degrade as a result of attack by palladium isotopes produced during fission[5]. It also calls into question the accuracy of the current generation of computer codes for PBMR core analysis.

PBMR Fuel Performance

The safety case for the PBMR places great emphasis on the ability of the fuel pebbles to contain radionuclides under design-basis accident conditions. In order to provide assurance that the fuel will perform as expected, several levels of confirmation are required.

First, the fundamental fuel behavior must be sufficiently well understood that a complete set of technical specifications for the fuel can be derived. It appears that this is not yet the case. There are numerous instances in which TRISO microspheres manufactured to identical specifications and irradiated under identical conditions exhibited drastically different fission product release behavior that could not be attributed to observed physical defects like cracking of the SiC layer[6]. This indicates that there are technical factors affecting TRISO performance that have not yet been identified.

Second, when a complete set of technical specifications is finally at hand, the PBMR fuel manufacturing process will have to be reliable enough to ensure that the specifications are met. Because PBMR fuel is credited to a greater degree than LWR fuel for maintaining safety under accident conditions, and is less tolerant than LWR fuel to defects, PBMR fuel will have to be subjected to more stringent quality control. However, even if the requirements were no more stringent for PBMR fuel than for LWR fuel, inspecting the enormous microsphere flow with a high enough sampling rate to ensure an adequately low defect level would be a considerable challenge. The number of TRISO microspheres manufactured annually to support ten PBMR modules (1150 MWe total) would be on the order of ten billion, three orders of magnitude greater than the number of uranium fuel pellets needed to supply an LWR of the same capacity.

Finally, even if the above two criteria are satisfied, there must be assurance that the behavior of the fuel will not be significantly worse than expected if conditions in the core deviate from predictions --- that is, the fuel should "fail gracefully." It is on this count that the current TRISO fuel technology is clearly a loser. While past experiments have shown that the SiC layer of TRISO fuel limits the release of highly hazardous radionuclides like Cs-137 to below 0.01% of inventory up to 1600 C, the retention capability is rapidly lost as the temperature continues to increase. At 1800 C, releases of 10% of the Cs-137 inventory have been observed, which is on the order of the release expected during a LWR core-melt accident[7]. Without a leak-tight containment present, the release into the environment would be comparable to the release from the fuel.

Thus in order to justify the absence of a leak-tight containment, Exelon needs to demonstrate that the PBMR maximum fuel temperature will not exceed 1600 C during the design-basis depressurization accident, and that more severe accidents that could cause higher fuel temperatures are so improbable that they do not need to be considered. However, given the uncertainties discussed in the previous section --- like a discrepancy between calculated and measured maximum temperatures of at least 130 C --- there are serious grounds for skepticism.

Nuclear Waste Disposal

PBMR proponents do not normally bring up the issue of final disposal of the reactor's spent fuel. There is a reason for this: the volume of the spent fuel produced by a PBMR is significantly greater than that of the spent fuel produced by a conventional LWR, per unit of electricity generated. This is because the uranium in the fuel spheres is diluted in a large mass of graphite.
cont (http://tinyurl.com/m7mbg)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Some more information on nuclear plants...

---------------------------------------------------------
US nuclear plants vulnerable to terrorist attacks
Fuel storage pools at nuclear power plants in 31 states of the USA may be vulnerable to terrorist attacks that could unleash raging fires and deadly radiation, scientists advised the US government on Wednesday.

The group of nuclear experts said neither the government nor the nuclear industry "adequately understands the vulnerabilities and consequences of such an event." They recommended undertaking a plant-by-plant examination of fuel storage security as soon as possible.

In the meantime, plant operators promptly should reconfigure used fuel rods in the storage pools to lower decay-heat intensity and install spray devices to reduce the risk of a fire should a storage facility be attacked, the scientists said.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/07/xin_32040207084691530261.jpg
Charles S. Williamson, Exelon Generation Company security manager, right, talks to a worker next to rows of 55,000-pound concrete blocks, that act as barriers to vehicular attack at the nuclear Clinton Power Station in Clinton, Ill. , in this Oct. 25, 2004 file photo. A largely classified 130-page National Academy of Sciences report compiled by panel of nuclear experts and released Wednesday, April 6, 2005, called for a plant-by-plant examination of the fuel storage pools at nuclear power reactors, declaring the material may be vulnerable to a potential terrorist attack and deadly release of radiation. [AP]

Congress sought the study by a National Academy of Science panel because of the heightened concerns that terrorists might seek to target nuclear power plants. The release Wednesday of a declassified version of the report followed months of debate with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over how much of the findings should remain secret, and therefore, unavailable to potential terrorists.

At 68 plants, including some already shut down, in 31 states, thousands of used reactor fuel rods are in deep water pools. Dry, concrete casks hold a smaller number of these rods.

Much more highly radioactive fuel is stored in pools than is in the more protected reactors — 103 in total — at these sites.

Some scientists and nuclear watchdog groups long have contended that these pools pose a much greater danger to a catastrophic attack than do the reactors themselves.
cont (http://tinyurl.com/qnbyh)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

A little more....

-------------------------------------------------------
THE NATION
Probe of Possibly Fabricated Reports Stalls Nuclear Dump
# Yucca Mountain license process hinges on the findings of a water- safety survey inquiry.

By Elise Castelli, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The Department of Energy will not consider seeking a license for the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada until investigations into possible falsification of water-safety surveys are complete, officials said Tuesday.

"We have not made a final decision yet as to when or whether to file those [licensing] documents, and some of that will be based on this investigation," Theodore Garrish, the department's deputy director for civilian radioactive waste management, told the House government reform subcommittee on federal workforce and agency organization.

During the hearing, three members of Nevada's congressional delegation — Republicans Jon C. Porter and Jim Gibbons and Democrat Shelley Berkley — called for an independent investigation into the possible falsification of agency reports affirming the safety of the Yucca Mountain site, saying that the poor management and quality control of the Energy Department and the U.S. Geological Survey, its partner in the project, allowed scientific evidence to be fabricated.

Last month, the Energy and Interior departments, along with the FBI, began criminal investigations to determine whether e-mails among scientists proved that those reports were fabricated to keep the project going. The data in question indicated that the water levels at the site would not corrode storage tanks for 77,000 metric tons of nuclear waste for 10,000 years, preventing groundwater contamination.

The project to provide a single storage place for the country's nuclear waste from power plants and bomb production — now kept at 131 sites throughout the country — is 14 years behind schedule and could cost as much as $100 billion.

Gibbons said that the "culture of management" of the Energy Department and the USGS was one that "has gone forward from Day One with the idea that you can pound a square peg in a round hole, at any cost."

"We're seeing that today," he said. "The e-mails that we have before us, gentlemen, are not isolated incidents, but show what I feel is pressure from above to get a product out."

The e-mails included such statements as "If they need more proof, I'll be happy to make up more stuff" and "In the end I keep track of two sets of files, the ones that will keep [quality assurance] happy and the ones that were actually used."

Garrish agreed that oversight might have been a problem. "The e-mail suggests that one or more employees have deliberately circumvented our procedures, but they also show that we have well-defined standards for data integrity and a [quality assurance] program that they were well aware of," he said.

John Mitchell Jr., president and general manager of Bechtel SAIC, the Energy Department's main contractor on the project, told the committee that employees who reviewed e-mails had become aware of the possible falsifications in December. He said he was not informed about the problem until March 9, at which point "we immediately notified the Department of Energy."

"Some people in that process identified these e-mails as being in question," he said. "When those matters were brought forward, they were discussed with legal counsel. Unfortunately, the way that conversation went was less clear than it might have been as to what actions could have immediately been taken, and no action was … taken until some time later."

Nevada officials told the committee that the data from the reports were instrumental in the approval of legislation, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2002, designating Yucca Mountain as the nation's sole site for nuclear waste.

"The question of falsification of critical data goes directly to the suitability or unsuitability of Yucca Mountain to safely house this country's first permanent high-level nuclear waste repository," said Brian Sandoval, the state's attorney general. "Such falsification irreparably damages the legality of the project, its scientific integrity and public confidence in the project."

Nevada Gov. Kenny C. Guinn, a Republican, also cited the e-mails in questioning the safety of the site. "It is certainly suspicious, if not outright incriminating, that those USGS studies were ordered by DOE in an attempt to contradict earlier DOE and state of Nevada research findings that were not to DOE's liking," he said.

The subcommittee members expressed dismay that scientists who allegedly falsified documents that confirmed the safety of the proposed site still worked for the federal government. "I can't believe that these folks are still on the payroll," said Porter, the subcommittee chairman.

Energy and Geological Survey officials said that actions could not be taken until the departments' inspectors general completed their investigations.

"Our position has been that because the investigation is ongoing … particular parts of this need to be ascertained by the inspector general and by ourselves so that we do take the appropriate action," said Charles Groat, director of the Geological Survey. "So we're not putting off taking action because we don't plan to take it. We definitely do. We want to be sure we have the best case and best information so we take the appropriate action."

The scientists, whose names are being withheld, could face criminal charges if the inspectors general find the allegations in the e-mails are true.

Last year a federal appeals court threw out the Environmental Protection Agency's standards for radioactive emissions, saying they violated federal law by not mandating safety for the life of the dump — potentially as long as 1 million years — instead of for 10,000 years.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6960965.story

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Something else to chew on...

------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Plants Not Keeping Track of Waste
GAO Study Faults Federal Government for Failing to Implement Safeguards

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 12, 2005; Page A19

Pervasive problems plague the control of radioactive waste at the nation's nuclear power plants, in part because the federal government has been sluggish in instituting and enforcing safeguards, according to a federal report issued yesterday.

The Government Accountability Office's indictment of the nuclear facilities and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the most comprehensive reckoning to date of problems that have begun to emerge at a number of plants in recent years.

Inadequate oversight and gaps in safety procedures have left several plants unsure about the whereabouts of all their spent fuel, the GAO said, and problems in tracking the materials suggest that radioactive rods could be missing from more than the three plants that are widely known to have problems.

"NRC inspectors often could not confirm that containers that were designated as containing loose fuel rods in fact contained the fuel rods," the report said. "The containers, in some cases, were closed or sealed and, in other cases, the contents were not visible when looking into the spent fuel pool. Thus, spent fuel may be missing or unaccounted for at still other plants."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr11.html

[defenseman]

Here's some reading for you on Pebble Bed Modular Reactors...

---------------------------------------------------------------
Critics also often point out an accident in Germany in 1986, which involved a jammed pebble. This accident released radiation into the surrounding area, and led to a shutdown of the research program by the West German government.

Several critics of pebble bed reactors have claimed that encasing the fuel in potentially flammable graphite poses a hazard. The reactor's use of an inert gas as a coolant possibly alleviates this issue.

Additionally, current designs for pebble bed reactors lack a containment building, potentially making such reactors more vulnerable to outside attack and allowing radioactive material to spread in the case of an explosion.

Defects in the production of pebbles may also cause problems.

Since the fuel is contained in graphite pebbles, the actual volume of radioactive waste is greater, although the waste tends to be less hazardous.

The strength of silicon carbide is known from its use in abrasion and compression, but public debators may misrate this material by quoting not its strength against expansion and shear force but its hardness. Crystalline materials such as diamond can be cut with a sharp blow, and since the disintegration products such as Xenon have a limited absorbance in carbon, after some point the nugget accumulates a large amount of gas and may rupture. The system needs to be actively purged of oxygen, and the points at which the fuel pellets inserted, and more importantly, are removed, are an opportunity for disastrous introduction of air, and need to be specifically and sturdily enclosed.

The containment structure must be capable of serving as a secondary tank capable of containing the hot reaction products that would result from a breach of the primary container, should oxygen enter the system. High temperature for extended periods may produce gas reactions that may have not been well studied because of the expense of maintaining such conditions over long periods of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

-----------------------------------------------------------

A new nuclear technology called the pebble-bed modular reactor is getting considerable mention as the type of nuclear reactor most likely to be built in the United States in the future. The pebble-bed reactor does offer certain safety advantages -- at least, on paper. Proponents claim that the pebble-bed reactor cannot experience the meltdown-type accident as occurred at Three Mile Island in 1979. Perhaps, but can the pebble-bed reactor, which will use more graphite in each reactor module than is presently used in all existing US nuclear power plants combined, catch on fire and burn as happened at Windscale in 1957 and Chernobyl in 1986?

Can plant workers, either by mistake or by design, trigger an accident as occurred at the SL-1 nuclear reactor in 1961 and Dresden Unit 3 in 1974 and Browns Ferry in 1975? Can some unexpected component failure cause fuel damage, as occurred at Fermi Unit 1 in 1966?

The pebble-bed reactor is rumored to be competitive with other energy technologies. It appears from a preliminary design review that the proposed reactor achieves its economic advantages by replacing the steel-lined, reinforced-concrete containment structures used for our existing nuclear plants with a far less robust enclosure building. The NRC's own Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards characterized this as "a major safety trade-off."

The safety problem with the proposed "containment-lite" pebble-bed reactor design Is compounded by the existing security weaknesses. Imagine the consequences from a fertilizer truck bomb detonated next to a "containment-lite" reactor with millions of curies of lethal radioactivity to contaminate the environment for many decades. That would truly be a nuclear nightmare.

[/B]Cost projections by the nuclear industry must be taken with a grain of salt, if not an entire salt shaker. According to the US Department of Energy, the actual construction costs for 75 nuclear power plants started between 1966 and 1977 were more than three times higher than their estimated costs. Thus, claims that the projected costs of electricity from a proposed pebble-bed reactor are competitive with the actual costs of electricity from operating renewable energy technologies must be viewed with skepticism.
[/b]
It cannot be overemphasized that a facility like the proposed pebble-bed modular reactor has never been constructed or operated in the world. Consequently, its expected performance characteristics are highly speculative. It would not be prudent at this time to place undue reliance on a risky technology with unproven safety performance. Nuclear experiments belong in the laboratory, not within the US electricity marketplace.
Conclusions and Recommendations

Nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous. If nuclear power is to play an expanded role in the future, it is imperative that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission become a consistently effective regulator. UCS believes that this goal is attainable. The Maintenance Rule (10 CFR 50.63) and the revised reactor oversight process demonstrate that the agency is capable of effective regulation. That capability must be extended across all of the NRC's oversight functions and consistently sustained.

This transformation may require that the agency receive additional resources, particularly during the transformation phase. Because the agency is currently a fee-based agency, it may require legislative changes to supplement the existing resources with taxpayer money.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/n...cfm?pageID=191

------------------------------------------------------
If one could predict with confidence that severe accidents or sabotage attacks were so unlikely as to be incredible, then protection against them might not be justified. However, in the case of the PBMR, significant uncertainties remain, both in the likelihoods of potential severe accidents and in the identification of every potential accident sequence. The PBMR designers have not yet carried out a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and do not even have estimates of the risks of more severe accidents.

Among the largest sources of uncertainty for the PBMR are the potential for and consequences of a graphite fire. The large mass of graphite in the PBMR core must be kept isolated from ingress of air or water. Graphite can oxidize at temperatures above 400 C, and the reaction becomes self-sustaining at 550 C (the maximum operating temperature of the fuel pebbles is 1250 C)[1]. Graphite also reacts when exposed to water vapor. These reactions could lead to generation of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, both highly combustible gases.

If a pipe break were to occur, leading to a depressurization of the primary system, it has been shown that flow stratification through the break can cause air inflow and the potential for graphite ignition[2]. While the PBMR designers claim that the geometry of the primary circuit will inhibit air inflow and hence limit oxidation, this has not yet been conclusively shown.

The consequences of an extensive graphite fire could be severe, undermining the argument that a conventional containment is not needed. Radiological releases from the Chernobyl accident were prolonged as a result of the burning of graphite, which continued long after other fires were extinguished[3]. Even though the temperature of a graphite fire might not be high enough to severely damage the fuel microspheres, the burning graphite itself would be radioactive as a result of neutron activation of impurities and contamination with "tramp" uranium released from defective microspheres. An even worse consequence would be combustion of carbon monoxide, which could damage and disperse the core while at the same time destroying the reactor building, which is not being designed to withstand high pressure. In contrast, the large-volume concrete containments utilized at most pressurized-water reactors can withstand explosive pressures of about 9 atmospheres.

Another important source of uncertainty comes from the complexity of the PBMR core, which is constantly in motion. A PBMR operator must be able to accurately compute the pebble flow, neutron flux and core temperature distributions without the benefit of in-core instrumentation (since there are no structures to support such instrumentation). Previous experience with the AVR test reactor in Germany, a precursor to the PBMR, indicates cause for concern. Experiments measuring the He coolant temperature in the AVR found numerous "hot spots" in the coolant that exceeded 1280 C, whereas the maximum predicted temperature was only 1150 C[4]. After NRC staff highlighted these findings, Exelon raised the design maximum fuel temperature limit during PBMR normal operation from 1060 C to 1250 C. This is of concern because above 1250 C the SiC layer of the TRISO fuel coating will degrade as a result of attack by palladium isotopes produced during fission[5]. It also calls into question the accuracy of the current generation of computer codes for PBMR core analysis.

PBMR Fuel Performance

The safety case for the PBMR places great emphasis on the ability of the fuel pebbles to contain radionuclides under design-basis accident conditions. In order to provide assurance that the fuel will perform as expected, several levels of confirmation are required.

First, the fundamental fuel behavior must be sufficiently well understood that a complete set of technical specifications for the fuel can be derived. It appears that this is not yet the case. There are numerous instances in which TRISO microspheres manufactured to identical specifications and irradiated under identical conditions exhibited drastically different fission product release behavior that could not be attributed to observed physical defects like cracking of the SiC layer[6]. This indicates that there are technical factors affecting TRISO performance that have not yet been identified.

Second, when a complete set of technical specifications is finally at hand, the PBMR fuel manufacturing process will have to be reliable enough to ensure that the specifications are met. Because PBMR fuel is credited to a greater degree than LWR fuel for maintaining safety under accident conditions, and is less tolerant than LWR fuel to defects, PBMR fuel will have to be subjected to more stringent quality control. However, even if the requirements were no more stringent for PBMR fuel than for LWR fuel, inspecting the enormous microsphere flow with a high enough sampling rate to ensure an adequately low defect level would be a considerable challenge. The number of TRISO microspheres manufactured annually to support ten PBMR modules (1150 MWe total) would be on the order of ten billion, three orders of magnitude greater than the number of uranium fuel pellets needed to supply an LWR of the same capacity.

Finally, even if the above two criteria are satisfied, there must be assurance that the behavior of the fuel will not be significantly worse than expected if conditions in the core deviate from predictions --- that is, the fuel should "fail gracefully." It is on this count that the current TRISO fuel technology is clearly a loser. While past experiments have shown that the SiC layer of TRISO fuel limits the release of highly hazardous radionuclides like Cs-137 to below 0.01% of inventory up to 1600 C, the retention capability is rapidly lost as the temperature continues to increase. At 1800 C, releases of 10% of the Cs-137 inventory have been observed, which is on the order of the release expected during a LWR core-melt accident[7]. Without a leak-tight containment present, the release into the environment would be comparable to the release from the fuel.

Thus in order to justify the absence of a leak-tight containment, Exelon needs to demonstrate that the PBMR maximum fuel temperature will not exceed 1600 C during the design-basis depressurization accident, and that more severe accidents that could cause higher fuel temperatures are so improbable that they do not need to be considered. However, given the uncertainties discussed in the previous section --- like a discrepancy between calculated and measured maximum temperatures of at least 130 C --- there are serious grounds for skepticism.

Nuclear Waste Disposal

PBMR proponents do not normally bring up the issue of final disposal of the reactor's spent fuel. There is a reason for this: the volume of the spent fuel produced by a PBMR is significantly greater than that of the spent fuel produced by a conventional LWR, per unit of electricity generated. This is because the uranium in the fuel spheres is diluted in a large mass of graphite.
cont (http://tinyurl.com/m7mbg)

this is old stuff...I'll get back to you with some of the new....dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And this...

---------------------------------------------------
Yucca Mountain Science Questioned...Scientists Allegedly Falsified Data...
4/5/2005

Recently, information was released by the Department of Energy that suggest Federal employees falsified data regarding the safety of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project. As a result, Gibbons said, "It is imperative that Congress take action, initiate its own investigation, and halt this project in it tracks."

As the sole geologist in Congress who has continually questioned the DOE’s claim that a high level nuclear repository could be safely built at Yucca Mountain, Congressman Gibbons understands the painstaking process of ensuring that your data is collected and analyzed correctly and sometimes you get frustrated with this process. However, never do you falsify or manipulate your data to get a desired result.


On April 5th, Gibbons participated at a Congressional hearing held by fellow Nevadan Congressman Jon Porter and testified, “It seems clear to me that not only is the science with regards to this project compromised, but I fear the greater problem is the atmosphere of pushing forward --no matter what the evidence says-- and opening Yucca Mountain at any cost."

“These most recent allegations of false documentation and fabricated scientific evidence are so serious that the FBI is now conducting its own investigation into the matter,” added Gibbons. “Public safety has been and always will be the central focus of debate over the Yucca Mountain. Any allegations alluding to improprieties in the handling and gathering of scientific evidence that could eventually jeopardize the health and safety of the people of Nevada must not be handled lightly.”


Below are some of the emails that now put into question the integrity of the Yucca Mountain project. (emphasis added and blanks are redacted by federal officials due to the ongoing investigation)


• E-mail from presumed Federal employee (PFE) to 6 PFE’s dated 04/03/1998: “I have some maybe bad and maybe good news that you should be aware of….There are some implications that I did not realize until I talked them over with PFE yesterday: basically, either our infiltration model is wrong or our __ flow model is wrong or both.”


• E-mail from USGS employee 1 to presumed USGS employee 2 dated 05/11/1998: “Still don’t know quite how to handle the air temp glitch. I’m continuing to keep mum about this, but, from a scientific integrity standpoint, it is tempting to let the end users know exactly what was provided to them in terms of effectively cooler future climate simulations. Problem is, I don’t know how to do this without looking bad.”


• E-mail from USGS employee 1 to presumed USGS employee 2 dated 12/17/1998 06:57PM: “The work plan __ has put together as a result of the meeting this week includes model hand-offs….We’re not sure how smoothly this is going to go but this is the approach. Like you’ve said all along, YMP (Yucca Mountain Project) has now reached a point where they need to have certain items work no matter what, and the infiltration maps are on that list. If USGS can’t find a way to make it work, _____ will (but for now they are definitely counting on us to do the job). I can no longer wait for USGS to figure this out; I’m moving ahead according to the __/______ work plan we put together this week.”


• E-mail from presumed USGS employee 2 to USGS employee 1 dated 12/17/1998 11:47:08 PM: “I agree with your analysis. We only win if we get the final product out.” “The bottom line is forget about the money, we need a product or we’re screwed and will take the blame..."


• E-mail from presumed USGS employee 2 to USGS employee 1 dated 4/2/1999: “Science by peer pressure is dangerous but sometime [SIC] it is necessary.”


• E-mail from USGS employee 1 to presumed Federal employee (PFE) dated 3/30/2000: “The programs, of course, are all already installed otherwise the ___ would not exist. I don’t have a clue when these programs were installed. So I’ve made up the dates and names (see red edits below). This is as good as its going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff, as long as its not a video recording of the software being installed.”

http://tinyurl.com/ob4rc

[defenseman]

While we're at it:...

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html

Just a couple of articles....dman

[defenseman]

And this...

---------------------------------------------------
Yucca Mountain Science Questioned...Scientists Allegedly Falsified Data...
4/5/2005

Recently, information was released by the Department of Energy that suggest Federal employees falsified data regarding the safety of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project. As a result, Gibbons said, "It is imperative that Congress take action, initiate its own investigation, and halt this project in it tracks."

As the sole geologist in Congress who has continually questioned the DOE’s claim that a high level nuclear repository could be safely built at Yucca Mountain, Congressman Gibbons understands the painstaking process of ensuring that your data is collected and analyzed correctly and sometimes you get frustrated with this process. However, never do you falsify or manipulate your data to get a desired result.


On April 5th, Gibbons participated at a Congressional hearing held by fellow Nevadan Congressman Jon Porter and testified, “It seems clear to me that not only is the science with regards to this project compromised, but I fear the greater problem is the atmosphere of pushing forward --no matter what the evidence says-- and opening Yucca Mountain at any cost."

“These most recent allegations of false documentation and fabricated scientific evidence are so serious that the FBI is now conducting its own investigation into the matter,” added Gibbons. “Public safety has been and always will be the central focus of debate over the Yucca Mountain. Any allegations alluding to improprieties in the handling and gathering of scientific evidence that could eventually jeopardize the health and safety of the people of Nevada must not be handled lightly.”


Below are some of the emails that now put into question the integrity of the Yucca Mountain project. (emphasis added and blanks are redacted by federal officials due to the ongoing investigation)


• E-mail from presumed Federal employee (PFE) to 6 PFE’s dated 04/03/1998: “I have some maybe bad and maybe good news that you should be aware of….There are some implications that I did not realize until I talked them over with PFE yesterday: basically, either our infiltration model is wrong or our __ flow model is wrong or both.”


• E-mail from USGS employee 1 to presumed USGS employee 2 dated 05/11/1998: “Still don’t know quite how to handle the air temp glitch. I’m continuing to keep mum about this, but, from a scientific integrity standpoint, it is tempting to let the end users know exactly what was provided to them in terms of effectively cooler future climate simulations. Problem is, I don’t know how to do this without looking bad.”


• E-mail from USGS employee 1 to presumed USGS employee 2 dated 12/17/1998 06:57PM: “The work plan __ has put together as a result of the meeting this week includes model hand-offs….We’re not sure how smoothly this is going to go but this is the approach. Like you’ve said all along, YMP (Yucca Mountain Project) has now reached a point where they need to have certain items work no matter what, and the infiltration maps are on that list. If USGS can’t find a way to make it work, _____ will (but for now they are definitely counting on us to do the job). I can no longer wait for USGS to figure this out; I’m moving ahead according to the __/______ work plan we put together this week.”


• E-mail from presumed USGS employee 2 to USGS employee 1 dated 12/17/1998 11:47:08 PM: “I agree with your analysis. We only win if we get the final product out.” “The bottom line is forget about the money, we need a product or we’re screwed and will take the blame..."


• E-mail from presumed USGS employee 2 to USGS employee 1 dated 4/2/1999: “Science by peer pressure is dangerous but sometime [SIC] it is necessary.”


• E-mail from USGS employee 1 to presumed Federal employee (PFE) dated 3/30/2000: “The programs, of course, are all already installed otherwise the ___ would not exist. I don’t have a clue when these programs were installed. So I’ve made up the dates and names (see red edits below). This is as good as its going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff, as long as its not a video recording of the software being installed.”

http://tinyurl.com/ob4rc

This pissed me off too, however there is more to the story...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

this is old stuff...I'll get back to you with some of the new....dman I got some "newer" stuff.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear expert criticises Eskom's PBMR safety report
Date: Tue 06 September 2005
Category: Nuclear
Issue No: 54

A report by a US nuclear safety expert has criticised the environmental impact assessment and safety reports of South Africa’s controversial pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) project.

The report, commissioned by the Legal Resources Centre, was written by Gordon Thompson, executive director of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in the US.

Thompson noted that the PBMR design had undergone at least two changes of a magnitude that could "substantially affect the safety of a reactor". He described the final environmental impact assessment (EIA) and the safety analysis report as “poorly written, badly constructed documents that did not meet the standards of analogous documents in the US”.

According to Thompson, the risk findings presented in the EIR were "two orders of magnitude below those present in the safety analysis report, demonstrating extraordinary carelessness in the preparation of both documents".

Thompson warned that because of their poor quality, neither of the documents could provide any guidance to a decision-maker concerned about the risk of the PBMR.

In January 2005 the Cape High Court ruled in favour of environmental watchdog group, Earthlife Africa, and set aside the government’s approval of the EIA for the pebble bed modular reactor.

Earthlife are currently involved in a legal battle to obtain minutes to an Eskom board meeting, during which the group believes that the power company was considering withdrawing from the controversial project.
http://tinyurl.com/p2p8z

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety of transporting nuclear material questioned
Over the last few years, insurance companies have been quietly amending their insurance policies to reflect what is actually a major future threat to homes and people. If householders look over their amendments to their policies within the last 3 to 5 years, they will notice that they are no longer insured against nuclear radiation accidents or incidents. (exclusion quoted in full below)

"This comes as no surprise," says Earthlife Africa eThekwini volunteer Vanessa Black. "It is clear the world over that nuclear accidents are of such a magnitude, that they are rightly considered uninsurable risks. Since the South African nuclear weapons programme was dismantled most members of the public believe nuclear radiation is of no concern. However, an astute insurance industry will have realised that if Eskom's planned Pebble Bed Modular nuclear energy reactor programme goes ahead ordinary South Africans could be exposed to greater radiation risk both at the nuclear facilities and along transport routes between Kwa Zulu-Natal and Gauteng and Gauteng and the Western Cape."

Eskom's plans to build approximately 216 Pebble Bed Modular Nuclear Reactors (PBMR's) including 24 for local energy generation. This programme would entail:
· the importation of enriched uranium for fuel manufacture via a port in KZN - Durban is their preferred port;
· transport of the uranium to Pelindaba for manufacture of the fuel 'pebbles'; and
· transport of these fuel 'pebbles' to local reactors or back through KZN for export.

At the height of production, this could mean that as many as 9 trucks would drive through Durban every week carrying enriched uranium to Pelindaba, near Tshwane / Pretoria and another 31 trucks would return carrying fuel pebbles for export. Even if only the first demo PBMR is built 1000 kg of enriched uranium will be transported annually.

"Enriched uranium is very dangerous when it is breathed in or swallowed. Eskom claims it will be transported in specially constructed canisters, but the information provided by Eskom as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process says that the canisters are only designed to withstand a drop of 9 metres. So if a truck had an accident on a bridge and the canisters fell, they could easily be split open and expel the dangerous enriched uranium dust over a very wide area. According to most recent studies, people who ingest particles are likely to suffer extreme toxic effects in the lungs, digestive system and lymph glands as well as lung cancers. " said Black. This could also be replicated by the canister being hit by a fast vehicle.

Based on recent statements by emergency personnel and the response to transport accidents, such as the recent asbestos spill in Durban, Earthlife Africa is concerned that emergency services would provide an inadequate response in the event of a nuclear transport accident. Furthermore it would be difficult to evacuate a wide area in an emergency. This is reason enough for residents in the city to be alarmed.

"We also bear the risk that other countries will demand that the spent fuel, which is highly radioactive, must be returned to the country of origin. Graphite, the casing of the fuel pebbles, burns readily in air if exposed to temperatures of 800 degrees - what we can expect from a fire resulting from an accident. And water will not put it out," she said.

To put to bed once and for all claims about "safe" nuclear transport, here are a few recorded transport incidents in the U.S.A. ....
(one source: http://www.nitehawk.com/alleycat/nukes.html)
Bearing in mind that there is no safe dose of radiation, whether these transport incidents resulted in "harmful escapes of radioactivity" probably depends on whether you are the worker involved in the incident or a nuclear industry boss / investor.
· The Critical Mass Energy Project (part of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Inc.) tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, including 17 involving radioactive contamination.

· 21 September 1980 - Two canisters containing radioactive materials fell off a truck on New Jersey's Route 17. The driver, en route from Pennsylvania to Toronto, did not notice the missing cargo until he reached Albany, New York.

· 1986 - A truck carrying low-level radioactive material swerved to avoid a farm vehicle, went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.

· 31 March 1994 - Fire at a nuclear research facility on Long Island, New York resulted in the nuclear contamination of three fire fighters, three reactor operators, and one technician. Measurable amounts of radioactive substances were released into the immediate environment.

It must be remembered that if only 20 of the proposed PBMR's were built, the enriched uranium needs alone would require 140 trucks for the first load, and almost one per week thereafter (total 1740 vehicles) for 40 years.

Surely, the money of South African taxpayers should be used to ensure safe, clean and reliable energy delivery to the South African public. If we are investing in new technology, shouldn't we invest in those that are at the cutting edge of sustainable energy provision, technologies that are proven, that decentralise power generation (our problems have been in getting the power from Mpumalanga to the Cape and rural areas) and that optimise job creation (greater numbers without being skills heavy). These goals can be met with far less cost and risk to lives through well proven and commercially viable renewable energies such as wind, wave, tidal and bulk solar thermal technologies. The international markets for these technologies is growing at up to 40% per year, with the nuclear market growing (at best) a few percent a year.

For example for the same cost as one PBMR unit delivering 110 MW of energy we could deliver:1700 MW of wind power = 850 full-time jobs (which is 10x greater than with nuclear) without the radiation danger. Also wind is a tried and tested technology that one can set up really quickly with relatively unskilled labour and it will be easy to build turbines locally. There are numerous sites across the country where the wind resources are sufficient for wind energy generation and these are located exactly where we currently have problems distributing power to.

For the same cost as one PBMR we could also provide 1.2 million households with solar water heating, hot water pipes and ceilings. This would save 795 MW of electricity = 7 PBMRs and radically improve the lives of millions of our people.
http://tinyurl.com/mocc8

[defenseman]

Solar will work in small applications. Large applications? Not cost effective. Simple as that...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

While we're at it:...

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html

Just a couple of articles....dman Your "newest" link for the first reference is 1993 and the material there is completley outdated and inaccurate now.

Your second link is one of my favorite websites, but the paragraph you linked to was originally posted years ago.

Solar will work in small applications. Large applications? Not cost effective. Simple as that...dman

You need to watch more Discovery Channel. They have all the latest advancements and technology on there, like solar technology now consisting of enzymes that can actually be painted (applied) on many surfaces.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Alright I would like to point out some truths and fabrications to the best of my knowledge. Remmember how I said my parents weren't into sports? Well because of the fact I've had to listen to all his Science and my Mom's Business talks growing up... for those who care my Dad works as a Nuclear Physicist and a Chemical Engineer (and my Mom's an accountant - this probally explains why I'm living paycheck to paycheck in the military while my parents have a vacation home in Aspen).

The truth is, Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest most efficient forms of energy out there. I don't know, but I think Gore agrees. I remmember him talking about avoiding Nuclear plants for the waste it produces, however, it is better than Coal or Oil.

Nuclear energy has potential to do great harm to the environment with nuclear radiation, and I still wouldn't trust to live near a reactor. I beleive that Solar and Wind can be profecient enough, but Nuclear energy may be necessary.

The problem is the reactor cores. Proper disposal and whatnot. I know Nasa has researched blasting them into space... but according to a documentary I saw, the cores are actually buried deep beneath the Earths surface with a thick clay shell around it, and by the time the waste penetrates the shell, it will no longer be hazardous. Many former nuclear waste dumps are now wildlife preserves and even neighborhoods now.

But then again, look at Chernobyl, they had to evacuate half of Europe.

Something tells me that this Chinese boy born with three arms has something more than natural selection to do with it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How could the Dems do any better? After all, they are not devotees in the Holy Free Market Fixes Everything Fundamentalist Church. ;D

:laugh:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Can someone please explain to me why the environmental views of Gore and other Democrats are so offensive? I mean, even if you do not believe the majority of the scientific community who think global warming is a very real danger, is it not better to play it safe? If not, why not?

Because the majority of the know-nothings who vote GOP have been conditioned by the Rehab Rushes of the world to confuse the interests of the multinational corporations Bush represents with their own interests.

Therefore, anyone who opposes BushCo policies that give big industries carte blanche to destroy the environment must be a left-wing radical intent on the destruction of everything good about America.

[defenseman]

Because the majority of the know-nothings who vote GOP have been conditioned by the Rehab Rushes of the world to confuse the interests of the multinational corporations Bush represents with their own interests.

Therefore, anyone who opposes BushCo policies that give big industries carte blanche to destroy the environment must be a left-wing radical intent on the destruction of everything good about America.

You have no idea what you are talking about...dman

*there is adv's and disadv's to everything. You got to weigh them ALL, not just renewable. Second, MANY do not understand EXACTLY how the enviroment is affected by the different forms of energy sources. Just because it's acceptable to the "green" side , DOES NOT mean it's safe. If you knew what the traditional coal fired plant actually expelled on a DAILY basis, you'd be shocked. MOST don't know...dman

Gotta look at all, simple as that , THEN formulate a plan , a LONG term plan I might add. We need to do this much sooner than people know also..dman

[defenseman]

Onto another topic: Nuclear proliferation issues Coal pwr vs. Nuclear pwr.

http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/ners211/pro01/proliferation_resistance/proliferation_resistance.htm

Group Members: Mary Ignas, Rebecca Hattle, Andy Hooper, Eric Harrison
Take me to: introduction | pro nuclear arguments | rebuttal | references

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION


A modular, pebble bed, high temperature gas reactor with a helium gas turbine generator has the best chance of meeting the future needs of the nuclear industry. It will also have social acceptance because of the proliferation resistance and waste disposal opportunities available with it. The new generation of small, modular power plants are competitive with other forms of power and are designed for safety, proliferation resistance, and ease of operation.
PRO NUCLEAR ARGUMENTS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguments for Proliferation Resistance:

Proliferation Resistance
Proliferation Security
Materials Diversion
Coal Ash as a Source
Political Disadvantages
Informational Proliferation Resistance Tables:

Plutonium content of MPBR fuel as a function of burnup
Isotopic mixes of various plutonium grades
Predetonation Probabilities


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proliferation Resistance

Pebble Bed Reactor is major step towards elimination of proliferation concerns
- MIT & Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory concluded PBR the best opportunity to satisfy proliferation concerns facing all nuclear electric generating technologies.

- American Nuclear Society sponsored an "Economic & Environmental Imperative" study, found that PBR have non-proliferating advantages that would decrease the overall cost for proliferation resistance.

Experts have concluded the Pebble Bed Reactor (PBR) concept to be a major step in the direction for eliminating proliferation concerns for nuclear power generation, and therefore decreasing the cost for proliferation resistance. For example, in January of 1998, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory jointly collaborated on an advanced reactor technology project with the PBR concept as its research objective. The conclusion of this project, based on preliminary research into future nuclear energy options and the MIT student work, was that this technology provided the best opportunity to satisfy the proliferation concerns that face all nuclear electric generating technologies. Also, an “Economic and Environmental Imperative” study was sponsored by the American Nuclear Society and found that pebble bed reactors have non-proliferating advantages that would decrease the overall cost for proliferation resistance.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proliferation Security

High proportion of fuel burnt leads to bad weapons material
Expensive & difficult to process spent fuel
Fuel balls recycled up to 10 times through reactor until burnt to depletion
- High burn up requires 80,000 MWd/MTHM

- Minimal fissile material left to extract from depleted fuel

- Hundreds of thousands of balls must be stolen to make weapons

The MPBR is proliferation secure. The low enriched uranium fuel is a half millimeter sized particles of uranium dioxide encased in graphite and silicon carbide, which is turn is encased in the main graphite ball. Not only is it expensive and difficult to process such spent fuel, but also the proportion of the fuel burnt is very high. Fuel balls are recycled through the reactor some 10 times. They are extracted and analyzed to determine the amount of fissionable material left, and then either returned to the reactor or sent to depleted fuel storage. Unlike conventional large fuel elements, the fuel balls cannot jam in reactor core housings, and so they can be burnt to depletion without any fear of mechanical deformation causing handling problems in the core. There is therefore minimal fissile material to extract from depleted fuel.

There is no low or medium level waste produced by a PGMR, except for gloves, jackets, and similar items that might be used by workers in a designated radiation area. Depleted fuel balls are planning to be stored on site for many years. However, they can either be removed to a repository, or left on site for decades, depending on the operator’s policy. The current PBMR design assumes that depleted fuel balls will be stored on site for the duration of the plant’s lifetime, and then for a further 40 years after plant shutdown and decommissioning.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Materials Diversion

Necessary steps to gain 10 kg of Plutonium 239:
1. Diversion of 106 fuel elements (despite of international control)

2. Head end for 106 fuel elements (technology today not available)

3. Destruction of 1*1010 coated particles (technology today not available)

4. Reprocessing of the Pu-U Mixtures

It is evident this cannot be done in an unobserved manner
Other ways of diversion of weapon-grade materials require much less effort
The coated-particles provide an excellent shelter against migration of fission products even under very long time scales of millions of years as can be seen from the leaching experiments that have been performed by FZJ. Such experiments should be extended to other storage conditions to prove this behavior also for other geologic disposal sites that salt. The ceramic graphite shell around the coated-particle fuel provides an additional chemically and mechanically resistant enclosure that can even be reinforced by further conditioning and disposal provisions.

Another non-proliferation advantage of the PBR is the high temperature gas cooled reactor which offers the potential of utilizing the thorium-uranium cycle. The thorium-uranium cycle brings highly efficient uranium utilization to the reactor with a once through fuel cycle system that yields three major non-proliferation advantages. First, it reduces the production of plutonium by a factor of about 5-7 relative to a standard nuclear reactor. Also, the plutonium produced has a high content of Pu-238, Pu-240, and Pu-242 which makes it impractical for use in a weapon which requires pure Pu-239. In addition, it employs a once-through fuel cycle with no reprocessing, with the U-233 (used to produce “weapons-grade” plutonium) burnt along the way; in addition, the U-233 that is produced is weakened by uranium isotopes.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coal Ash as a Source

Nuclear proliferation is overlooked as a potential consequence of coal burningl
- A 1000 MWe coal plant releases 74 pounds of Uranium-235 in a year

- Releases enough to make at least 2 atomic bombs

Electric utilities are not high-profile factories
- Collection and processing of coal ash for recovery of minerals can proceed without attracting outside attention, concern, or intervention

- Any country with coal-fired plants could collect sufficient nuclear weapons material to build up a very powerful arsenal

Collection and processing of coal ash for recovery of minerals into a source of uranium production for nuclear weapons. This is worse than the problem of turning nuclear waste into nuclear weapons, so we would have this anyway. Nuclear proliferation is an overlooked potential consequence of coal burning. The uranium released by a single 1,000 Mwe coal plant in a year includes about 74 pounds of uranium-235, which is enough to make at least two atomic bombs. Plutonium could also be bred from coal0derived uranium. Also, “because electric utilities are not high-profile facilities,” states physicist Alex Gabbard of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “collection and processing of coal ash for recovery of minerals…can proceed without attracting outside attention, concern, or intervention. Any country with coal-fired plants could collect combustion byproducts and amass sufficient nuclear weapons material to build up a very powerful arsenal.” To further validate Gabbard’s statements, The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) actually investigated using coal as a source of uranium production for nuclear weapons in the early 1950’s when richer ores were believed to be in short supply. The AEC concluded that burning the coal would concentrate the mineral, which could then be extracted from the ash. This seems may seem far-fetched, however, it emphasizes the political disadvantages under which nuclear power must follow. The current laws force nuclear utilities, and not coal plants, to invest in expensive systems that limit the release of radioactivity. Nuclear fuel is not efficiently recycled in the United States because of proliferation fears. These factors have warped the economics of nuclear power development and created a politically difficult waste-disposal problem. If the coal utilities were forced to assume similar costs, coal electricity would no longer be cheaper than nuclear power.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Political Disadvantages of Nuclear Power

Nuclear fuel not efficiently recycled because of proliferation fears
Fears created a politically difficult waste-disposal problem
If coal utilities forced to assume similar costs, coal electricity would no longer be cheaper than nuclear power
The risk of nuclear proliferation is not zero and would not become zero even if nuclear power did not exist. So, getting rid of nuclear power plants or not making any new plants would not stop the threat of nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

Burying fuel is risky and plutonium through reprocessing increases the long-term risk of proliferation. There is already a lot of nuclear waste available, so what is more going to do? They could dig up past weapons. The waste disposal is also better because it is durable and has a low release of activity.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1: Plutonium content of MPBR fuel as a function of burnup (MWD/kg)

Isotope 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 94

Pu-238 0.0% 0.02% 0.10% 0.28% 0.60% 1.17% 2.14% 3.66% 5.58% 7.00% 7.28%
Pu-239 100% 91.49% 82.34% 72.96% 63.82% 55.32% 47.77% 41.28% 35.97% 32.19% 31.17%
Pu-240 0.0% 7.91% 15.23% 21.56% 26.48% 29.62% 30.70% 29.59% 26.93% 24.38% 23.67%
Pu-241 0.0% 0.56% 2.13% 4.47% 7.19% 9.80% 11.67% 12.24% 11.53% 0.52% 10.22%
Pu-242 0.0% 0.02% 0.20% 0.73% 1.90% 4.08% 7.73% 13.23% 19.98% 25.98% 27.66%
kg Pu/ton 0.0 0.8036 1.507 2.147 2.753 3.349 3.965 4.640 5.391 6.886 6.296

These numbers were calculated by Dr. Thomas Cochrane of the Natural Resources Defense Council. This table is a function of burnup starting with an 8% enriched UO2 core. These are the isotopes desired for nuclear weapons.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2: Isotopic mixes of various plutonium grades

Isotope grade 238Pu 239Pu 240Pu 241Pu 242Pu
Super-grade - 98.0% 2.0% - -
Weapons-grade 0.012% 93.8% 5.8% 0.35% 0.022%
Reactor-grade 1.3% 60.3% 24.3% 9.1% 5.0%

As can be seen from table one, the fuel produced by the MPBR does not classify as reactor grade weapons material.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3: Predetonation Probabilities

Probability exceeding x% design yield Super Grade Weapons Grade MPBR
4% 98.51% 95.70% 48.70%
5% 97.49% 92.81% 29.52%
6% 96.55% 90.19% 18.49%
8% 94.82% 85.55% 7.79%
10% 93.27% 81.49% 3.52%
15% 89.86% 73.07% 0.59%
20% 86.93% 66.29% 0.12%
25% 84.32% 60.61% 0.03%
50% 74.08% 41.44% 0.00%
99% 60.53% 22.90% 0.00%

The spontaneous fission rate for the MPBR fuel is so high that there is less than a 50% chance of a weapon even reaching 4% of its design yield. The largest threat to proliferation is early removal of balls after approximately 12,000 Mwd/Mt burnup.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

powerpoint presentation final paper


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REBUTTAL


Final Rebuttal Presentation
REFERENCES


Complete Bibliographical and Web References

Journals:
Adamov, E.O., I. Kh. Ganev, A.V. Lopatkin, V.V. Orlov and V.S. Smirnov "Self_Consistent Model of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Fuel Cycle." Nuclear Engineering and Design v198 n3, 2000: p.199-209.
Beller, Denis and Richard Rhodes "The Need for Nuclear Power." Foreign Affairs v79 n1 Jan.-Feb. 2000: p. 30-44.
Ryu, Kouichi and Hiroshi Sekimoto "Possibility of Highly Efficient Uranium Utilization with a Pebble Bed Fast Reactor." Annals of Nuclear Energy v27 n12, 2000: p. 1139-1145.
Websites:
http://www.iaea.or.at/inis/aws/htgr/abstracts/abst_srd_20.html
http://wastenot.inel.gov/Pebble_Bed/Documents/pbrannual.html
http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/tip/fspu.html
http://www.uilondon.org/sym/1999/kemm.htm
http://www.c-n-t-a.com/the_need_for_nuclear_power1.htm
http://milkyway.mie.uc.edu/nuclear/kadak/sld001.htm
Books:

Nuclear power and the environment, Applied Energy 65.
International Electric Power Encyclopedia, p.144, 1998.
Engergy Statistics Year Book, 1995, United Nations, New York , p432, 1997.
BP Statistical Review of World Energy, p38, 1998.
Other:

Inauguration speech of President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, reported in
Pretoria News, 16 June 1999.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Onto another topic: Nuclear proliferation issues Coal pwr vs. Nuclear pwr.

http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/ners211/pro01/proliferation_resistance/proliferation_resistance.htm



All of your links are BEFORE the Pebble Bed accident in Germany which caused the termination of the Pebble Bed project.

[defenseman]

True, however if you do research wrt to the NRC and the Pebble bed modular reactor, you'll find pre-licensing / evaluations are well under way. I recall Feb or Jan 06 and Mar 06 they've already commenced the meetings for licensing. Mind you, a ways to go, but they are going to get into it eventually. I'll do my best to dig up the corrections to design. I read it a ways back, can't recall exactly what was done though to make corrections...dman

[W*GS]

How could the Dems do any better? After all, they are not devotees in the Holy Free Market Fixes Everything Fundamentalist Church.

True. They're acolytes of The State Will Make Us Perfect and We'll Always Be in Charge Of It religion.

[Rohirrim]

True. They're acolytes of The State Will Make Us Perfect and We'll Always Be in Charge Of It religion.

The daily evidence suggests that the free market cowboys in charge of the government right now are far more "statist" than the Dems ever were.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The daily evidence suggests that the free market cowboys in charge of the government right now are far more "statist" than the Dems ever were.
We need the "other" party in office to stop the bleeding of our tax dollars (among other things). How does that sit with W*GS?

[Rohirrim]

We need the "other" party in office to stop the bleeding of our tax dollars (among other things). How does that sit with W*GS?

I believe when historians look back on this period, they will write that this is the era where the military-industrial complex (that Ike warned us about) took complete control of the U.S. government (in the guise of Dick Cheney - and others) and imposed their agenda of corporate supremacy over the state.

[Falconer]

We need the "other" party in office to stop the bleeding of our tax dollars (among other things). How does that sit with W*GS?

Is that kind of like putting a fox in the henhouse to protect them from the snake. On a side note my father-in-law and I were talking the other day, and we discussed a little politics. He said, "I don't know if I am going to vote anymore; I know that is a wrong way to think, but that is what it has come to." That is a pretty sad statement, but also very true.

[W*GS]

The daily evidence suggests that the free market cowboys in charge of the government right now are far more "statist" than the Dems ever were.

Seeing as how the biggest "actuarial" problems with the government were created and enacted by Democrats, and that the Democrats and GOP both have deep statist inclinations...

From a libertarian point of view, the Dems and GOP are the same side of the statist coin.

[W*GS]

We need the "other" party in office to stop the bleeding of our tax dollars (among other things). How does that sit with W*GS?

The quotes are apropos.

Neither party has a strong history of fiscal restraint. Period.

[Rohirrim]

Seeing as how the biggest "actuarial" problems with the government were created and enacted by Democrats, and that the Democrats and GOP both have deep statist inclinations...

From a libertarian point of view, the Dems and GOP are the same side of the statist coin.

While the libertatian is simply a mythical beast. :wiggle:

[W*GS]

While the libertatian is simply a mythical beast.

I have no delusions about libertarianism taking the country by storm and fixing up the messes left us by the Demopublicans and Reprocrats.

[defenseman]

I have no delusions about libertarianism taking the country by storm and fixing up the messes left us by the Demopublicans and Reprocrats.

Well as a man once said "Each man is entitled to his opinion, but not entitled to his own set of facts". Both parties have muddied the water enough, I am probably going to write in a candidate. I don't trust any politician affiliated with either the repubs or demos for the most part. But , to get elected today, a politician has got to have the backing due to fiscal constraints of a campaign. I am aware of no one having the money to run with the big dogs on his own.....dman

[Rohirrim]

IMO, politics is a process of evolution based on success and failure. Like Jefferson often said, it's always messy. Only fascists and tyrants claim they have acheived a utopian state. The neocon experiment has been a failure. Time to try something else.

[defenseman]

IMO, politics is a process of evolution based on success and failure. Like Jefferson often said, it's always messy. Only fascists and tyrants claim they have acheived a utopian state. The neocon experiment has been a failure. Time to try something else.

And what would that be? What is your spin on a soluable remedy? I honestly don't know what would work at this point in time, given the society we live in...dman

[W*GS]

IMO, politics is a process of evolution based on success and failure. Like Jefferson often said, it's always messy. Only fascists and tyrants claim they have acheived a utopian state. The neocon experiment has been a failure. Time to try something else.

(You forgot "Communists" in your list of utopians)

I would say that the statist experiment has failed - the neocon variant being just one more example.

[defenseman]

(You forgot "Communists" in your list of utopians)

I would say that the statist experiment has failed - the neocon variant being just one more example.

Communism? NO way in hell, I'm not playing with that ball...dman