RoR: Forum

Thanks.

Fred, this is the second visit to the ER here. The first occurred a couple of weeks after we moved here to Lynchburg form Chicago last May. On both occasions, we found all the staff thoroughly competent and socially on board. We did not have to make any scene to get my partner Walter in right along with me and they confirmed after they got us in that he was the appropriate person I had designated on the previous visit.* The wait to be called in from the lobby was short on both visits. They are efficient and effective.

In Chicago over the decrepit years of life, it proved best to not go to a hospital that was a trauma center (unless you were in that condition). We once took me to the ER at Northwestern, as I was having a kidney stone. It was due to some life-saving medicine I was trying. I had collapsed onto the floor at home curled up and screaming. The worst passed, I had broken out in a sweat and ran to the bathroom to throw up. We called my doc, he knew exactly what was happening, and he called the ER. We went there, I was in excruciating pain, and we had to wait in the lobby for 5 hours before being let in and seen by anyone. Things went far better in a little hospital called St. Joseph, near our apartment.

*What a social improvement in these last two decades. In late ’87, my first lover had to go into the hospital called Rush in Chicago. He was diagnosed with a pneumonia that was a death sentence. The doctor was trying to get me out of the room, when the results had come in. But Jer was an attorney, and we had the papers. During the days Jer was there that first time, that doctor always referred to him as a homosexual, even though Jer had told him that it was offensive and that gay was the respectful name.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wanted to mention a further point to Curtis about his question. In considering a complex piece of legislation, I think it would be an on-balance decision of how to vote on it after studying its particulars. I would count what looks good for nuclear power as in itself on the plus side. But it could go as Rand wrote in connection with the Medicare proposal in the 60’s. She said forthrightly, yes, it is good that the elderly would have this medical care, however, on the negative side, . . .

That reminds me of her oral response to a question in 1976 in a Q&A session following one of Peikoff’s lectures. The questions were written, and this was an elaborate one which asked how she could endorse Moynihan over Buckley in the NY Senate race, when Moynihan was in favor of this and this and this . . . . She took each one and would lead with something like “Yes, that’s pretty bad.” People laughed; it was so charming. She argued her weights between the two candidates on balance. She was very respectful towards the gentleman who had asked the question, and did not put him down in any way for coming to the opposite verdict.

Post 21

Monday, January 11, 2010 - 1:34pm

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 7:32pm

I've read that nuclear power is only price-competitive with heavy government subsidies. Don't know if that's true. And, I suspect that the AGW theory is false, or at least grossly overstated, in that the natural climate swings likely swamp any man-made effects.

I'll like to see all government subsidies and other thumb-on-the-scale regulations for power generation go away, and let the most efficient way of generating power prevail in each local marketplace. Some places coal power would make the most sense, other places with pollution problems or that are located far away from coal sources might go with nuclear.

But to heck with worrying about AGW. Even if this unlikely theory has some small grain of truth to it, the best way of combating any such effects is to make people wealthy enough that they can compensate for the changes in climate, whether natural or caused by greenhouse gases.

Post 23

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 10:46pm

I've read that nuclear power is only price-competitive with heavy government subsidies.

Jim, just for some comparison, consider this. Coal has within it trace amounts of uranium, usually 2 - 3 ppm. Uranium, by mass, has about 80 million times the energy density when it is fissioned as coal does when it is burned. What that means is that the energy contained in the trace amounts of uranium found in coal is actually greater than the energy you get from burning the coal in the first place. You could put a nuclear fission reactor on the smoke stack of a coal plant and generate more power than the coal plant does. If you use that uranium to breed more fuel, then it has in fact 100 times as much energy in it, and if you use it to breed fissionable fuel out of thorium, which is also present in coal, you can get another 100 fold increase. What that means is that the uranium and thorium burned in a single coal power plant over the course of one year could have generated more power than all coal burning power plants have this century.

Given these kinds of numbers, it's hard for me to believe that on any rational and equal footing that coal would be cheaper than nuclear power. The only coal burning going on would probably be just to easily separate the uranium and thorium out!

Post 24

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 5:39am

Jim and Michael,

Another comparison of nuclear and coal that always stuck in my mind was this: A nuclear fuel pellet is a little cylinder about a half-inch in diameter and in length. The energy we get from that pellet is equal to the energy we get from 100 rail cars of coal. The enrichment that went into making the pellet was equal to about 4 cars of coal; still, the equation of one pellet to 96 cars of coal is stunning.

Coal remains competitive with nuclear due to the cost of the extraordinary measures in design, construction, maintenance, operation, and security required for sure safety. (Now and then, you hear talk of weakness of security at our nukes. That elicits my grim smile and the thought, “Well you just try it, honey.”) I remember the first day I walked into the containment building. It seemed as something from another world, from another race more advanced than humans. And, indeed, putting uranium to work for us does require our highest standards and elaborate ways of ensuring they are met. We have demonstrated we can do it.

Good information on where we are with nukes and their future use is here.

Jim, the only things like subsidies for nuclear power that I recall are the government research and development that brought about nuclear reactors, statutory limits on liability from nuclear accidents, and payment to plants for continuing to store spent nuclear fuel on site beyond the target date of planned turnover to the government for permanent storage or reprocessing. Another cost that might be looked on as a subsidy would be the cost of the NRC. Thinking of that as a subsidy is even more cloudy than the others, as it is the function of government to protect the citizens.

Post 25

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 8:36am

Stephen:

Scoping out the local lay of the land, regarding ER rooms, should give you some comfort, knowing at least there is competent emergency help available nearby. There always seems to be the local right places and wrong places to go, and it's usually under circumstances not conducive to shopping around that you bump into them. But now, you've at least got them scoped out.

Kidney stones -- ugh!

---

Of course they had an impact in the U.S., but what is your impression of the importance of the 'perfect storm' caused by the confluence of

1] Three Mile Island
2] The China Syndrome movie
3] The environmental/anti-technology/anti-industrial movement

... all kind of piling up on each other in the late 70's?

Chernobyl came relatively soon after 1979-- 1986, but the impact on the industry was much different here than in France. The events above seemed to find resonance here, all but killing the nuke industry here for a long time.

But not in France, they went full bore ahead during this same period, never letting up.

Ironically -- to me, the 'voice of the people' in the US had a strong influence in the US. Either the 'voice of the people' was different in France, or, the stronger armed nature of French socialism was more effective ... in telling the people of France what their voices were saying.

Why do you think the same social factors that chilled the industry in the US didn't fully take root in socialist France? Was it simply an indication of the stronger arm of the French government in their system, or, are there far fewer complete idiots in France?

Or, was something else the root cause of the nuclear moratorium in the US?

regards,
Fred

Post 26

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 9:40am

Fred,

I think the Three Mile Island incident was the pivotal factor for the US. Even though no members of the public were injured, even though the layers of protection in the plant design did in fact protect the public, and even though people are injured as a result of industrial accidents all the time, I think it really shook the confidence of many Americans in the government’s Atomic Energy Commission ability to ensure the public was protected. There was always lurking in the social background the suspicion that a plant could turn into a nuclear explosion (Not). Then too, because the radiation is invisible, people worry they are being lied to about how much was released and how slight the risk of damage such a level poses. I always remember this one local citizen, speaking to a TV reporter outside the plant said he could taste the radiation, and "it tastes metallic.”

The fire at Brown’s Ferry later on may have also contributed to the cancellations and slowdowns (i.e., rising cost of construction and operation). But I’m sure it was a small blip compared to TMI.

I don’t have a sense of how much that propaganda movie may have influenced opinion against nuclear power. Within your 3], the specifically anti-nuke movement has seemed to me a big factor in making investment in nuclear unattractive. I gather they are able to slow things up considerably at the locale of a proposed site. Certainly, they slowed the disposal site at Yucca Mtn. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama and Chu (re)initiated some alternative positive approach, such as recycling of spent fuel. (Forget not the accusations against Obama that Clinton made during the Primary debates concerning his covert sympathy with nuclear power. Hope!)

For France and Japan, I think the big immediate factor in not being derailed by Chernobyl was that nuclear is governmental. On the cultural side, I have gathered that scientific literacy of the educated public (high school and beyond) is considerably higher in those countries than in the US. They may have been better prepared to instantly grasp the great difference for safety between the (containment) design, plant conditions, and operating procedures of plants in the Soviet bloc and those aspects of their own plants.

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 1/13, 7:34pm)

Post 27

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 12:46pm

Stephen:

Ironically, "Today, 13 January, the contract for the first building to be constructed on the ITER site, the winding facility for the Poloidal Field Coils, was signed."

What's your take on how ITER is being handled?

I was struck a while back at how much delayed the groundbreaking for the latest experiment was over pure political wrangling. The impression was, this can't be much of a global priority if the world is going to dance like this for this long over pure political posturing, jockeying for position.

The US is showing up with half a century of development to kick in, but seems to have taken a kind of back seat in this program.

When you think of how long DoE has been funding fusion research in the US at all the labs -- since the 50s -- it just doesn't seem anywhere near as focused an effort as, well, the yardstick for focused efforts, the Manhatten Project. The technical challenges are enormous, and there has been slow and steady progress made, but it just seems like there is excessive foot dragging as the supposed finish line approaches. Even if the first generations are D-T, and D-D fusion is still another 50 years away, D-D fusion seems like such a total game changer for the species. Both fission and D-T fusion seem like they are going to be short term waystations on the path to a long term D-D fusion economy, but I could be totally wrong about that. (Similar thinking in the 50's about fission turned out to be wildly optimistic.)

But fusion really doesn't seem to be very front and center in our thinking. It's as if we culturally sense that it is just as far away as it was 50 years ago from being a reality. The public gives more attention span/shelf-life to topics like 'cold fusion' and so on than it seems to do fusion.

And yet, well, today, the contract for the first building has finally been signed. Do the world governments responsible not for pushing ITER really seem all that energized over pursuing it?

The incentives(for mankind) to pursue D-D fusion are huge. If/when D-T ever technically evolves to D-D, then it has been claimed, a gallon of seawater has the equivalent fuel of 300 gallons of gasoline or somesuch. With D-T, the incentive is not the same, but still substantial, and easier to do first.

The D-D economies would soon enough power mankind to the stars. But it could easily end up being China leading us there, at the current rate.

Do you think fusion will be as viscerally feared as fission?

regards,
Fred

Post 28

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 5:20pm

Michael -- re: post #23

I'm aware of the incredible energy density of uranium nuclear reactions versus coal chemical reactions. The issue of pricing, however, is not predicated solely or even mainly on energy density, but on the total cost of delivering that energy. For example, the carbon in the coal could, under certain extreme conditions, such as those in a large enough star in a certain late stage of stellar evolution, undergo a nuclear reaction and produce energy. See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

So, under the formula E=mc2, ANY form of mass has that extreme energy density, whether it is coal or uranium or whatnot.

But, since we don't currently have the technology to create carbon nuclear reactions, the cost of utilizing that energy is essentially infinite right now.

Anyhow, the point is that in the absence of government subsidies or penalties, and depending on how low a level of air pollution a community chooses to "buy" via air pollution controls, it would probably be cheaper in coal country like Pennsylvania or West Virginia to dig up and refine coal, build a coal burning plant, and transmit that energy, than it would be to dig up and refine uranium elsewhere, ship it to coal country, build a more expensive nuke power plant, and transmit that energy.

To use a similar analogy, it is generally much cheaper to buy high quality wine from Chile or Australia or Argentina than a comparable quality wine from Napa, even if you live in Napa, despite the higher energy costs needed to ship that imported wine from halfway around the world, and the comparable energy content of grapes grown in these various regions. In both nukes and wine, energy density is not the only factor influencing costs.

Basically, coal power is so cheap and plentiful that it is the default cheapest energy generator if pollution control is either not a problem (because the plant is located in a rural area where the damage caused by pollution is negligible) or simply not a priority (as in parts of China).

Post 29

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 5:45pm

The nuclear industry is heavily regulated, so whatever subsidies it gets it probably pales in comparison to how much costly it is to run them when the government burdens the industry so much. The regulations on storing waste for example are ridiculous monstrous and unnecessary. And as Mike pointed out new breeder reactors can re-process all that waste.

The only subsidy I'm aware of are the liability limits for potential nuclear accidents, if one were to call that a subsidy. The government requires each plant to carry private insurance of up to 300 million dollars. So far since the Price Anderson act was passed in the 50s, the industry has paid out a combined total of about 150 million. Half of that from 3 mile island. So not one dime of the tax payer has paid for this so called subsidy. For all intents and purposes this can't really be considered a subsidy, or at least not an actual one but a potential one. But the nuke industry has an excellent track record of safety, so it's highly unlikely for an accident to occur. For example for 50 years there's been no nuclear blasts. I'm typing this right now a half mile from a Naval sub-base that is home port to 15 subs with nuclear reactors in them. The Navy hasn't had any accidents for half a century either. Compare that to fossil fuels, how many people have died from mining accidents, CO poisoning, explosions, deaths from atmospheric pollutants, etc.

With the exception of solar and wind, which are both inadequate technologies for meeting the power grid demand, nuclear energy is probably the safest form of energy production.

Post 30

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 5:55pm

The fission of radio nuclides is a spontaneous room temperature phenomenon, Jim. It doesn't require the application of high temperatures and pressures as does fusion. (The fusion of carbon, rather than hydrogen would hardly be profitable.) What is necessary is to gather enough heavy nuclides of the right type to maintain a controlled fission chain reaction. This generates heat, and thus powers a turbine, starting from room temperature.

The inordinate price of nuclear fission energy results from the burden and fickleness of regulation, and the effects of that fickleness on the market, and nothing else.

Fuel cost for nuclear energy is in effect zero. The real price is determined by the costs of construction and maintenance and transmission and so forth. Nuclear energy could be delivered at a few cents per kwh, well under a dime, not the over 25c/kwh that you average in Hawaii. The cost of externally imposed construction delays and the impossibility of standardization due to the local interference of hundreds of jurisdictions have strangled nuclear power.

Post 31

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 7:14pm

Very interesting thread, thanks especially Michael and Stephen for your comments. One small correction to the excellent technical info in your post 2 Michael:

Fissionable means any isotope whose nuclei will split into two or more component nuclei when bombarded with a neutron of an appropriate energy.
Fissile means a fissionable isotope whose fission products include at least 2 neutrons of appropriate energy to 'fiss' more nuclei, i.e. to sustain a chain reaction.

Your description of usable nuclear fuels is spot on by replacing 'fissionable' with 'fissile'.

Aaron

Post 32

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 2:02pm

Progress towards laser ignition of nuclear fusion at National Ignition Facility

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, hope.

“That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”*

Post 33

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 3:33am

Promoting New Nukes

Voglte New Units

Loan Guarantee Particulars

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 2/17, 3:34am)

Post 34

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 1:53pm

Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25nuke.html

Vote was 26-4 to close Vermont Yankee in the Green Mountain State...

I guess you really can't get there from here.

Post 35

Friday, March 12, 2010 - 8:22am

Russia Signs India Nuclear Deal
(3/12/10)

Related:
The Natural Gas Game
Peter Lee (2/19/10)

Post 36

Sunday, July 4, 2010 - 7:56am

Federal Capital Subsidy for Two Solar Power Plants

Maugeri on Solar

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Happy Independence Day!
(Independence from Great Britain!)

Post 37

Monday, August 2, 2010 - 8:15am