Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Nuclear Power is a Hoax

155 views
Skip to first unread message

ace^

unread,
Jun 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/19/00
to

Nuclear Power is a great boondoggle. there is no increase in the
energy created by the use of uranium.
The energy is all added from an already available electrical source at
the TVA power line.
When the uranium is processed it is it not hot enough to boil water so
the uranium must be enriched to make it fuel for the nuclear power
plants.
This results in a loss of energy. Nuclear Power is consumer of energy
not a producer!
--
az...@hotmail.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Tim O'Flaherty

unread,
Jun 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/19/00
to
Thanks for clearing that up for us Ace.

Dewey & Lucy Thompson

unread,
Jun 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/19/00
to
What color is the sky on YOUR planet?

Karl F. Johanson

unread,
Jun 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/19/00
to
> From: ace^ <az...@my-deja.com>

>
>
>Nuclear Power is a great boondoggle. there is no increase in the
>energy created by the use of uranium.
>The energy is all added from an already available electrical source at
>the TVA power line.

Wow. Are you ever smart for knowing that.

>When the uranium is processed it is it not hot enough to boil water

I should hope not. . .

>so
>the uranium must be enriched to make it fuel for the nuclear power
>plants.

Ummmm. . . Enriched uranium isn't hot enough to boild water either? Even
weapons grade isn't.

Candu's use natural uranium, by the way.

>This results in a loss of energy. Nuclear Power is consumer of energy
>not a producer!

>az...@hotmail.com

Such an interesting way you "proved" that.
--
Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada
-It's okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you're
wrong you're supposed to become enlightened & change your mind.
Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional.

Jowr

unread,
Jun 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/20/00
to
Could you show me some numbers to back up your claim?

"ace^" <az...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ilagq$jbu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...


>
>
> Nuclear Power is a great boondoggle. there is no increase in the
> energy created by the use of uranium.
> The energy is all added from an already available electrical source at
> the TVA power line.

> When the uranium is processed it is it not hot enough to boil water so


> the uranium must be enriched to make it fuel for the nuclear power
> plants.

> This results in a loss of energy. Nuclear Power is consumer of energy
> not a producer!

falkiner

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to
SHHH! Not so loud. Its supposed to be a secret. The Dutch are playing a
joke on the French. The tricked them into building all those nuclear
plants, and are secretly supplying about 2/3 of Frances energy with
their windmills, and a genetically modified plankton growing in the
Zeider Zee making Browns gas.

They're going to pull the plug on them on the first All Fool's Day of
the new millenium in 2001. What fun it will

ryanh...@primus.com.au

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:25:44 GMT, in sci.energy you wrote:
>
>
> Nuclear Power is a great boondoggle. there is no increase in the
> energy created by the use of uranium.
> The energy is all added from an already available electrical source at
> the TVA power line.
> When the uranium is processed it is it not hot enough to boil water so
> the uranium must be enriched to make it fuel for the nuclear power
> plants.
> This results in a loss of energy. Nuclear Power is consumer of energy
> not a producer!
> --
> az...@hotmail.com
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Enrichment of Uranium doesn't require that much energy, the amount of power
that nuclear plants can get from Uranium is much higher, as for it not being
hot enough to boil water when it is ore it isn't but when fission occurs at
a high rate it is, as for the already available power source it would have
to be pretty f***ing powerful to be able to provide all the electricity that
nuclear provides, if energy were lost because of nuclear power it wouldn't
exist, that is the straight fact of the matter.

There are some reactors that can run on natural Uranium and don't need
enriched fuel so you should do a little research into reactor technology
before you say it is all a hoax.

ace^

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
In article <1103_961929328@oemcomputer>,

-- Enrichment of Uranium doesn't require that much energy, the amount


of power
that nuclear plants can get from Uranium is much higher, as for it not
being
hot enough to boil water when it is ore it isn't but when fission
occurs at
a high rate it is, as for the already available power source it would
have
to be pretty f***ing powerful to be able to provide all the electricity
that
nuclear provides, if energy were lost because of nuclear power it
wouldn't
exist, that is the straight fact of the matter.

There are some reactors that can run on natural Uranium and don't need
enriched fuel so you should do a little research into reactor technology
before you say it is all a hoax.

Ryan Healey,
You should look at the facts.
Uranium is enriched and used because countries without a souce of
energy require it. Not because it is an efficient use of energy.
There are no power plants that use refined fuel that is not enriched.
Energy that is added is the energy removed from the process by fission.
That energy began as coal burning in a power plant.
There is no gain from the process and there is a great loss.
Fission only occurs when the uranium is at a high level of
radioacitvity which is reached by enrichment of the fuel by the breeder
reactor at Paducah. The high level of radioactivity is not available in
the natural product. The uranium is used to store the energy from the
electric power generated at the power plant then released as radiation
which heats the water and produces the steam that turns the generator
to produce the electricity.
It is a circular process that causes a great loss of the net energy.
Can you see that?
Azel Beckner

Graham Cowan

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
 

ace^ wrote:

> Ryan Healey,
> You should look at the facts.
> Uranium is enriched and used because countries without a souce of
> energy require it.  Not because it is an efficient use of energy.
> There are no power plants that use refined fuel that is not enriched.

Incorrect, CANDU reactors do this and so do the little old
Magnox reactors in Britain.

>  
> Energy that is added is the energy removed from the process by fission.
> That energy began as coal burning in a power plant.
> There is no gain from the process and there is a great loss.

France's 58 nuclear power reactors, and many others in Europe,
are all provided with enriched uranium by the Tricastin enrichment
plant, which gets its power from just four of those same reactors.

(Isn't that still a gaseous diffusion plant?  Centrifuge plants
use a lot less energy.  I think one reactor could power a centrifuge
plant that would feed the whole world.)

[snip]

---------------------------------------------------------------
$1 uranium = ca. $133 petroleum = ca. $116 natural gas.
Electricity? Hydrogen? No, the indirect nukemobile power-taps
distant reactors through the fifth element, ~boron~.  See
http://members.xoom.com/I2M/boron_blast.html or
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html .
---------------------------------------------------------------
 


ryanh...@primus.com.au

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
> Ryan Healey,
> You should look at the facts.
> Uranium is enriched and used because countries without a souce of
> energy require it. Not because it is an efficient use of energy.
> There are no power plants that use refined fuel that is not enriched.
> Energy that is added is the energy removed from the process by fission.
> That energy began as coal burning in a power plant.
> There is no gain from the process and there is a great loss.
> Fission only occurs when the uranium is at a high level of
> radioacitvity which is reached by enrichment of the fuel by the breeder
> reactor at Paducah. The high level of radioactivity is not available in
> the natural product. The uranium is used to store the energy from the
> electric power generated at the power plant then released as radiation
> which heats the water and produces the steam that turns the generator
> to produce the electricity.
> It is a circular process that causes a great loss of the net energy.
> Can you see that?
> Azel Beckner
>
>
> az...@hotmail.com
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Uranium is not enriched using breeder reactors, that is something anyone
who knows about nuclear power would know. The CANDU reactors use natrual
Uranium which hasn't been enriched.

To enrich Uranium it is combined with flourine to form Uranium hexaflouride
UF6(g), which is then run through a magnetic field, the 235U is lighter and
goes through quicker, thereby meaning that there is more 235U in the sample
that gets through first, the other way involves a centrifuge. Neither of
those processes requires very much energy and over one cycle would have
produced more energy then was required to enrich it (by a few orders of
magnitude).

BTW: Do you think that the USS Nautilus was solar powered?

John Wilson

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to

Graham Cowan wrote:


>
>
>
> ace^ wrote:
>
> > Ryan Healey,
> > You should look at the facts.
> > Uranium is enriched and used because countries without a souce of
> > energy require it. Not because it is an efficient use of energy.
> > There are no power plants that use refined fuel that is not enriched.
>

> Incorrect, CANDU reactors do this and so do the little old
> Magnox reactors in Britain.
>
> >

> > Energy that is added is the energy removed from the process by fission.
> > That energy began as coal burning in a power plant.
> > There is no gain from the process and there is a great loss.
>

> France's 58 nuclear power reactors, and many others in Europe,
> are all provided with enriched uranium by the Tricastin enrichment
> plant, which gets its power from just four of those same reactors.
>
> (Isn't that still a gaseous diffusion plant? Centrifuge plants
> use a lot less energy. I think one reactor could power a centrifuge
> plant that would feed the whole world.)
>

Yes. And it doesn't use anything like all the output from the four
reactors on the site.

A company called URENCO, a joint venture of, the Brits, Dutch, and
Germans, has a commercial centrifuge plant in each of those countries
that gives the French and US GDPs serious competition. See:

http://www.urenco.com

73,
JohnW

goph...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2016, 12:34:28 PM8/4/16
to
On Monday, June 19, 2000 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, ace^ wrote:
> Nuclear Power is a great boondoggle. there is no increase in the
> energy created by the use of uranium.
> The energy is all added from an already available electrical source at
> the TVA power line.
> When the uranium is processed it is it not hot enough to boil water so
> the uranium must be enriched to make it fuel for the nuclear power
> plants.
> This results in a loss of energy. Nuclear Power is consumer of energy
> not a producer!
> --
> az...@hotmail.com
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.



On Monday, June 19, 2000 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, ace^ wrote:
> Nuclear Power is a great boondoggle. there is no increase in the
> energy created by the use of uranium.
> The energy is all added from an already available electrical source at
> the TVA power line.
> When the uranium is processed it is it not hot enough to boil water so
> the uranium must be enriched to make it fuel for the nuclear power
> plants.
> This results in a loss of energy. Nuclear Power is consumer of energy
> not a producer!
> --
> az...@hotmail.com
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Nuclear Physics basic laws include the "preservation of energy" rule which states that energy may not be destroyed or created. Energy may only be transferred or transformed to another form. The energy is captured by the Rough River Dam and Power Plant that generates electric current (The first in a chain of transformation of energy) This electricity is then carried by power line to Paducah, KY where it is used by the "enrichment reactor" to increase the radioactivity of the uranium (U235) to make it "hot" enough to make water boil. This U235 is then transported by truck or train to the Nuclear Power Plant where it is used to produce steam (the most inefficient transfer). The steam produces energy to turn the turbine and make electricity to sent over the wires to the factory or Cities that use electricity. The net result is a loss from the original power generated by the Hydro-electric Dam or the coal fired power station.

Azel Beckner

unread,
Aug 5, 2016, 12:37:35 PM8/5/16
to
On Monday, June 19, 2000 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, ace^ wrote:
> Nuclear Power is a great boondoggle. there is no increase in the
> energy created by the use of uranium.
> The energy is all added from an already available electrical source at
> the TVA power line.
> When the uranium is processed it is it not hot enough to boil water so
> the uranium must be enriched to make it fuel for the nuclear power
> plants. The uranium in fuel rods are place close together to create a reaction that raises the temperature of the total without burning the graphite that they are housed in. It is a delicate process that can result in fires like a Chernobyl.

Bill Ghrist

unread,
Aug 8, 2016, 11:32:18 AM8/8/16
to
What a bunch of BS. Ever hear of e=mc**2? The energy produced by
nuclear fission comes from the conversion of mass into thermal energy
(mass and energy are equivalent, so this is energy being "transferred or
transformed to another form"). The total energy input into the process
(including enrichment) is about 2% of the output. This is actually
better than coal, gas, and solar. See here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-analysis-of-power-systems.aspx

Bob F

unread,
Aug 8, 2016, 1:26:17 PM8/8/16
to
Financially, it makes no sense either. The same argument is often
proposed for solar panels - that they use more power to make than they
ever produce. Clearly nonsense because obviously no utility could ever
make a buck off them if it were true. They would just cost too much.

For reactors, the utilities may be ignoring the costs of permanently
containing and storing the radioactive wastes and decommissioning the
reactor when it can no longer operate. Do they have this money set aside
to assure these thing are properly done even if the utility fails.

Bill Ghrist

unread,
Aug 9, 2016, 11:06:17 PM8/9/16
to
All nuclear generating companies have been paying the federal government
for the eventual off-site storage of the spent fuel. For mainly
political reasons the government had not yet kept its part of the
bargain. All nuclear generating companies set aside dedicated funds for
decommissioning. Some people have expressed uncertainty as to whether
these will always be totally sufficient in every case, but as far as I
know this has not been an issue for any of the plants that have been
taken our of service so far.
0 new messages