Energy, pollution, and EV's (UCS reference)
Russ Brown
some rather amazing claims for the advantages of electric vehicles -
order of magnitude advantages - claims that disintegrated when actual
calculations of total pollutant emissions were made.
One of the references cited by Mr. Houtz was a book sponsored by the
Union of Concerned Scientists, "Steering A New Course - Transportation,
Energy and the Environment", written by Deborah Gordon (Island Press -
1991).
I recently obtained a copy of the book; its text provides a different
perspective than that offered by Mr. Houtz.
Table 13 (p. 75) is "Comparison of Emissions from Alternative Fuels to
Gasoline/Diesel:
Fuel Type Source Greenhouse CO2 NOx NMHC CO SOx Toxics
Impact
(10E9 t/y)
EV New Coal 1.68 +23% more more more much more
more
EV Nonfossil 0 -100% much much much much less
less less less less
(NMHC = reactive hydrocarbon)
Although not specifically described, the reference ICE vehicle was an
average vehicle, not an economy-type. If performance-matching were
done, i.e., comparison with a Honda VX (48/55 mpg EPA) would produce an
even greater environmental deficit for the EV.
In 1991, the electrical power in the U.S. was provided by:
Coal: 54.9%
Nuclear: 21.7%
Hydro: 9.8%
Gas: 9.3%
Oil: 3.9%
Other: 0.4%
If we abjure the use of nuclear power (which is currently fashionable
albeit illogical) and could agree that very little additional hydro is
available (or even desirable if we wish to preserve our rivers), we must
accept coal as the dominant available energy source for electricity.
If coal-fired power plants are used to supply electricity, the combined
losses (nicely summarized in a current posting by John DeArmond) make
EV's a source of increased pollution compared to ICE's, especially if
compared to vehicles of "comparable" (actually much superior)
performance.
Gordon's book (page 95) provides a summary table of advantages and
disadvantages:
Electricity for Electric Vehicles
Advantages Disadvantages
No tailpipe pollution High fuel cycle emission if
generated from coal and oil
Renewable if not Current battery capacity limits
generated fm fossil fuels driving distances
Low full-cycle emissions Vehicle speed limited to <60 mph
if generated fm renewable in current prototypes
Efficient and quiet Manufacture and disposal of certain
batteries cause water and solid
waste pollution
Supply infrastructure in Currently very expensive to operate
place (electric grid)
Suitable for certain fleet Further RD&D commitments required
operations
There are lots of qualifications/corrections of the above-listed table
that could be made. Among these are the obvious limitations imposed by
cold weather, driving distance requirements (EV would usually be a
second or third car in selected environments), and recharge time.
In the real world, the use of EV's would produce more pollution and use
energy less effectively. The pollution impacts could be mitigated by
the expansion of nuclear power generation capability, but that appears
to be unlikely in the near future.
The EV does provide the capability to move pollution from the point of
use to somewhere else, but that is not quite ethical from an
environmental standpoint.
(The contrast between the actual text of the UCS book and the information
provided by Mr. Houtz several months ago suggest that he may have cited
it as a secondary reference without the benefit of having read it. Any
other interpretation would be less charitable.)
Moss Drake
I notice from the statistics that 70% of US energy is
from non-renewables such as coal and nuclear.
If we began to conserve, and to re-plan society,
we would need only half as much power, eliminating
the problem of building new power plants, and
simultaneously raising the percentage of power
we get from renewables.
moss
Paul Dietz
> I notice from the statistics that 70% of US energy is
> from non-renewables such as coal and nuclear.
Nuclear is indeed "renewable", in the sense that breeder reactors
produce more fissionable material than they consume. The amount of
accessible fertile material is so large as to be effectively
unlimited. One may argue that nuclear has technical problems, but
then so do the other "renewable" options.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Russ Brown
>
Just to be sure that you have considered the problem from all angles,
ask yourself how much of our electrical energy is provided by what you
consider "renewable", and then plan to bridge the gap. It will look a
bit different.
Nuclear energy is, of course, "renewable" is one considers the use of
the two breeder cycles....at least for millenia. At present, we have no
specific plans for a breeder cycle...........and, in fact, we have no
long-term energy strategy of any kind in the U.S.
Reducing our total energy consumption by half could be a trick, since so
much of it is out of our control; selected parts of it can be reduced,
and net benefits would be achieved.
When the fossil fuels are gone in 2-4 centuries and if we choose not to
use nuclear power, what are our descendants going to do?
victor yodaiken
>Nuclear energy is, of course, "renewable" is one considers the use of
>the two breeder cycles....at least for millenia. At present, we have no
>specific plans for a breeder cycle...........and, in fact, we have no
>long-term energy strategy of any kind in the U.S.
Russ, in view of the poor French experience, what makes you
believe that these types of reactors are actually practical? Does any
other nation have an active breeder reactor program? Are there new
technologies, not being used by the French?
--
doug mcpherson
> In article <1992Jun9.2...@agora.uucp> mo...@agora.uucp (Moss Drake) wri
>
> > I notice from the statistics that 70% of US energy is
> > from non-renewables such as coal and nuclear.
>
> Nuclear is indeed "renewable", in the sense that breeder reactors
> produce more fissionable material than they consume. The amount of
> accessible fertile material is so large as to be effectively
> unlimited. One may argue that nuclear has technical problems, but
> then so do the other "renewable" options.
>
> Paul F. Dietz
> di...@cs.rochester.edu
>
While it is true that nuclear is renewable in the sense that it
creates its own fuel, it is generally not considered to be renewable
in the normal usage of the word.
As for other renewable options, the only real problem with most
of them is economic. And I don't think thats a good excuse for
not using them !
.........................................................
doug mcpherson
hays...@csource.oz.au Unique Computing Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
The opinions expressed above are that of the author only.
Don Roberts
>As for other renewable options, the only real problem with most
>of them is economic. And I don't think thats a good excuse for
>not using them ! -------------
Yup.
--
Don Roberts
d...@llnl.gov
Phil Ngai
>While it is true that nuclear is renewable in the sense that it
>creates its own fuel, it is generally not considered to be renewable
>in the normal usage of the word.
Haystack appears to think that the sun will burn forever.
--
My opinions are my own.
I'm voting for Perot.
Richard Foy
#Presumably the human race will not commit suicide, not even in
#Oz.
#
#If the economics of the "other renewable options", if they are
#sufficiently uneconomic, their use is a recipe for poverty.
#--
#John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
#*
#He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
I see no reason to presume that the human race will not commit suicide.
Defining nuclear energy as renewable is not true. Nuclear fuel may be
generated from non-fisionable material. The supply of nuclear fuel
is virtually unlimited, but it is not renewable.
I wonder why proponents of nuclear energy distort the reality to claim
that it is renewable rather than unlimited or some other truth. My belief
is that they want to coopt the goodwill that the environmental movement
has generated for the concept of renewable.
Richard Foy Standard Disclaimer
Nick Szabo
>As for other renewable options, the only real problem with most
>of them is economic. And I don't think thats a good excuse for
>not using them !
Thank you for this succinct statement of Green idiocy.
--
sz...@techbook.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
Nick Szabo
>| Steven L. Hayes |
>| Nuclear Engineering |
>| Texas A&M University |
>| slh...@zeus.tamu.edu |
>+------------------------+
I would like to take time out here to express my admiration and
appreciation for those studying nuclear energy and working in the
nuclear energy industry. While most of us blather back and forth
about global warming and greenhouse gases, these folks are _working_
to solve the problem.
Thank you very much!
Kevin Weinrich
>appreciation for those studying nuclear energy and working in the
>nuclear energy industry. While most of us blather back and forth
>about global warming and greenhouse gases, these folks are _working_
>to solve the problem.
Hear, hear!
-Kevin Weinrich wei...@athena.cs.uga.edu
Paul Houle
>>I would like to take time out here to express my admiration and
>>appreciation for those studying nuclear energy and working in the
>>nuclear energy industry. While most of us blather back and forth
>>about global warming and greenhouse gases, these folks are _working_
>>to solve the problem.
>
>Hear, hear!
Get a life, pal. About the best thing that somebody can expect
from a degree in nuclear engineering is a lifetime of unemployment if they
don't go into another field. Why? Because nuclear power has demonstrated
itself to be uneconomical. George Bush has an idea for an "energy policy" --
which is to make it easier for utility companies to railroad the public
to build nuclear power plants. The guy is so out of touch because the
utilities don't want to railroad anybody to build nuclear power plants,
you couldn't pay them build nuclear power plants because the damn things
don't make money.
--
Dan Sorenson
> Get a life, pal. About the best thing that somebody can expect
>from a degree in nuclear engineering is a lifetime of unemployment if they
>don't go into another field.
Our nuclear engineering department had a 100% placement rate
until it was dissolved two years ago. Hardly unemployment.
> Why? Because nuclear power has demonstrated
>itself to be uneconomical. George Bush has an idea for an "energy policy" --
>which is to make it easier for utility companies to railroad the public
>to build nuclear power plants. The guy is so out of touch because the
>utilities don't want to railroad anybody to build nuclear power plants,
>you couldn't pay them build nuclear power plants because the damn things
>don't make money.
You might want to tell that to Commonwealth Edison in Chicago.
Their studies show the nuclear plants to be their most efficient and
economical to run, with coal a fairly close second. I can give you
a reference for this if you don't believe it, but it should be found
in any decent college library.
< Dan Sorenson, z1...@exnet.iastate.edu, vik...@iastate.edu, DoD #1066 >
<ISU and I are barely talking to each other, let alone for each other. >
< "Do you handle Rigid tools?" -- overheard at a local hardware store >
John McCarthy
power - Paul Houle's and Dan Sorenson's.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
Jeremy Whitlock
>[...] Because nuclear power has demonstrated
>itself to be uneconomical.
Gee I don't know. Here in Ontario nuclear power is the second cheapest source
of electricity (next to hydro power). I guess we must be doing something
wrong.
--
Jeremy Whitlock "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
David Sternlight
a proper cost analysis, and finally got some of the most respected
leaders in the field to concede that NEW nuclear plants were more
costly than NEW coal-fired plants, I have some bad news.
Because of the fear of global warming and CO2, one legislative path
that appears near-certain is a "carbon tax." This will penalize the
use of fuels that emit CO2.
Under such circumstances, and depending on the level of the tax, new
nuclear plants may once more become price competitive with other
means of generating electricity (or even cheaper) all costs included.
I say "once more" because in the bad old days, specious cost calculations
were done which did not include the cost of decommissioning. Further,
after tmi, increased training and safety costs tilted the analysis even
further against nuclear. But now, with a carbon tax (depending on the level)
it is likely that even with decommissioning costs and current higher
(and, I think, clearly warranted) levels of training and safety costs,
nuclear power may win in tradeoff analysis.
David
P.S. Not as an appeal to authority, but as a substitute for looking up
bibliographical references, the writer was Associate Editor of Annual
Reviews of Energy for eight years, and a member of the editorial board for
even longer.
Jeremy Whitlock
>[...]
>
>I say "once more" because in the bad old days, specious cost calculations
>were done which did not include the cost of decommissioning. Further,
>after tmi, increased training and safety costs tilted the analysis even
>further against nuclear. But now, with a carbon tax (depending on the level)
>it is likely that even with decommissioning costs and current higher
>(and, I think, clearly warranted) levels of training and safety costs,
>nuclear power may win in tradeoff analysis.
Things are a little different in Canada (partly, perhaps, because TMI
didn't affect training and safety costs here). In Ontario Hydro's supply plan
of 1989, the following *new* plant costs (in-service date 2002) are listed,
including decommissioning and not including any carbon tax:
LEVALIZED UNIT ENERGY COST OF MAJOR SUPPLY OPTIONS (2002) , cents(1989)/kWh
(80% capacity factor assumed)
Nuclear (CANDU) 3.2
Conventional Coal with NOx removal 4.1
Combustion Turbine (nat. gas) 6.8
Gene Spears
>David
Impressive credentials. Can you elaborate a bit more on the cost analysis.
I'm confused as to how a proper analysis of nuclear costs can be done when
our country has yet to establish a policy for high level waste disposal.
Even if we assume Yucca Flats will be the repository, has anyone estimated
the costs of maintenance and monitoring of the facility?
Gene Spears
spe...@andy.lmc.edu
David Sternlight
looks as if the economics would drive to all-nuclear electricity for
new plants. This, without any carbon tax.
Accepting the numbers for a moment, there is another consideration:
The French were in a similar-seeming position some years ago. I
used to get christmas cards each year from a colleague at E de F
showing French nuclear power going almost straight up on the
graph to the year 2000.
But then Bennett Ramberg at UCLA wrote his paper showing that
a high explosive device on an operating nuclear reactor (such
as a bomb during wartime) would spread enough radiation to kill
almost as many people as a working nuclear weapon, even though
there would be no nuclear reaction--simply dispersal of the
radioactive materials through the explosion.
One conclusion from this work was that during wartime, a country
might have to shut down its reactors (if the reactor wasn't
operating apparently the 'Ramberg effect' wouldn't occur) just
at a time when they needed electricity most (for war production, etc.)
(By the way, we published Ramberg's paper in "Annual Reviews of
Energy".)
The French, after learning of this, shifted their electricity plan
to include much less nuclear in the mix.
I discussed this matter some years ago with Gorbachev's Science
Advisor, Evgenyi Velikhov. Velikhov resolved as a result to
substantially increase the size of the containment in new reactors.
Unfortunately, for economic reasons (I suppose) they did not
retrofit existing reactors, and a few years later we had
Chernobyl.
So the matter is not so simple as levelized costs would indicate.
Since then there has been considerable work on what are called
"inherently safe reactors"--Annual Reviews published a paper
on that as well.
David
David Sternlight
out that no long term solution to this problem (which must have a
long term solution, given the half-lives) has yet been adopted.
He is correct. As I understand it, however, most high-level waste
originates with the weapons program, not with nuclear power. Most
decomissioning calculations I've seen are of the class "bury it in
concrete and guard it forever" on the assumption, one supposes,
that that's the most costly alternative or, putting it another
way, if dismantling and storage facilities are developed, they won't
be used unless they're cheaper.
This is not an area I've examined in depth, so any corrections,
emendations, etc. would be welcome.
David
Stupendous Man
> In article <1992Jun17....@athena.cs.uga.edu> wei...@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kevin Weinrich) writes:
>>>I would like to take time out here to express my admiration and
>>>appreciation for those studying nuclear energy and working in the
>>>nuclear energy industry. While most of us blather back and forth
>>>about global warming and greenhouse gases, these folks are _working_
>>>to solve the problem.
>>
>>Hear, hear!
>
> Get a life, pal. About the best thing that somebody can expect
> from a degree in nuclear engineering is a lifetime of unemployment if they
> don't go into another field. Why? Because nuclear power has demonstrated
> itself to be uneconomical.
Not at all. I know of several nuclear engineers gainfully employed,
and in areas outside nuclear power. Nuclear power is not uneconomical, nuclear
power delayed by frivolous lawsuits that translate building costs from
millions to billions is uneconomical.
But then anything delayed by lawsuits until the costs have increased by
a factor of 100 will be uneconomical.
> George Bush has an idea for an "energy policy" --
> which is to make it easier for utility companies to railroad the public
> to build nuclear power plants. The guy is so out of touch because the
> utilities don't want to railroad anybody to build nuclear power plants,
> you couldn't pay them build nuclear power plants because the damn things
> don't make money.
Lawsuits don't make money (except for lawyers). Plus coal is
exceedingly cheap, as coal plants don't have comprable restrictions and safety
requirements. Who is charging coal plants for the pollution they produce? Yet
Nukes have to pay for the storage of their waste, until some bureaucrat decides
that putting it back in the mines where it came from is indeed safe.
Given an organization the size of Greenhype, I could make ANY endeavour
appear uneconomical.
Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer: NOT!
Steve Price
> In article <k#kl87+....@netcom.com> ana...@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
> Things are a little different in Canada (partly, perhaps, because TMI
> didn't affect training and safety costs here). In Ontario Hydro's supply plan
> of 1989, the following *new* plant costs (in-service date 2002) are listed,
> including decommissioning and not including any carbon tax:
>
>
> LEVALIZED UNIT ENERGY COST OF MAJOR SUPPLY OPTIONS (2002) , cents(1989)/kWh
>
> (80% capacity factor assumed)
>
> Nuclear (CANDU) 3.2
>
> Conventional Coal with NOx removal 4.1
>
> Combustion Turbine (nat. gas) 6.8
>
Jeremy:
In the U.S. nuclear power is protected from the neccessity
of fully compensating victims of a disaster. The Price-Anderson
Act (I believe) limits liablity of nuclear operators.
It has been claimed that without such governmental liablity
limitations the free market would never insure nuclear power
operators.
I am curious as to whether similar governmental interference
in the free market occurs in Canada, in order to make nuclear
power a financial possibility. If so, do you still think
that the TRUE costs of nuclear power are being considered
when nuclear power is referred to as a relatively inexpensive
power source. Are the long term environmental and social costs
also included in this claim?
Steve
--
Steve Price UNIX: pacbell!pbhyf!rsprice PHONE: (510)823-1951
We must live within the ambiguity of partial freedom, partial power, and
partial knowledge.
Steinn Sigurdsson
> (80% capacity factor assumed)
> Nuclear (CANDU) 3.2
Libertarian wet dreams aside, no insurance company ever insures
"full-risk", if in doubt, check the "war", "civil disobedience" and
"act of God" clauses in any contract. If a disaster is sufficiently
large, there is no purpose in insuring against it as it will wipe out
the insurance company. If P-A were not in place, the utilities might
try to take out infinite risk policies, costs would rise and some
insurance companies might make a lot of money. Or, they could
self-insure and declare bankruptcy in the event of a disaster, or
they could arrange for a new insurance company to be set up,
pool insurance, and let the insurance company be wiped out in the
event of a disaster.
Tell me, what do you think would have happened if in 1900
I had insisted that any fossil power station insure against possible
future global impacts, including class-action suits on lung disease
caused by their emission, Denmark and the Netherlands being flooded
or a catastrophic greenhouse runaway (very low probability, but you
go figure the premium given the potential liability...).
Of course whale oil is also verboten and gas lamps cause
respiratory illness - as do candles and open fires - bummer.
Anyone want to join me in a class action suit against coal plants
for exceeding emission standards on radioactivity and presenting
clear and present danger to public health?
* Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory *
* ste...@helios.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" *
* But, oh, love is strange *
* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth, *
* I suppose - B.B. 1983 *
Lev Tarasov
Jeremy Whitlock claims that nuclear is the second cheapest source
of energy in Ontario after hydro. Conservation is still vastly cheaper
cheaper given the inefficiencies in currently used appliances.
Also does this claim take into account all the hidden subsidies
that nuclear power has in ontario: government sponsored R and D,
A legislative cap on the liability of Ontario Hydro in the case
of a nuclear accident (if nuclear power is so safe, why does
the utility need such protection?), and what about the costs of
decommissioning, storage, and environmental damage from the
uranium mines?
Phil Ngai
>that appears near-certain is a "carbon tax." This will penalize the
>use of fuels that emit CO2.
But it gets even better. The proposed carbon tax is supposed to
be applied to nuclear energy too. You are invited to speculate
on the intentions of those proposing the carbon tax.
Dan Sorenson
(Lev Tarasov) writes:
>Jeremy Whitlock claims that nuclear is the second cheapest source
>of energy in Ontario after hydro. Conservation is still vastly cheaper
>cheaper given the inefficiencies in currently used appliances.
It wasn't so long ago that insulating a house cost more over a
20-year building lifespan than buying the extra natural gas. I suspect
your claim on efficiency is similarly hampered, though not to such a
large degree. If I have to spend a dollar this year on efficiency, I
had better save $1.10 by years end or it's not at all cheaper.
>Also does this claim take into account all the hidden subsidies
>that nuclear power has in ontario: government sponsored R and D,
>A legislative cap on the liability of Ontario Hydro in the case
>of a nuclear accident (if nuclear power is so safe, why does
>the utility need such protection?), and what about the costs of
>decommissioning, storage, and environmental damage from the
>uranium mines?
Don't forget government sponsored R&D for coal, the costs of
health care for those coal miners and citizens breathing stack emmissions,
storage of flyash and spent filters, and the environmental damage from
the coal mines. If coal is really so cheap, why did coal miners in the
USA literally go to war for safe working conditions? Do you know how
many uranium miners have been killed in the mines or due to radiation?
Zero, last time I checked in about 1987.
Your arguments have been refuted in the literature for decades,
but we'll just assume you've only heard one side of the argument. Oh,
waste disposal in the USA is done on-site since there is no repository
yet. It's amazing how little there actually is. If you start lumping
in nuclear waste from medicine, it grows substantially. Perhaps a
bit of realism in the argument could be of benefit?
Kenneth Ng
: Jeremy Whitlock claims that nuclear is the second cheapest source
: of energy in Ontario after hydro. Conservation is still vastly cheaper
: cheaper given the inefficiencies in currently used appliances.
Even with conversation, the power we do generate should be generated with
the cleanest possible method. Oil and coal still send tons of materials
into the air that I would rather not breath.
--
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn...@hertz.njit.edu for now.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
Kenneth Ng
: Even if we assume Yucca Flats will be the repository, has anyone estimated
You mean the old bs about having to establish a priesthood to guard over
the wastes forever? I doubt one is really needed. Several of the studies
I have copies of assume *NO* monitoring, assumes water *DOES* get into the
depository, and that people do not advance at all beyond current levels
of technology. I think Cohen said that 0.4 lives would be lost in the
first million years per year of a 100% nuclear United States.
victor yodaiken
>and in areas outside nuclear power. Nuclear power is not uneconomical, nuclear
>power delayed by frivolous lawsuits that translate building costs from
>millions to billions is uneconomical.
> But then anything delayed by lawsuits until the costs have increased by
>a factor of 100 will be uneconomical.
Got a reference for this claim? I know that it is a prominent feature of
nuclear industry abvertising, but, if true, there should be some actual
analysis to back it up.
--
victor yodaiken
>In article <spea...@bobcat.lmc.edu:, spe...@bobcat.lmc.edu (Gene Spears) writes:
>: Even if we assume Yucca Flats will be the repository, has anyone estimated
>: the costs of maintenance and monitoring of the facility?
>
>You mean the old bs about having to establish a priesthood to guard over
>the wastes forever? I doubt one is really needed. Several of the studies
>I have copies of assume *NO* monitoring, assumes water *DOES* get into the
>depository, and that people do not advance at all beyond current levels
>of technology. I think Cohen said that 0.4 lives would be lost in the
>first million years per year of a 100% nuclear United States.
We've dicussed this before in these groups, but I feel compelled to note
that such statistical claims are neither universally accepted in the
scientific community nor based on empirical evidence.
--
victor yodaiken
> It wasn't so long ago that insulating a house cost more over a
>20-year building lifespan than buying the extra natural gas. I suspect
>your claim on efficiency is similarly hampered, though not to such a
>large degree. If I have to spend a dollar this year on efficiency, I
>had better save $1.10 by years end or it's not at all cheaper.
Huh? Why does the entire investment have to be recovered by years end?
If I spend $1 on insulation or more efficient lighting, it seems clear
that my savings should be measured over the lifetime of the improvement, not
just over the next fiscal year.
>USA literally go to war for safe working conditions? Do you know how
>many uranium miners have been killed in the mines or due to radiation?
Yes. There have been raised incidences of certain cancers among uranium
miners and there are problems with radioactive debris left behind after
mining. Of course, there is a much smaller population of uranium miners.
>Zero, last time I checked in about 1987.
Check again, your sources are not good.
--
Dan Sorenson
> vik...@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>> It wasn't so long ago that insulating a house cost more over a
>>20-year building lifespan than buying the extra natural gas. I suspect
>>your claim on efficiency is similarly hampered, though not to such a
>>large degree. If I have to spend a dollar this year on efficiency, I
>>had better save $1.10 by years end or it's not at all cheaper.
>Huh? Why does the entire investment have to be recovered by years end?
>If I spend $1 on insulation or more efficient lighting, it seems clear
>that my savings should be measured over the lifetime of the improvement, not
>just over the next fiscal year.
If you spend $1 on insulation or more efficient lighting, and the
savings are not $1.10 by years end, the interest that dollar would accrue
is greater than the savings you got by spending it. This will work for
any length of time you care to measure by. Buildings are typically good
for forty years. If extra insulation will not pay for itself within half
that time, the money can certainly be better spent on other areas.
>Yes. There have been raised incidences of certain cancers among uranium
>miners and there are problems with radioactive debris left behind after
>mining. Of course, there is a much smaller population of uranium miners.
>Check again, your sources are not good.
Would you care to provide a reference for this? I know several
others who could use this information. A simple title and author will be
more than adequate. The two I used were a bit old:
World Health Organization _Health Impact of Different Energy Sources_
World Health Organization, England, 1986
Nuclear Energy Agency _Implications of Nuclear Safety Requirements for
the Protection of Workers in Nuclear Facilities_ NEA, Paris, 1987
Gregory Aharonian
nuclear waste management takes away most of the attractiveness of nuclear
energy.
Greg Aharonian
Carl J Lydick
> yoda...@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>> vik...@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>> It wasn't so long ago that insulating a house cost more over a
>>>20-year building lifespan than buying the extra natural gas. I suspect
>>>your claim on efficiency is similarly hampered, though not to such a
>>>large degree. If I have to spend a dollar this year on efficiency, I
>>>had better save $1.10 by years end or it's not at all cheaper.
>
>>Huh? Why does the entire investment have to be recovered by years end?
>>If I spend $1 on insulation or more efficient lighting, it seems clear
>>that my savings should be measured over the lifetime of the improvement, not
>>just over the next fiscal year.
>
> If you spend $1 on insulation or more efficient lighting, and the
>savings are not $1.10 by years end, the interest that dollar would accrue
>is greater than the savings you got by spending it. This will work for
>any length of time you care to measure by. Buildings are typically good
>for forty years. If extra insulation will not pay for itself within half
>that time, the money can certainly be better spent on other areas.
OK, you're assuming an interest rate of 10%. The savings required to
compensate for the interest on the $1.00 are $.10. Of course, you also want to
get your principle back, so you've got to save more than $.10. The following
is a table that shows the annual savings required to pay back the investment
for investments with lifetimes from 1 to 40 years. The values are given in
terms of the value at the end of the investment's lifetime (net future value)
rather than in terms of net present value. The table assumes that all savings
accrue at the end of the year. As you noted, for an investment that has a
1-year lifetime, you need $1.10 in savings by the end of the year to pay back
the investment. However, for a 7-year investment, the required annual savings
are only $.20. And for your hypothetical 40-year investment, you need only to
save a bit over $.10/year to pay back the investment.
Lifetime of Value of Value of Annual savings
investment investment $1 annuity to pay back investment
------- ----------- ---------- ----------------------
1 1.100000 1.000000 1.100000
2 1.210000 2.100000 0.576190
3 1.331000 3.310000 0.402115
4 1.464100 4.641000 0.315471
5 1.610510 6.105101 0.263797
6 1.771561 7.715611 0.229607
7 1.948717 9.487172 0.205405
8 2.143589 11.435889 0.187444
9 2.357948 13.579478 0.173641
10 2.593743 15.937427 0.162745
11 2.853117 18.531170 0.153963
12 3.138429 21.384287 0.146763
13 3.452271 24.522717 0.140779
14 3.797499 27.974989 0.135746
15 4.177248 31.772488 0.131474
16 4.594974 35.949738 0.127817
17 5.054471 40.544712 0.124664
18 5.559918 45.599182 0.121930
19 6.115910 51.159100 0.119547
20 6.727500 57.275009 0.117460
21 7.400250 64.002510 0.115624
22 8.140276 71.402763 0.114005
23 8.954304 79.543037 0.112572
24 9.849734 88.497345 0.111300
25 10.834708 98.347076 0.110168
26 11.918180 109.181786 0.109159
27 13.109998 121.099968 0.108258
28 14.420998 134.209961 0.107451
29 15.863097 148.630966 0.106728
30 17.449408 164.494064 0.106079
31 19.194349 181.943466 0.105496
32 21.113785 201.137817 0.104972
33 23.225163 222.251602 0.104499
34 25.547678 245.476761 0.104074
35 28.102446 271.024445 0.103690
36 30.912691 299.126892 0.103343
37 34.003960 330.039581 0.103030
38 37.404354 364.043549 0.102747
39 41.144791 401.447906 0.102491
40 45.259270 442.592712 0.102259
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Dan Sorenson
(Carl J Lydick) writes in response to me:
>> If you spend $1 on insulation or more efficient lighting, and the
>>savings are not $1.10 by years end, the interest that dollar would accrue
>>is greater than the savings you got by spending it. This will work for
>>any length of time you care to measure by. Buildings are typically good
>>for forty years. If extra insulation will not pay for itself within half
>>that time, the money can certainly be better spent on other areas.
>OK, you're assuming an interest rate of 10%. The savings required to
>compensate for the interest on the $1.00 are $.10. Of course, you also want
>to get your principle back, so you've got to save more than $.10. The
>following is a table that shows the annual savings required to pay back the
>investment for investments with lifetimes from 1 to 40 years. The values
>are given in terms of the value at the end of the investment's lifetime
>(net future value) rather than in terms of net present value. The table
>assumes that all savings accrue at the end of the year. As you noted, for
>an investment that has a 1-year lifetime, you need $1.10 in savings by the
>end of the year to pay back the investment. However, for a 7-year investment,
>the required annual savings are only $.20. And for your hypothetical 40-year
investment, you need only to save a bit over $.10/year to pay back the
>investment.
[ chart deleted for brevity]
Let me get this strait; I invest $1 for one year, and get $1.10, but
if I invest $1 for seven years I only get $1.20? Something is wrong. I
should get something along the lines of $1.10 + (1.10x.1) = $1.21 or so,
all other things being equal, the very next year. Seven years down the
road it should be close to $2.00, not $.20. I could be confusing the
payback rate you are thinking of. Let me explain again: if I invest $1
today, I need to get $1.10 back per year or else it is cheaper and more
cost effective to invest in other things. Let's say I invest $1 in
insulation and get $.05 per year in savings, which will mean the insulation
pays for itself in twenty years, or half the building lifespan. That's not
good enough. I'm better off paying the $.05 in heat and investing my $1 in
improved manufacturing machinery, health plans, and the like. These simple
economics assume you have nothing better to spend your money on, and I
strongly disagree with that.
Put simply, I had better get a good return on my investment. If I
don't invest in insulation, I can invest in something else. For insulation
to be worthy, it needs to give me a return that is similar to pork bellies
or whatever else I put my money in. Your table was informative, but I
don't think it used 10%/year increase in money (I am assuming that the
value of the money remains unchanged).
Getting this back to power, if a coal plant costs $100 less to
build, but the nuclear plant costs $20 less to operate, I'd go for the
nuclear plant if life expectancy were the same at 20 years. I'd make
up my investment in seven years or so, and the rest is profit. But, if
I were to invest in either plant, the 10% I'm losing has to be taken into
account. An investor refuses to lose money for long periods in order to
make money twenty hears from now. That lost money can support other,
more short-term, goals for the investor.
Dan Sorenson
(Gregory Aharonian) writes:
You eat nuclear waste right now, pal, and you shall continue
doing so until there is no more radioactive material on this planet.
The most annoying waste you eat are solar rays, but medical waste ranks
right up there, and it may suprise you to know that several millions of
years ago a reactor operated in South Africa and the waste products have
had no adverse effects on the population, despite a total lack of proper
management and similar control. As I have stated before, the threat is
related to the radiation involved. You are much safer with the waste from
nuclear power than nuclear medicine (including what is used for X-rays,
chemotherapy, pacemakers, and the line). Do you have to choose just one?
Paul Dietz
> Let me get this strait; I invest $1 for one year, and get $1.10, but
> if I invest $1 for seven years I only get $1.20? Something is wrong. I
> should get something along the lines of $1.10 + (1.10x.1) = $1.21 or so,
> all other things being equal, the very next year. Seven years down the
> road it should be close to $2.00, not $.20.
The $.20 is the required *annual* savings, silly. Go back and read
what he wrote.
The original claim, that you need to save $1.10 in one year to justify
a $1 investment in efficiency, is quite ridiculous. Carl's
explanation is correct.
Note also that current real dollar interest rates (long term interest
rate minus inflation) are in the range of 4 to 5%, and even this
is unusually high, historically. Taxes on alternate investments make
efficiency investments (for consumers) even more attractive.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Vance P. Morrison
>>Huh? Why does the entire investment have to be recovered by years end?
>>If I spend $1 on insulation or more efficient lighting, it seems clear
>>that my savings should be measured over the lifetime of the improvement, not
>>just over the next fiscal year.
> If you spend $1 on insulation or more efficient lighting, and the
>savings are not $1.10 by years end, the interest that dollar would accrue
>is greater than the savings you got by spending it. This will work for
>any length of time you care to measure by. Buildings
Please correct me if I am wrong but this does not fit with my understanding
of present value of capital goods.
Lets take a simple example. Lets just assume that the insulation lasts
forever (simply for simplicity), and that interest rates are 10% (too
high if its our money (investment) but too low if we have to borrow it).
If I am thinking about spending $100 on insulation then the choices
are
1) Put my $100 in the bank and earn $10 in one year. (and still
have the $100)
2) Invest in insulation. Since the insulation last forever
at the end of the year I still have $100 worth of insulation.
(Which in theory is just as good as having $100).
Thus as long as the insulation saves me $10 (NOT $110) it is a good
investment.
Now of course no capital investment lasts forever, but we get to depreciate
it over its entire USEFUL lifetime. Thus we can refine the example above
by assuming that the insulation has a 10 year lifetime. Then the choice
becomes
1) Put $100 in the bank and at the end of 10 years I will have
My original $100 and about $160 in interest (assuming interest
compounded anually)
2) Invest in insulation, at the end of 10 years I have worthless
insulation.
Certainly if the insulation earns me $26 a year, at the end of 10 years
I will have $260 savings and thus option 2 is better. In fact the insulation
need only earn me closer to $21 a year since this money can be put in the
bank and compounded to earn the $260 I need to beat option 1.
Of course there are further details that we can work into our example,
but the general result is that a capital investment does NOT need to
earn back the total principle in a single year (there would be very few
power plants built if this was the case). It only needs to essentially
pay only the loan payments that the bank would charge if I took out a
loan for the money.
Thus a good rule of thumb for investments that last over 10 years is that
if something costs $1 then it better pay back at least $.10 to be considered
and if it earns more like $.20 per year it is almost certain to be
a good investment.
Vance
Lev Tarasov
two points:
1. Why is the argument focussing on fossil fuels versus nuclear?
If a quarter of the fission and fusion R and D investment had
gone into renewables and efficiency, I wonder where we would
be now? In Ontario, the conventional business wisdom is start-
ing to focuss on smaller business development as being the
most important contributor to the economy as well as to society
from both GNP and jobs generating perspectives. With our immense
distances and therefore large transmission losses of electricty, a
lot of places would be better served by a decentralized generating
system.
2. Avoiding the economics 101 lesson needed in this forum, I just
wish to point out that in Ontario the government and Ontario Hydro
have seen it economically viable to subsidize the insulation of
private homes and compact flourscent light bulbs. And these are
historically institutions that haven't been that interested in
conservation. From what I've heard, some of the states have
even better examples.
Jeremy Whitlock
> In the U.S. nuclear power is protected from the neccessity
> of fully compensating victims of a disaster. The Price-Anderson
> Act (I believe) limits liablity of nuclear operators.
>
> It has been claimed that without such governmental liablity
> limitations the free market would never insure nuclear power
> operators.
>
> I am curious as to whether similar governmental interference
> in the free market occurs in Canada, in order to make nuclear
> power a financial possibility.
The subject of nuclear liability was discussed not too long ago, but here
is a summary of my statements:
Yes, legislation similar to Price-Anderson does exist in Canada. Just like
Price-Anderson, victims will be *fully* compensated in the event of an
accident causing harm. The legislation in both countries just limits how
much the utilities are responsible for, as well as protecting component
suppliers from civil suits. Component suppliers are not protected from the
utilities' wrath, however, and you can bet they'll be hit hard since most
damage will likely be done at the site.
Yes, the free-market would insure a nuclear plant operator. It gladly insures
New Brunswick Power against accidents at its Pt. Lepreau reactor. Ontario
Hydro needs no such external insurance since it is large enough to self-insure.
> If so, do you still think
> that the TRUE costs of nuclear power are being considered
> when nuclear power is referred to as a relatively inexpensive
> power source.
No, the true costs are not represented. The true costs of nuclear power
wouldn't include things like Price-Anderson (and it's equivalence in Canada),
since that legislation is forcing utilities to buy insurance coverage on
public liability when it could easily self-insure this, along with everything
else. The true costs wouldn't include having to pay millions of dollars to
intervenors so they can build cases against them in environmental review
hearings. The true costs wouldn't include the interest accrued on plant
capital loans while political forces delay completion of construction.
> Are the long term environmental and social costs
> also included in this claim?
Decommissioning and waste disposal costs, yes. Other long term costs can
only be disucussed when comparable projections are made for all technologies
that we benefit from.
Jeremy Whitlock
>
>Jeremy Whitlock claims that nuclear is the second cheapest source
>of energy in Ontario after hydro. Conservation is still vastly cheaper
>cheaper given the inefficiencies in currently used appliances.
I can only assume this statement is made without adequate research. Ontario
Hydro is one of the only (if not *the* only) utilities in the world to make
Demand Management its number one priority in supply planning. Consequently,
it currently has the most ambitious conservation and load-shifting stategy
in the world. Therefore, it's experiences should be given some weight. In
it's current plan, Demand Management costs about twice as much as the major
supply options.
The lesson is that you can't guess conservation costs simply by the cost
of energy saved per installed "higher efficiency" machine. People have
to be goaded into making a change, and this costs bucks.
victor yodaiken
>In article <1992Jun19.2...@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rsp...@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (Steve Price) writes:
>> It has been claimed that without such governmental liablity
>> limitations the free market would never insure nuclear power
>> operators.
>>
>> I am curious as to whether similar governmental interference
>> in the free market occurs in Canada, in order to make nuclear
>> power a financial possibility.
>
>accident causing harm. The legislation in both countries just limits how
This is still false. Price-Anderson sets a *cap* in total liability.
>No, the true costs are not represented. The true costs of nuclear power
>wouldn't include things like Price-Anderson (and it's equivalence in Canada),
>since that legislation is forcing utilities to buy insurance coverage on
>public liability when it could easily self-insure this, along with everything
>else
This is still a misleading characterization. What you really mean is that
if the Price-Anderson cap were retained, but the price Anderson insurance
pool were not required, utilities would benefit.
>> Are the long term environmental and social costs
>> also included in this claim?
>
>Decommissioning and waste disposal costs, yes. Other long term costs can
Again, you have no basis for this statement. Decomissioning and disposal
costs are projected costs, there are no experimental verifications of the
proejection in the US at least. Have any of the commercial power reactors
in Canada been decomissioned?
--
Carl J Lydick
No.
>Something is wrong.
True. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>I should get something along the lines of $1.10 + (1.10x.1) = $1.21 or so,
>all other things being equal, the very next year. Seven years down the
>road it should be close to $2.00, not $.20.
Here are the lines from the chart for 1 year and 7 years.
1 1.100000 1.000000 1.100000
7 1.948717 9.487172 0.205405
The first column is the length of the project, in years. The second column is
the amount you'd have if you'd invested $1 at the beginning of the first year
and let it sit and collect interest. The third column shows what you'd have if
you invested $1 at the end of each year and let it collect interest. The last
column is the ratio of the second and third columns. That's the amount you'd
have to save at the end of each year in order to break even with the investment
of $1 at the beginning of the first year. I.e., that's how much you'd have to
save each year in order for the investment to pay for itself. So if your
improvement has a lifetime of 7 years, and you save between 20 and 21 cents at
the end of each of those 7 years for every dollar you paid for the improvement,
then at the end of 7 years the improvement will have paid for itself.
>I could be confusing the payback rate you are thinking of. Let me explain
>again: if I invest $1 today, I need to get $1.10 back per year or else it is
>cheaper and more cost effective to invest in other things.
No, you don't need to get $1.10 back per year. You need to get back 20.5 cents
per year in order to break even after 7 years. Let's go through it year by
year, for 7 years, assuming we save 21 cents per year. At the beginning of the
first year, you invest $1. If you'd banked the money, then at the end of the
first year, you'd have $1.10. But your investment only paid 21 cents that
first year. So now you're 89 cents short. I.e., at the end of the first year,
your net investment in the improvement is 89 cents. At the end of the second
year, that would have earned 8.9 cents, giving you a total of $.979. Call it
98 cents. Again, we get 21 cents in savings for the year, leaving us with a
net investment of 77 cents. At the end of the third year, we'd collect 7.7
cents in interest, giving us $.847. Call it 85 cents. But we saved 21 cents
that year, bringing the net investment down to $.64. At the end of the fourth
year, we'd have $.704. Call it 70 cents. After subtracting 21 cents, we've
got $.49 net investment. At the end of the fifth year, 54 cents and 33 cents.
At the end of the sixth year, 36 cents and 15 cents. And at the end of the
seventh year, 17 cents and -4 cents. I.e., after 7 years, we're ahead by 4
cents.
>Let's say I invest $1 in
>insulation and get $.05 per year in savings, which will mean the insulation
>pays for itself in twenty years, or half the building lifespan. That's not
>good enough. I'm better off paying the $.05 in heat and investing my $1 in
>improved manufacturing machinery, health plans, and the like. These simple
>economics assume you have nothing better to spend your money on, and I
>strongly disagree with that.
Agreed. 5 cents a year isn't enough. It's less than the interest that would
accrue on the money. For seven years, though, 20 cents a year is enough. It's
twice the interest that would be accruing. For 40 years, just over 10 cents is
enough. In the limit, your annual savings from the investment must be equal to
the rate of interest you could be earning from the investment. You don't need,
as you seem to think, to recoup the entire principle every year.
> Put simply, I had better get a good return on my investment.
20 cents a year on a 1 dollar investment IS a good return on your investment.
>If I
>don't invest in insulation, I can invest in something else. For insulation
>to be worthy, it needs to give me a return that is similar to pork bellies
>or whatever else I put my money in. Your table was informative, but I
>don't think it used 10%/year increase in money (I am assuming that the
>value of the money remains unchanged).
Yes, it did. That's what the second column was.
> Getting this back to power, if a coal plant costs $100 less to
>build, but the nuclear plant costs $20 less to operate, I'd go for the
>nuclear plant if life expectancy were the same at 20 years. I'd make
>up my investment in seven years or so, and the rest is profit. But, if
>I were to invest in either plant, the 10% I'm losing has to be taken into
>account.
It IS taken into account.
>An investor refuses to lose money for long periods in order to
>make money twenty hears from now. That lost money can support other,
>more short-term, goals for the investor.
True. Many investors want a payback period of less than 4 years. In the
example we were using, payback took nearly twice that: 7 years.
Dan Scott
>savings are not $1.10 by years end, the interest that dollar would accrue
>is greater than the savings you got by spending it. This will work for
>any length of time you care to measure by. Buildings are typically good
>for forty years. If extra insulation will not pay for itself within half
>that time, the money can certainly be better spent on other areas.
>
>
needing remodeling. Usually homes are not razed after that period of time
but are sadly in need of updating. Usually removal of *all* the insulation
is not required, and the remaining insulation continues to be of benefit
to the homeowner/tenant. Also since the average time someone owns their
home is something like 5 to 7 years, most remodels and insulation additions
won't pay for itself before the homeowner moves on. The work is usually
viewed as increasing the value of the home while improving the comfort
and utility while the owner is there. Energy saved is a bonus.
Just as the savings rate for your $1 saved varies over time
(check your passbook savings rate), the payback period will vary due to
changing energy costs. What was calculated as a 10 year payback period
in 1982 (when natural gas prices were projected to triple in 10 years)
looks much different now.
>< Dan Sorenson, z1...@exnet.iastate.edu, vik...@iastate.edu, DoD #1066 >
><ISU and I are barely talking to each other, let alone for each other. >
>< "Do you handle Rigid tools?" -- overheard at a local hardware store >
Dan Scott
Solbourne Computer, Inc.
Disclaimer: I'm not in a position to know Solbournes opinions....yet.
Jeremy Whitlock
>In article <1992Jun22....@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whit...@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>
>>Price-Anderson, victims will be *fully* compensated in the event of an
>>accident causing harm. The legislation in both countries just limits how
>
>This is still false. Price-Anderson sets a *cap* in total liability.
Nope. Price-Anderson sets a cap on what the utility is *responsible* for,
just like I wrote. Go look it up.
>This is still a misleading characterization. What you really mean is that
>if the Price-Anderson cap were retained, but the price Anderson insurance
>pool were not required, utilities would benefit.
Do not purport to tell me what I really mean. Cap or no cap, the utilities
benefit.
>Decomissioning and disposal
>costs are projected costs, there are no experimental verifications of the
>proejection in the US at least. Have any of the commercial power reactors
>in Canada been decomissioned?
Three (one of them to green field conditions). In any case, you don't
plan for some estimated cost; you shoot for some conservative over-estimate
and put all money into a pool. Only anti-nuclear campaigners demand
verifiable exact cost estimates, and that's completely for ulterior reasons.
victor yodaiken
>
>>Yes. There have been raised incidences of certain cancers among uranium
>>miners and there are problems with radioactive debris left behind after
>>mining. Of course, there is a much smaller population of uranium miners.
>>Check again, your sources are not good.
>
> Would you care to provide a reference for this? I know several
>others who could use this information. A simple title and author will be
>more than adequate. The two I used were a bit old:
Thanks to Bruce Hamilton <SRG...@gfv.dsir.govt.nz> I can give you
some sources without going to the library. You might also want to look
in OSHA sources --- as I recall OSHA legislation was partially
motivated by mortality among uranium miners. Also, Epstein, "Politics of
Cancer" might be of interest.
Here's Mr. Hamilton's note:
Hi,
In view of a request for info on sci.energy, if you have no other
sources the following might be helpful. I don't usually post as the time
delay from my site is very long.
1/6/1
0171396 NIOSH-00203347
Prevention of Occupational and Environmental Lung Disorders
1/6/2
0171368 NIOSH-00203315
Diseases of Uranium Miners and Other Underground Miners Exposed to Radon
1/6/3
0168559 NIOSH-00200446
Radon Exposure, Cigarette Smoking, and Other Mining Exprience in the
Beaverlodge Uranium Miners Cohort
1/6/4
0167407 NIOSH-00199371
Surface to Nuclear Distances in Human Bronchial Epithelium: Relationships
to Penetration by Rn Daughters
1/6/5
0165409 NIOSH-00197334
Evaluation of Fifteen Epidemiologic Studies Examining the Lung Cancer
Mortality of Underground Miners
1/6/6
0165007 NIOSH-00196919
NIOSH Testimony on Ionizing Radiation Standards for Metal and Nonmetal
Mines by R. W. Niemeier, February 26, 1988
1/6/7
0163831 NIOSH-00195727
The Role of Thorium in Endomyocardial Fibrosis
1/6/8
0163120 NIOSH-00195015
Health Effects of Inhaled Radon Progeny
1/6/9
0162042 NIOSH-00194005
NIOSH Testimony on Uranium Enrichment Plant, Piketon, OH by J. R.
Froines, July 21, 1980
1/6/10
0161870 NIOSH-00193827
Risk Considerations Related to Lung Modeling
1/6/11
0160039 NIOSH-00190888
Radiation and Disease in Underground Miners
1/6/12
0159113 NIOSH-00191053
Are the Current Dose Limits for Uranium Miers too High?
1/6/13
0159097 NIOSH-00191036
NIOSH Testimony on Mine Health Research by E. J. Baier, April 4, 1977
1/6/14
0159096 NIOSH-00191035
NIOSH Testimony on Mine Health Research by E. J. Baier, March 31, 1977
1/6/15
0159092 NIOSH-00191031
NIOSH Testimony on Radiation by E. Harris, June 28, 1977
1/6/16
0158829 NIOSH-00190749
Radon in Buildings
1/6/17
0158792 NIOSH-00190711
Studies of Uranium Miners in New Mexico
1/6/18
0158623 NIOSH-00190539
Lung Cancer Mortty among Nonsmoking Uranium Miners Exposed to Radon
Daughters
1/6/19
0158260 NIOSH-00190198
Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas
1/6/20
0158257 NIOSH-00190195
Lung Cancer Mortality of Uranium Miners in France
?s s1 and review
208 S1
6941 REVIEW
S2 16 S1 AND REVIEW
?type s2/6/all
2/6/1
0163831 NIOSH-00195727
The Role of Thorium in Endomyocardial Fibrosis
2/6/2
0152652 NIOSH-00073558
Radiation Hazards in Uranium Mines
2/6/3
0151984 NIOSH-00047921
Evaluon of Methods for Setting Occupational Health Standards for
Uranium Miners
2/6/4
0139074 NIOSH-00177214
Radiological Health
2/6/5
0129642 NIOSH-00012092
History of the Exposure of Miners to Radon
2/6/6
0107128 NIOSH-00145391
The Biological And Health Effects Of Radon: A Review
2/6/7
0106057 NIOSH-00135524
Health Hazards Of The Coal And Uranium Miner
2/6/8
0084379 NIOSH-00123843
Review of Epidemiological Studies on Hazards of Radon Daughters
2/6/9
0036392 NIOSH-00036433
Environmental Lung Disease
2/6/10
0029047 NIOSH-00034290
An Evaluation of Claims for Occupational Factors in Cancer of the Lungs
2/6/11
0025167 NIOSH-00035369
Cancer Induction in Man from Internal Radioactivity
2/6/12
0022750 NIOSH-00034378
Occupational Health and Air Pollution Research in Canada's Changing
Economy
2/6/13
0020353 NIOSH-00025798
Recent Developments in Occupational Health in the United States
2/6/14
0014321 NIOSH-000079
Lung Cancer and Uranium Mining
2/6/15
0003381 NIOSH-00018103
Deposition Patterns and the Toxicity of Transuranium Elements in the Lung
2/6/16
0001339 NIOSH-00017036
Some Aspects of Aerosol Deposition in the Human Lung
?type s2/7/2,3,14
2/7/2
0152652 NIOSH-00073558
Radiation Hazards in Uranium Mines
Holaday, D. A.
Radiological Health Data and Reports, Vol. 8, No. 3, pages 135-138, 8
references March 1967 CODEN: RHDRAW
A review of health studies of U.S. uraniuminers is presented. The
primary radiation hazard in uranium mines is alpha radiation which is
delivered to the lungs by radon-222 (10043922) and its short-lived
daughters. The appearance of lung cancer among uranium miners has been
studied and found to be excessive. The cell type distribution of these
cancers of uranium miners is different from that of the general population.
Calculation of radiation dosage to the lungs of miners is difficult.
General dilution entilation is the primary method of controlling the
radiation hazard, but it has limitations. Radiation exposure of uranium
miners has gradually been reduced.
2/7/3
0151984 NIOSH-00047921
Evaluation of Methods for Setting Occupational Health Standards for
Uranium Miners
Cross, F. T., C. H. Bloomster, P. L. Hendrickson, I. C. Nelson, B. L.
Hooper, J. A. Merrill, and B. O. Stuart
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, 312
pages, 93 references March 197
REPORT NO.: NTIS-PB-237-744
A review is made of the methods employed in development of radiation
exposure standards for uranium (7440611) mines over the past 30 years. The
process of imposing standards to identify factors important in evolving
standards is examined with a view to develop protection against future
toxic agents. Topics include methods for setting radiation exposure
standards for uranium miners, epidemiology of European and American uranium
miners, other grou exposed to radon (10043922) and radon daughters,
Newfoundland fluorspar miners, British iron (7439896) miners, Russian
manganese (7439965) miners, potash miners, Swedish zinc (7440666) miners,
relationship of cost to mine operators and incidence of respiratory cancer
deaths, costs to government and society of exposure standard setting
methodologies; comparison and selection of exposure standards and exposure
standard setting methodologies, and factors influencing enforcement of
eosure standards.
2/7/14
0014321 NIOSH-00007946
Lung Cancer and Uranium Mining
Seltser, R.
Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 10, pages 923-936, 58 references
June 1965
The association of lung cancer with uranium mining has been repeatedly
documented, and the present review has attempted to correlate and
consolidate previous reports of experimental and clinical findings in order
to ascertain the areas of uncertainty which remain. Foci of the review were
determinations concerning: ( the extent of risk of lung cancer among
uranium miners in the past and present; (2) the relationship of lung cancer
risk to the general occupation of mining; (3) the specific factors relating
the lung cancer hazard to uranium miners (exposure to ionizing radiation,
other carcinogenic component(s) of mines, or a factor differentiating
uranium miners from other miners); and (4) relevance of the phenomenon to
the generally rising lung cancer rates. Conclusions reached established the
risk f lung cancer among uranium miners in the past and present,
associated the risk specifically with exposure to ionizing radiation and
not to other carcinogens or differentiating factors, and were inconclusive
with relation to the general occupation of mining and the epidemiological
rates for lung cancer.
--
Michael Zika
Please post _your_ sources. What types of cancers? Who did the study? Did
they compare the incidents of cancer to those of other miners (read as: was
it caused by _mining_ or mining uranium) Where were the mines?
>>Zero, last time I checked in about 1987.
>
--
|
Michael Zika (zi...@ecn.purdue.edu) | Hey don't ask me "why?",
Purdue University | I'm still working on "how?" !
School of Nuclear Engineering |
Russ Brown
>In article <49...@dime.cs.umass.edu> yoda...@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>In article <viking.7...@vincent1.iastate.edu> vik...@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>
>>>USA literally go to war for safe working conditions? Do you know how
>>>many uranium miners have been killed in the mines or due to radiation?
>>
>>Yes. There have been raised incidences of certain cancers among uranium
>>miners and there are problems with radioactive debris left behind after
>>mining. Of course, there is a much smaller population of uranium miners.
>
>Please post _your_ sources. What types of cancers? Who did the study? Did
>they compare the incidents of cancer to those of other miners (read as: was
>it caused by _mining_ or mining uranium) Where were the mines?
>
>>>Zero, last time I checked in about 1987.
>>
>>yoda...@chelm.cs.umass.edu
>
Without taking sides in this dispute, I offer the following material and
references from the BEIR V report:
"....cigarette smoke, which contains small amounts of many known
carcinogenic agents (such as Po-210) and which is a potent irritant,
appears to potentiate the effects of inhaled radon and its daughter
products in uranium miners." (p. 138)
------------------------
References for this statement were:
1. Lorenz, E., (1944) "Radioactivity and Lung Cancer...", JNCI, 5:1-15
2. Lundin, F.E. et al, "Radon Daughter Exposure and Lung Cancer...",
NIOSH-NIESH Joint Monograph No. 1, (1971)
3. Samet, J.M., et al, (1984) "Uranium Mining and Lung Cancer in Navajo
Men", NEJM 310:1581-1584.
--------------------------------------
I do not have these references, but my inference is that uranium miners
who smoke probably have higher lung cancer rates than other smokers.
Richard Bell
How many steel mills can you run on conservation?
Industry uses most of the electrical power produced in Ontario (I believe),
and industry has always been trying to use as little electrical power as
possible, because it costs money. Ontario does not have a carbon tax,
Ontario is only allowed to produce a small amount of CO2, NOx, and SOx each
month. The only reason that they can come under these limits is that the
pollution produced by non-utility generators and out-of-province utilities
who sell power to Ontario does not count. In 1989, Ontario Hydro believed
that it would be cheaper to build 10 megawatts of nuclear units than buy
more power from other sources as old coal-fired plants wear out. Ontario
Hydro can continue to delay a solution of the decommissioning problem,
because the reactor tubes can be replaced, and the reactor vessel is claimed
to last 100 years (unlike the reactor tubes, the reactor vessel is not
pressurized, so neutron embrittlement is not a huge problem). Approving
deep interrment in the granite formations of the Canadian Shield is a
political problem; deep interrment has passed all technical hurdles.
Nothing is absolutely safe, I could probably find an unsafe feature of
anything one cares to mention; although, most would be so bizarre that
they are unlikely in the extreme, but still possible -- to quote The
Guide "towels may be harmful, if swallowed in large quantities". To
Ontario Hydro safe is defined as one accident per reactor that kills
ten people every ten thousand years or one accident per reactor that
kills one million people every million years.
Richard Bell
>
>But then Bennett Ramberg at UCLA wrote his paper showing that
>a high explosive device on an operating nuclear reactor (such
>as a bomb during wartime) would spread enough radiation to kill
>almost as many people as a working nuclear weapon, even though
>there would be no nuclear reaction--simply dispersal of the
>radioactive materials through the explosion.
>
Don't you have to breach containment first? Doesn't the pressure vessel
have steel walls as thick as a battleships main armor belt? Doesn't
Ramberg's claim depend on the type of reactor.
Containment buildings are designed to withstand impacts of the largest
airliners, and have been tested with an F-4 jet at 500 mph (it imbedded
itself all of four inches into the structure). The only danger is to the
LWR's so popular in the states, which might suffer a total loss of coolant,
but that is what the ECCS is supposed to do. The LWR's could also be made
unscrammable with a set of bent control rods. It is also possible for
a large release of steam.
Suppose that it was not an LWR, but a CANDU: an explosive device destroys
the entire containment building and ripps open the reactor vessel, causing
allof the coolant to leak out; there is a large release of radioactive steam,
and an unlawful release of tritiated water. Without its moderator, the
reactor shuts down. Some of the "inherently safe" rectors are even better.
The HTGR might scatter little pellets all over the place, but each pellet
is harmles unless swallowed.
As for the economics, Ontario Hydro plants achieve a 60% availability rate,
which could be raised to 80% with the new preventive maintenance schedules,
and re-tubing technology. The Darlington plant is not hobbled by its reactors,
but by the ancillary generator equipment.
Richard Bell
>In article <k#kl87+....@netcom.com> ana...@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>>Because of the fear of global warming and CO2, one legislative path
>>that appears near-certain is a "carbon tax." This will penalize the
>>use of fuels that emit CO2.
>
>But it gets even better. The proposed carbon tax is supposed to
>be applied to nuclear energy too. You are invited to speculate
>on the intentions of those proposing the carbon tax.
>
Applying the carbon tax to nuclear energy is not bad if it is also applied
to all other energy sources. It allows non-combustion energy producers to
make more money per installed Mw by allowing them to sell their entire carbon
allowance.
If nuclear is the only non-combustion energy source to get the carbon tax
credit, it is wrong. If all non-combustion energy sources get the credit,
things are fine.
David Sternlight
explosives on running nuclear reactors. After noting that Soviet
reactors had much less containment materials than ours do, and
that many consider the Canadian CANDU a precursor of inherently
safe reactors, I'll let Bell get the rest of his answers from the
source:
"Military Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities: The Implications" by Bennett
Ramberg. pp. 495-514, Annual Reviews of Energy, Volume 10, 1985.
In that same volume, there's a good paper by Irving Spiewak and
Alvin M. Weinberg, "Inherently Safe Reactors" pp. 431-462.
Best;
David
R. Cage
>A typical LWR containment has a shell a couple of feet thick followed by
>a steel liner. Inside is the missile shield, typically 35 feet thick
>in several layers (which complicates the task of penetration.) Inside
>that is the reactor vessel which is perhaps a foot of alloy steel.
I've never seen a missile shield on a cutaway view of an LWR
containment, nor have I ever heard of them before. 35 feet
is an awful lot of material to hide. Just where is this located,
is it standard, and why isn't it well-known?
Of course, even a minor reactor hit could release a great deal
of radioisotopes if the containment was breached. However,
the likelihood of hostile forces putting a precision bombing
aircraft with the proper ordinance over the USA is pretty small.
If that happens we have more immediate problems.
Solution to this: HTGR's, LMBFR's and CANDU's. All of these
reactors can be piece-built rather than having huge pressure
vessels which must be shipped from the factory, and could be
built underground where they are safe even from thermonukes.
One good site is the ex-Morton salt mines under Detroit.
--
Russ Cage wr...@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com russ%r...@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
* When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *
_Bad_ cop. No donut.
John De Armond
>I've never seen a missile shield on a cutaway view of an LWR
>containment, nor have I ever heard of them before. 35 feet
>is an awful lot of material to hide. Just where is this located,
>is it standard, and why isn't it well-known?
It is well known among nukes. A couple of places to look. Any
FSAR. An old book perhaps still available in libraries "Systems
Summary of Westinghouse PWR Nuclear Steam Supply Systems."
Every Westinghouse plant I've ever been to had the same framed
pictures of various large systems components. The containment
is one of these. Westinghouse and B&W missile shields are quite
similar in design, involving typically two layers. GE uses a
different design with the missile shield above the inner
containment. BTW, the term "missile" used in this context
refers to any kinetic penetrator such as steam driven pipe
fragments, tornado-driven telephone poles, errant planes and
the like. It does not necessarily refer to military missiles.
The missile shield is probably the heaviest thing handled during
refueling and is the reason for the huge polar crane at the top
of the containment.
>Solution to this: HTGR's, LMBFR's and CANDU's. All of these
>reactors can be piece-built rather than having huge pressure
>vessels which must be shipped from the factory, and could be
>built underground where they are safe even from thermonukes.
>One good site is the ex-Morton salt mines under Detroit.
It would require a site hundreds of feet below ground to reliably
defend against either bunker buster conventional or high yield
nukes specifically designed for deep penetration. Not much of a
risk these days.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | To teach is to learn twice.
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |
Marietta, Ga | Gun control is hitting the shootoff chickens
j...@dixie.com |
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
R. Cage
>It would require a site hundreds of feet below ground to reliably
>defend against either bunker buster conventional or high yield
>nukes specifically designed for deep penetration. Not much of a
>risk these days.
True, and I thought I said as much in another post. However,
there are advantages even if future threats do not materialize:
1.) Cooling water can thermo-siphon through pipes to
condensers, if the turbines and condensers are
also underground. No pumps are required.
2.) Steam and condensate for district heat can move by gravity.
3.) District heat becomes feasible, period. Isolation in
case of an accident is accomplished by rock, not distance.
4.) When the reactor outlives its usefulness, it does not
have to be taken apart. It only has to be de-fueled,
the lights turned off, and the doors closed and locked
on the way out. A structure a thousand feet underground,
in strata which are so impermeable that they isolate
salt from groundwater for geologic time, is far more
likely to be safe than any bunker for de-commissioned
reactor parts.
Phil Ngai
>Applying the carbon tax to nuclear energy is not bad if it is also applied
>to all other energy sources. It allows non-combustion energy producers to
>make more money per installed Mw by allowing them to sell their entire carbon
>allowance.
>
>If nuclear is the only non-combustion energy source to get the carbon tax
>credit, it is wrong. If all non-combustion energy sources get the credit,
>things are fine.
No, no, you are confused. The carbon TAX is being proposed to apply
to nuclear energy even though no carbon dioxide is generated. It
is the opposite of a credit as far as nuclear power is concerned and
would lead you to believe the proposers of the tax just plain don't
like nuclear power.
--
My opinions are my own.
Nick Szabo
>Applying the carbon tax to nuclear energy is not bad if it is also applied
>to all other energy sources. It allows non-combustion energy producers to
>make more money per installed Mw by allowing them to sell their entire carbon
>allowance.
>
>If nuclear is the only non-combustion energy source to get the carbon tax
>credit, it is wrong. If all non-combustion energy sources get the credit,
>things are fine.
This is a carbon credit system, not necessarily a part of carbon
tax proposals. In Sweden, nuclear power is taxed, hydro is not,
and there is no trading of CO2 credits. Furthermore, the heaviest
industrial users are exempted. The "carbon tax" is it has actually
been implemented is a combined corporate/ecofascist attack against
nuclear energy and small commercial/industrial users, not a measure that
would reduce CO2 buildup.
The carbon credit system is also bad if demands more taxes than the
damage that would have been caused by CO2 beyond the limit set.
If the CO2 limit is set by political concerns instead of
reliably predicted economic impact, the result could cost our
economy severe damage, the equivalent of anothter Arab Oil Embargo.
--
sz...@techbook.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
Paul Houle
>In article <gpt...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>It would require a site hundreds of feet below ground to reliably
>>defend against either bunker buster conventional or high yield
>>nukes specifically designed for deep penetration. Not much of a
>>risk these days.
Also, remember that this isn't just a threat to nuclear power plants.
I can just imagine what damage could be done if a hydroelectric dam was
attacked with such weapons. Depending on the population downstream of the
dam, this conceivably could directly result in the deaths of millions of
people, which is probably worse than the worse-case scenarios involving
nuclear reactors. On the other hand, a fossil-fuel burning plant would
not do much external damage if it were bombed. A solar thermal system could
also be easily taken out by bombing the power tower, thermal storage units,
or turbines, although this is also likely to do little damage outside the
plant.
A dispersed PV array, however, or a large wind farm would be nearly
impossible to take out by bombing if the power grid was wired with enough
alternate pathways. PV arrays on rooftops would be even less vulnerable.
As such, decentralization certainly has some national security advantages.
--