Jim Hoerner tries to waste everyone's time again...

>From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>

Hi, Russell.

I am sorry if you don't appreciate the fact that I could not restrain myself
from responding to the drivel you posted.  I've restored the subject, since
it is appropriate; your post was quite a bomb.

>I never thought anyone would consider the environmental damage from a flood
>as a result of a busted dam, and prefer it to the environmental effects

Russell, I said no such thing.  I said some renewables are great, but you
should keep in mind that these also have problems.

>which a nuclear meltdown would have on its "ultimate heat sink" and on
>locations downwind of the affected reactor(s).  But Jim Hoerner, who is the
>moderator for a forum called "know nukes" did.  Wow.

You should stop on by Know_Nukes.  You might actually learn something
factual, rather than a bunch of unsupported hype contained in press
releases.

>Radioactive waste is poisonous in vanishingly small quantities.

Here's an example.  While it may be a true statement on the surface (for
example, a tiny quantity of plutonium can be dangerous if inhaled), it does
not adequately represent the risks to public from nuclear waste.

The National Safety Council says "Nuclear power plant operations account for
less than one-hundreth of a percent (less than one millirem per year) of the
average American's total radiation exposure. However, workers at nuclear
power plants can receive much higher doses and those that live near nuclear
power plants can receive slightly higher doses." (1)

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement says that the
average dose to U.S. persons is 360 millirem per year, nearly all from
natural, medical, and consumer product sources. (2)

The US EPA says that if you live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant,
your additional radiation dose is 0.009 millirem per year. Interestingly, if
you live within 50 miles of a coal-fired plant, you get an additional 0.03
millirem per year. (3)

1. http://www.nsc.org/public/ehc/rad/radgdebk.pdf (page 20)
2. http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.html
3. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html

>After a meltdown, you have to abandon the area -- perhaps thousands of
>square miles.

Yes, I understand that most of Pennsylvania is currently unihabitable :-).

Don't get me wrong, Russell, the TMI meltdown was not a good thing.  Ther
Chernobyl accident was much worse, with a terrible human and environmental
toll (about 30 people died within days of the accident and tens more may die
of thyroid cancer).  Fortunately, there are no Chernobyl-type reactors in
the West.  Emissions from fossil plants are extimated to kill 30,000
annually.

>On the other hand, water is not poisonous at all, so even the complete
>destruction of a large dam would create only a >temporary catastrophe.

One dam break can kill thousands.  They are *permanently* dead.

>So there is no reasonable comparison, and Mr. Hoerner has
>backed himself into a pretty ridiculous corner.

>Admittedly, a dam bust might destroy a lot of property and drown a lot of
>people, but at least after the waters recede, survivors could go back and
>rebuild (unless, of course, the busted dam caused a flood of a nuclear
>power plant).

You're right.  Like I said, most of PA is permanently uninhabitable. 
Perhaps you could tell me how many temporary deaths are attributable to TMI?

>It also appears that Mr. Hoerner has never heard of "small-scale
>hydro".

Why would you assume that?  However, when I speak of hydro, I usually am
talking about the large plants, since they provide a significant portion of
electricity generation.

>Maybe Mr. Hoerner should read the history of dam busting in World War Two
>to get a grasp of how difficult it is.  (I've included >some related quotes
>below.)

Are you aware that one dam break in China is estimated to have killed
900,000?  The dam was dynamited by a terrorist group.

>Mr. Hoerner writes about methane emissions from hydro -- I presume he means
>from life in the lakes.  Wouldn't want any life in those >lakes, would we,
>Mr. Hoerner!

Since you cannot seem to grasp the significance of anthropogenic global
warming, and instead choose to lamely attempt to ridicule, please allow me
to enlighten you...

Grams CO2 equivalent/kWh, includes lifecycle emissions (4):

Coal: 1136
Gas: 564
Hydro: 120
Solar: 190
Wind: 29
Nuclear: 15

4. http://www.uic.com.au/ueg.htm

All forms of energy production have risks and environmental concerns.  It
appears Mr. Russell chooses to ignore them.

>That's not to say it's not true that there are such
>emissions, but compared to what -- a dairy farm?  I think he's got his
>emissions figures unbalanced.

See above.  Like I said, come on over to Know_Nukes and learn something.

>I wonder if he's got the documentation behind his statement, "lifecycle
>greenhouse gas emissions [from wind energy sources] are ... larger than
>that of nuclear"?  I'd like to see what he's taken into account on the
>nuclear side, such as mining, transport, waste storage, accidental
>meltdowns, and the cost in greenhouse gas emissions of running hospitals
>for those suffering from radiation effects after an accident -- perhaps
>thousands of years after an accident, and millions of people.  How much of
>that did his calculations take into account?

As requested sir.  Please take a look.  "Lifecycle means just that. 
Construction, mining, enrichement, operations, decommissioning.

>Mr. Hoerner attacks Jack Shannon, who designed the world's most widely used
>nuclear reactor in his younger days, claiming that >Jack's (and others')
>idea of shutting the nuclear power plants down immediately would lead to
>widespread blackouts and looting.

I attacked Jack mainly for his claim (paraphrasing here) that government
workers were dumb and not doing their jobs.  He then mentioned the damn
fools in Washington.  I may not be so smart myself, but I think Jack is a
fool for what he wrote.

>Actually, a more likely result (barring
>politically-contrived shortages) would be immediate full employment in
>renewable energy solutions and NO BLACKOUTS (those California blackouts
>were political anyway, Mr. Hoerner -- don't you know that?)

No. I didn't know that :-).  You claim that if we shut down 20% of the
elctricity production in the US we won't have blackouts.  I see. 
Interesting.

[snip]

>American doesn't need nuclear power.  And by finally building a renewable
>energy infrastructure and addressing conservation issues, we can also get
>the oil pirates off our backs, along with the Nuclear Mafia.

Russell, it is easy to make emply statements like this.  But how do you do
it?  I gave you an example.  Greenpeace makes statements like this, but they
couldn't squander more than a measly 10% of solar power in their new
building.  They need to put their money where their mouths are.  The
building they are in is powered primarily by coal and nuclear, as a result.

US-wide, here is 1999 electricity generation data (5):

51% Coal
20% nuclear
15% gas
8% hydro
3% oil
2% biomass, wind, solar, geothermal combined

5. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav1/elecprod.html

I note that electricity demand is also increasing.  Utilities are primarily
building fossil plants in order to meet this demand.

>Government figures show that replacing America's millions of old and
>outdated water heaters ALONE would save about 3% of our total home
>energy.  That's a significant percentage of what nuclear gives us from that
>one small step.  Here in California, the State offered rebates to those who
>cut their usage by 15% and more -- so obviously, they thought it could be
>done (that's more than nuclear supplies in California, which is about 14.6%
>or our electricity, according to state spokespersons).  There are plenty of
>small steps which could allow us to close all the nukes.  It's a
>non-problem, unless political forces create blackouts afterwards, just to
>make things look bad.  We know they can do that, because they did it in
>California recently.  But the nukes can and should be closed.

Next time you are sitting in the dark with food getting ready to spoil or
the heat not working, you might think differently.

>And Mr. Hoerner, windmills don't make good terrorist targets, do they?  Nor
>do solar panels on rooftops.  Who was Greenpeace's contractor in your
>story?  That sounds mighty fishy.  And your figures on geothermal pollution
>are highly suspect, and on and on and on.

I haven't seen one thing you said backed up sir.  You just deny that
anything other than nukes have risks, and say that you don't believe
anything.  Plug your ears if you will.

>Mr. Hoerner, in closing, I wonder: who do you work for?  The CIA?  Maybe
>the NSA?  Halliburton?  SAIC?  Come on, dude, come clean.  Are you a dumb
>government employee, a contractor, ex-Navy yourself, or what?  You say you
>know nukes, but you don't know Jack S., that's for sure.

Ah, they always result to pernsonal attacks when they don't have any sound
footing to stand on.

Sorry for the intrusion, downwinders.  However, if you like debate like
this, drop on by Know_Nukes.

Jim Hoerner

_________________________________________________________________
 

The Animated Software Company

rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com