NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/energy/6595

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!lunic!eru.mt.luth.se!enterpoop.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!noc.near.net!nic.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
From: [e-mail] (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:06:05 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <_2sr7==@dixie.com>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 67

In article <_2sr7==@dixie.com> [e-mail] (John De Armond) writes:
>[e-mail] (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John De Armond) writes:
>>>nor will it drastically change operational costs.  There is no
>>>experience with 50 year old reactors.  I have read that the issue
>>>of embrittlement is not well understood.  If John De Armond
>>>thinks these figures are junk he better take his arguments to his
>>>friends in the nuclear industry.
>
>Ahhh, Yackadamn's back!!!!  Just like a persistent case of the Clap.

Your postings make it seem like your problem is probably tertiary syph
instead, but you should get qualified medical treatment in anycase..

>>The facts are that there are proposed methods for reversing embittlement
>>but they have not been tried except in the Soviet Union and, I believe,
>>one small experimental reactor in Belgium. The costs of these proposed
>>methods are large, their effectiveness is not known.
>
>Cost is only high relative to small things like, say, your paycheck.
>Relative to new power plant construction, annealing the pot is trivial.

This is typical of your level of either honesty or understanding, I'm not
sure which. You project costs to be trivial, but on there is zero
'on the ground' evidence to backup this assertion. Nobody has ever tried
annealing in any commercial plants, and you the only evidence you
provide for your claim is your own personal credibility --  a rather
valueless item.

>As to effectiveness, if you've ever annealed a piece of hardened
>steel, you know how effective heat is in eliminating stress.  Really
>does not matter how the stress got there.

Look up "extrapolation" in a dictionary.

>
>>The NRC shut down
>>Yankee Rowe precisely because its containment vessel showed signs of
>>losing enough ductility to make its continued operation dangerous. The
>>utility chose to decomission rather than to attempt annealing. The
>>rapidity of ductility loss is the subject of controversy.
>
>Three strikes and you're out, yackadamn.  Yankee was shut down by the
>utility because it was a tiny unit that was not economical - in the
>judgement of the untility - to refurb.  While I would have liked to

Yankee Rowe was shut down by the NRC, not the utility. And it was
shut down because of embrittlement. The utility decided not to pour
an unknown but large sum of money into a speculative process. When it
comes time, other utilities will make the same judgment with bigger
reactors -- unless the public gets stuck with the bill.

>C'mon Yack.  You can do better than that.  What's wrong, still drunk
>from New Years?

What, no mention of "econnazis" in your posting? Are you getting soft
or just  continuing your post-Buchanan reassessment of the use of "nazi" as
a pejorative?



--


[e-mail]