Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:30:06 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
i5K_e.410799$xm3.180028@attbi_s21::

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years

Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?

I find it difficult to believe what you contend. Have you a source
for your assertion?

Um, well, these aren't quite the '50s and '60s vintage, but Zion Nuclear
Power Plant in Zion, IL, was built in 1970. It's still chugging along 35
years later.

And the Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant, which produces almost 10% of the
power needed in Iowa, has been running since 1974 -- 31 years ago.

So you were only off by 20 years or 57% of the nuclear plant's current
life span. I thought you were incorrect.

These took about 8 seconds to find on Yahoo. Both seem to be running beyond
your purported 25 year life span.

San Onofre 1 and 2 were shutdown after only 20 years of operation, so
25 years was a bit optimistic in that case.

Additionally, how can it be other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

I believe we've got geologically stable salt mines set to store all the
nuclear by-products that our nuke plants have created. Unfortunately,
environmentalists (through the courts) have been foolishly forcing the power
companies to continue storing on-site at each nuclear power plant.

So you feel that protecting the environment is foolish?

Who will oversee those nuclear dump sites for thousands of years? Even
the Roman empire failed to last that long.

What would you estimate the cost of transporting radioactive waste
might be? The potential for a spill?

Talk about a disaster waiting to happen...

Fortunately, prudent environmentalists have averted disaster so far...

So while allure of cheap nuclear power entices the uninformed, its
true costs, including the long and short term hazards it poses to the
environment, transportation of radioactive materials and byproducts,
the cost of decommissioning plants, and the cost of standing vigil
over the dump site for thousands of years, make nuclear power
expensive indeed.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .


Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:15:38 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in ::

That's a pure political problem. The solution has been at hand for decades.


To which solution do you refer?

Jay Honeck wrote:

Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?

There aren't any left from the 50s, unless some of the old Soviet stuff is still
on line. There's aren't very many from the 60s, either, and only one of them is
in this country.

The oldest one in the UK was put on line in 1956. It closed in 2004. The first
plant in the U.S. went on line in 1954, but it's been closed for years.

The oldest one still operating in the U.S. just snuck in under the wire of the
60s - it went on line December 31, 1969. Its license expires in 2009.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
[snip]
What would you estimate the cost of transporting radioactive waste
might be? The potential for a spill?


Whatever the French are doing with those 'glass' blocks is fine with me.
Stackable, waterproof, inert.

I've always thought our (US) system of transporting and storing radioactive
waste containers (filled with liquid) was dumb.


Montblack

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:29:40 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote in
::

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
[snip]
What would you estimate the cost of transporting radioactive waste
might be? The potential for a spill?

Whatever the French are doing with those 'glass' blocks is fine with me.
Stackable, waterproof, inert.

I agree; vitrifying spent nuclear fuel seems like a good idea.

But what about all the other radioactive contaminated material? The
piping, concrete containment structure, coolant, the low-level
radioactive waste, and the like probably are not candidates for
vitrification.

I've always thought our (US) system of transporting and storing radioactive
waste containers (filled with liquid) was dumb.

It's less than stable. That's for sure. But there may be no other
reasonable alternative.

However, the point I was trying to get across is, that the true cost
of nuclear power, when ALL is considered, is not cheap, and the
hazards are many.

Kyler Laird wrote:
Newps writes:


Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?


Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit

from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.

Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about (but
typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

Selling corn to make ethanol is not profitable without the federal
government stepping in to prop up the prices. If corn was sold on the
open market at market prices with no government interference there would
be no ethanol. You want to know what you're paying farmers and
ranchers? Take a look at this website and start crying.

http://www.ewg.org/farm/

Newps writes:

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.

Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about (but
typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

Selling corn to make ethanol is not profitable without the federal
government stepping in to prop up the prices. If corn was sold on the
open market at market prices with no government interference there would
be no ethanol.

O.k., so you really weren't saying anything ethanol-specific from the
farmer's perspective, right? Selling for ethanol vs. selling for feed (or
whatever) really makes no difference. (Granted, the ethanol plants would
not be able to afford to *buy* grain at market prices without subsidies
but that's not seen by the farmer...usually. I often joke that ethanol
plants are just a way of extracting money from taxpayers. That doesn't go
over well at the ethanol plant meetings.)

You want to know what you're paying farmers and
ranchers?

Uh...I *are* one. I'm all for getting rid of the subsidies though. I
thought we were going to do that a few years ago but that changed.

Let's get rid of all of the subsidies - starting with petroleum.

--kyler

Jay Honeck wrote:
Today Rep. Jim Nussle -- potentially the future governor of Iowa -- was
reported as proposing that all gasoline sold in Iowa be required to contain
20% ethanol additive. Presumably, this legislation, if passed, would make
the sale of regular unleaded gasoline illegal in Iowa.

See the story he
http://press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.d...509270309/1079


Ethanol should not be approved for use in general aviation aircraft. It
seems like a great idea, but the ethanol is highly caustic and eats
hoses and corrodes carburetors and cylinders. Ethanol is also more
expensive than gasoline. Although it is based on a renewable resource,
the fact is that the resource is not nearly large enough to meet demand
should it become mandated, meaning that costs will soar. Automobile
drivers might be able to live with these problems, but aircraft owners
would find them unacceptable.

Rep. Nussle will ignore your letter, though. It is Iowa, after all, and
the farmers and Archer Daniels Midland are much more powerful
consituencies than private pilots.

Ethanol should not be approved for use in general aviation aircraft. It
seems like a great idea, but the ethanol is highly caustic

The hell you say. Your source? And to WHAT is it caustic? To fuming red
nitric acid, WATER is caustic.


and eats
hoses

Hasn't eaten a single hose on my Miata and it has been running on the stuff
for ten years.


and corrodes carburetors

How? The chemical reaction between ethanol and steel/aluminum appears to be
benign. Again, your source other than OWT?


and cylinders.

Seems that the entire US auto fleet would be in serious doo doo if this were
true. It ain't.




Ethanol is also more
expensive than gasoline.

Not the argument. Keep OT please.


Jim

RST Engineering wrote:
Ethanol should not be approved for use in general aviation aircraft. It
seems like a great idea, but the ethanol is highly caustic

The hell you say. Your source? And to WHAT is it caustic? To fuming red
nitric acid, WATER is caustic.


http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_392b.html