http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424 What is computer modeling? And how is it related to Global Warming?   Having worked very hard to keep the water resources of Victoria County IN Victoria County for several years now I have become familiar with computer modeling. A computer model is an extrapolation of facts, assumptions and computations entered in to a computer in an effort to simulate a given set of results. Wikipedia describes a computer model as, “…a computer program or network of computers that attempts to simulate an abstract model of a particular system. Having been a part of the Technical Forum that created the computer model for the Desired Future Condition (DFC) of our aquifer, I was able to have input on what information was fed into the model. This computer model was needed to help our water conservation district create the district’s management plan required for all districts by the state. In the case of our district’s DFC there were certain hard data used and this was added to common assumptions and the DFC was formed. The old adage, “Garbage in-garbage out!” still works here. The more hard data input into the model the more accurate the model is! That is the reason our district has asked for volunteers around the county to allow the district to test and measure their wells. Therefore an evenly spaced group of data can be added to the model increasing it’s accuracy. So, after enough data is gathered, the model becomes less extrapolation and a better picture of the amount of water we have and the true DFC. More actual data-less assumption! Now that we have an idea of what a computer model is, let’s discuss global warming. If you listen carefully to those who constantly warn of this projected disaster or that terrible scenario, they almost always talk about the computer modeling that has been done that is projecting or predicting those terrible things to happen. Now listen carefully please! Worse yet, I had no trouble digging up the documented information that debunks much of what the extremist environmentalists scream about every day. I can scream about the documentation proving them wrong all I want but they have believed this garbage for so long it’s become almost a religion to them. Many don’t ever intend to even consider the truth of the matter! I support nuclear power because, other than uranium mining, the industry has great promise in it’s effort to fulfill the energy needs of the fast growing State of Texas in a safe, clean and efficient manner! The GE/Hitachi light water reactor planned for Victoria County will be more efficient, safer and use less uranium fuel than it’s older predecessors! It does not present a danger to even it’s closest neighbors and massive amounts of groundwater will not be needed for it’s operation! I am an environmentalist! I do practical things every day to conserve resources for those coming behind me! I will not, however, fall prey to extremist propaganda! Worse yet, those who created the computer models are now finding that the data fed in to those models was, in many cases, incorrect to begin with! The Polar Bears are at record numbers according to federal wildlife officials! So, those computer modelers are now scrambling around trying to explain why the oceans haven’t flooded coastal property! Trying to explain why their own instruments are telling them that the oceans have not warmed! Disaster has been predicted for more than fifteen years now and, after reading the evidence I have presented from published media reports, the disasters just aren’t happening! What is computer modeling? And how is it related to Global Warming?   Having worked very hard to keep the water resources of Victoria County IN Victoria County for several years now I have become familiar with computer modeling. A computer model is an extrapolation of facts, assumptions and computations entered in to a computer in an effort to simulate a given set of results. Wikipedia describes a computer model as, “…a computer program or network of computers that attempts to simulate an abstract model of a particular system. Having been a part of the Technical Forum that created the computer model for the Desired Future Condition (DFC) of our aquifer, I was able to have input on what information was fed into the model. This computer model was needed to help our water conservation district create the district’s management plan required for all districts by the state. In the case of our district’s DFC there were certain hard data used and this was added to common assumptions and the DFC was formed. The old adage, “Garbage in-garbage out!” still works here. The more hard data input into the model the more accurate the model is! That is the reason our district has asked for volunteers around the county to allow the district to test and measure their wells. Therefore an evenly spaced group of data can be added to the model increasing it’s accuracy. So, after enough data is gathered, the model becomes less extrapolation and a better picture of the amount of water we have and the true DFC. More actual data-less assumption! Now that we have an idea of what a computer model is, let’s discuss global warming. If you listen carefully to those who constantly warn of this projected disaster or that terrible scenario, they almost always talk about the computer modeling that has been done that is projecting or predicting those terrible things to happen. Now listen carefully please! Worse yet, I had no trouble digging up the documented information that debunks much of what the extremist environmentalists scream about every day. I can scream about the documentation proving them wrong all I want but they have believed this garbage for so long it’s become almost a religion to them. Many don’t ever intend to even consider the truth of the matter! I support nuclear power because, other than uranium mining, the industry has great promise in it’s effort to fulfill the energy needs of the fast growing State of Texas in a safe, clean and efficient manner! The GE/Hitachi light water reactor planned for Victoria County will be more efficient, safer and use less uranium fuel than it’s older predecessors! It does not present a danger to even it’s closest neighbors and massive amounts of groundwater will not be needed for it’s operation! I am an environmentalist! I do practical things every day to conserve resources for those coming behind me! I will not, however, fall prey to extremist propaganda! Worse yet, those who created the computer models are now finding that the data fed in to those models was, in many cases, incorrect to begin with! The Polar Bears are at record numbers according to federal wildlife officials! So, those computer modelers are now scrambling around trying to explain why the oceans haven’t flooded coastal property! Trying to explain why their own instruments are telling them that the oceans have not warmed! Disaster has been predicted for more than fifteen years now and, after reading the evidence I have presented from published media reports, the disasters just aren’t happening! en-us And don't forget the doom-and-gloom forecasts of global cooling back in the 1970s! What about the hole in the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere? Makes one skeptical, doesn't it? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_48788 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_48788 And don't forget the doom-and-gloom forecasts of global cooling back in the 1970s! What about the hole in the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere? Makes one skeptical, doesn't it? Like you said Kenneth, you have to put in CORRECT data to get a CORRECT computer model. Use bad science and you get bad numbers.   But yes, we are talking about religion. But as long as it is not the dreaded Christianity it is okay I guess, even though they cannot prove theirs but with false data. The spotted owl thing was wrong, the doom and gloom of the ozone hole was wrong, the frozen earth prediction of the first earth day was wrong, the polar bear data is wrong, man made global warming is wrong, etc.. Raising taxes to help out a economic downturn is wrong too but if you are going to use false data what the heck. Like the OLD saying goes if it feels good,...do it. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_48911 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_48911 Like you said Kenneth, you have to put in CORRECT data to get a CORRECT computer model. Use bad science and you get bad numbers.   But yes, we are talking about religion. But as long as it is not the dreaded Christianity it is okay I guess, even though they cannot prove theirs but with false data. The spotted owl thing was wrong, the doom and gloom of the ozone hole was wrong, the frozen earth prediction of the first earth day was wrong, the polar bear data is wrong, man made global warming is wrong, etc.. Raising taxes to help out a economic downturn is wrong too but if you are going to use false data what the heck. Like the OLD saying goes if it feels good,...do it. Ninety nine percent of the scientist studying global warming say it is real and that it is a creditable threat that cannot be ignored.  The consequences of global warming have been described as catastrophic.  I can believe them or you as to whether it exists or not, it's not a difficult decision.  The real threat is occurring in the Arctic Regions.  Here it is warming about five times faster than the global average temperature.  The sea ice around the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets is rapidly disappearing.  Ice "quakes in Greenland have increased by a factor of four in recent years.  The people that study these thing when asked if the ice sheets will collapse, respond with an "I don't know," but the expressions on their faces tells a very different story.  We are asking these people to predict the behavior of a continental size mountain of ice, part of which is anchored on the sea floor 8,000 feet below sea level. The collapse of these two ice sheets would raise sea levels 40 feet.  This is a problem we may or may not face but our children and grand children will definitely have to deal with it, if they can.  In the meantime we are doing nothing, nor are our politicians in Washington who spend their days playing grab a$$ with lobbyists.  I say bring on nuclear power - now.  But you are part of the problem, because we can not really go foward with nuclear power if you keep screaming about the mining of uranium.  If the mining is unsafe or people have been harmed show us the data, whose well has been contaminated, who has been poisoned.  Show us so we can at least make a rational decision about how and where we can get nuclear fuel.   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53482 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53482 Ninety nine percent of the scientist studying global warming say it is real and that it is a creditable threat that cannot be ignored.  The consequences of global warming have been described as catastrophic.  I can believe them or you as to whether it exists or not, it's not a difficult decision.  The real threat is occurring in the Arctic Regions.  Here it is warming about five times faster than the global average temperature.  The sea ice around the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets is rapidly disappearing.  Ice "quakes in Greenland have increased by a factor of four in recent years.  The people that study these thing when asked if the ice sheets will collapse, respond with an "I don't know," but the expressions on their faces tells a very different story.  We are asking these people to predict the behavior of a continental size mountain of ice, part of which is anchored on the sea floor 8,000 feet below sea level. The collapse of these two ice sheets would raise sea levels 40 feet.  This is a problem we may or may not face but our children and grand children will definitely have to deal with it, if they can.  In the meantime we are doing nothing, nor are our politicians in Washington who spend their days playing grab a$$ with lobbyists.  I say bring on nuclear power - now.  But you are part of the problem, because we can not really go foward with nuclear power if you keep screaming about the mining of uranium.  If the mining is unsafe or people have been harmed show us the data, whose well has been contaminated, who has been poisoned.  Show us so we can at least make a rational decision about how and where we can get nuclear fuel.   Uranium mining is being done in the coastal bend primarily because the Sierra Club has mounted fierce public opposition to it in Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico, all sparsely populated areas of our country.  So the objection is not because it is near private wells, no they object to any mining and anyhing to do with nuclear energy.  And passage of those laws, you refer to in Colorado and Texas, will effectively crush the uranium mining industry in the United States.  This will make the Sierra Club very happy, it will be another nail in the coffin for nuclear energy.  What happens if the enviromentalist in Canada and Australia ban mining in those countries, they are trying to do that very thing as we speak, er type.  We will become hostage to their dream of nothing but renewable energy - turbines in the wind, the Gulf Stream, the jet stream, geothermal turbines, thermal units run on manure, switch grass, whatever can be imagined.  It will be a complete radical revamping of our electrical generating system.   However it is fact that renewables will have very little impact on the consumption of coal, they are too difficult to control and they can never provide base load electrical generation.  Only coal and nuclear can do that.  They are crushing nuclear and they are making it very difficult for coal.  So get ready to sweat in the summer and freeze in the winter and oh yeah, be sure to use efficient light bulbs - even if there is no electricity. To me we are heading down a very dangerous path, peoples jobs, their lives are going to be at great risk.  We should be careful what we wish for.   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53632 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53632 Uranium mining is being done in the coastal bend primarily because the Sierra Club has mounted fierce public opposition to it in Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico, all sparsely populated areas of our country.  So the objection is not because it is near private wells, no they object to any mining and anyhing to do with nuclear energy.  And passage of those laws, you refer to in Colorado and Texas, will effectively crush the uranium mining industry in the United States.  This will make the Sierra Club very happy, it will be another nail in the coffin for nuclear energy.  What happens if the enviromentalist in Canada and Australia ban mining in those countries, they are trying to do that very thing as we speak, er type.  We will become hostage to their dream of nothing but renewable energy - turbines in the wind, the Gulf Stream, the jet stream, geothermal turbines, thermal units run on manure, switch grass, whatever can be imagined.  It will be a complete radical revamping of our electrical generating system.   However it is fact that renewables will have very little impact on the consumption of coal, they are too difficult to control and they can never provide base load electrical generation.  Only coal and nuclear can do that.  They are crushing nuclear and they are making it very difficult for coal.  So get ready to sweat in the summer and freeze in the winter and oh yeah, be sure to use efficient light bulbs - even if there is no electricity. To me we are heading down a very dangerous path, peoples jobs, their lives are going to be at great risk.  We should be careful what we wish for.   While I am not a great fan of the Sierra Club they are quite correct concerning uranium mining. There is an undeniable, documented record of 100% failure in Texas of the uranium mining industry to restore wells or property to previous condition! The uranium mining industry in places where the ore is located in the drinking water table needs to die a horrible, painful death.   There is more than enough uranium located in the world's wilderness areas to supply our needs for the next 10,000 years and not hurt anyone. I am a former resident of Wilson County and know all too well about the uranium mines west of Poth and Falls City that were mitigated by the taxpayer with my tax dollars. Some were never mitigated! The uranium tailings still blow in the wind!   I say "mitigate" because there is no actual clean-up. Not possible. Just like there is no clean-up after in situ. It just doesn't happen. There has never been a documented instance of a 100% clean-up.   As far as nuclear power surviving, you haven't done your homework there either. Executives in that industry don't have anything to do with the uranium mining industry in the U.S. because they get their fuel on the world market where much of it comes from places like Canada and Australia.   With the closing of the other end of the nuclear fuel chain by fuel rod recycling that has been approved by congress I look forward to the end of uranium mining in areas where the ore is located in the water table. The numbers prove it's not necessary.   I found particularly comical your statement about 99% of scientists supporting the theory of global warming. I guess that doesn't include the 31,072 scientists who signed the petition presented by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine debunking global warming as a hoax.   You seem to say a lot, under different names, but you never seem to supply very much documentation to back it up! 99% huh? 99% of the space cadets at Berkeley perhaps? 99% of Al Gore's staff?   After having written in public for over 25 years now I lean on an old maxim some wise sage gave me; "If you want to write, you have to read first!" In other words, do your homework!   Rollinstone, environmentallycorrect or environmentalgeologist or whatever you're going by this week, please tell everyone how your ox will be gored if uranium mining stops in this area! How much money will you lose? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53638 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53638 While I am not a great fan of the Sierra Club they are quite correct concerning uranium mining. There is an undeniable, documented record of 100% failure in Texas of the uranium mining industry to restore wells or property to previous condition! The uranium mining industry in places where the ore is located in the drinking water table needs to die a horrible, painful death.   There is more than enough uranium located in the world's wilderness areas to supply our needs for the next 10,000 years and not hurt anyone. I am a former resident of Wilson County and know all too well about the uranium mines west of Poth and Falls City that were mitigated by the taxpayer with my tax dollars. Some were never mitigated! The uranium tailings still blow in the wind!   I say "mitigate" because there is no actual clean-up. Not possible. Just like there is no clean-up after in situ. It just doesn't happen. There has never been a documented instance of a 100% clean-up.   As far as nuclear power surviving, you haven't done your homework there either. Executives in that industry don't have anything to do with the uranium mining industry in the U.S. because they get their fuel on the world market where much of it comes from places like Canada and Australia.   With the closing of the other end of the nuclear fuel chain by fuel rod recycling that has been approved by congress I look forward to the end of uranium mining in areas where the ore is located in the water table. The numbers prove it's not necessary.   I found particularly comical your statement about 99% of scientists supporting the theory of global warming. I guess that doesn't include the 31,072 scientists who signed the petition presented by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine debunking global warming as a hoax.   You seem to say a lot, under different names, but you never seem to supply very much documentation to back it up! 99% huh? 99% of the space cadets at Berkeley perhaps? 99% of Al Gore's staff?   After having written in public for over 25 years now I lean on an old maxim some wise sage gave me; "If you want to write, you have to read first!" In other words, do your homework!   Rollinstone, environmentallycorrect or environmentalgeologist or whatever you're going by this week, please tell everyone how your ox will be gored if uranium mining stops in this area! How much money will you lose?  I realize your expertise in the science of climate change and I am impressed,  but I thought you might like to know you may be slightly out of step with your "peers", attached is an excerpt from wikipedia about global warming. "These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions." I know what your thinking, yeah there's global warming, but it's not manmade.  But I can't get over the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.  And there are about 152 quadrillion molecules of CO2 in every cubic inch of air at sea level, each one slowing the escape of heat radiation to space, that's not a hoax.  The earth is indeed heating up and we have a moral obligation to try and prevent it if we can and that means nuclear energy and a secure uranium supply. Although I hate to say this, I doubt that reprocessing of spent fuel is the answer as you claim...it will help but until we go to IFR reactors it will only have a small effect on the demand for uranium.  The fuel under current conditions can be reprocessed only once due to the build up of Pu240 which doesn't fission.     http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53642 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53642  I realize your expertise in the science of climate change and I am impressed,  but I thought you might like to know you may be slightly out of step with your "peers", attached is an excerpt from wikipedia about global warming. "These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions." I know what your thinking, yeah there's global warming, but it's not manmade.  But I can't get over the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.  And there are about 152 quadrillion molecules of CO2 in every cubic inch of air at sea level, each one slowing the escape of heat radiation to space, that's not a hoax.  The earth is indeed heating up and we have a moral obligation to try and prevent it if we can and that means nuclear energy and a secure uranium supply. Although I hate to say this, I doubt that reprocessing of spent fuel is the answer as you claim...it will help but until we go to IFR reactors it will only have a small effect on the demand for uranium.  The fuel under current conditions can be reprocessed only once due to the build up of Pu240 which doesn't fission.     And oh yeah I have nothing to gain or lose personally from uranium mining or nuclear energy just the future of our country / world. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53654 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53654 And oh yeah I have nothing to gain or lose personally from uranium mining or nuclear energy just the future of our country / world. Bottom line here is that you're trying to justify mining for uranium in the drinking water aquifer used for families for generations. Wells have already been damaged by exploration alone. Drink a few gallons of John Caldwell's water and you'll have the right to speak destroying other people's property. Otherwise I'm through talking to you. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53690 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53690 Bottom line here is that you're trying to justify mining for uranium in the drinking water aquifer used for families for generations. Wells have already been damaged by exploration alone. Drink a few gallons of John Caldwell's water and you'll have the right to speak destroying other people's property. Otherwise I'm through talking to you. I think whatever decision is made it should be based on the facts and not hysterical ranting, there is too much at stake here for everyone. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53713 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_53713 I think whatever decision is made it should be based on the facts and not hysterical ranting, there is too much at stake here for everyone. This is from the July 7,2008 Foreign Policy in Focus website http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5351 Costs As a senior energy adviser in the Clinton administration, I recall attending a briefing in 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences on the feasibility of recycling nuclear fuel. I'd been intrigued by the idea because of its promise to eliminate weapons-usable plutonium and to reduce the amount of waste that had to be buried, where it could conceivably seep into drinking water at some point in its multimillion-year-long half-lives. But then came the Academy's unequivocal conclusion: the idea was supremely impractical. It would cost up to $500 billion in 1996 dollars and take 150 years to accomplish the transmutation of plutonium and other dangerous long-lived radioactive toxins. Ten years later the idea remains as costly and technologically unfeasible as it was in the 1990s. In 2007 the Academy once again tossed cold water on the Bush administration’s effort to jump start nuclear recycling by concluding that “there is no economic justification for going forward with this program at anything approaching a commercial scale.” Meanwhile, the client base for Areva, the French nuclear recycling company, has shrunk to one new contract for a relatively small amount of spent fuel from the Netherlands. Most revealing is that its main customer, the French utility, Electricité de France, is balking at doing further business unless the price goes down – something that Areva says it can’t do. It appears that even the French may be starting to say no instead of oui.   Robert Alvarez, a former Senior Advisor in the Department of Energy during the Clinton administration, is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies. It contradicts what you are saying or am I not reading it right.....Do you  know when congress passed that recycling legislation because this article seems to contradict that also....I want to be able to look it up myself. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_58987 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_58987 This is from the July 7,2008 Foreign Policy in Focus website http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5351 Costs As a senior energy adviser in the Clinton administration, I recall attending a briefing in 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences on the feasibility of recycling nuclear fuel. I'd been intrigued by the idea because of its promise to eliminate weapons-usable plutonium and to reduce the amount of waste that had to be buried, where it could conceivably seep into drinking water at some point in its multimillion-year-long half-lives. But then came the Academy's unequivocal conclusion: the idea was supremely impractical. It would cost up to $500 billion in 1996 dollars and take 150 years to accomplish the transmutation of plutonium and other dangerous long-lived radioactive toxins. Ten years later the idea remains as costly and technologically unfeasible as it was in the 1990s. In 2007 the Academy once again tossed cold water on the Bush administration’s effort to jump start nuclear recycling by concluding that “there is no economic justification for going forward with this program at anything approaching a commercial scale.” Meanwhile, the client base for Areva, the French nuclear recycling company, has shrunk to one new contract for a relatively small amount of spent fuel from the Netherlands. Most revealing is that its main customer, the French utility, Electricité de France, is balking at doing further business unless the price goes down – something that Areva says it can’t do. It appears that even the French may be starting to say no instead of oui.   Robert Alvarez, a former Senior Advisor in the Department of Energy during the Clinton administration, is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies. It contradicts what you are saying or am I not reading it right.....Do you  know when congress passed that recycling legislation because this article seems to contradict that also....I want to be able to look it up myself. Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can’t Oui? Thursday , December 27, 2007 By Jack Spencer ADVERTISEMENT get_a(300,250,"frame1"); What if the government allowed you to burn only 25 percent of every tank of gas? Or if Washington made you pour half of every gallon of milk down the drain? What if lawmakers forced us to bury 95 percent of our energy resources? That is exactly what Washington does when it comes to safe, affordable and CO2-free nuclear energy. Indeed, 95 percent of the used fuel from America’s 104 power reactors, which provide about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, could be recycled for future use. To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3-5 percent burnable uranium. Once the burnable uranium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. But this “spent” fuel generally retains about 95 percent of the uranium it started with, and that uranium can be recycled. Over the past four decades, America’s reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. That “waste” contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S. household for 12 years. And it’s just sitting there, piling up at power plant storage facilities. Talk about waste! The sad thing is, the United States developed the technology to recapture that energy decades ago, then barred its commercial use in 1977. We have practiced a virtual moratorium ever since. Other countries have not taken such a backward approach to nuclear power. France, whose 59 reactors generate 80 percent of its electricity, has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades. They turned to nuclear power in the 1970s to limit their dependence on foreign energy. And, from the beginning, they made recycling used fuel central to their program. Upon its removal from French reactors, used fuel is packed in containers and safely shipped via train and road to a facility in La Hague. There, the energy producing uranium and plutonium are removed and separated from the other waste and made into new fuel that can be used again. The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the French. Anti-nuclear fear mongering has proved baseless. The French have recycled fuel like this for 30 years without incident: no terrorist attack, no bad guys stealing uranium, no contribution toward nuclear weapons proliferaton, and o accidental explosions. France meets all of its recycling needs with one facility. Indeed, domestic French reprocessing only takes about half of La Hague’s capacity. The other half is used to recycle other countries’ spent nuclear fuel. Since beginning operations, France’s La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel—enough to power France for fourteen years. Their success has sparked plenty of interest abroad. The French company AREVA has already helped Japan with its reprocessing facility and is currently looking at the feasibility of building a similar plant in China. The British, Japanese, Indians, and Russians all engage in some level of reprocessing. Of course, there is still waste involved. But recycling produces much lower volumes of highly radioactive waste, and the French deal with it effectively—placing some waste in short-term, interim storage or preparing the rest for long-term storage in their version of Yucca Mountain. All is not perfect in France. They are still working to open a permanent geologic storage facility. But the critical issue is that they have an organization to handle used nuclear fuel that allows their program to advance without being held hostage to the politics of geologic storage. If the United States is serious about reducing CO2 and energy dependence, it must get serious about nuclear power and begin recycling used nuclear fuel. A viable reprocessing capability not only would give the United States a valuable energy resource, it would reduce the amount of material going to Yucca Mountain. The U.S. has already produced enough waste to nearly fill Yucca’s legal limit of 70,000 metric tons—subsequent studies estimate that its actual capacity is about double that amount and some believe that it is even greater. It would also put the United States back on the map as a leader in commercial nuclear technology, which today it is not. Nuclear fuel reprocessing is a safe activity that should be part of America’s nuclear energy program. It can be affordable and is technologically feasible. The French are proving that on a daily basis. The question is: Why can’t oui? Jack Spencer is a research fellow for nuclear energy policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Gleaned from Fox News! http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_58989 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_58989 Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can’t Oui? Thursday , December 27, 2007 By Jack Spencer ADVERTISEMENT get_a(300,250,"frame1"); What if the government allowed you to burn only 25 percent of every tank of gas? Or if Washington made you pour half of every gallon of milk down the drain? What if lawmakers forced us to bury 95 percent of our energy resources? That is exactly what Washington does when it comes to safe, affordable and CO2-free nuclear energy. Indeed, 95 percent of the used fuel from America’s 104 power reactors, which provide about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, could be recycled for future use. To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3-5 percent burnable uranium. Once the burnable uranium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. But this “spent” fuel generally retains about 95 percent of the uranium it started with, and that uranium can be recycled. Over the past four decades, America’s reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. That “waste” contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S. household for 12 years. And it’s just sitting there, piling up at power plant storage facilities. Talk about waste! The sad thing is, the United States developed the technology to recapture that energy decades ago, then barred its commercial use in 1977. We have practiced a virtual moratorium ever since. Other countries have not taken such a backward approach to nuclear power. France, whose 59 reactors generate 80 percent of its electricity, has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades. They turned to nuclear power in the 1970s to limit their dependence on foreign energy. And, from the beginning, they made recycling used fuel central to their program. Upon its removal from French reactors, used fuel is packed in containers and safely shipped via train and road to a facility in La Hague. There, the energy producing uranium and plutonium are removed and separated from the other waste and made into new fuel that can be used again. The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the French. Anti-nuclear fear mongering has proved baseless. The French have recycled fuel like this for 30 years without incident: no terrorist attack, no bad guys stealing uranium, no contribution toward nuclear weapons proliferaton, and o accidental explosions. France meets all of its recycling needs with one facility. Indeed, domestic French reprocessing only takes about half of La Hague’s capacity. The other half is used to recycle other countries’ spent nuclear fuel. Since beginning operations, France’s La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel—enough to power France for fourteen years. Their success has sparked plenty of interest abroad. The French company AREVA has already helped Japan with its reprocessing facility and is currently looking at the feasibility of building a similar plant in China. The British, Japanese, Indians, and Russians all engage in some level of reprocessing. Of course, there is still waste involved. But recycling produces much lower volumes of highly radioactive waste, and the French deal with it effectively—placing some waste in short-term, interim storage or preparing the rest for long-term storage in their version of Yucca Mountain. All is not perfect in France. They are still working to open a permanent geologic storage facility. But the critical issue is that they have an organization to handle used nuclear fuel that allows their program to advance without being held hostage to the politics of geologic storage. If the United States is serious about reducing CO2 and energy dependence, it must get serious about nuclear power and begin recycling used nuclear fuel. A viable reprocessing capability not only would give the United States a valuable energy resource, it would reduce the amount of material going to Yucca Mountain. The U.S. has already produced enough waste to nearly fill Yucca’s legal limit of 70,000 metric tons—subsequent studies estimate that its actual capacity is about double that amount and some believe that it is even greater. It would also put the United States back on the map as a leader in commercial nuclear technology, which today it is not. Nuclear fuel reprocessing is a safe activity that should be part of America’s nuclear energy program. It can be affordable and is technologically feasible. The French are proving that on a daily basis. The question is: Why can’t oui? Jack Spencer is a research fellow for nuclear energy policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Gleaned from Fox News! Sorry Kenneth, wrong once again.   I am me and no one else.   I have nothing to gain or lose personally by uranium mining occurring in your area.  My only pursuit was for the truth about geology and geochemistry to be made clear and precise.   I have no dog in the fight other than science.  With that being said, I think for once you are spot on with your assessment of antropogenic global warming.  You and I are on the same page for once.   Geologists understand that the earth's climates are not static and never have been.   Most of our assumptions are based on this, therefore we are trained and nearly innate skeptics of the current global warming hysterics.   Setting aside the bad science involved with determining policy based on computer modeling, I want to touch on the reason why people like Al Gore and an organization like the UN are beating the drums so hard on this. My belief is that modern progressives needed a crisis, one that also fits in with some of their core values like (radical) environmentalism.  Progressive ideology going back all the way to Woodrow Wilson has always looked for a crisis for opportunity to implement social projects that wouldn't otherwise be popular or possible.   Under Woodrow Wilson it was the "war socialism" or WWI and under his protege FDR it was the Depression.  Al Gore is a big subscriber the the philosophies of Rousseau, who among other things believed that the "general will" (the collective) usurped the "particular will" ( the individual) if necessary and and the collectives interests ALWAYS overide the individual interests.   Also the "general will"  often would be incapable of always making correct decisions for itself to meet the ends that are social harmony and cooperation.  Thus the "general will" may need the guidance of an individual with enlightened judgment who can explain to the "body politic" how to promote justice and equality.  This lawgiver, who represents the will of the people, must be obeyed and all natural rights of the individual must be surrendered.   If any one refuses to comply with the general rule then they may be "forced to be free".    These little nuggets of philosophy led to "the Terror" of the french revolution and ultimately gave us the hall of fame of totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century from Bolshevism to Fascism. I side tracked with that little history lesson to come back to a point about Al Gore and what exactly he stands to gain from his hard sell with global warming.   After Clinton was elected in 1992, in a whitehouse meeting discussing the objectives of the administration  Al Gore offered up this thought:  "Rousseau said the body politic is a moral being possessed of a will.  He was thinking at the national level.  We need to take it to the international one.  We need to make a leap from nationhood to a sense of identity that is truly global, but embodies Rousseau's point"   In other (my) words, collectivist policies haven't been working on a national level because they can't ever compete with truly free nations with free markets and individual rights.  If it can be taken to the international level then perhaps they won't have to be embarrassed anymore by political refugees fleeing oppression or endure coming up short against capitalism's juggernaught.  I don't believe that Al Gore buys most of what he is saying,  he's a smart guy (I think), so the reason for all the "we must act now or human beings are doomed"  has to be driven by something other that science.   It's something Al Gore holds nearer and dearer to his heart that blue sky's and blue whales.  That something is Politics and Power.   Because he think he knows what's best for all of us. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_59755 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/KennethSchustereit/7424/#c_59755 Sorry Kenneth, wrong once again.   I am me and no one else.   I have nothing to gain or lose personally by uranium mining occurring in your area.  My only pursuit was for the truth about geology and geochemistry to be made clear and precise.   I have no dog in the fight other than science.  With that being said, I think for once you are spot on with your assessment of antropogenic global warming.  You and I are on the same page for once.   Geologists understand that the earth's climates are not static and never have been.   Most of our assumptions are based on this, therefore we are trained and nearly innate skeptics of the current global warming hysterics.   Setting aside the bad science involved with determining policy based on computer modeling, I want to touch on the reason why people like Al Gore and an organization like the UN are beating the drums so hard on this. My belief is that modern progressives needed a crisis, one that also fits in with some of their core values like (radical) environmentalism.  Progressive ideology going back all the way to Woodrow Wilson has always looked for a crisis for opportunity to implement social projects that wouldn't otherwise be popular or possible.   Under Woodrow Wilson it was the "war socialism" or WWI and under his protege FDR it was the Depression.  Al Gore is a big subscriber the the philosophies of Rousseau, who among other things believed that the "general will" (the collective) usurped the "particular will" ( the individual) if necessary and and the collectives interests ALWAYS overide the individual interests.   Also the "general will"  often would be incapable of always making correct decisions for itself to meet the ends that are social harmony and cooperation.  Thus the "general will" may need the guidance of an individual with enlightened judgment who can explain to the "body politic" how to promote justice and equality.  This lawgiver, who represents the will of the people, must be obeyed and all natural rights of the individual must be surrendered.   If any one refuses to comply with the general rule then they may be "forced to be free".    These little nuggets of philosophy led to "the Terror" of the french revolution and ultimately gave us the hall of fame of totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century from Bolshevism to Fascism. I side tracked with that little history lesson to come back to a point about Al Gore and what exactly he stands to gain from his hard sell with global warming.   After Clinton was elected in 1992, in a whitehouse meeting discussing the objectives of the administration  Al Gore offered up this thought:  "Rousseau said the body politic is a moral being possessed of a will.  He was thinking at the national level.  We need to take it to the international one.  We need to make a leap from nationhood to a sense of identity that is truly global, but embodies Rousseau's point"   In other (my) words, collectivist policies haven't been working on a national level because they can't ever compete with truly free nations with free markets and individual rights.  If it can be taken to the international level then perhaps they won't have to be embarrassed anymore by political refugees fleeing oppression or endure coming up short against capitalism's juggernaught.  I don't believe that Al Gore buys most of what he is saying,  he's a smart guy (I think), so the reason for all the "we must act now or human beings are doomed"  has to be driven by something other that science.   It's something Al Gore holds nearer and dearer to his heart that blue sky's and blue whales.  That something is Politics and Power.   Because he think he knows what's best for all of us.