To the Editor: Regarding the article in the May issue, "No Hurry to Recycle," I believe Professor von Hippel overlooked a very important aspect of the high-level-waste disposal problem, and that is its transportation to a reprocessing or disposal site.

Currently, transport is visualized as either highway or rail modes. Depending on decay heat, truck shipment is limited to about three fuel assemblies per cask and rail casks are limited to about 14 assemblies. This necessitates a monumental number of shipments. Putting high cost aside, issues of public safety, both real and perceived, will create resistance that could jeopardize the entire program.

I believe that it's time to take a serious look at the use of water-borne transport as a major means of moving waste from the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf Coast to the Hanford Reservation in the Northwest. Hanford is the only site accessible by water that has the facilities and the workforce to receive and handle reprocessing or some form of permanent storage.

William H. Bond
Del Mar, Calif.

To the Editor: In the May 2006 Mechanical Engineering, Professor von Hippel concludes that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is too expensive. He estimates the cost at $1 billion to $2 billion per reactor.

If he were to fairly consider other real cost savings to be realized by reprocessing, this amount may come to be very reasonable. For instance, the enormous military cost to acquire and maintain foreign oil sources plus the value of high global diplomatic prestige afforded the U.S. as we reduce elbowing our way to sustain our petroleum addition could be well worth much of the cost of reprocessing.

To maintain our technological eminence and reduce our addiction to oil, it appears imperative to employ fast reactors with pyroprocessing to satisfy much more of our energy demand with nuclear energy. This system can reduce the amount of radioactive waste by two orders of magnitude compared with current practice, while also significantly reducing the hazard from radioactivity in the stored waste (Scientific American, December 2005).

To the Editor: The letter "Nukes to the Rescue" (June 2006) by Stan Jakuba stated that nukes are clean. They are clean in the sense that you cannot see radioactive poisons. They are clean if you ignore many things.

The partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant produced stillborn and deformed farm animals on a scale that farmers had not encountered throughout generations of farming.

The farther he went from the plant, the higher the radiation readings chemist Chauncy Kepford got on his Geiger counter. Hot radioactive gases from the accident rose high above the plant and were carried downwind.

Independent studies showed that there was an increase in cancer and other ailments following the accident.

The Chernobyl nuclear plant accident spewed poisons all around the world. Some of the heaviest deposits of poison landed in Finland.

Nuclear power is also clean if you ignore the uranium tailings at the mills. These tailings are the debris of making nuclear fuel. They give off poisonous gases that blow clear across the country. They will continue to be poisonous for billions of years. An independent study concluded that the tailings pose a much greater health hazard than the dirtiest coal plant operation.

Big guns in the nuclear industry are afraid to operate nuclear plants without the protection of a federal law called the Price Anderson Act. This law limits their liability to a microscopic fraction of the risk they cheerfully impose on us.

Price Anderson destroys everyone's property rights to protect the property rights of nuclear utilities. If Stan Jakuba truly believes nukes are safe, he should insist that this unfair law be abolished.

Editor's note: Sidney J. Goodman is the author of a book, Asleep at the Geiger Counter, published by Blue Dolphin Publishing Inc.

To the Editor: I believe that fast neutron reactor advocates offer a far better option than the thermal design with sequestered spent fuel advocated by current U.S. policy. ASME could make a significant contribution by leading a broadly based discussion of this issue.

The starting point for the preferred design should be based on physics and engineering design considerations and not on geopolitical or business considerations of companies related to combustion fuel products. Significant factors are:

1. The carbon dioxide contribution to global warming is real.

2. Globally, electricity production should be shifted to nuclear energy sources away from combustion sources as quickly as possible.

3. Peaking power in the near term is best provided by pumped storage.

4. Environmental considerations will discourage dams with a primary hydroelectric purpose.

5. Renewable sources such as wind power should continue to be developed.

6. Use of combustion fuels in transportation systems should be treated separately from electricity production.

To the Editor: A comment on the article "Wind Out of Their Sails" in your June issue, or really, a couple points of perspective: The proposed Cape Wind wind power project, with a peak generating output of 420 megawatts, for all of the furor surrounding it, would be only about one-third of the size of one of today's larger operating nuclear power units.

Further, nuclear plants generate this output, on average, 90-plus percent of the time. I don't have the corresponding figure for Cape Wind, but expect that it would be a lot less.

And as to visual impact, while Cape Wind reportedly would occupy 24 square miles of ocean surface, the space occupied by a nuclear plant would be measured in acres rather than square miles.

To the Editor: This is in response to the letter by Peter Miserendino in the March issue. He wrote, "They want engineers out of the box that know it all and need no training." He hit the proverbial nail squarely on its head. I, too, had felt the same frustration at being rejected because of a lack of "relevant" experience.

With today's ever-shrinking deadlines, there is no time to "bring the newbie up to speed."

My family decided to move to my wife's native country. I had hopes of reestablishing my engineering career upon arriving.

I teach English now. I'm 42 years old. The odds are extremely slim of my being in a design position now, even if I return to the States. When next my membership is due for renewal, I will not do so. What's the point?

My advice to the new generation: Learn an Asian language. Also, buy into two student edition CAD packages so there is some room for change.

To the Editor: Both Bill Robba ("Lights Off for Savings," January) and Matt Davis ("One for the Lights," April) present good opposing arguments regarding the daytime use of auto headlights. On one hand, the lights are completely useless in heavy traffic in cities and suburbs and on divided highways. A driver usually cannot see these lights on the following car and it would be of little value if he could.

On the other hand, lights are useful on less-traveled, undivided roads where there are patches of sunlight and shade, where there are many intersections and driveways, or where cars are traveling fast on long straight stretches.

A good compromise is the factory-installed feature in one of my cars. During the day, the daytime lights turn on when the engine is started, but they can be turned off when desired and can be turned back on at any time. I like this arrangement. If widely used, it could account for a significant reduction in the consumption of the estimated 400,000 gallons per hour of gasoline nationally and at the same time maintain the safety feature where it's needed.

home | features | breaking news | marketplace | departments | about ME back issues | ASME | site search

© 2006 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers