Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 10:02:38 -0700
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <>
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power -- Yet another pretend debate from a pro-nuker profiteer

To: "Barry Alexander" <>

You wrote (clip, full correspondence appears below):

"...Yucca mountain will only store waste from our weapons programs..."

May I refer you to Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report / Technical Information Supporting Site Recommendation Consideration, or the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, Volume 1 -- Impact Analyses Chapters 1 through 15, or Volume II -- Appendixes A through I.

Yucca Mountain is our country's planned repository (without any possible retrieval) for all our commercial spent fuel and other high-level nuclear waste.  I argued, in front of several hundred people at public hearings in Nevada, that even the pro-nukers objected to the Yucca Mountain project because the waste, which contains a lot of very valuable substances, would not be retrievable.  Obviously, I wasn't talking about you, since you didn't know what is planned for the site.  I believe the actual amount that will be military waste is projected to be about 30% of the total.

Even though you are unaware of even this basic fact about our "solution" to nuclear waste, you come to me and pretend you have lots of experience and knowledge.  I said "prove it" and you fell flat on your face.

We are not going to recycle nuclear waste.  Such a project was stopped by President Jimmy Carter and I guess you've been asleep since then.  He was correct to stop it.  There is no current technology which can safely and cost-effectively extract any significant amount of useful material.  I still believe the waste should be stored in a retrievable format, for reasons I've gone into elsewhere.  Since you're so far behind on the basic facts anyway, I need not go into it all again now.  I'd have to start at ground zero (to coin a term) and you could just as easily read material at my web site to get informed, as have me rewrite it all again just for you.

You think further discussion is not advisable?  That's obviously because you want to stop learning.  I didn't call you a dope.  I asked you a bunch of questions to see if knew your ass from a hole in the ground.  You provided ample response to answer my question, being wrong on at least two major facts, ignorant of others, and arrogant at the same time, claiming, for example, that it's I, not you, who has failed to do the proper research.  Get real.

Good day.

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

P.S. I provide materials to utilities, too.


At 09:34 AM 5/29/2004 -0500, "Barry Alexander" <> wrote:
I work for a company who provides material to utilities so I do know something about all this.  If I had made up my mind I would not bother to e-mail you since that would be a waste of time.  The added generation was most probably natural gas which is too valuable to be used as base generation (it heats houses and makes chemicals).  I thought you had done the research and had the answers as it appeared you were quite informed. 
Don't assume that everyone who does not agree with you is a dope.   Yucca Mountain will only store waste from our weapons programs, we need to recycle the wastes to make more fuel.  It appears that you only want to assert that you are correct and need to be proved otherwise.

Further discussion is probably not advisable, but thanks for the input.

From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <>
To: "Barry Alexander" <>
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 13:09:46 -0700


Thank you for your email (shown below).  I suppose, according to your logic, that slitting one's throat is a good way to diet.  It would, after all, cause one to stop eating.

In a recent 14 month period California added over 4,000 megawatts of electrical generation capacity -- more than enough to replace all four operating nukes in the state (but we didn't do that, unfortunately.  We could, however, just as easily add another 4,000 megawatts for the express purpose of closing the nukes).  Adding wind, wave, tide, solar, geothermal, hydro (large and small), and not to mention space-based mirrors -- are all useful components of a successful renewable energy solution.  To claim that only coal can replace nuclear is short-sighted at best, and pure voodoo economics at worst.

You say you're open to suggestions but I think it's clear you've made up your mind long ago and I challenge you to prove otherwise.  After all, you can go out on the Internet (and elsewhere) and study the comparative data for the costs of various renewable energy systems available today, you can try to adjust those costs for the savings that would inevitably occur if massive numbers of people were making the switch, and you can realize that nuclear is a scam, that makes money only for the power plants' owners and no one else (it costs everyone else a lot of money).  You can go do that research, but you obviously haven't.  So what would you do with any suggestions I make?  Declare them infeasible and move on, right?  What is your actual experience in these areas, anyway?  Which of the alternatives to coal and nuclear have you actually studied in-depth?  What facts about the dangers of nukes have you considered thus far?  You ask me to provide you with the solution, but without knowing your current level of knowledge (which appears to be nil) I can't know where to begin.

And while you're at it, let's see you actually describe, in your best technical language "the associated facilities to process waste properly". 
Such facilities do not exist and Yucca Mountain does not fit the bill.  So what's YOUR solution to the waste problem?  Just that there should be one?


Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

At 02:21 PM 5/28/2004 -0500, "Barry Alexander" <> wrote:

Dear Sir

I would like to know where the electricity is going to come from if we would shut down our current reactors.  They produce about 20% of electric power and only coal powered plants have the capacity to replace this base load.
We could of course reduce our use of electricity by 20% but in a society that won't even buy fuel efficient cars I doubt that many are going to give up air conditioning etc.  In addition we will need more electricity for growth and for either fuel cell cars or hydrogen production.

So please let me know if you have an alternative that could provide the required electricity, and the time frame you think would be needed for conversion.

I think we need 200 new nuclear power plants and the associated facilities to process waste properly, but I am open to suggestions.

Thanks for your efforts to improve our society.


Barry Alexander

** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site: