Living Car Free - Domestic departures - lets wave goodbye.

If we go nuclear, how are we going to store the waste, which will be deadly for thousands of years? What storage method can you guarantee will be safe for that long?

thank goodness for the inanimate carbon rod!!!! (Simpsons)
But Seriously, where do you put the spent nuclear fuel? you can't keep stuffing it into a mountain...or is that the next generations' problem?????

The waste problem is the only semi-legitimate argument left against nuclear. However, when compared to other technologies, this is a relatively minor problem which has reasonable solutions.

The vast majority of spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed into more fissionable fuel. We could drastically reduce the amount of waste by doing this type of recycling. It is common in Europe and Japan. This is currently illegal in the United States because of non-proliferation worries. The problem with this logic is that Iran and North Korea already have the technology to do this type of refinement, so there is really no reason for terrorists to try to steal reprocessed fuel here.

The remaining waste created would have to be put into long term storage, but there just wouldn't be that much. If we reprocessed all the waste we have now, the remainder would fit on a football field. That is all the waste our reactors have produced in the country's history. It would not be hard to establish waste repositories which would accomodate all the waste for several hundred years. Most of your trash ends up in a landfill, and we haven't run out of space for garbage yet. Landfills are a seperate issue. I am NOT saying that our current solid waste management is adquate or environmentally resposible, I'm only pointing out that there is plenty of space to accomodate waste for a very long time.

Again, keep in mind that coal and oil pump their hazardous waste directly into the environment all day every day. They aren't required to store it at all. Also keep in mind that because of its abysmally low power density, wind and solar energy plants require a tremendous amount of energy to build and maintain because of the huge tracts of land and hardware required to generate any significant power. I'm not anti-wind or anti-solar. I hope research continues which will make these viable alternatives. But viability is still decades (at least) away. Nuclear has no (direct) carbon emission. None of its waste ends up in your air or your drinking water. It can supply us with abundant power, and can be built TODAY.

You seem to have glossed over the previous parts of my post where I talk about increasing our efficiency thus needed less coal/oil/nuclear.

I didn't mean to gloss over it. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to become more efficient. But we will always need energy, and the current state of solar and wind technology simply can't provide enough.

The vast majority of spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed into more fissionable fuel. We could drastically reduce the amount of waste by doing this type of recycling. It is common in Europe and Japan. This is currently illegal in the United States because of non-proliferation worries.

Man, everyone missed my post :cry:

But yes there is a TON of additional energy that could be harnessed simply by capturing wasted heat from current powerplants and processing plants. But those too are illegal.

Our government at work.

-D

But yes there is a TON of additional energy that could be harnessed simply by capturing wasted heat from current powerplants and processing plants. But those too are illegal.


-D

What is the logic behind that?

I know that cogeneration is not only allowed, but encouraged.

If we go nuclear, how are we going to store the waste, which will be deadly for thousands of years? What storage method can you guarantee will be safe for that long?

Different people will define "safe" differently. There is no storage method which I can guarantee won't leak some radioactive material into its local environment. However, by storing waste containers in remote locations in appropriate facilities, the environmental impact of the occaisional leak is minimal and local. I consider this quite safe. There is a much greater chance that chemicals used in making the epoxies for fancy composite wind turbine blades will end up in your air and water since they will probably be built in an industrial park right down the street from your house. My point is that all energy generation has an environmental impact, and that nuclear's is relatively small and unlikely to ever affect human beings.

What is the logic behind that?

I know that cogeneration is not only allowed, but encouraged.


Casten says state and federal laws protect monopoly utilities, often preventing energy recyclers from selling excess power back to the grid or from running power lines across a street. Even the Clean Air Act prevents utilities themselves from recycling waste heat at older coal-fired power plants, because any modification subjects them to newer regulations.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90714692

My point is that all energy generation has an environmental impact, and that nuclear's is relatively small and unlikely to ever affect human beings.

Come back when your hair and fingernails fall out, your gums bleed, and your children are born with hideous deformities.

Come back when your hair and fingernails fall out, your gums bleed, and your children are born with hideous deformities.

Oh you mean like the nasty things that have happened already due to companies (non nuclear) contaminating the water supplies and so forth?

-D

Come back when your hair and fingernails fall out, your gums bleed, and your children are born with hideous deformities.

huh?

I'm pretty sure I addressed why these things won't happen. Are you aware of an epidemic of radition poisoning in France that I'm not aware of? They get better than 70% of their power from nuclear. It is this type of totally unfounded fearmongering which is preventing the US from using the greenest power we have available.

Nuclear waste is bad stuff. You wouldn't want it in your pantry. But it won't be anywhere near you which is more than can be said for the carcinogenic industrial wastes that are in the air you breathe right now. The bad stuff from nuclear power generation is easy to contain and keep out of your life.

Modern technology nuclear energy combined with reprocessing the fuel are the only realistic long term solutions we have to large scale electrical power generation.

With the technology we have, everything else is either science fiction or not sustainable. That is not to say that other technologies will never be feasible and we shouldn't continue to develop them, but right now nuclear is it.

In the future we may have a combination of technologies to generate electricity, but that infrastructure will have to include nuclear.

huh?

I'm pretty sure I addressed why these things won't happen. Are you aware of an epidemic of radition poisoning in France that I'm not aware of? They get better than 70% of their power from nuclear. It is this type of totally unfounded fearmongering which is preventing the US from using the greenest power we have available.

Nuclear waste is bad stuff. You wouldn't want it in your pantry. But it won't be anywhere near you which is more than can be said for the carcinogenic industrial wastes that are in the air you breathe right now. The bad stuff from nuclear power generation is easy to contain and keep out of your life.

Hasn't happened yet. All it will take, though, is one accident either with a nuclear power plant or a waste disposal site. Chemical pollution is nasty, but in time it will work itself out; radiation will not.

You seem to have glossed over the previous parts of my post where I talk about increasing our efficiency thus needed less coal/oil/nuclear.

No, I got it... I was just commenting on how your phrasing made it sound like such an easy thing.

Hasn't happened yet. All it will take, though, is one accident either with a nuclear power plant or a waste disposal site. Chemical pollution is nasty, but in time it will work itself out; radiation will not.

Describe how such an accident would occur and how the public would be exposed to a strong enough dose to cause illness. Other than Chernobyl, In 50+ years of nuclear power, there have been no accidents at nuclear power plants which have resulted in a release of radioactive material in a high enough concentration to harm anyone. This is is an astonishing safety record. And modern reactors are safer than reactors have ever been.

I'm no expert in chemical clean-up, but does chemical pollution really "work itself out"? How does that work exactly? I guess we ought to cancel that whole superfund thing.

Some radioactive materials stay radioactive for a long time. Toxic chemicals are toxic for the length of their existance (up to and including forever). There are ways of managing both types of risks.

derath: amazing NPR story. conservation that is typical in europe and japan is illegal here? and saves more electricity than all the solar and wind ever produced. and why? monopolistic control of the utilities...

Nuclear is touted as clean energy. Do some research, it's not clean at all. There is no question of "if" nuclear waste will enter the human food chain, but when.

extracting uranium:
Heavy machinery is used to mine and mill uranium what do you think fuels that? After uranium is milled, the leftover tailings which are radioactive must go through a process to ensure ground water does not become contaminated. The tailing have to be neutralized with limestone, mixed with bentonite, shipped back to the mines, and buried. Sadly, tailings aren't properly disposed of. most mills leave the tailings on the ground where radiation is carried off by wind and rain.

enriching uranium:
Uranium enrichment facilities require two 1000 megawatt coal fire power plants to operate. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the hundreds of miles of cooling pipes at enrichment facilities in Paducah, KY and it's sister facility in Ohio, are leaking CFC 114 gas which is a potent global warming agent and destroys the ozone layer.

Water that is used to cool the reactor becomes contaminated with tritium and carbon 14 which retains radioactivity for well over 100,000 years. For proper disposal, spent cooling water needs to be mixed with concrete and stored in a specialty container. Routinely, spent cooling water is dumped into seas, rivers, and lakes.


If we reprocessed all the waste we have now, the remainder would fit on a football field.

That is simply incorrect. Extracting uranium and plutonium would leave behind millions of gallons of intensely corrosive acidic radioactive liquid waste.

Peak uranium can will hit us in the next decade or two if it hasn't already. We need to spend whats left of our resources building the infrastructure around infinite energy sources that don't threaten our ability to inhabit this planet. That is, assuming it's not already too late.

I haven't said that nuclear is perfectly clean. The truth is NO energy is perfectly clean. It takes considerable energy and pollution to manufacture wind turbines and solar cells. On a fully accounted, per-kilowatt-hour basis, nuclear power is as clean as wind and solar. This includes pollution from mining and enrichment of uranium.

I think I have been pretty clear that storage of nuclear waste is an important consideration, but not an insurmountable one. You have pointed out a few of the ways in which waste can be safely stored. You have also pointed out some of the ways in which nuclear pollutes. Uranium mining and enrichment is a huge one. Do you think alternative sources pollute less? Wind and solar hardware requires a huge industrial undertaking to produce any significant power. Think about all the nasty chemicals used in silicon processing for photovoltaics. An honest assessment of environmental impact must be normalized to the amount of power produced.

Where is radioactive cooling water routinely being dumped into rivers?

Hasn't happened yet. All it will take, though, is one accident either with a nuclear power plant or a waste disposal site. Chemical pollution is nasty, but in time it will work itself out; radiation will not.

Mecury? Lead? I think not. Also radiation does diminish with time...just not in a short period.

Aaron:)

On a fully accounted, per-kilowatt-hour basis, nuclear power is as clean as wind and solar. This includes pollution from mining and enrichment of uranium.
Not true. Construction alone of a nuclear reactor uses more fossil fuel than a wind farm. Maybe I should point out that fuel for wind and solar produces no greenhouse gasses.


Where is radioactive cooling water routinely being dumped into rivers?
Only anywhere there is a nuclear power plant.


Think about all the nasty chemicals used in silicon processing for photovoltaics.
They aren't half as bad as plutonium. Named for the greek god of hell by discoverer Glen Seaborg, plutonium is so toxic and carcinogenic that even less than one millionth of a gram, if inhaled will cause lung cancer. According to the federation of American Scientists "Every male in the Northern Hemisphere has a detectable trace of plutonium in his testicles from radioactive fallout that is still falling on earth from the upper atmosphere, which was polluted by the atmospheric weapons tests conducted by the united states, soviet union, china, britain, and france in the 50's and 60's.


Also radiation does diminish with time...just not in a short period.
Yeah, 50,000 years. This includes plutonium.

Where is radioactive cooling water routinely being dumped into rivers?


Only anywhere there is a nuclear power plant.

Nice try, but you are gonna need something to back that statement up.

-D

Water that is used to cool the reactor becomes contaminated with tritium and carbon 14 which retains radioactivity for well over 100,000 years. For proper disposal, spent cooling water needs to be mixed with concrete and stored in a specialty container. Routinely, spent cooling water is dumped into seas, rivers, and lakes.

That's interesting, since cooling water never comes into contact with fissile material. If it ever does, there has already been an incident.

Have you advised the NRC of this?

Wind farms and solar require too much area to be feasible on a large scale. Not only do they create a wildlife displacement problem, but the blades of the turbines directly kill wildlife.

Despite the technological and security improvements, there are still safety concerns. Nuclear reactors dump used cooling water laced with tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, back into reservoirs. Tritium is classified by the EPA as a human carcinogen and cannot be filtered out.

http://www.ejmagazine.com/2007b/nuclear.html

That's not viable fact source, it's an op-ed piece. Plainly by an author that has sensationalist tendencies.

Here's the NRC website:
http://www.nrc.gov/

Tritium is a weak Beta emitter.

Tritium has a half-life of only 12.3 years.

When tritium is ingested half is excreted within 10 days.

Tritium is naturally occurring, is in all the food we eat, and is found in trace amounts in groundwater worldwide.

The tritium dose from nuclear power plants is much lower than exposures attributable to natural background radiation. This one is the kicker. People flip out about exposure to radiation without thinking. We're exposed to naturally occurring radiation and radio-active sources every single day, for all of our lives. That's everyone is exposed, worldwide, since the first humans walked the planet. Since tritium is produced in nature, you breathe tritium gas every time you ride.

Tritium simply isn't the hazard you make it out to be. Not when it's produced by nuclear power plants and released at allowable levels.

Yeah, our government has never not been 100% accurate or truthful.

There main interest is protecting the people, not helping big business. Nuclear is just the next oil. What handful of companies will be in control then?

Not true. Construction alone of a nuclear reactor uses more fossil fuel than a wind farm.

But the worlds largest wind farm (Horse Hollow) only produces 735 MW whereas a typical nuclear plant produces 2.5 to 3.8 GW.


They aren't half as bad as plutonium. Named for the greek god of hell by discoverer Glen Seaborg, plutonium is so toxic and carcinogenic that even less than one millionth of a gram, if inhaled will cause lung cancer. According to the federation of American Scientists "Every male in the Northern Hemisphere has a detectable trace of plutonium in his testicles from radioactive fallout that is still falling on earth from the upper atmosphere, which was polluted by the atmospheric weapons tests conducted by the united states, soviet union, china, britain, and france in the 50's and 60's.

Nuclear power generation is hardly related to detonation of nuclear weapons. Plutonium is bad stuff. So let's put in reactors and use it for power we'll promise not to store it in your garage.


Yeah, 50,000 years. This includes plutonium.

If you remember the context for this discussion, someone claimed that chemical pollution "works itself out" Mercury and lead do not get less toxic with time. One could say that their "toxic half life" is infinity. The point wasn't that waiting for radioisotopes to decay is always a good way of dealing with them. The point was that chemical pollutants don't receive a fraction of the scrutiny that radioactive pollutants do despite the fact that you're just as dead when you find yourself poisoned.

To USA readers, that might think "this has nothing to do with us, or cannot affect me", be very aware that the USA grid is in a poor state and we are undoubtedly in for more of the same. The USA grid is in a poor state because it does not pay to over-build something that will rarely be used, this is especially the case in a capitalist market driven society. No return on investment, means no investment.

On Bloomberg news this morning is a report of a steep jump in the price of electricity in the UK (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aYqOp2gTIxkM&refer=energy) due to power cuts today. The report provides some context, but in my opinion not enough.

Here is the extra context;

The last time the UK was subject to significant power cuts, it was the result of strikes by the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) led by Arthur Scargill bringing the whole country to its knees. The strength of the unions was something that Prime Minister Margret Thatcher recognized as a threat to government and systematically undermined unions by introducing legislation that outlawed some of the unions favorite practices - flying pickets (wiki picketing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picketing)), this is pickets that are (typically) bused to locations where they can have greatest impact, usually these were the meanest in-your-face pickets and the most intimidating. Crossing a coal miners picket line was no ordinary thing. Other legislation allowed the government to sequester union assets and bank accounts if the union or its members broke any of the new anti-union laws. Thatcher's government was helped tremendously by the body that collectively represented all of the big unions, The Trade Union Council (TUC) and the many mistakes the TUC made in undermining the people it was supposed to represent. (How Thatcher smashed the unions (http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/334/20287)).

The UK is a relatively small country, with a big population - this density is a benefit facilitating the development of efficient infrastructure (railways, roads, electricity distribution, etc.). The UK has had many many years of improving and developing its electricity infrastructure. The crown jewels for addressing sudden changes in demand is the Dinorwig (http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm) pumped storage facility in Wales. At 11 AM, Dinorwig has had all night to recharge and should have been available and was probably online and running at 100%.

It is a challenge to adequately describe how infrequent unplanned power cuts are - yes there are unplanned power cuts, these are usually very short lived, and a consequence of something significant, say a fire or other emergency in a critical facility. The reason the power cuts are short lived, is because the UK has a very sophisticated and comprehensive grid management system. Additional power can be brought online very quickly, usually in a matter of seconds and redistributed to address sudden losses.

Todays power cuts were caused by the loss of generation at two sites;

"Unit 1 at Scottish Power's Longannet coal-fired station also stopped production at 11 a.m., according to National Grid data. The 580-megawatt generator, located near Edinburgh, had earlier resumed production following an 11-day shutdown. The unit is due back on line at about 3 p.m., Scottish Power spokesman Simon McMillan said by telephone."

An eleven day shutdown of a 580 MW generator is something that is planned long in advance. The second loss looks incredibly suspicious - Sizewell-B nuclear plant near Leiston, southeast England, shut down both its generators. This was apparently unplanned!

The main stream media should be all over this. Nuclear plants have fantastic reliability, so what is going on? "Spokesman Martin Pearce declined to give a reason for the shutdown or say when output may resume."

To put it mildly this is not good enough. Is this a "convenient" shutdown, to soften up the British public and get them ready for some price gouging? A few hours in the dark and the utility companies can effectively get away with robbery. This could so easily be a case of the utility companies "pulling an Enron" and manipulating the markets.

All of the historic data was collected during an era of economic expansion and the availability of cheap energy and easy-to-find oil. Saying we have always had 99.9% energy reliability, therefore that can never change, is a big mistake.

Things are changing rapidly, and they are changing today.

Describe how such an accident would occur and how the public would be exposed to a strong enough dose to cause illness. Other than Chernobyl, In 50+ years of nuclear power, there have been no accidents at nuclear power plants which have resulted in a release of radioactive material in a high enough concentration to harm anyone. This is is an astonishing safety record. And modern reactors are safer than reactors have ever been.

Once is enough. The Chernyoble area will not be suitable for human habitation for centuries, if ever. How many more can we risk?

As for chemicals 'working themselves out', I am not a chemical engineer, so I don't understand the process fully, but Charleston used to be a major center for the chemical industry and quite a bit got released into the environment here. However, since the industry has largely move out, the amount of noxious chemicals in the environment has reduced much more than one would think from just stopping the introduction of more. It is my understanding that many of these chemicals are volitle, and will break down into their component elements over time, to be then recombined in more benign compounds.

Nuclear scares the cr@p out of me.

The Chernyoble area will not be suitable for human habitation for centuries, if ever. How many more can we risk?

We cannot risk another Chernobyl disaster. The Chernobyl disaster is physically impossible in a modern reactor. I don't mean that figuratively. I mean the laws of physics as we know them preclude a Chernobyl disaster fom happening in a modern reactor.

You really have very little to fear. Don't stand next to the core while it is reacting, and don't break into any waste facilities for a picnic, and you'll be safe from nuclear hazards. I wish other industrial hazards were as easy to avoid.

You really have very little to fear. Don't stand next to the core while it is reacting, and don't break into any waste facilities for a picnic, and you'll be safe from nuclear hazards. I wish other industrial hazards were as easy to avoid.

Taking care of the waste from nuclear weapon production didn't exactly go well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats_Plant is one example. There are many more.

The human problems with disposing hazardous waste haven't gone away. It's always going to be cheaper to cut corners and there is always someone willing to do the cutting.

Nuclear may or may not be the best way to supply power but suggesting the waste won't be a problem goes against what has happened pretty much every time man has had to deal with hazardous waste. What has changed to make it different this time?

Once is enough. ...Yes, once is enough. Also one Bhopal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster) is more than enough. Also one cement truck crushing 19 year old girls (Tracey Sparling (http://bikeportland.org/2007/10/11/cyclist-killed-at-w-burnside-and-14th/)) is more than enough.

We should not be surprised that at some point in time the new super-jumbo Airbus A380 will come crashing down killing all on board. To choose that all of us have to go without something because there might be an accident is irrational.

Focusing on the waste issue is more valid. A pollutant in the flue gases (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html) from coal fired power stations is Uranium 235 - is it better to release the toxins slowly over many years and let them distribute freely across the entire globe, or keep them forever in one small place, say the size of a football field?

From a wiki entry on Fossil fuel power plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant) : "While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. The radioactive emission from this coal power plant is 100 times greater than a comparable nuclear power plant with the same electrical output; including processing output, the coal power plant's radiation output is over 3 times greater".

We cannot risk another Chernobyl disaster. The Chernobyl disaster is physically impossible in a modern reactor. I don't mean that figuratively. I mean the laws of physics as we know them preclude a Chernobyl disaster fom happening in a modern reactor.

Perhaps a disaster exactly like Chernobyl won't happen. But who is to say that a different kind of disaster, but one just as bad, won't happen?

And you still haven't said what is to be done with the waste material. Until/unless there is an absolutely secure and safe way of dealing with the waste, nuclear is unacceptable.

Nuclear scares me.

Perhaps a disaster exactly like Chernobyl won't happen. But who is to say that a different kind of disaster, but one just as bad, won't happen?

And you still haven't said what is to be done with the waste material. Until/unless there is an absolutely secure and safe way of dealing with the waste, nuclear is unacceptable.

Nuclear scares me.

Nuclear power is required by regulation to have so many fail-safe measures that no other industry is required to have. Modern design makes a meltdown situation virtually impossible. The risk is so infitessimal that the enormous benefit is worth it. HoustonB provides excellent risk management analogies. If we required zero risk before taking action, our species would never have tamed fire.

I have said what ought to be done with the waste material. It should be reprocessed into new fissile fuels, and the remainder should me moved to secure, long-term storage. This type of storage is far superior to how we store waste from coal-fired plants. We store that in our atmosphere. By your standard, all coal and oil plants ought to be shut down immediately until all pollutants can be captured and securely stored.

The whole point of me starting the (admittedly off-topic) discussion is that nuclear scares a lot of people. But the fear is a result of images of mushroom clouds and nuclear winter. This fear is not rooted in any real risks associated with nuclear power generation.

Back on topic - "British Airways has said it will increase its fuel surcharges on all tickets issued from Tuesday 3 June as it looks to offset rising oil prices.

The surcharge for short-haul flights will rise by £3 per flight to £16 per flight, or £32 (64 USD) for a return ticket.

Long-haul flights of less than nine hours will increase by £15 per flight to £78 (156 USD) per flight.

The surcharge for long-haul flights of more than nine hours will rise by £30 per flight to £109 (218 USD) per flight.

BA added that it would also increase its fuel surcharges by similar levels in markets outside the UK".

My prediction is that this will be repeated again by BA before the end of 2008 and many other airlines will shortly follow suit.

Oil has literally leaped today by more than $10 a barrel. If a correction does not manifest itself on Monday or Tuesday, then the likelihood increases that this too will filter through to the consumer.

Airlines are now really desperate. In the news this morning "India grounds 'fat' air hostesses (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7439894.stm)".

I weigh close to 200 lbs, and fully expect in the near future to pay a fuel-surcharge based on my weight and the weight of my luggage. Oil (and its replacement, if any) is simply too valuable to allow the over-packing that some people indulge in. An option that airlines and freight companies should seriously consider is sending luggage by surface.

The vast majority of people have knowledge of their trips long before they occur. In the future this is likely to include a protracted period of an entirely new concept - saving money to pay for the trip. Sending a suitcase of clothes or equipment ahead of the trip should be feasible for the majority of travelers. This would be better for the environment and the bottom line of all concerned.

Also today I read about the effect of increasing oil prices on the cost of shipping containers. At todays price this represents an additional 9% tariff on the cost of goods shipped.

In energy terms, pushing a container along a rail track is much cheaper than pushing a container through water. The Chinese and other countries are fully committed to building two rail links with Europe (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_8_44/ai_n6173518), one taking a southerly route through Iran, the other a northerly route through Russia to Poland.

The need for an ultra efficient and effective electric rail link from the West coast to the East coast of the USA is critical.

If the East coast of the USA wants to continue to import and export goods with East Asia, or the West coast wants to continue to import and export goods with Europe, then an electric rail link spanning the country is the only sensible way to go.

This rail link would need to have zero crossings with roads. Road traffic would have to go either over or under, but not across. Done properly such a rail link could partially negate the need for the Panama canal. Done properly would mean having a completely automated system of unloading the ships and getting the containers onto trains, with completely automated trains. This would mean an infrastructure unimpeded by maritime or rail unions.

I have been watching the "charging for weight" issue very carefully. There are people like myself that are somewhat larger than average...so we are to get penalized for that? FWIW I am 6'-2" and weigh in at a bit over 200#. I am not obese or even fat, it is mostly lean muscle mass. So for being a genetic misfit I am going to have to pay more to fly than a scrawny old grandma? I think the airlines will screw themselves royally if they attempt to pull this stunt off. I have pretty much quit flying due to the hassles involved.

Train service is going to have to be the long haul transit of the future.

Aaron:)