Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Nevada's Clout in the Primaries Puts the Spotlight on Nuclear Politics

By John Gorenfeld, AlterNet. Posted November 13, 2007.


Nevada is a battle zone for nuclear waste issues, and its early primary status means that the candidates can't escape from laying out their views on nuclear energy.
Advertisement

Meet Yucca Mountain Johnny: nice enough guy, cave explorer and not welcome in the state of Nevada. He's the helmeted cartoon character invented by the U.S. Department of Energy to interest kids in its $58 billion vision for Nevada, which could become by 2017 the first-ever national resting place for 77,000 tons of waste left by nuclear reactors across America. The debris would be shipped cross-country, mainly by rail, and entombed in the depths of a seven-mile desert ridge an hour and a half's drive from Las Vegas.

But any spent fuel rods will go in there over the dead bodies of powerful Silver State politicians from both parties. For years here, careers have risen on promises to stick a wrench in the Yucca plan. Even the gaffes have. A notorious remark by 1980s Sen. Chic Hecht, R-Nev., found him vowing to halt "nuclear suppositories" in Nevada, when he meant "depositories." That's the preferred term by defenders who emphasize that Yucca wouldn't be a "dump," as critics have called it, but a 1,000-foot-deep zone to deposit titanium-shielded casks buried under dry volcanic rock. But many Nevadans fear that radiation could leak in an accident, either here in the desert or on the way.

"Democrat candidates generally have to come in and say they oppose Yucca," says University of Nevada political science professor Eric Herzik, "or will be beat up in the caucuses by the very strong anti-Yucca base among Democrats in the state."

And on the Republican side, only former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney has hinted that he might defer to Nevadans on Yucca. But among the three Democratic front runners of 2008, no friend of Yucca Mountain Johnny's is to be found -- even if two of the candidates support nuclear power and, in Obama's case, has major ties to Big Atom.

If Clinton, Edwards and Obama are paying more attention than usual to the concerns of Nevada, which barely mattered in 2000, it's because the state's concerns are being magnified by the special place it now occupies on the Democratic Party's 2008 primary calendar. It used to be that about 14 states voted before Nevada in the primaries. This time, its Jan. 19 caucus -- right after Iowa's -- makes it the No. 2 stop on the road to nomination.

That means candidates will be trying to impress the Las Vegas Strip's powerful labor union of restaurant, casino and hotel workers, the 60,000-strong Culinary Union Local 226 whose leader, D. Taylor, won congratulatory letters from Obama and Hillary after his employees voted this month for a strike against the gaming giant MGM Mirage. The two candidates are hoping Taylor's 226 doesn't follow the example of the state's unions of carpenters, steelworkers and miners by choosing Edwards instead of them.

To avoid losing her edge in Nevada -- where she's led a recent poll with 33 percent support over Obama's 19 and Edwards's 15 -- Hillary Clinton took steps earlier this year to shore up her record of opposition to Yucca. Competitors Barack Obama and John Edwards followed suit.

Hillary Clinton, of the three, "has most obviously played the Yucca politics card," says Herzig. She has promised that, if elected, she would ensure that Yucca, which the White House supports, "would not go forward."

This July, Clinton and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., called for Senate hearings on the science of Yucca. (A Senate aide told AlterNet that the hearings are expected some time this fall.) Earlier, on June 1, her campaign revealed it had hired the state's leading anti-Yucca activist: Peggy Maze Johnson, who, as the leader of the environmentalist group Citizens Alert, protested by driving the highways towing a mock nuclear waste trailer.

Any Democrat who wanted to support Yucca would have to deal with Harry Reid, the party's Senate Majority Leader and the responsible party for the early caucus date. He was calling Bush a liar over Yucca long before he opposed him on Iraq. "I have spent 20 years fighting the absurd idea that massive quantities of deadly nuclear waste can be transported across thousands of miles," Reid has said. And Bush, he told the New Yorker, "started out on a real bad foot with me because of Yucca Mountain."

The president had run promising to consider "sound science" before supporting Yucca, but now signed off on the project rather than wait. In 2002, Reid told Bush in an Oval Office meeting: "You sold out on this."

Six years later, the next step to establishing Yucca just may play a role in the 2008 general election. It's a license application that will fall smack in the middle of the presidential race next summer. The U.S. government will consider a 10,000-page application and decide whether to grant permission to go ahead.

Allen Benson, a Department of Energy spokesman, suggests that the risk of moving the "robust casks" of nuclear debris, most of which will be done by rail, has been overrated. "Ninety percent of the whole thing" is protective material, he says. And as for moving by truck: He says that after 5,000 shipments total, there have been two incidents, a wrong turn and a mild rear-end collision.

On the other hand, opponents of Yucca Mountain allege that the ridge, situated in an area with an earthquake record, could seep waste into the water table. Expect that to come up during the Clinton hearings, along with concerns over whether DOE scientists are putting politics ahead of honesty. In 2005, there was uproar after it was revealed that water scientists had sent emails casually discussing the need to "make up more stuff." Criminal charges, for falsifying data, were considered by federal prosecutors, but never surfaced. Barack Obama, like Clinton, has condemned the plan, despite Illinois's pressing need to remove nuclear waste that has been sitting in Illinois, which has 11 operating reactors, the most of any state.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: peggy maze johnson, hillary clinton, election 2008, yucca mountain, nevada

Read more of John Gorenfeld at Gorenfeld.net.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Economic pressures
Posted by: frantaylor on Nov 13, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rising cost of oil will force us to consider nuclear energy. Nuclear technology is sound, but the politics ruin it. I am against nuclear power simply because we don't have the political maturity to handle nuclear power with the technological respect that it demands. Alas political intelligence is stagnant, it does not advance like technological intelligence. I fear we will be forced into an unfortunate situation by rising energy costs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nevada is the Sunniest state in the COUNTRY!
Posted by: WitchyNy on Nov 13, 2007 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nevada has enough sunshine to EASILY solar power itself-and at a recent GREEN ENERGY meeting/protest I attended in Carson City, it was said that Nevada could actually solar power the entire United States!

Then why has this not happened? Because the rich who rule us are OIL MEN. They are not interested in 'alternative energy'.

Ralph Nader said it years ago-as soon as they figure out how to make a PROFIT on it-and controls -then we will suddenly see huge breakthroughs in solar energy.

Anyone can use Solar-the sun is FREE. But we can't have THAT-can we? Environmentalism and Capitalism do not mix-like oil and water. That is the reason America has not developed alternative energy-as we should have- decades ago.

And now we are facing COAL plants opening in Nevada. What Nevada really needs-is solar development-and eco-tourist development.
And environmental protections.

Nevada is viewed as a wasteland-aside from Vegas, Reno and Lake Tahoe-but rural Nevada is a land of rivers and streams, mountains and deserts, and more Public Owned lands with beautiful wild horses than ANY other state.

The BLM is now rounding up our wild horses to the point Nevada now has more in government holding pens than in the wild! A few are stuffed with birth control and returned to the wild -to fool the public. Some end up going to slaughter-which is against the law-and a few are adopted. Every year there are less and less in the wild.


WHY? Cows owned by Big Corporations (yet only 3 percent of the total beef of America is raised on public lands) And few small cattle ranches are actually owned by Nevadan's anymore.
Why? Because the real goal is Mining and Development.
And now Nuclear.

It is the same story over and over. Big business-Big corporations-the Governmet-Military-Industral-Complex.
The last thing Nevada needs is a Nuclear Dump. The last thing Nevada needs is Nuclear Energy. That last thing America needs are more Nuclear Plants with their waste being trucked or railed across the country state by state.

Live back east and think this is not your issue? Check out the map routes of how the waste will get to Nevada.

The American Capitalistic economic system is out of control.
It is not working anymore. Even more than alternative energy-we need to CONSERVE energy and put the ENVIRONMENT of our Country and our world first-before PROFITS.
And to do that-we need more than the same old corporate owned sell out to the rich -politicians.

Nylene W Schoellhorn
Rural Nevada
nylene@sbcglobal.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Opps
Posted by: chaoslegs on Nov 13, 2007 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...by voting for the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. That's a creation of Sens. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz.

Isn't that Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What am I bid for all the "waste" in Yucca Mountain?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 14, 2007 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What am I bid for all the "waste" in Yucca Mountain? On an
open market, an emperor's ransom. How does Israel fuel their
nuclear power plants and obtain plutonium for their bombs? By
stealing fuel from the reprocessing cycles of other countries that
tried to keep Israel from having a nuclear program. How many
other countries would be willing to bid if they could? All of
those that don't have nuclear power now. What would Iran be
willing to pay for the contents of Yucca Mountain? Yucca
Mountain must be guarded carefully or it will be stolen from. If
Americans do not understand the value of the so-called "waste"
there are 6 billion other people who do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrorists can't compere for the "waste"
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 14, 2007 12:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe that terrorists groups will be able to steal uranium. The place it
goes that it isn't supposed to go is Israel. This happened in a small town near
Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the business of
reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a nuclear battery
for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the advantage of lasting
many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many surgeries to replace
batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost" half a ton of enriched
uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled both their nuclear
power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear "waste." It could
work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States. It is only when
you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the difficult process
of enriching uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. Terrorists can't compete with Mossad and
Israeli dual citizens who are CEOs of companies like Numec. Israeli nuclear
weapons are exact duplicates of American nuclear weapons. All persons who
were "born of Jewish mothers" are citizens of Israel regardless of any other fact.
Since the US can't and shouldn't discriminate, the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in
the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time,
given that private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to
reprocess the fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO]
facility. At a GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and
religion would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No smear intended Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Something new for you to obsess about
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 14, 2007 12:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1968, I graduated from Carnegie Mellon University with a degree in physics
and I interviewed a company called Numec. Numec, in Apollo, PA., near
Pittsburgh, was in the business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. Numec did NOT
have a reactor. I almost took a job there, designing a nuclear battery for a heart
pacemaker. A nuclear battery would have the advantage of lasting many times as
long as any other battery, eliminating many surgeries to replace batteries. In a
nuclear battery, nuclear "waste" is used to generate heat and the heat is converted
into electricity by thermocouples. I have no idea how many nuclear batteries were
actually installed in patients. Here is something new for you to obsess about:
There may be heart pacemaker patients who have died and been buried with their
nuclear battery pacemakers still in their chests. What if terrorists dig them up to
get the nuclear "waste"? YOU had better dig them up first!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you want the truth, you will have to get an education in science.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 14, 2007 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Web Dragons" by Witten, Gori and Numerico 2007.

The search engines do not understand the web pages they find for you. They are
just machines. They have no idea of whether or not the web pages they find tell
the truth. In the US, we have "freedom of speech," which means that nobody has
to prove that anything is true before publishing it. We also have a coal industry
that has a gross income of $100 BILLION per year. That $100 BILLION per year
could be easily sunk by the nuclear industry unless you can be persuaded that
nuclear power is dangerous. [The truth is that a coal fired power plant puts 100
times as much radiation into your environment as the nuclear power plant. The
truth is also that natural background radiation is 10 times what you get from a coal
fired power plant.] Do the coal companies have an incentive to lead you astray?
Yes. Is $100 BILLION per year enough incentive? Yes. Can the coal industry
afford to hire doctors, economists, environmentalists, website designers, computer
scientists, psychologists, advertising agencies, and lots of other people on $100
BILLION per year? Of course. Can the coal industry afford to set up hundreds
of web pages on hundreds of computers in hundreds of locations and "game" the
search engines on $100 BILLION per year? Yes. And they do.

How hard is it to find the truth on the web? Very hard. Most web sites have a
monetary reason for existing. People who know the truth and are willing to tell
you the truth don't have much economic reason to do so. It is hard to make money
by telling the truth. Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence
or overestimating the gullibility of the average person. So how are you going to
find out the truth for sure? There is only one way. You have to become a
scientist. You will have to spend a minimum of 4 years in college to get the
minimum degree, the B.S. You should really spend more like 15 years and get a
post doctoral degree.

THERE ARE ZERO HUMAN AUTHORITIES.
Scientists do not vote on what is the truth. There is only one vote and Nature
owns it. We find out what Nature's vote is by doing Scientific [public and
replicable] experiments. Scientific [public and replicable] experiments are the
only source of truth. [To be public, it has to be visible to other people in the
room. What goes on inside one person's head isn't public unless it can be seen on
an X-ray or with another instrument.]
Science is a simple faith in Scientific experiments and a simple absolute lack of
faith in everything else. Do not trust any human, not even yourself. Trust only
the experiments that you personally perform. Otherwise, you will be misled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Radiation and extinction from C O A L
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 14, 2007 1:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know that enough URANIUM goes up the
smokestack or into the cinders of a coal-fired power plant
to Fully fuel a nuclear power plant with the same output?
See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as
fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the
smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500
nuclear power plants of the same size. That isn't all that
goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.
Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal
smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial
production. Did you know that you get 100 times as much
radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear
power plant?
Have you ever heard of background radiation? The natural
background radiation that has been there since the
beginning of time is 1000 times what you get from a
nuclear power plant or 10 times what you get from a coal-
fired power plant. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
or http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
If the safety level of nuclear power plants were
LOWERED to the same level as coal-fired power plants,
the resulting [nuclear] electricity would be very cheap
indeed and nuclear power would be very efficient.
I have NO connection with the nuclear power industry.
It is just that I would rather not go extinct because of global
warming. The Existential Risk that is virtually certain to
happen is the same as the End Permian mass extinction:
Hydrogen Sulfide. It is possible to avoid it, but the power
of wealth must be overcome. Coal is a $100 Billion [US]
industry in the US alone.
download from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American
Article: "Impact from the Deep"
"Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and
sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass
extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions
build once again? "
By Peter D. Ward
The last paragraph of the article says:
"The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the
Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under
1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic,
CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around
385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric
carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the
end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the
beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That
is something our society should never find out."
The hydrogen sulfide will finally put an end to the mining of
coal. Nuclear power is the safest available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Human extinction pending
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 14, 2007 1:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There has been another confirmation of the idea that we will cause
our own extinction in about 200 years if we don't stop Global
Warming. Extinction of Homo Sapiens is such a dire possibility
that no such chance is tolerable. Severe action must be taken
even on scant evidence. Here are the URLs again on how it
happens:

http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/
prPennStateKump.htm

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op
=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op
=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1535

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&file=article&sid=
2429&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do you understand what the word "extinct" means?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 14, 2007 1:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive.
Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The comparison has to be with
extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct" means? It means that, if
we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY PERSON will be
DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS. EXTINCTION means NO
MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the worst possible nuclear war,
a "general exchange" between the United States and the old Soviet Union could
achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would mean exploding 40,000 H
bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000 H bombs now.

The simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticeable in
the geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

In the second place your paranoid fears of nuclear power are just that, paranoid,
irrational, crazy, the product of mental illness, ignorance and coal industry
propaganda. And yes, I know something about things nuclear. I am a physicist
with experience in the Army's lead lab for nuclear weapons effects. So, do I need
to post 10 more posts to prove it or will you read my posts on past articles before
making a fool of yourself?

Please also read my past posts on the subject of the extinction we are headed for in
something like 200 years if we don't stop burning carbon. And yes, I like wind,
solar, hydro and geothermal energy. Is there a need to repeat once again that they
are inadequate to meet our needs with current technology and current prices?

PS: To be a "fossil" fuel it has to contain fossils if it is a solid. Coal contains
many fossils, mostly of plants. Oil is a liquid, but oil shale should contain fossils.
Uranium is NOT a fossil fuel. There is no guarantee of finding fossils
anywhere near a uranium mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our Distant Ancestors May Have Been Uneducated But ........
Posted by: MeridaLady on Nov 14, 2007 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They believed that the earth was sacred & must be protected & respected above all else. I find their reasoning more ethical & correct than anything modern society has to offer.
We have had the ability to change the abuses to this planet for decades but have allowed the money mongers to stop us from even attempting to do so. The Big Boys have been buying all the patents for decades. And maybe most people just don't care, as long as it isn't directly affecting them & their SUVs. How selfish.
Between the wind, the sun, the tides, the rivers, & burning our garbage, that isn't recyclable to make building materials, cleanly to create energy, we need nothing else to maintain our quality of life. Diesel cars run quite efficiently on the cheap vegetable oil that we should not use for food anyway.
Many other non-essential fluids will also power our vehicles and not contribute to world hunger or pollution. The technology is already here for it all.
If people don't get this soon, we're all screwed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leaking not the problem
Posted by: YogiBear on Nov 14, 2007 8:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear leaching is a bigger concern. No matter how encased in concrete, rock and steel a waste bunker is, the stone around it is still semi-porous and, eventually, water will work its way through from above, below to the water table. As it passes by, it picks up radiation particles, so the water molecules become irradiated. This is not an "if", it will happen, but gubment experts will likely argue that it'll occur to slowly for anyone to notice. Of course, any cracks or leaks would further exacerbate the speed that the "leaching" occurs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Glass marbles don't leach
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 14, 2007 10:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Glass marbles cannot be leached by ground water. The nuclear
fuel that needs to be recycled but is instead wasted is first made
into glass marbles. Like glass in general the nuclear "waste"
marbles are inert. They do not react with ground water. They do
not react with any natural chemical. Undoing the glass making
process would require human chemistry. Your worries are
needless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Glass marbles don't leach Posted by: YogiBear
The Red Button
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 14, 2007 11:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WitchyNy, The only person who can authorize the use of nuclear
weapons is the president. The president we have now is indeed a
madman. George W. Bush started the pointless Iraq war because,
he says, "God" told him to. Translation: George W. Bush had an
hallucination of a god telling him to invade Iraq. That makes
George W. Bush a schizophrenic. Schizophrenic is as good a
definition of madman as any. You should be afraid, but not of
me. You should be afraid of George W. Bush, Dick Cheny and
the religiously insane voters who put them in power.

WitchyNy, I am not angry. I am trying to save you, and
everybody else, from yourself and your lack of knowledge. If
you ARE a child, you had better grow up. We have only 200
years, maybe less, before we either switch from coal to nuclear or
go EXTINCT.

Why do we need large amounts of energy?
Because we have important things to do-like grow healthy food,
which we cannot do for 6.5 Billion people without much more
energy than we can get by other means.

The invention of nuclear power was accomplished by very careful
research. It was no accident.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Red Button Posted by: WitchyNy
MeridaLady, more CO2 comes from coal fired power plants.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 15, 2007 12:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MeridaLady, I favor a new system of fuel economy requirements
for cars and pickups, but see George Monbiot's article on bio car
fuel. Making Dodge diesel pickup engines put out more
horsepower was a trick to lower dependability. The Cummins
engines were lasting too long. It worked because people operate
on instinct. Everybody needs to learn math and science. I would
like to see the horsepower put back down to increase durability.

The #1 carbon dioxide emitter is coal fired power plants. And,
the emitters of the most toxins are: coal fired power plants, leaf
fires, roses, lilacs and other pollinators, molds...........

How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars
and other vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel,
etc. are half hydrogen. For example, octane is C8H18. To figure
out what fraction of the energy is from burning the carbon, you
have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide and the
heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2,
but it takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the
arithmetic and apportion the energy between the carbon and the
hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy required to break
down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the hydrogens
than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Even though
transportation uses more energy, coal fired power plants put more
CO2 into the air.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter.
Industrial processes are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial
processes is concrete making even though the energy used is less.
The first step in concrete making is heating limestone [calcium
carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium oxide.
Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater
source of CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making,
metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions
is to convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear. So get over
your paranoid fears of all things nuclear and get it done.

The greatest amount of smoke in the US is from burning leaves.
Leaf smoke is just as good at causing cancer as tobacco smoke.
Leaf smoke is also the #1 allergen because it contains pyro-
proteins and formaldehyde. Partly burned proteins and
formaldehyde are very easy to become allergic to. It should be
very easy to put a stop to leaf burning because nobody has a real
need to burn leaves. The only things that have to be changed are
attitude, tradition and local laws prohibiting people from putting
leaves in trash. Ames, Iowa uses leaves to generate electricity,
along with trash, yard waste, dead trees and coal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Book: "How to Tell Which New Car Will Last Longer"
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 16, 2007 12:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to learn how to choose a more durable car rather than
make another mistake next time you buy one, there is a book
available on line that tells you the secret. The book is: "How to
Tell Which New Car Will Last Longer." It is now available for
download as .pdf, an Adobe Acrobat document. This is the
"Product Page":
http://ebooks.ebookmall.com/ebook/
225201-ebook.htm
This is the "Title Page":
http://ebooks.ebookmall.com/title/
how-to-tell-which-new-car-will-
last-longer-greisch-ebooks.htm

Since no big company is spamming the net for this book, you will
have to copy and paste the above links or search for the exact title.
The car companies don't want you to read it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE3 The Red Button & WitchyNy
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 16, 2007 1:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Asteroid Miner: The invention of nuclear power was accomplished by very
careful research. It was no accident.

WitchyNy: Regarding your last sentence-that's interesting- because my mother
worked at- then secret- Hanford Washington during WW2 and that is not what
SHE said. That is also not what Einstein said-but I suppose you know more than
they.

Asteroid Miner: How much did Hanford, Oak Ridge National Lab, Lawrence
Livermore National Lab, Los Alamos National Lab and all the rest cost the US?
They were not accidental. Your mother was paid with tax money, not accidental
money. How did you make such a huge mistake? Hanford, Oak Ridge National
Lab, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Los Alamos National Lab and all the rest
of the WW2 Rad Labs were working on the bomb, NOT nuclear power. Nuclear
power is NOT classified. How did you make that mistake?

WitchyNy: You must read his books-especially his autobiography-where he says
he regrets his life work. It is amazing to me how many scientists today have not
read his books.

Asteroid Miner: Regret after the fact does not turn the enormous research effort
into an accident. Nor does regret turn research on the bomb into research on
nuclear power. You are confusing the bomb with the reactor. The two are only
distantly related.

WitchyNy: One does not grow healthy food with nuclear energy-at the very least-
it is not necessary.
The big Ag- Corporate Business today is part of the problem-not the solution.

Asteroid Miner: Just try and run the food distribution system without the
computers and networks and electric lights in the grocery stores. If the economy
collapses, so does food distribution and therefore production. Ask your mother
about the depression. Americans died of starvation because of the depression.

WitchyNy: You admit Bush is insane-yet you still say we need to have a system
where he is able to start a Nuclear war. That IS childish thinking.

Asteroid Miner: Again, NUCLEAR POWER HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO
WITH THE BOMB. Are you confusing them because you are ignorant, because
YOU are childish, because you are confused or because you are shilling for the
coal industry?

Asteroid Miner: George W. Bush SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO START A NUCLEAR WAR.
George W. Bush should be in a mental hospital. I did not vote for George W.
Bush. George W. Bush was voted into office by the religiously insane. Religion
is a problem to be overcome. Congress should have impeached George W. Bush
many times over by now. Candidates for president should have to prove their
sanity before running for election. A sanity test would eliminate candidates like
George W. Bush. Congress should not have allowed George W. Bush to start the
Iraq war.

WitchyNy: If you want to save the world-we need to use LESS power-not more.

Asteroid Miner: With less power, people die. With less power, the economy
collapses. Who do you want to kill so that we can get by on less power? Back in
the old days, we got along on less energy. There were also fewer people. To get
back to those days, you have to kill BILLIONS of people, one way or another.
The less power you want, the more people you have to kill. To get back to the
stone age, you have to kill 4999 out of every 5000 people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reactors are NOT bombs. Bombs are NOT reactors.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 16, 2007 1:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why a Nuclear Powerplant CAN NOT Explode like a Nuclear Bomb

Bombs are completely different from reactors. There is nothing similar
about them except that they both need fissile materials. But they need
DIFFERENT fissile materials and they use them very differently.
A nuclear bomb "compresses" pure or nearly pure fissile material into a
small space. There is no other material in the volume containing the nuclear
explosive. The fissile material is either the uranium isotope 235 or plutonium.
If it is uranium, it is at least 90% uranium 235 and 10% or less uranium 238.
There is no isotope separation problem if the fissile material is plutonium. These
fissile materials are metals and very difficult to compress. Because they are
difficult to compress, a high explosive [high speed explosive] is required to
compress them. Pieces of the fissile material have to slam into each other hard
for the nuclear reactions to take place.
A nuclear reactor, such as the ones used for power generation, does not
have any pure fissile material. The fuel may be 2% uranium 235 mixed with
uranium 238. A mixture of 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium 238 cannot be
made to explode no matter how hard you try. A small amount of plutonium
mixed in with the uranium can not change this. Reactor fuel still cannot be
made to explode like a nuclear bomb no matter how hard you try. There has
never been a nuclear explosion in a reactor and there never will be. [Uranium
and plutonium are flammable, but a fire isn't an explosion.] The fuel is further
diluted by being divided and sealed into many small steel capsules. The fuel is
further diluted by the need for coolant to flow around the capsules and through
the core so that heat can be transported to a place where heat energy can be
converted to electrical energy. A reactor does not contain any high speed [or
any other speed] chemical explosive as a bomb must have. A reactor does not
have any explosive materials at all.
As is obvious from the above descriptions, there is no possible way that a
reactor could ever explode like a nuclear bomb. Reactors and bombs are very
different. Reactors and bombs are really not even related to each other.
Reccomendation: Nuclear power is the safest kind and it just got safer.
Convert all coal-fired power plants to nuclear ASAP. See the December 2005
issue of Scientific American article on a new type of nuclear reactor that
consumes the nuclear "waste" as fuel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But the end result IS the same-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Nov 16, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the reasons the government loves Nuclear Plants is the end result gives them the materials to make Nuclear bombs. You know this!

I have wondered why the 911 Terrorists did not fly a plane into a Nuclear Reactor. Or why they did not get inside and blow one.

You must have read in the press how pipe bombs were found to have got through security at a Nuclear Plant lately. Protesters also have-to show how easy it could be done. Or a worker could simply go insane.

You are basing all this on the idea that we have a sane rational world. We don't.

We don't need these huge amounts of energy (to sustain this Military-Industrial-Complex that currently rules the world). You just WANT to-men are addicted to power and war.
You need to read Alice Walker's latest book.
You nead to read more period. The fact that you simply dismiss what EINSTEIN said is very telling.

I live in Nevada. I don't want a nuclear waste dump in my state. Or anywhere. Hanford is leaking. We don't need more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WitchyNy is a provoker.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 17, 2007 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WitchyNy, are you a provoker, just trying to cause anger, or are you really as bad
at reading comprehension as you appear to be or is there some other cause of your
refusal or failure to understand plain simple English? A psychological reason
perhaps, or maybe you own a coal mine? Your resistance to the truth is as
childish as your level of reading comprehension. Go back to school or to a
psychologist or trade your coal stock for something more promising.

WitchyNy: One of the reasons the government loves Nuclear Plants is the end
result gives them the materials to make Nuclear bombs. You know this!

Asteroid Miner: Wrong! The government has its own reactors that are
specialized for making plutonium. The allegation that the government needs
power plants to make bombs is absurd. There is no connection whatever between
power plants and bombs.

WitchyNy: I have wondered why the 911 Terrorists did not fly a plane into a
Nuclear Reactor. Or why they did not get inside and blow one.

Asteroid Miner: Terrorists cannot "Blow" a nuclear reactor. It just isn't possible.
If you had read my post that precedes the post of yours that I am answering now,
you would know this. Go back and read it again, carefully. Attempt to
understand it.

WitchyNy: You must have read in the press how pipe bombs were found to have
got through security at a Nuclear Plant lately. Protesters also have-to show how
easy it could be done. Or a worker could simply go insane.

Asteroid Miner: A pipe bomb can't do anything to a reactor. An insane worker
can NOT make a reactor explode or even melt down any more. We don't have
any primitive Soviet built reactors in this country. Not even Chernobyl had a
nuclear explosion. It can't happen.

WitchyNy: We don't need these huge amounts of energy (to sustain this Military-
Industrial-Complex that currently rules the world). You just WANT to-men are
addicted to power and war.

Asteroid Miner: I am not addicted to power and war, but perhaps YOU are.
WitchyNy wants to control what everybody else does. WitchyNy wants to kill
billions of people so that less energy will be needed. WitchyNy forgot to ask her
mother about the depression.

WitchyNy: You need to read Alice Walker's latest book.
You need to read more period. The fact that you simply dismiss what EINSTEIN
said is very telling.

Asteroid Miner: Who is Alice Walker? I did NOT dismiss what EINSTEIN said,
but I UNDERSTOOD what he said correctly. I read a lot. WitchyNy does not
understand plain English and WitchyNy does not understand that causality only
travels forward in time. WitchyNy is delusional or childish. WitchyNy should
go to school.

WitchyNy: I live in Nevada. I don't want a nuclear waste dump in my state. Or
anywhere. Hanford is leaking. We don't need more.

Asteroid Miner: As I said many many times before, it is NOT "waste," it is fuel
that needs to be reprocessed and put back into reactors. Israel fuels their power
reactors with so-called nuclear "waste" that they stole from the US and France.
WitchyNy should not expect that her future provocations and tantrums will be
answered. She is just too childish and boring. Provovation and tantrums are best
answered by ignoring them, and now that I understand that WitchyNy is a
provoker, I will be less interested in answering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WitchyNy is a provoker. Posted by: YogiBear
see: http://www.ecolo.org/
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 17, 2007 1:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
see: http://www.ecolo.org/
for truthful information on nuclear power

See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
for information on coal.
ORNL is Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The National Laboratories are recommended places to find information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]