Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Will Congress Make Taxpayers Fund Terror-Target Nuke Reactors?

By Harvey Wasserman, AlterNet. Posted November 29, 2007.


Nuclear power isn't just an environmental nightmare, it is also a security nightmare. But Congress doesn't seem to take either concern seriously.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Within a matter of days Congressional back-room deals may rubber stamp huge taxpayer loan guarantees to build dozens of what amount to pre-deployed "dirty bombs" for terrorists.

The terror attacks of September 11, 2001, showed that atomic power plants are supremely vulnerable. The first jet that hit the World Trade Center flew directly over Indian Point, whose two active reactors --plus one more that's retired -- sit next to some very fragile high-level waste storage pools.

Had that first jet hit Indian Point, 35 miles north of Manhattan, with tens of millions of Americans closely downwind, the devastation would have been unimaginable. In fact, the 9/11 Commission found that Al Quaeda at one point considered crashing two planes into two nuclear facilities as part of its original plan.

Yet Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) is trying desperately to force taxpayers to underwrite $50 billion and more in loans to build still more of these radioactive bulls-eyes. A decision to include these provisions in the Energy Bill may be made as you read this, which is why safe energy advocates are asking citizens to flood Congress with calls, demanding the provisions be removed.

There is effectively nothing that can protect an atomic power plant from a terror attack. After 9/11, a global internet debate erupted over whether a jet could penetrate a reactor containment dome. Fortunately, there is no experimental data...yet.

But at very least more than two dozen early reactor domes, including Indian Point's, were never required to withstand a jet crash. They were designed in the 1960s with no anticipation of the much bigger planes now filling our skies. There is nothing to indicate they could withstand the kind of impact or fire that hit the WTC towers.

It would not be necessary for terrorists to hijack another jet, since Osama bin Laden among others has more than enough money to buy his own.

Nor would they need to penetrate a containment. The impact and fire alone on or near a reactor could devastate pipes, pumps, cooling systems, electronic controls, human operators, off-site power and communications, and any number of additional vital pressure points capable of causing a melt-down.

Chernobyl did explode in 1986, and Michigan's Fermi I fast breeder almost did so in 1966. In 1979, Three Mile Island faced the possibility of a hydrogen explosion. But its lethal radiation, which killed people and animals nearby, vented through stacks that remained intact throughout the disaster.

Arizona's entire three-reactor Palo Verde complex was recently shut because a single worker had what may have been a pipe bomb in his car.

All these events highlight the vulnerability of any society dependent on nuke power for its energy. A recent earthquake in Japan forced shut seven reactors in a single moment. The US now has 104 such plants generating some 20 percent of our electricity. Many are also near earthquake faults. All are vulnerable individually and as a fleet to a terror shut-down without a moment's notice.

Domenici's loan plan has been denounced by nearly every major environmental group in the United States, along with taxpayer groups and free marketeers such as the Cato Institute and Forbes Magazine, plus Congressional conservatives concerned about the budget process.

Domenici and his neo-con cohorts have been clear in their willingness to shred the Constitution in the name of national security.

But they would simultaneously force us to underwrite easily ignitable engines of radioactive mass destruction pre-deployed on our own soil.

The decision on whether these radioactive loan guarantees will be in the Energy Bill is being made as you read this. Call the Congressional leadership, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and tell them these bailouts for terror-target nukes must be stopped.




Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: terrorism, nuclear power

Harvey Wasserman edits www.nukefree.org, where you can sign the petition against these guarantees. He is also senior editor of www.freepress.org, and his Solartopia: Our Green-Powered Earth, AD 2030 is available via www.solartopia.org.

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


Advertisement
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:
Harvey Wasserman, you don't know anything about it.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 30, 2007 12:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially
viable ORE for the above elements.
Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The
result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese
industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic. Coal varies a lot.
You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump.
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

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

Meltdown no longer possible
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 30, 2007 12:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two types of 21st century reactors that cannot melt down no matter how
badly they are treated. Safety is guaranteed by laws of physics.
In the pebble bed reactors, stopping coolant flow removes the space between
fuel pellets. The space between fuel pellets must be filled with moving water.
The water is the moderator to slow down the neutrons so that the reaction can take
place. No coolant flow, no reaction. These pebble bed reactors will never
experience a meltdown. It just can't happen because of laws of nature.
In the recommended and newly invented helium cooled reactor, the core is
made of high temperature materials that simply will not melt if coolant flow
ceases. The core is cooled from a higher temperature by heating the containment
building, which also does not melt. The containment building heats its
surroundings in the case of coolant flow loss. The helium cooled reactor uses
helium as the working fluid to turn a turbine. Helium gas is the ideal fluid to turn
a turbine because it can be made very pure so that the turbine blades will last a
very long time.
Safety is assured in all US built reactors by the containment building, which is a
pressure vessel and which, as in the case of the now obsolete 3 mile island reactor,
can and did contain the overheated core. There were ZERO casualties.

American reactors are now too safe. Nuclear power is overpriced because of the
excessive safety. 20,000 to 30,000 Americans die each year because of those
poisons I listed below that come out of coal fired power plants. It is C O A L fired
power plants that kill 20,000 to 30,000 Americans each year. Nuclear power
plants kill ZERO Americans each year. It is COAL burning that will make us go
extinct in about 200 years if we keep doing it.

The problem is that we OVERSHOT on safety design because of people like
lrrysgl. American reactors are TOO safe. It is C O A L fired power plants that
give you 100 times as much radiation. 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. We
could fuel our nuclear plants from the uranium and thorium in the smoke and
cinders from coal fired power plants.

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

Can't rob from reactor
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 30, 2007 12:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why terrorists can't rob radioactive materials from nuclear
reactors

Suppose a gang of terrorists tries to do a bank robbery type of
operation against a nuclear reactor. What problems do they
encounter that they wouldn't when robbing a bank?
1. There is no nuclear fuel within reach of any human.
2. The fuel is inside a containment building that is harder to
penetrate than a bank vault.
3. The fuel is inside a machine that was not made for human
access.
4. The fuel is not like money in several ways:
a. The fuel is radioactive enough to kill the robbers immediately.
b. The fuel is far too heavy for the robbers to carry.
c. The fuel is sealed in steel capsuels inside steel rods inside the
reactor core inside a coolant system, etc.
d. the temperature of the fuel is more than hot enough to burn
them.
e. If they got the fuel out, they would have to carry it in lead
containers that would weigh many tons.
f. etc.

To get fuel out, the reactor must first be shut down. The reactor
must be allowed to cool. Cooling takes time, like days. The fuel
can only be removed by a robot. The robot may not be present.
The robbers don't have a way to move fuel rods out of the
containment building. The robbers would have to have a big
truck with a lead container to carry the fuel in. Big trucks are not
good getaway vehicles, especially when heavily loaded.
IF the robbers knew how to do all of the required jobs, it would
still take them weeks to rob a reactor. Do you think the cops and
the army are going to give them weeks? The result of such an
attempted robbery would be robbers killed by bullets.

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

Answers to Harvey Wasserman
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 30, 2007 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Harvey Wasserman: In fact, the 9/11 Commission found that Al
Quaeda at one point considered crashing two planes into two
nuclear facilities as part of its original plan.

Asteroid Miner: Al Quaeda soon realized that crashing two
planes into two nuclear facilities would do very little damage to
the nuclear facilities. Visit a containment building under
construction some time. Containment buildings are so strong and
so heavily reinforced that Al Quaeda could not cause a radiation
release by flying into one. Even if they did put a hole in the
containment building, there would not be a radiation release. The
core would shut down and Al Quaeda would be disappointed.

Harvey Wasserman: The impact and fire alone on or near a
reactor could devastate pipes, pumps, cooling systems, electronic
controls, human operators, off-site power and communications,
and any number of additional vital pressure points capable of
causing a melt-down.

Asteroid Miner: Meltdowns do not cause radiation releases in the
United States. Nor do losses of a whole lot of other stuff cause
meltdowns. It is a simple matter to put automatic shutdown
inside the containment building and off-site. 2 types of reactors
cannot melt down no matter what.

Harvey Wasserman: Chernobyl did explode in 1986, and
Michigan's Fermi I fast breeder almost did so in 1966.

Asteroid Miner: Those are both LIES. Chernobyl is a primitive
reactor without an American style containment building. Steam
removed the lid, which was not secured in place, and there was a
fire. Reactors CANNOT explode in the nuclear way.

Harvey Wasserman: Three Mile Island faced the possibility of a
hydrogen explosion. But its lethal radiation, which killed people
and animals nearby

Asteroid Miner: That is a LIE. There were ZERO deaths and
ZERO injuries at Three Mile Island. The containment building
did its job.

Harvey Wasserman: Arizona's entire three-reactor Palo Verde
complex was recently shut because a single worker had what may
have been a pipe bomb in his car.

Asteroid Miner: There is nothing a pipe bomb can do to a reactor.

Harvey Wasserman: All are vulnerable individually and as a fleet
to a terror shut-down without a moment's notice.

Asteroid Miner: Terrorists CANNOT do anything to a nuclear
reactor. They would have already if they could have. Al Quaeda
gave up on that idea.

Asteroid Miner: I certainly will call Congress and say that Harvey
Wasserman doesn't know what he is talking about and that Harvey
Wasserman is probably working for the COAL industry.

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

You are going to die of a heart attack, not a nuclear accident.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 30, 2007 1:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Odds of Dying from X according to the 2003 National Safety council

1 heart disease 1 in 5
2 cancer 1 in 7
3 stroke 1 in 24
4 motor vehicle accident 1 in 84
5 suicide 1 in 119
6 falling 1 in 218
7 firearm assault 1 in 314
8 pedestrian accident 1 in 626
9 drowning 1 in 1008
10 motorcycle accident 1 in 1020
11 fire or smoke 1 in 1113
12 bicycle accident 1 in 4919
13 air/space accident 1 in 5051
14 accidental firearm 1 in 5134
15 accidental electrocution 1 in 9969
16 alcohol poisoning 1 in 10048
17 hot weather 1 in 13729
18 hornet, wasp or bee sting 1 in 56789
19 legal execution 1 in 62468
20 lightning 1 in 79746
21 earthquake 1 in 117127
22 flood 1 in 144156
23 fireworks 1 in 340733

Causes that are missing from the above:
nuclear power plant accident
medical mistake
meteor impact
cold weather
starvation
dehydration
smallpox
war
terrorist strike
boredom

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

Why a Nuclear Powerplant CAN NOT Explode like a Nuclear Bomb
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 30, 2007 1:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Chernobyl
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 30, 2007 1:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An Oak Ridge National Lab scientist and engineer wrote to me:
"The reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-of-date (1st
generation) design that has to be precisely controlled to prevent cooling water
from boiling. Water carries away heat and moderates far better than bubbles, and
as bubbles form in water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused
Chernobyl to blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly going to high
pressure steam and erupting into a steam explosion. Since the building top was
simply resting by its weight on the walls, not a containment vessel at all, the
steam explosion burped the top off its position allowing outside air in,
subsequently igniting a carbon fire." The United States and other Western
countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or operate ANY reactors of
such primitive design. Nor do we allow containment buildings to have easily
removable tops. Containment buildings in the Western hemisphere are required
to be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released only 200 tons of radioactive material, as
much as a coal-fired power plant would release in 7 years and 5 months. The
Chernobyl accident had a shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The
radioactive material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why the
Chernobyl accident had impact. Only 52 people died at Chernobyl , mostly fire
fighters, a hazardous job in any case. The Three Mile Island incident did NOT
release a noticeable amount of radiation into its neighborhood, it was just
expensive to clean up the inside of the reactor. Nobody died and nobody was
injured at Three Mile Island.

The purpose of power reactors is to produce electricity. If you think reactors are
for making bombs, you had better change your calendar. It isn't 1945 any more,
and nuclear power is NOT a derivative of a bomb.

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

Background radiation
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 30, 2007 1:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation
sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our
food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and
other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from
space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which primarily
come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface and
subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne dust
and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the bombardment
of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays. Since 1945 it also
comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due to nuclear testing.

............shortened.............

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation,
terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a
human being is about 2.4 mSv per year. This exposure is mostly from cosmic
radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from
outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei.
This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains
down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and
neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and
electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based
largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil,
rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial
radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources has been
decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present dose from
potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life on Earth.
Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive isotopes,
such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world
and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest contributor
to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most variable in
the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and Aberdeenshire
in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels that nuclear
licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed legal radiation
limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would all have to be
disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

............shortened.............

The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of
which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results
from exposure to artificial radiation sources, such as medical X-rays and a small
fraction from nuclear weapons tests.

............shortened.............

Reference:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

[« 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 30, 2007 1:44 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]

How coal burning leads to our extinction
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 30, 2007 2:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are 2 feasable ways to supply base load electricity to most
of the world. They are coal and nuclear. The so-called
renewable sources of power are inadequate, not available all the
time, too remote or too expensive. Coal burning causes global
warming. Hydro power is the best, where available.

Atlanta without water, like Katrina, is the gentlest of warnings
that global warming is happening.
Reference Book: "The Long Summer, How Climate Changed
Civilization" by Brian Fagan, 2004 Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-
02281-2
Summary: Smaller climate changes than we have caused already,
caused the fall of many civilizations.

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. To avoid extinction, we have to stop
burning coal.
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.

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

http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html

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

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

Reactors Fuel Nuclear Proliferation
Posted by: richardbelldc on Nov 30, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A fundamental reason for opposing the use of nuclear power anywhere on the planet is that spreading nuclear power means spreading both the knowledge and the fissile materials needed to make nuclear weapons. There is no such thing as "Atoms for Peace." The U-238 and plutonium atoms don't know the difference: fission is fission, whether it occurs in a violent explosion or under more control in a reactor core. As we have seen in countries like India and Pakistan, a so-called civilian nuclear power program provides the perfect cover for developing and deploying nuclear weapons.

Like Harvey, I am deeply concerned about the possibility of terrorist attacks on existing reactors, both in the U.S. and in the 300 or so other power reactors around the world. But even if these reactors were as resistance to attack as some in this thread are asserting (which I personally doubt), we would still be stuck with the unsolvable problem of proliferation and weapons ending up in the hands of unstable regimes like Pakistan.

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

Steel doesn't know the difference ...
Posted by: GRLCowan on Nov 30, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
between being a cylinder wall as a piston goes by, and a gun barrel as a bullet goes by. The knowledge enabling a country to make guns also enables it to make cars. But guns are easier; in all countries, they came first.

Nuclear weapons are a little different in that they don't scale down as small, so it is practical for some countries, such as mine, to depend on nuclear-armed allies. But otherwise, they are to nuclear power plants as guns are to internal combustion engines. Selling cars in a town that has no guns could in principle give them clues to how to make them, if they did not know, but there is no way they could not know.

Similarly, power reactors have never been involved in proliferation. Reactors, yes, but not power reactors.

The real reason for the proliferation lie and all the other lies: a tonne of uranium costs $230,000, a uranium-tonne-equivalent of natural gas costs $4 million plus tax, a uranium-tonne-equivalent in crude oil costs $9 million, plus tax. Government dislikes nuclear energy because it cuts into oil and gas tax revenue, and puppets like ... I forget which one it was. The author of the piece above; the petrodollar puppet who won't stop lying, and will not become a real boy. They get government money, I suspect. Probably not coal money, because coal isn't so overwhelmingly overcostly, compared to uranium, as the highly taxed, runny fossil fuels.

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

dafaulk
Posted by: dafaulk on Dec 3, 2007 3:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The focus of the comments need to be expanded to include whole systems of energy. I appreciate the comments about nuclear vs coal and they are accurate in many ways, but what is missing is the consequences of mining U235/U238 on local populations and water systems, the enrichment required to use U in power plants ( often the enrichment process is done using energy from coal fired power plants), and the storage of spent fuel from power plants. The total energy produced by Nuclear plants vs the long term BTU cost of storage and mining mitigation may mean that there is no net benefit from using nukes.

There is another way to look at nuclear power as well: if it is such a reasonable power source why does it require gov tax money as an incentive and if it is safe why does it require gov legislation to limit liability? Both of these economic factors, as well as the fact that the gov assumes the cost for storage seems to indicate that nuke plants are not economic choices

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

"Spent" nuclear fuel should be recycled, not wasted
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 16, 2007 7:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to 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]

Hope they will, and make it safe for us all
Posted by: kkmedia1 on Dec 24, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
online casinos USA | leather jackets The essential one-step product for Il migliore Casino Online complete leather care. URAD NEUTRAL buy cigarettes |brings back and revives the original buy diamond earings color and is remarkable buy cigarettes online |leather and fur is always great leathers to casino bonus |mint condition. Also, it offers efficient casino and poker no problems, Casino Online casino and poker no problems. Whether used as a simple shoe polish, as a cleaner for golf shoes or as a online casino gambling Online Casino Games
das beste internet casino best internet casino best online casinos casino spielen | blog for all | conditioner for Best Online Casinos leather and fur is always greatblog for all |car interior, URAD will surpass Das beste casino | any other product as to ease of use, dry time and leather and fur is always great on leather furniture and saddles, and URAD COLOR to bring a Das beste casino | better shine and hide scuff marks play bingo online casino and poker no problems.
online Casino bonus | Livonia transmission repair shop Michigan | Online Casino Gambling leather and fur is always great casino links and casino and poker no problems on we also have online casino links and more like cigarette links exchange always great| tamiflu, viagra, cialis buy tamiflu, viagra, buy cialis | pharmacy links | link directory, free link exchange | Online Casino United States | online casino US players leather and fur is always great judaica, kotel, menora | Casino Bonus Code | free casino bonus

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

  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement