Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

The Democrats' Dirty Secret: Presidential Candidates Backed by Nuclear Powerhouses

By Jessica Lee, Indypendent. Posted February 27, 2008.


A hidden conflict over nuclear issues is simmering, pitting Obama and Clinton against many indigenous communities.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Tens of thousands of people across the continental United States and in Hawai'i still suffer the effects of previous uranium mining booms during the 1940s and the Cold War, and fears are growing over how a nuclear power renaissance will impact tribal lands.

Tiokasin Ghosthorse, a member of the Lakota Nation, explains, "In western South Dakota, there is an unspoken nuclear Chernobyl. There are days when the sky is brown from the dust of uranium mining tailings in the air. This is cattle and wheat country. When the dust settles, no one knows they are being radiated."

Ghosthorse, also the host of "First Voices Indigenous Radio" on New York's WBAI, speaks in a firm voice when he discusses the impact of uranium mining on his home in Cheyenne River Indian Reservation. "A few years, there were only 19 of us left from my 1973 high school graduating class of 70 or 80 people. Nine out of 10 of them had died of cancer."

To bring attention to the environmental threats and the destruction of sacred sites, hundreds of Native Americans and supporters began trekking from San Francisco to Washington, D.C., on Feb. 11. The five-month walk commemorates the 1978 Longest Walk that led to the defeat of 11 anti-Native American bills in Congress and passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

"The Walk is a call of action to the people to wake up and realize that the continued exploitation of Mother Earth cannot go on," said Ricardo Tapia, a national coordinator of the Longest Walk 2. "This walk is for people of all colors. We are concerned about the trees, water and the sprit of the land. These things are alive. To most non-Indians, these are just seen as resources."

The New York Times recently noted that in the case of New Mexico, where the nuclear power industry is seeking to restart uranium mining near a Dine (Navajo) reservation, "mining companies walked away from their cleanup responsibilities" of a thousand open mines after the Cold War ended. The Times stated "among the horrors" that resulted were "shifting mountains of uranium tailings; open mines leaching contaminated rain into drinking water tables; wind-blown radioactive dust; home construction from uranium mine slabs; and even the grim spectacle of children playing in radioactive swimming holes and ground pits."

NUCLEAR ENERGY BACK ON THE TABLE

Like many other commodities, from gold to oil to wheat, uranium's price has risen because of speculation. As of 2003, processed uranium ore, known as yellowcake, was trading for $7 a pound. Last year, it hit $138. The dwindling of Cold War-era uranium supplies combined with anticipation that industrializing economies in China, India and Russia would turn to nuclear power, led hedge funds and other big investors to drive up the price of yellowcake and the stocks of uranium mining companies. It's this paper wealth that has stoked mining interests around the world.

The Las Vegas Sun noted on Feb. 10, "More than 1,000 new uranium mining claims have been staked on federal lands near the Grand Canyon during the past three years because of rising uranium prices." According to the U.S. Department of Energy, uranium exploration and development drilling totaled 5,000 holes covering 2.7 million feet in 2006. It is estimated that at least 50 percent of uranium deposits are located on Native-owned lands.

But to realize these vast profits, the uranium mining industry needs various governments to approve new mining operations and to revive the controversial and dangerous nuclear power industry. In Virginia, for example, which has a moratorium on uranium mining; the state Senate approved a bill commissioning a "study" on Feb. 13 to determine if it is safe to mine a site that contains the "largest unmined uranium deposit in the United States, worth an estimated $10 billion."

While the Bush administration is pushing for nuclear power's revival, its future is not just in the hands of Republicans.

Claiming the United States cannot meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if nuclear power is not an option, Obama wants to spend $150 billion over the next 10 years to develop new "climate-friendly" energy sources. Clinton says the issue of nuclear waste storage can be overcome by American technological innovation.

The major political factor driving nuclear power's revival is global warming. "What the industry's public relations are trying to do ... is find a bigger boogie man that is greater risk than building nuclear reactors," said Jim Riccio, the nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace. "If you are afraid of nuclear power, you need to come up with an alternative that is more frightening. That is where the industry has latched itself to the climate change debate, and it is trying to sell themselves as a solution."

THE DEMOCRATS' DIRTY SECRET

The nuclear industry has helped bankroll the presidential campaigns of both Senators Obama and Clinton. Executives and employees of the Illinois-based Exelon have given Obama at least $221,517 -- making Exelon Obama's eighth largest contributor. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has also served as a consultant to Exelon.

NRG Energy is betting on Clinton. In September, NRG filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to open the first U.S. nuclear plan in more than 30 years. NRG Energy has given Clinton nearly $80,000 in campaign contributions. The company's president and CEO, David Crane, is a "Hillraiser" -- a Clinton backer who has raised at least $100,000. NRG Energy has also given $175 million to The Clinton Global Initiative run by former President Bill Clinton.

A NEW AGE OF COLONIALISM

Left unsaid on the campaign trail is the tragic fallout. Uranium exploration and mining, nuclear testing and radioactive waste dumping began more than 60 years ago, largely on lands that Southwestern Native Americans were forced onto generations earlier. Not only did Native communities receive little in the way of royalties for the uranium extracted from their lands, health and safety precautions were essentially non-existent.

As with people in South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana, Dine and Hopi communities in the Four Corner region (Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico) have suffered greatly from environmental contamination and widespread illness. These areas were deemed "National Sacrifice Areas" by the U.S. government -- lands determined "uninhabitable" due to the planned depletion of water resources by industry and widespread radioactive contamination.

For the Native communities who are all too familiar with the dangerous consequences of being the nation that possesses thousands of nuclear weapons and relies on nearly 20 percent of its power from nuclear generation, this is a cry for environmental justice. And the Democratic leadership does not seem to care.

"Not one of the presidential candidates has an energy policy that excludes exploitation of indigenous lands," said Klee Benally, founder of Indigenous Action Media and a volunteer with the Save the Peaks Coalition.

Ghosthorse agrees. "Hillary and Obama are not going to do anything about this. It is not who we elect, it is the system." While the presidential primaries continue to hypnotize the nation, the Native American resistance walks on.

"Politicians do not have the answers and we cannot rely on them to provide the answers in the context of a system that is built on the exploitation of our lands," Benally said. "We do not just need political action, we need direct action in our communities -- because behind every environmental crisis is a social crisis."

"This is the low-intensity warfare against Native people all of the time," Ghosthorse said.


Mike Burke and A.K. Gupta contributed additional reporting.

Local Native American youth join the Longest Walk 2 hikers in California Feb. 16. Hundreds of people are walking across the nation for the next five months to bring attention to indigenous religious freedom and global environmental protection.

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

See more stories tagged with: nuclear, clinton, obama, nuclear energy, nuclear waste, longest walk

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:
Okay, Progressives! Let it ALL out!!
Posted by: jonnymil on Feb 27, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The shocker isn't the story, it is that there aren't any comments. The story is news that is so old, that more about nuclear energy has been forgotten than will ever be known by ALL candidates running for president of the two major parties.

I have a friend who believes that Senator Obama is a lot more "liberal" than he lets on, in an (understandable) effort to get elected. If President Clinton could accept all of that union money and still push for and sign NAFTA, can we influence President Obama to finally put an end to the nuclear power industry?

Yes We Can!!

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

Hold on a second!!
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 27, 2008 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with this article, is that it assumes that nuclear power is a bad thing. It isn't. It's a good thing, that isn't being used properly, or enough. Yes, the mining was being done properly, but there is a difference between "deciding we shouldn't do something" and "making sure we do it properly".

First, nuclear power is carbon-free. Not low carbon, carbon-free. No greenhouse gas emissions at all.

Second, it is a proven, safe, working technology. I'm aware that you can't read an article about nuclear power without Chernobyl being mentioned. Chernobyl was a plutonium creation reactor, for making nuclear weapons, not a power reactor. Those are inherently unstable. Power reactors are NOT.

Third, and the most common excuse for not responsibly switching to nuclear power, is the "nuclear waste". "Where are we going to store all this stuff?" you hear cried out in all kinds of rallies. The answer is "no where". All nuclear waste is 100% recyclable (with current technology, not future). Thats bit of trivia that no one wants to mention.

Why isn't it being recycled now? Because no one will allow the building of the recycling facilities. We are shooting ourselves in the foot here.

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

» RE: Hold on a second!! Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Hold on a second!! Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Hold on a second!! Posted by: jonnymil
» RE: Hold on a second!! Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Hold on a second!! Posted by: skaterokker
» RE: Hold on a second!! Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Hold on a second!! Posted by: jonnymil
» RE: Hold on a second!! Posted by: rickiey
Jessica Lee: Sacre innumerate humanitologist and COAL owner
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 1:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are thousands of other places to mine uranium around the
world. If the so-called "native" Americans don't want to earn the
money, nobody needs their uranium anyway. We can mine
Yucca Mountain, coal cinders, and about 179 other countries.
Egypt alone has 10 uranium mines. Australia has a uranium
mine. The really dirty secret is how much the coal companies are
paying Jessica Lee to write such low down propaganda. More
real information to follow later.

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

C O A L = D E A T H
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 1:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power can save us from the collapse of civilization and extinction.
Nuclear is the one source of energy that is actually proven to work for base load
power that produces 14.7 million tons of CO2 LESS than coal per 1000
megawatts per year. Burning coal to make electricity is the #1 source of CO2.
Nuclear power is also far safer than coal. Remember that coal also contains
URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron,
Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Thorium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of
these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable ores.

Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea level will continue to rise even if we
disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas bubbling out of
the ocean and killing almost everything including all of the people.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years.
How are YOU going to do it? Go ahead and invest YOUR money.

If we don't follow the schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive
feedbacks which will take the control of the climate out of our hands.
Preventing the fall of civilization is a daunting task, but not yet impossible. We
have to hold the CO2 level to 400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of
avoiding the positive feedbacks. The natural positive feedbacks are explained in
Six Degrees. We have to deal with enormous changes in where agriculture works
because of climate changes that are already unavoidable. Don't give up.

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, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. 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]

It's a shame
Posted by: WhatNow? on Feb 27, 2008 1:54 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Alternet for posting this article. Nuclear power is a boondoggle that should be eliminated.

The more I learn about the candidates the less I like them. It's a disgrace and tragedy what nuclear fission has done to the land, flora, fauna, and people unlucky enough to be near it in many instances but our politicos can't seem to try to clean up the mess and leave it behind.

"This is the low-intensity warfare against Native people all of the time," Ghosthorse said.

It's not just warfare against Native people. It's warfare against all life.

How many CSP (concentrated solar power) plants could have been built with the time, money, resources, and manpower that's gone towards nuclear fission?

The dangers and foolishness of nuclear fission should never be forgotten as this excerpt from a review of Norman Solomon's Made Love, Got War written by David Swanson :

"I was born in 1931," Daniel Ellsberg writes in the foreword, "and my generation had to reorient itself to the unprecedented threat of planetary nuclear suicide-murder. Norman Solomon was born twenty years later, and his generation has never lived under any other circumstance." Yes, but few in that generation have remained constantly aware of the fact and devoted to changing it. Human beings have always been able to put the fact of their fast approaching personal demise out of their minds, often aided by the pretense of an "afterlife." Solomon's and later generations have usually managed to put the possibility of our collective nuclear end out of our thoughts, often aided by the pretenses of the news and entertainment industry.

If you want to read a very sad tale of what a horrible thing the nuclear industry has been, try reading another of Solomon's books Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America's Experience With Atomic Radiation coauthored with Harvey Wasserman.

Btw, does anybody know what's going on with Mr. Solomon? I have not read anything new from him in weeks.

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

» RE: It's a shame Posted by: rickiey
» RE: It's a shame Posted by: jonnymil
» RE: It's a shame Posted by: rickiey
» Not really Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Not really Posted by: rickiey
» so little time... Posted by: tbone
Natural background radiation = 1000 times what you get from nuclear power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 7:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Background radiation
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]

Solar power doesn't work at night.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 7:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like solar voltaics but the problems with solar cells are:
1. Taking land away from trees and even cactuses. Even if it is
the roof of your house, trees will block sunlight from reaching
your solar cells, so you will cut the trees.
2. Price. Full power 20% of the time adds $195,500 to the
price of a modest 1500 square foot house. Solar cells are STILL
just too expensive and will be for many years.
3. If you live in town, as most of us do, the local city or town
government will not allow you to install solar cells.
4. You would have to cover your entire lot, not just your roof,
with solar cells to get enough energy to get off of the power grid.
Add $1 Million to the price of a $150,000 house.
5. Solar cells are dark in color, almost black. Solar cells convert
16% of the absorbed sunlight into electricity. The other 84% of
the absorbed sunlight is converted into heat. Suppose you cover a
desert with solar cells. Since solar cells absorb more sunlight
than sand, the desert would be hotter during the day. There is a
tradeoff between covering your roof with solar cells to run your
air conditioner and painting your roof white to reflect sunlight
back into space. Painting your roof white is a cheaper way to cut
your air conditioning bill.

Solar power doesn't work at night and the needed research
includes dividing the price by 10 to 100 and energy storage. Is
there enough lead in the world to make enough lead-acid
batteries? At what price? Storing solar energy by melting salt
has been proposed. What is the price of storing trillions
of watt hours as heat in molten salt? Where are you going to put
molten salt heat storage facilities? All of these questions need to
be answered before you have a viable solution. Solar power is
excellent for peak load in the middle of the day, but solar power is
not there at all at night and is limited during most of the day.
Solar power isn't there for the base load without these energy
storage schemes that may not be feasible. Another scheme that
won't work: Store energy by pumping water up hill. The
problem is that lakes are rarely found at the tops of mountains.

Geothermal is great where feasible, but again, that isn't
everywhere. There are very few geothermal sites and they are not
where we need them.

We need 2 or 3 more Earths to make biofuel work. If we had
more planets already, we wouldn't have global warming yet.

Nuclear power is well proven, safe and abundant. We have been
improving it for 60 years. Nuclear power is excellent for base
load application, which is what is required. Nuclear power saves
14.7 Million tons of carbon dioxide per year per 1000 megawatts.
112 COAL fired power plants are on order in the US. Building
nuclear power plants to replace them and the coal fired power
plants we already have is not such a big task that the US cannot do
it. We certainly can. Not providing electricity is not an option.
Just try the no electricity option and see how fast you get a
revolution. Nuclear power is the only option that actually works
NOW. All others except coal need research to get them to work
providing base load. Coal will kill us all if we keep using it.

As I have said many times, invest YOUR money in wind, solar,
etc. Get rich or go broke. I'm betting you will do the latter.

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

The EXTINCTION of Homo Sap happens if we keep burning COAL
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 7:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
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
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
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."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

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.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

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.

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

COAL contains a lot of uranium
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Yucca Mountain is full of nuclear fuel that needs to be reprocessed. We used
to reprocess spent fuel rods until 1/2 ton of enriched uranium somehow wound up
in Israel.
2. 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 1 billion 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.
3. See the rest of Alex Gabbard's article. U238 can be bred into Plutonium and
Thorium can be bred into Uranium. We can fuel our nuclear power plants for
CENTURIES just by extracting uranium and thorium from coal cinders and
smoke.
4. 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]

The word "Extinct" means:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 8:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive
source of electricity. Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The
comparison has to be with extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct"
means? 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.

Yes, I know something about things nuclear. I am a physicist with experience in
the Army's lead lab for nuclear weapons effects.

Yes, I like wind, solar, hydro and geothermal energy. They are inadequate to
meet our needs with current technology.

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]

"Sequestering" CO2: It doesn't work.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 8:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore's Live Earth Pledge has a fatal flaw: "the capacity
to safely trap and store the CO2." There is no safe way to
confine trillions of tons of CO2 at high pressure for ever.
For Ever is a lot longer than the 100000 years that people
want nuclear "waste" to be stored. The CO2 WILL
leak out and suffocate millions of people. CO2 is denser
than air and displaces air at ground level. CO2 has caused
suffocation in Africa. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm

"Cameroon's 'killer lake' degassed"
"More than 1,700 people died after deadly gases spewed
from Lake Nyos 15 years ago. "
"In August 1986, the lake released a cloud of carbon
dioxide which hugged the ground and flowed down
surrounding valleys to suffocate thousands of local villagers
and animals.

The rare phenomenon also occurred at Lake Monoun in the
same volcanic zone two years earlier killing 34 people. "

The CO2 storage facilities proposed by Al Gore, besides
being prone to leak, will be a target for terrorists. A
terrorist has only to cause a leak to kill more people than a
nuclear bomb would. Leaks are very easy to cause in high
pressure containers. CO2 storage is a silent disaster
waiting to happen.

The pledge Should read: "I will learn enough about nuclear
physics so that I will no longer be paranoid about nuclear
power. I will advocate the replacement of coal fired power
plants with the newest nuclear power plant designs."

I [Asteroid Miner] have no financial or other interest in
nuclear power and no connection with the nuclear power
industry.

It is HOT CO2 that goes up smolestacks. Being hot it is
less dense so it goes up and disperses. Stored CO2 is cool.
A gas gets colder as it leaks out from high pressure to low
pressure. That is the secret of air conditioning. CO2 at
the same temperature as air is denser than air because CO2
is a heavier molecule than N2 or O2. The cold CO2 will
stick to the ground and suffocate people and other animals.
No other gas is required to explain the deaths in Cameroon.
Here in the US, more CO2 will leak out into areas with
more people, so the death toll could be in the millions.
The Live Earth Pledge reads:

I PLEDGE:

-To demand that my country join an international treaty
within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution
by 90% in developed countries and by more than half
worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a
healthy earth;

-To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by
reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and
offsetting the rest to become “carbon neutral;”

-To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new
generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to
safely trap and store the CO2;

-To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of
my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means
of transportation;

-To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of
renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil
and coal;

-To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving
and protecting forests; and,

-To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my
commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a
sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.

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

How coal got to be worse than oil
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 8:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I have told you before, the #1 carbon dioxide emitter is coal
fired power plants. 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.

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

The other 50% of the uranium is NOT on Indian land.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 10:24 PM   
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. The US
has 2 pebble bed reactors.
In the recommended and newly invented helium cooled reactor, the core is
made of high temperature [refractory] 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 100 years if we keep doing it.

The problem is that we OVERSHOT on safety design because of people who
protest nuclear power. 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. Coal cinders are an economically viable ore
for several of the listed impurities.

French reactors use American technology that is about 3 decades old.
Soviet reactors use 1944 American technology.

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

Why terrorists can't rob radioactive materials from nuclear reactors
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 10:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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. Fuel isn't something in a fuel tank that the reactor takes
some of each minute. The fuel is an internal component of the
engine. Stealing fuel is more like stealing a piston out of an
engine than siphoning gasoline out of a gas tank. The robbers
would be like somebody trying to steal a piston out of an engine in
a busy Wal-Mart parking lot, not like somebody trying to steal a
cell phone out of an unlocked car in a dark alley. Fuel is removed
and replaced in a reactor at most once a year and often only once
every 10 years. Reactors could be built to be fueled once in the
reactor's lifetime. NASA's SNaPP reactors are fueled only once.
For example, the power sources on the Voyager spacecraft that
are now exiting the solar system have the same nuclear fuel they
had 30 years ago when they were launched. The Voyagers still
have power. Fuel that is removed from a reactor can be recycled
and put back into a reactor. The volume of the fuel doesn't
change as it is used.
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 capsules 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 robbers
don't know how. 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 know how to
operate the robot. 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. Don't you think somebody
would notice when the people who work at the reactor didn't
come home for a few weeks? Do you think the cops and the
army are going to give the robbers weeks? The result of such an
attempted robbery would be robbers killed by bullets. Guards are
not needed. Fences are not needed. Guards and fences are there
purely because paranoid people want them there. Do not be like
a person who wears an aluminum foil hat to keep the government
from reading his or her thoughts. The government can't read
thoughts anyway, and terrorists can't steal fuel out of a nuclear
reactor.

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

Global warming is already cutting our food supply.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 10:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded FROM: Environmental Defense
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/
climate411/2008/01/14/global_winds/

This post is by James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense.

You may have heard about the persistent droughts in the western U.S., Australia,
and other regions. The Upper Colorado River Basin is experiencing a protracted,
multi-year drought that started in 1999. Australia's record drought is threatening
the livelihood of traditional farmers and ranchers.

At what point does a passing drought become a permanent shift to desert
conditions, and why would such a thing happen?

It can happen because of global warming. Climate change can alter global winds,
the strength and location of high and low pressure systems, and other climate
factors.

.........shortened.........Graphics and URLs omitted.

Global winds shape the Earth's climate, determining - in broad strokes - which
areas are tropical, desert, or temperate. Here's a simplified overview of how it
works.

The Sun heats the Earth most intensely in the tropical zone around the equator. The
heated air rises, cools, and then dumps its moisture as rain. That's why there are
rain forests in the tropics.

The now drier air is forced by the continuously rising equatorial air to move
towards the temperate latitudes on either side of the equator. At roughly 30° N and
S - called the "horse latitudes" - it can move no further due to the Earth’s rotation,
and settles to the surface. As the air sinks, it compresses and warms, creating hot,
rain-free conditions. This circulation pattern, called a Hadley cell, is why the
deserts of the world are located just poleward of the tropics, to the north and south.

Poleward of the desert belt, strong, high-altitude winds known as the jet streams
flow from west to east, carrying large storms with them. These mid-latitude,
temperate-region storms are an important source of rain and snow, especially
during the winter season. Much of the world's population lives in the temperate
region. It includes most of the U.S. and southern Canada, most of Europe, East
Asia, southern South America, southern Africa, and southern Australia and New
Zealand.

But climate regions aren't fixed. Several independent studies have found that
global winds are shifting due to global warming, and the shifts are faster than
predicted by climate models. Most recently is this new study in Nature
Geoscience. The tropical belt has widened by several degrees latitude since 1979.
This is consistent with other observations suggesting that the jet streams and storm
tracks have moved poleward.

The drought-stricken Upper Colorado River Basin, which includes Lake Powell, is
located just poleward of the horse latitudes at around 37° N. This has historically
been in the temperate zone, but the desert zone may be gradually encroaching upon
it. (Since nothing is simple, there are other factors contributing to this particular
drought, as well.) Similarly, water-starved Sydney, Australia at 34° S is just
poleward of the southern horse latitude.

What we may be seeing here is not so much drought as desertification - a shift in
global climate patterns due to global warming. Areas that used to be in temperate
zones may be shifting into desert, while areas that had been arid receive more
precipitation.

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

Asteroid Miner
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 28, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Unusual nickname.
2. Learn to summarize, will ya?

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

» RE: Asteroid Miner Posted by: jonnymil
» RE: Asteroid Miner Posted by: rickiey
Thank you, rickiey
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 29, 2008 2:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have never worked for the electric power industry. I have a BS
in physics from Carnegie-Mellon University and more than
enough graduate credits for an MS in a combination of physics,
electronics engineering and other engineering. I also got a lot of
education from Army schools in the subjects of engineering and
management. Most of my career was as a Department of the
Army civilian scientist and engineer. I have never been a soldier.
My nuclear expertise comes from having done research in the
effects of nuclear weapons at the Army's lead lab for nuclear
weapons effects, and from Carnegie-Mellon. I am retired from
the federal government of the US.

As rickiey mentioned, most people have delusional negative
beliefs on the subject of anything nuclear. Much of that comes
from coal company propaganda. If people didn't believe such
nonsense, the coal companies would be making a lot less money
today, and the world would not be in such big trouble.
Americans are paranoid about all things nuclear. NMR [Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance] had to be renamed MRI [Magnetic
Resonance Imaging] to get sick people into the scanner.
Apparently, the average American doesn't know that all matter,
including people, is made of atoms and that atoms have nuclei.
The NMR/MRI machine aligns the spins of the nuclei in the atoms
in the patient using a big magnet. Since different atoms have
different nuclear spin resonances, the NMR/MRI machine can see
one element at a time. I have no idea what the sick sick patients
were thinking.

Joe Sixpack is not only paranoid and delusional about all things
nuclear, he is also "hard of understanding" and innumerate. Joe
Sixpack believes himself to be rich even though he is a member of
the lower class working poor. He therefore votes against himself
and doesn't understand why things keep getting worse. It is
because of Joe Sixpack that things have to be repeated many
times, yet he still doesn't learn. So if you want me to quit
repeating, educate yourself so that I won't have to educate you.
Go to college and get a degree in physics or nuclear engineering.

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

» RE: Thank you, rickiey Posted by: rickiey
» RE3: Thank you, rickiey Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: 3: Thank you, rickiey Posted by: rickiey
» RE: 4: Thank you, rickiey Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: 4: Thank you, rickiey Posted by: rickiey
It's Always The Big Money That Rules
Posted by: cherylholmes on Feb 29, 2008 6:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mining the ore in an unsafe manner saves money, and money rules. It should be made illegal to mine any toxic materials without any safeguards and environmental protections. These protections must safeguard all living things.

Mining for Uranium ore is about to begin in Texas too near San Antonio. I guess it is a good way for the rich to get richer and the poorer to die, right?

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

The Golden Rule [Whoever has the gold makes the rules.]
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 1, 2008 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
cherylholmes, you are being too vague. Please define "mining in
an unsafe manner." Mining in general is dangerous and toxic,
nothing new there. Ask people who live near any kind of
worked-out mine. As for safeguarding all living things, you
cannot live without eating and you eat formerly living things.
Are you willing to starve to safeguard all living things? Do you
mean you want all mining to stop? What about coal mining?
Coal mining brings just as much uranium out of the ground as
uranium mining, it's just that coal gives you the added opportunity
to go extinct because of global warming. I am glad that Mining
for Uranium ore is about to begin in Texas near San Antonio.

The rich getting richer is a separate subject and in no way related
to uranium mining. Reference "The Black Swan" by Nassim
Nicholas Taleb, 2007. The problem is that you want to live in
Mediocrastan and you are living in Extremistan. The rich get
richer because Gaussian statistics do not apply to wealth in the
US. Regardless of who gets richer, coal fired power plants have
to be replaced with nuclear power plants to prevent the fall of
civilization and the extinction of Homo Sapiens. Rich or poor
doesn't matter compared to extinct or thriving. I consider myself
to be poor because I am living on my retirement annuity from the
federal government.

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

URANIUM
Posted by: pfm on Mar 4, 2008 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It’s really quite simple in today political and economic discussions and agendas just follow the money back to see who the proponents and supporters are and then it is far easier to make some determinations on the honesty of the statements and positions being fostered.

Presidential campaigns are “big” bu$ine$$ and to the victor goes the spoil$. Even if the majority of candidates for this office wanted to be “totally-upfront” with the electorate the game is rigged.

The new “yellow cake” - uranium mining is today’s new gold as “we” prepare the leave the oil-age into a new era. Today the West is plagued with residuals from the uranium mining of another era, affecting the potential health of more than 25 million Americans dependent upon waters from the Colorado River.

But, hey, not to worry, our Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and her administration assure us that our water is - “safe” – as defined by corporate privatizing water purveyors and government bureaucrats joined at the hip.

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

I see all the nuclear spinout doctors here
Posted by: igmuska1 on Mar 4, 2008 12:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being a Native American, my life as well as my relatives is worth more than a drowning polar bear. Second, from reading these comments, none understand that if the uranium mining was in their backyards, they'd have the government cleaning up these uranium mines or they'd be screaming at their politicians as they are in this topic. Regardless, don't be fooled that nuclear energy is safe because it isn't. Conduct more research into uranium mining before you go off half-cocked in support of those energy giants who are responsible for the destruction of our environment in the first place.
And whichever candidate does win presidency, it doesn't matter to the energy giants because they are all in their pocketbooks much like a fast food clerk.

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

Energy storage again. Batteries or whatever.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 5, 2008 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like solar voltaics but:
You would have to cover your entire lot, not just your roof,
with solar cells to get enough energy to get off of the power grid.
Add $1 Million to the price of a $150,000 house. There is a
tradeoff between covering your roof with solar cells to run your
air conditioner and painting your roof white to reflect sunlight
back into space. Painting your roof white is a cheaper way to cut
your air conditioning bill.

Solar power doesn't work at night and the needed research
includes dividing the price by 10 to 100 and energy storage. Is
there enough lead in the world to make enough lead-acid
batteries? At what price? Storing solar energy by melting salt
has been proposed. What is the price of storing trillions
of watt hours as heat in molten salt? Where are you going to put
molten salt heat storage facilities? All of these questions need to
be answered before you have a viable solution. Solar power is
excellent for peak load in the middle of the day, but solar power is
not there at all at night and is limited during most of the day.
Solar power isn't there for the base load without these energy
storage schemes that may not be feasible. Another scheme that
won't work: Store energy by pumping water up hill. The
problem is that lakes are rarely found at the tops of mountains.
All of these schemes to store energy seem so easy and nice until
you actually try to do them. Reality sinks in when it is YOUR
money or YOUR company. I suggest that you do the hard work
of actually figuring out all of these details. Try to find enough
places where lakes can be put at the tops of mountains. How
much energy is storage going to waste? In other words, what is
the efficiency of your energy storage scheme? Find out a realistic
cost for storing energy. Post again when you have the numbers.
If you are sure you have a solution that will out-compete the
electric companies, set up a company to do it and sell us some
stock.

Geothermal is great where feasible, but again, that isn't
everywhere. There are very few geothermal sites and they are not
where we need them.

We need 2 or 3 more Earths to make biofuel work. If we had
more planets already, we wouldn't have global warming yet.

As I have said many times, invest YOUR money in wind, solar,
etc. Get rich or go broke. I'm betting you will do the latter.

My only income is from my retirement annuity. I am a
retired federal civil servant. My sole motivation is to avoid the
collapse of civilization and extinction of Homo Sapiens that
global warming will bring if global warming continues.

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

Uranium mining by a newer method
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 11, 2008 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-situ_leach

In-situ leaching (ISL), also called in-situ recovery (ISR) or
solution mining, is a process of recovering minerals such as
copper and uranium through boreholes drilled into the deposit.
The process initially involves drilling of holes into the ore deposit.
Explosive or hydraulic fracturing may be used to create open
pathways in the deposit for solution to penetrate. Leaching
solution is pumped into the deposit where it makes contact with
the ore. The solution bearing the dissolved ore content is then
pumped to the surface and processed. This process allows the
extraction of metals and salts from an ore body without the need
for conventional mining involving drill-and-blast, open-cut or
underground mining.

[« 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