Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

If We Want to Survive the Climate Crisis We Must Change

By Bill McKibben, YES! Magazine. Posted March 15, 2008.


Either we build real community -- with mass transit and local food -- or we will go down clinging to the wreckage of our privatized society.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

At any given moment we face as a society an enormous number of problems: there's the mortgage crisis, the health care crisis, the endless war in Iraq, and on and on. Maybe we'll solve some of them, and doubtless new ones will spring up to take their places. But there's only one thing we're doing that will be easily visible from the moon. That something is global warming. Quite literally it's the biggest problem humans have ever faced, and while there are ways to at least start to deal with it, all of them rest on acknowledging just how large the challenge really is.

What exactly do I mean by large? Last fall the scientists who study sea ice in the Arctic reported that it was melting even faster than they'd predicted. We blew by the old record for ice loss in mid-August, and by the time the long polar night finally descended, the fabled Northwest Passage was open for navigation for the first time in recorded history. That is to say, from outer space the Earth already looks very different: less white, more blue.

What do I mean by large? On the glaciers of Greenland, 10 percent more ice melted last summer than any year for which we have records. This is bad news because, unlike sea ice, Greenland's vast frozen mass sits above rock, and when it melts, the oceans rise -- potentially a lot. James Hansen, America's foremost climatologist, testified in court last year that we might see sea level increase as much as six meters -- nearly 20 feet -- in the course of this century. With that, the view from space looks very different indeed (not to mention the view from the office buildings of any coastal city on earth).

What do I mean by large? Already higher heat is causing drought in arid areas the world over. In Australia things have gotten so bad that agricultural output is falling fast in the continent's biggest river basin, and the nation's prime minister is urging his people to pray for rain. Aussie native Rupert Murdoch is so rattled he's announced plans to make his NewsCorp empire (think Fox News) carbon neutral. Australian voters ousted their old government last fall, largely because of concerns over climate.

What do I mean by large? If we'd tried we couldn't have figured out a more thorough way to make life miserable for the world's poor, who now must deal with the loss of the one thing they could always take for granted -- the planet's basic physical stability. We've never figured out as efficient a method for obliterating other species. We've never figured out another way to so fully degrade the future for everyone who comes after us. Or rather, we have figured out one other change that rises to this scale. That change is called all-out thermo-nuclear war, and so far, at least, we've decided not to have one.

But we haven't called off global warming. Just the opposite: in the 20 years that we've known about this problem, we've steadily burned more coal and gas and oil, and hence steadily poured more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Instead of a few huge explosions, we've got billions of little ones every minute, as pistons fire inside engines and boilers burn coal. Having put off real change, we've made our job steadily harder. But there are signs that we're finally ready to get to work. Congress is for the first time seriously considering legislation that would actually limit U.S. emissions. The bills won't be signed by President Bush, and they don't do everything that needs doing -- but they're a start.

And the international community meeting in Bali in December overcame U.S. resistance and began the steps toward an international treaty that will be ready in 2009. The talks are going slowly, largely because of American intransigence, but George Bush won't be president forever, so there's at least a chance we'll re-engage with the rest of the world. If we do, there are steps we can take. Because the problem is so big, and coming at us so fast, those steps will need to be large. And even so, they won't be enough to stop global warming -- at best they will slow it down and give us some margin. But here's the deal:


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

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, bill mckibben, step it up

Bill McKibben wrote this article as part of Stop Global Warming Cold, the Spring 2008 issue of YES! Magazine. Bill McKibben is the author of The End of Nature, Wandering Home, and Deep Economy, and a founder of StepItUp, which has recently joined forces with 1sky.

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:
And the answer to the problem is.....SOCIALISM.
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Mar 15, 2008 12:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry guys it will not work, socialism was not viable before and it will not be viable to take care of the problem.

The issue is as the writer rightly points out is China and India. How to get them to conserve energy. Can we really ask them not to develop thier economies so that thier population comes out of poverty. The Indian people hs been kept down by statism, a form of socialism, the five year plans. China because of communism.

The Western world is fast changing its consumption patterns. Is drastically cutting its carbon emissions.

However the hair shirt, Luddite attitude will get us nowhere. Nor romanticizing alternative energy sources.

Nuclear and hydroelectric power will tide us over before we get the new technologies working as well and individual choice will get us there. And making the world a more democratic place so that individuals can force their governments to be more environmentally conscious. Does anybody believe that the total disaster of air pollution in Shanghai and Beijing would be allowed in New York or Los Angeles?

No more reality is needed and less hair shirting, dreaming.

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

» Excuse me... Posted by: skoog5600
» Do Your Homework Posted by: HeKnew
» Socialism Posted by: HeKnew
» RE: Socialism Posted by: particle
» Björn Lomborg Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: Björn Lomborg Posted by: particle
» Swedish reactors will not shut down Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: Nuclear Fusion! Posted by: edgar_michel
Schizo
Posted by: g50 on Mar 15, 2008 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wouldn't it be great if there was a cheap supply of inexhaustible, renewable energy? Get on the nuclear train. Don't like it? Then quit talking about climate change. It's the only viable solution.

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

» RE: Pathetic and poorly read.... Posted by: boydranchitos
» Energy Corporate Montra Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Schizo Posted by: toddcory
» Energy is Energy Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Schizo Posted by: themotie
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 15, 2008 2:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only these changes are ever going to occur is if there's a reconnect between people and power.

Direct Democracy

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

» What do you mean wiht direct democracy? Posted by: Swedish liberal
» Direct Democracy Posted by: HeKnew
» Fascism is a variant of socialism Posted by: Swedish liberal
» Fascism Posted by: HeKnew
» RE: Fascism Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Fascism Posted by: pdxstudent
» Uninteresting Back-Peddling Posted by: pdxstudent
» Socialism does not work it is an utopia Posted by: Swedish liberal
» You Are Very Right Posted by: pdxstudent
» Sure! Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Sure! Posted by: richholland
What we cannot afford is war.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 15, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cut to the chase. The waste from building weapon systems that we hope and plan not to use would take us a giant step in the direction of a healthy planet.

We do not have, anywhere so far as I can tell, a political system that puts the planet ahead of war.

The world is run by international capitalists from every major nation around the globe. They need a police force. So each nation provides their capitalists with a police force.

That can be changed with treaties. No treaties? No change.

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

Otto .
Posted by: otto on Mar 15, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My old religious teachings used to urge us to be less materialistic and more spiritual (at least in theory!) I still believe that we need more spirituality in our lives, and that calls us to create and become community. We're all like people left in a lifeboat after the Titanic struck the iceberg; unless we support each other and show concern for each other, none of us will survive. Cooperation is the key word.

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

» "Cooperation is the key word." Posted by: toddcory
Some Progress
Posted by: Southern Gal on Mar 15, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see some progress in the area where I live. More people are growing their own food in gardens. The local farmers are providing food for the school cafeterias. There is a community garden for people who don't have the space to grow food. There is a beginning effort to get bike lines into town. The town got grants and installed sidewalks in town to limit cars. The grocery stores are labeling locally grown food and putting it in prominent sections of the produce section. Some people have installed solar panels and I see an occassional windmill. The local energy/electric power co-op is encouraging household conservation of energy through insulation, energy saving bulbs, and energy efficient appliances. It's a start.

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

First let's undo the 70 year old RIGGED market.
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 15, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Solar, wind, geothermal, hemp, etc ... have been given no subsidies or tax breaks. Hemp itself was deemed "illegal" despite the fact that it's harmless. The market was RIGGED to allow Big Oil and its allies Big Coal, Chemical, Cotton, Paper, Tobacco, Pharma, etc ... no real competition. If natural plants and herbs such as hemp and stevia weren't illegalized, there would be a people's market for real competition.

First reform our pols.

VOTENADER.ORG !!

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

good answer, bad question
Posted by: billwald on Mar 15, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He presents a real problem and a real answer but they are not connected.

First, if global warming is a done deal then the logical first step is for the government to stop putting money into rebuilding New Orleans and the other low lying areas and to stop selling flood insurance in these areas.

Second, if dirty air and water is bad for people then we need cleaner energy sources and chemical processes but this doesn't haver anything to to with climate change.

Third, if rain/snow patterns are changing and/or if population is growing and/or moving then we will need new water storage and flood control dams.

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

Hope vs. events on the ground...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 15, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hope: We'll start building well-insulated homes, not too spacious, with areas for gardening and vegetation.

Reality: Developers throw up new subdivisions of large homes placed cheek-to-jowl, poorly insulated, made of cheap building materials (glued fiberboard is unhealthy!), constructed by underpaid employees. The prices for these homes were inflated by collusion between brokers, banks and assesors, and became overvalued collateral for the subprime debt shuffling business. When's the last time you saw a new housing development built with solar PV included?

Solution: Change the building codes to require solar heating and PV for all developer projects, and to require a high level of insulation.

And so on...

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

redroadtraveler
Posted by: redroadtraveler on Mar 15, 2008 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, guys. It's too late. Stories like this are an attempt to wake up people who refuse to be awakened. The convergence of peak oil, climate change, water shortages, population increases, etc. will wreck untold havoc on the planet, especially to the USA and its "unnegotiable" life style of profligate waste. The poor in other countries are already starting to feel the effects. Food prices are already skyrocketing, due in no small measure to planting corn for ethanol instead of food, and people are starving in greater and greater numbers. Food riots are already happening. Most of this happens in "other countries" at the moment, so we in the USA have a disconnect from it. With 5% of the world population, we use 25% of the world's energy resources. The outcome of this disaster humanity has brought upon itself will be planet-wide.

Want to understand it better instead of just ignoring it and pretending that someone else will solve it? Take your own personal test. Go to: http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp

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

re: AlterNet article; Feb. 5, 2002; “When the Army Owns the Weather”
Posted by: saywhat on Mar 15, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Climate change by the U.S. Government
A method of modifying the weather, U.S. patent number 6315213 was filed November 13, 2001. This describes an alarming procedure. A Wright Patterson Air Force scientist stated at the time, that the planes are spraying barium salt, polymer fibers, aluminum oxide and other chemicals into the atmosphere to modify the weather and for military communications purposes. The patent specifically states: “The polymer is dispersed into the cloud and the wind of the storm agitates the mixture causing the polymer to absorb the rain. This reaction forms a gelatinous substance which precipitate to the surface below. Thus, diminishing the cloud’s ability to rain.” During this same time period the Saturday Review stated that a CIA report indicated that the U.S. government had the ability to massively manipulate the weather for war purposes.
The jet chemtrail grid patterns now seen throughout the United States and the world are very likely this technology applied for weather modification and military purposes.

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

Yup, we're DOOMED
Posted by: pangolin on Mar 15, 2008 12:06 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There isn't going to be an active resistance to Global Warming until a few million western/European people die in a single year. By then it will be too late to do anything but put tinsel and pretty lights on our collective suicide.

There are really only three things that need to be done:

1. Conserve in every area that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced until emissions equal zero.

2. Build a clean energy (solar, wind, geothermal) infrastructure to support essential services and then later a full economy. Nuclear power and "clean coal" are fascist fantasies that make guys like Putin drool with anticipation of slapping the off switch.

3. Capture and sequester excess GHG's in the atmosphere using soil building and biochar technologies.

We're currently doing NONE of the above to any effective degree. We aren't even considering it. We spend hours arguing endlessly with trolls from the fossil fuel and nuclear industries about marginal solution paths.

You might as well instruct your children in the wonders of drug addiction and personal debasement because they have no real future. They get to inherit a Mad Max/Bladerunner world where everything honest and beautiful will die.

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

» Here's the Clincher Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Yup, we're DOOMED Posted by: Cathyc
» DOOMED: faster than expected Posted by: pangolin
» RE: DOOMED: I'm a canary Posted by: pangolin
Global warming not human
Posted by: dchabot on Mar 15, 2008 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I totally agree that we must reduce pollution and go local for food and goods, it is important to know that GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT CAUSED BY HUMANS. It's the SUN, folks. Serious scientific studies confirm this. Check for yourself, google "Global warming not human".
This is just a scam to impose more control and the scandalous CARBON TAX that we, taxpayers will have to pay for.

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

Civilization-wrecking climate/anthropogenic nastification
Posted by: gerly on Mar 15, 2008 4:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Correction, when a windmill generates electricity, it is called a wind turbine.

The operative global warming, which is too 'comfy' should be titled civilization-wrecking climate/anthropogenic nastification.

Shameful that there are no provisions for tax credits or incentives for renewable energy technologies by the federal gov't. Albeit, the financial community is leery of supporting and financing these technologies w/o gov't support, so there's essentially little R&D funding for this year. Bottom line: the burgeoning RE industry is highly reliant on these tax credits and incentives. And, if the current bill, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax of 2008 (H.R. 5351), a bill that that passed house in round #3, is earmarked stripping subsides (subsidies that have historically been afforded the petroleum/oil/natural gas/nuclear industry for ~70+ years), in behalf of renewable energy technologies is not passed, woe is this nation.

For those naysayers, this is a GREAT vid for any disbelievers of civilization-wrecking global climate/anthropogenic nastification:
YouTube :: How it all ends - "We only get to run this 'experiment' once."

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

Bill McKibben, it is far, far worse than that
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 7:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And "community," whatever that is, is irrelevant.
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.
I ahve no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

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

Nuclear power can save us.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 7:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [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.

Nobody is paying me to post this.

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

» RE: Nuclear power can save us. Posted by: Mr. Heathen
Chernobyl
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Laboratory 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. The Three Mile Island
incident did NOT release a noticeable amount of radiation into its
neighborhood because it had a good containment building and
because it was a more modern design.
I have no information that would lead me to believe that
Chernobyl was a plutonium breeder. I think it was a power
reactor. The real point is that the Soviet Union didn't spend
money on R&D for nuclear safety. The US did. Over 60 years,
American reactors have become so safe it is ridiculous. We have
way overspent on nuclear reactor safety, driving up the cost of
electricity. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, coal fired electric
power plants kill 20,000 to 30,000 people per year in the US
according to Discover magazine. Reactors built in the US in
2008 are nothing like the very first reactor ever, built in the US in
1944. Soviet built reactors were just copies of the 1944 reactor.

PS: I don't remember the source, but I read within the last week
that 1 Million people in China die each year from air pollution.

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

We have many centuries worth of nuclear fuel
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 7:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear "waste" is valuable fuel that is being wasted. Nuclear "waste" should be
reprocessed into fuel and put back in nuclear reactors. We already have enough
fuel stored in Yucca Mountain to last for centuries. It just needs reprocessing
and breeding. Thorium can be bred into fissionable Uranium233 and
Uranium238 can be bred into Plutonium. Plutonium is excellent fuel. We also
have tens of thousands of bombs that could be converted to fuel.

Refining and reprocessing use trivial amounts of energy. Building wind turbines
and solar cells uses energy also.

Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
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 1 billion watt coal fired
power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. [The difference between coal
and nuclear is the 4 Million tons of carbon/coal which makes 14.7 Million tons of
CO2. Of course, Mining 4 Million tons of coal takes a lot more energy than
mining 1 ton of uranium.] 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 weekly trainload. The nuclear power plant
consumes U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry an equal
weight in a brief case. [Actually, nuclear power plants are not fueled that often.
In some designs, the fuel is left in the reactor for ten years and then changed all at
once. In other reactors, 10% of the fuel is changed once each year. That is why
terrorists can't steal nuclear fuel. It stays sealed inside the machine for long
periods of time.] We can fuel our nuclear power plants just by extracting
uranium and thorium from coal cinders and smoke.
See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

At least 73 elements found in coal-fired plant emissions are distributed in
millions of pounds of stack emissions each year. They include:
Aluminum Chromium Molybdenum
Antimony Cobalt Nickel
Arsenic Copper Selenium
Barium Fluorine Silver
Beryllium Iron Sulfur
Boron Lead Titanium
Cadmium Magnesium Uranium
Calcium Manganese Vanadium
Chlorine Mercury Zinc

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

Nuclear safety
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 8:27 PM   
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]

Cleaner uranium mining
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 8:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In-situ leach
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.

Australia has more than 18 places to mine uranium,
Egypt has 10 potential uranium mines...................
There is no shortage of fresh uranium.

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

NEW SPEAK
Posted by: astralman on Mar 15, 2008 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Climate change is the synonym which the MSM use to "warm" the sheeple up to the reality that is peak oil. the cheap oil age is ending at a rapid pace and we are now running around in the sand box killing people to support our "non-negotiable" way of life. Listen to James Lovelock when he says that we need more technology, nuclear power, and ever other ounce of technical ingenuity to peacefully transition in this time period. we are addicted to oil.

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

» RE: NEW SPEAK Posted by: richholland
» RE: NEW SPEAK Posted by: particle
community : profitmaking
Posted by: richholland on Mar 15, 2008 11:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The target of a community is a good life for all members of that community.

the target of the corporation is as much profit for a small group of shareholders.

A corporated society NEVER can stop Global warming

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

It is EXTINCTION that we are trying to avoid.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 15, 2008 11:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [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. Proposed energy storage solutions have
not been figured out in all details. Wind and solar energy are only available part
time. Wind fluctuates so much most places that it accomplishes nothing. The
coal fired power plant has to maintain "spinning reserve," which means it
continues to burn just as much coal as before. The test is: Has it taken a coal fired
power plant off line? If it has NOT taken a coal fired power plant off line, it has
accomplished nothing. Counting windmills is otherwise pointless. Hydro and
geothermal are local and rare. ONLY nuclear power plants have actually taken
coal fired power plants off line, with rare exceptions.

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]

A cheer to Smith and Calvin and Hobbes!
Posted by: talkville on Mar 16, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About 10+ thousand years of development, dispersal, and propagation of this species 'Homo', and the triumphant Wall Street definer of Value declares: "Behold! THIS!" It is WE, the Greatest and Best Country on Earth who reach the acme and epitome of Civilization and Culture!! Behold the apotheosis of the finest, most sublime desires of Man!

Time not to extend and expand and 'grow' Ways of Life: time to ponder what that really means. Ecology and Metabolism demand it, species demand it, societies and cultures demand it, individuals demand it. Here, between the Animal and the Machine, it is time to consider what is Human. We are wholly a part of this environment; as it becomes, we become.

Yes, time for a change all right.

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

Nooklar power plant costs
Posted by: gerly on Mar 16, 2008 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AM also failed to mention how prohibitively costly a nuclear power plant is to construct. Each nuclear power plant costs between $3 to $5 billion just to construct with gov't subsidies, mind you. The investment can contribute about 70% of costs of electricity.

According to a report published by MIT, "estimated that new nuclear power in the US would cost 6.7 cents per kWh." By comparison, altho there is some debate, "The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal (cheap in the U.S.) at $53.10, natural gas at $52.50 and nuclear at $59.30." Not to mention, nuclear is intended for and relegated to baseload supply only.

AM also fails to include future increased costs for nuclear waste disposal, that nuclear plants require huge amounts of water to cool their process, plant decommissioning, costs to safeguard nuclear facilities and materials from sabotage, terrorism, and diversion, likelihood of major, multi-billion dollar accidents and their disrupting economic effects.

Comparatively, wind and hydro power have negligible fuel costs and relatively low maintenance costs. Again, I assert, nuclear is not the end-all solution. The world's energy requirements needs to be addressed by a veritable plethora of renewable energy technologies, whilst dated power generating practices are phased out.

In the interim while more RE systems are brought into the mix mostly for peak load considerations, conservation NEEDS to be the order of the day, like building far more fuel efficient cars, greater use of public transportation/bicycles, decreased energy consumption, tree planting, population control.

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

» Nuclear should cost less than coal Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Gerly is wrong. Actually read my posts.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 16, 2008 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Protesters drive up the cost of nuclear power.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NUCLEAR WASTE.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NUCLEAR WASTE.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NUCLEAR WASTE.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NUCLEAR WASTE.
As I said above:
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.

Nobody is paying me to post this.

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

Some resources...RE: Thank you Gerly for responing to AM.
Posted by: gerly on Mar 17, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nightgaunt, thanks for the interest. Actually, there are a number of resources out there you can source for yourself, come back 'here' and continue on with challenging AM. I actually have to get back to the 'real hard work' of developing and bringing online commercial scale hybrid RE systems. Here are a few for starters...

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) - http://my.epri.com/ - lots of good comparison data on dated and new technologies, but you'll have to drill into this site...

Sgurr Energy - a company that is actually installing hybrid RE systems http://www.sgurrenergy.com/CaseStudies/index.php

EUREC Agency - http://www.eurec.be/

Island Microgrid Design at the UCBerkeley Renewable and Appropriate Energy Lab - http://rael.berkeley.edu/node/103

Clean Power Projects - http://www.ceert.org/section_02/index.html

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

The cost of solar power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 16, 2008 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://science-community.sciam.com/
blog-entry/Dan-Ms-Blog/
Cost-Solar-Power/300005422

The Cost of Solar Power   From Dan M.'s Blog  
by Dan M.
"One source that seems good is solarbuzz.com(1)(2). From the
name, it sounds like a pro solar energy source, but the data seem
to be realistic.
From the first referenced page at this site, we see that residential
costs have dropped 6% to 37.59 cents/kwH, while
commercial/wholesale costs have dropped 0.6% between July
2000 and November 2007 to 21.37 cents/kwH. "
"For comparison purposes, the wholesale price of electricity was
0.06 cents/kwH. "

Dividing the solar cost by the wholesale grid price, we see that
solar power costs 356.2 to 626.5 times as much as electricity from
the wholesale grid. That is during the daytime. At night, the
cost of solar power is much higher because you have to add the
cost of energy storage, the cost of converting the energy to store
it, the cost of converting the energy back, and all of the
inefficiencies. You would be lucky to get 5% efficiency overall
for stored energy, so multiply by at least 20 purely because of
inefficiency. Double or multiply by some larger number the
capital cost to cover the cost of storage. Solar power is
unaffordable at night.

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

Wind energy
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 16, 2008 9:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind energy requires that Direct Current [DC] be transmitted
over enormous areas [more than one continent] to provide
continuous power because wind varies from minute to minute.
Direct current is required because the voltage and frequency of
AC would change minute by minute with wind speed. Long
distance DC transmission requires superconducting cable. DC
just doesn't go far otherwise.
Reference:
http://www.terrawatts.com: Liquid nitrogen is still required.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/69888

Following the http://www.terrawatts.com lead, you arrive at the
statement that the "high temperature" superconductor will be
cooled by liquid nitrogen. See:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?
ArticleID=942#_When_will_HTS
The need for liquid nitrogen is the achilles heal of this scheme. It
isn't really a "room" temperature superconductor. Any accidental
warming brings the grid to a halt. Energy is required to make
liquid nitrogen. Dry nitrogen must be cooled to 77 degrees
Kelvin to make it a liquid. The cable has to be thermally
insulated and cooled its entire length. The cable also must be
physically separated into "out" and "return" wires, and the force
between the 2 wires will be large. As stated in the article, it won't
be cheap.

Any warming above the superconducting temperature or too much
magnetic field will cause the cable to quit superconducting at that
point. The cable will instantly melt, creating an electric arc. All
of the energy that was flowing through that spot will instead be
dumped there, creating an explosion. The power grid will be
disabled for some time since repairing a superconducting cable is
not as easy as splicing a wire. Is this the kind of electric service
you really want? We really don't have the technology yet.

What about storing wind energy as compressed air? Check the
efficiency, the availability of leak proof caverns, etc. Storing
wind energy as compressed air is a pie in the sky. What about
storing wind energy in batteries? We can't make that many
batteries. Another pie in the sky.

Wind energy wastes energy because the wind varies so much that
a "spinning reserve" is required in most locations. If you are
running the steam powered generator at the spinning reserve rate,
you may as well use the steam as your energy source and forget
about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not sources of
energy for the grid until we have room temperature
superconductors. There are special locations and circumstances
where wind energy is useful, but wind cannot replace coal and
nuclear any time soon.

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

No more meltdowns
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 16, 2008 9:12 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.

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

Recycling nuclear fuel
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 16, 2008 9:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything, including yourself, is made of atoms. All atoms have nuclei. You
have many atomic nuclei inside yourself since you are made of atoms. The
simplest nucleus is one proton. That would be a hydrogen atom. An oxygen
atom has 8 protons and either 8, 9 or 10 neutrons in its nucleus. All other nuclei
also have neutrons. Uranium has 92 protons and either 143 or 146 neutrons. If it
has 143 neutrons it is U235. If it has 146 neutrons, it is U238. Nuclear fuel is
only 2% to 8% U235, the kind that fissions/divides, providing energy. The rest is
U238 that doesn't fission. A nuclear reaction happens when a neutron is captured
by a nucleus. If a U235 nucleus captures a neutron, the nucleus and the atom split
approximately in half and 3 more neutrons are released because the 2 smaller
nuclei don't need so many neutrons. If a U238 nucleus captures a neutron, it
ejects an electron and the neutron becomes a proton. The U238 thus becomes
Plutonium 239. Plutonium is fissionable, which means that plutonium is a good
fuel. If you add Thorium to the fuel, you can make more fissionable uranium. If
a Thorium atom nucleus captures a neutron, it ejects an electron and the neutron
becomes a proton. The Thorium atom thus becomes U233. U233 is fissionable.

Depending on the design of the reactor and the mix of the fuel, the fuel % in the
reactor can either grow or shrink. It is kind of like the fuel gauge can go either up
or down, but it is more like the reactor can run hotter or cooler over time. The
temperature is kept constant by adjusting the control rods. A breeder reactor is a
reactor designed to make the fissionable part of the fuel load grow rapidly.
Normally, fuel is left in the reactor for about 10 years, or 10% of the fuel is
replaced each year. The reprocessing step sorts out the fuel and puts the
percentage of fissionable fuel back to the starting percentage. In the process,
plutonium may be removed and either wasted or used as fuel. If we add thorium
to the fuel, we can make more uranium than we put in. Since the earth contains
more than twice as much thorium as uranium, it would be wise to make thorium
into uranium. By reprocessing nuclear fuel, we get an enormous, many centuries
long fuel supply without doing much mining. Only minute amounts of un-
enriched uranium or thorium need to be added to lower the percentage of
fissionable fuel. The products of fission are also removed when fuel is
reprocessed. These are just other ordinary atoms that are no longer useful as fuel.
The quantity is very small. We should reprocess fuel to keep the fuel load at the
correct percentage of fissionable fuel for the particular reactor design. Instead, we
go through the expensive process of making more "virgin" fuel for each new fuel
load. This greatly increases the price you pay for electricity. We are not
reprocessing nuclear fuel for political reasons.

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

Nuclear battery for heart pacemaker
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 16, 2008 9:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because it 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]

PLEASE GAMMA-RAY MY RASPBERRIES and lettuce and spinach
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 16, 2008 9:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gamma rays would kill the germs in spinach and lettuce as well as the mold in
raspberries.. The down side is that the corporations would use the gamma rays
as a panacea and leave the bird poop and deer manure on the spinach, unless
strictly regulated. Gamma rays are like the microwaves in your microwave oven
but shorter in wavelength. X-rays are in between light and gamma rays.
Nuclear "waste" is a good cheap source of gamma rays. X-rays would work, but
are needlessly expensive, requiring new tubes often and a lot of electricity.
Corporations would not replace the X-ray tubes often enough because they are
expensive.

I am so tired of all the "fresh" red raspberries in the grocery store being dark from
mold. Red raspberries are supposed to be light, bright red, not quite pink.
Neither the shoppers nor the grocers know what raspberries are supposed to look
like and taste like. They buy the moldy ones, thinking that darker means riper.
The dark ones lack the tartness and taste that raspberries are supposed to have.
Raspberries are very high priced because they spoil very quickly if not frozen.
So Please, seal the raspberries in air tight transparent containers and gamma ray
them within 1/2 hour of picking them. I picked and ate wild raspberries as a
child.

Likewise for strawberries.

A really bad taste thing happens to milk. A lot of the store-bought milk tastes of
the detergent the farmers use to wash the bulk tank. The detergent is very harsh
and intentionally toxic to kill germs. Detergent is a pseudo-estrogen. The fact
that the detergent is pseudo-estrogen means that it is a gender bender. It makes
boys into girls. All of the milk that comes in plastic bottles tastes like plastic. I
will not drink it. I have the advantage of knowing what milk is supposed to taste
like, having tasted milk that was still warm from the cow.

Your meat is also spiced with manure. The meat packers will slow down the
process line enough to keep the manure off of the meat when they are required to
hire legal workers. Instead, they steam treat the meat to kill the germs in the
manure.

[« 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 Mar 16, 2008 9:29 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]

Coal contains uranium
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 16, 2008 9:33 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]

natural background radiation has always been there
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 16, 2008 9:39 PM   
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]

Chernobyl did NOT have a nuclear explosion
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 16, 2008 9:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why a Nuclear Powerplant CAN NOT Explode like a Bomb

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

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

» Your definitions are wrong. Posted by: AsteroidMiner
time is running out
Posted by: richholland on Mar 16, 2008 10:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thougt Criminal and Astrominer are important writers on this side.
But what I miss is the well known fact that technically there is a lot of hope for the world. There are alternatives for OIL.
But at this moment they will not give the big corporations the BIG profits they want to have.
The reluctance of many americans to understand the importance of COMMUNITY over a billion dollars is comparable with the Russian communists.
They had less than te average european but still convinced their system was superior.
could Alternet not place articles with all the alternatives??

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

» RE: time is running out Posted by: richholland
Pasture for cars and trucks. Renewable energy rapes Nature
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 18, 2008 12:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from: NewScientist.com news service
http://environment.newscientist.com/
article/dn12346-renewable-
energy-could-rape-nature.html

http://www.newscientist.com/
blog/environment/2007/07/
renewable-energy-bad-
nuclear-power-good.html

Phil McKenna
Ramping up the use of renewable energy would lead to the "rape of
nature", meaning nuclear power should be developed instead.
http://www.inderscience.com/
search/index.php?action=record
&rec_id=14671&prevQuery=&
ps=10&m=or
So argues noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher
Jesse Ausubel in an opinion piece based on his and others' research.
http://www.newscientist.com/
channel/opinion/mg18925361.
500-interview-be-
green-think-big.html
Ausubel (who New Scientist interviewed in 2006) says the key renewable
energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass, would all require vast
amounts of land if developed up to large scale production – unlike nuclear
power. That land would be far better left alone, he says.
Renewables are "boutique fuels" says Ausubel, of Rockefeller University in
New York, US. "They look attractive when they are quite small. But if we
start producing renewable energy on a large scale, the fallout is going to be
horrible."
Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. "If we want
to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is increased
efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear power."
'Massive infrastructure'
Ausubel draws his conclusions by analysing the amount of energy
renewables, natural gas, and nuclear can produce in terms of power per
square metre of land used. Moreover, he claims that as renewable energy
use increases, this measure of efficiency will decrease as the best land for
wind, biomass, and solar power gets used up.
Using biofuels to obtain the same amount of energy as a 1000 megawatt
nuclear power plant would require 2500 square kilometres of prime
Midwestern farm land, Ausubel says. "We should be sparing land for
nature, not using it as pasture for cars and trucks," he adds.
Solar power is much more efficient than biofuel in terms of the area of land
used, but it would still require 150 square kilometres of photovoltaic cells
to match the energy production of the 1000 MW nuclear plant. In another
example, he says meeting the 2005 US electricity demand via wind power
alone would need 780,000 square kilometres, an area the size of Texas.
Part of the land used in Ausubel's calculations is for storage and
transportation: "Any renewable energy supply needs a massive
infrastructure, including steel, metal, pipes, cables, concrete, and access
roads."
.......... article continues............

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

Other 'barriers' to wind...
Posted by: gerly on Mar 18, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before you chortle out another purile retort, AM, while I'm at it, I think I'll address the other barriers that you're surely to raise:

Barriers
1. Wildlife. (Primarily bird kills) Reduced dramatically with design changes and now, avian audible warnings (less than 1% of highway bird kills) 2.Transmission connections. A policy and infrastructure issue.
3. Intermittent source. Less an issue than previously thought (or claimed), decreases rapidly with expanded capacity.

And nukes still haven't addressed the waste storage conundrum in over 70+ years. Time's up, AM.

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

We are such fools!
Posted by: Shenonymous on Mar 18, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has already been said by environmental scientists, not the doomsday fanatics, that it is really too late to stop the devastation global warming is doing and will do. Humans are going to die by the millions. It is the Earth’s way of righting itself. It alone has the real power. There is really nothing we can do to stop the inexorable. We ought to try, however, and perhaps stave off the inevitable until such time as we can in our “infinite wisdom” figure out what to do to save our asses either by devising some artificial environments or leaving the planet to populate and ruin another one. A pessimistic view, by all means. But humans, we, rarely face reality and the unstoppable conditions the Earth-for-humans is facing is the result. Although no one will be around to read any history books, if there were to be one, it would most likely say, “well humans once populated this planet and did themselves in, the fools thought they would ruin the Earth too, but they only succeeded in ruining themselves. Too bad.”

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