The low carbon source of the electricity has to be nuclear
to replace the base load capacity of coal. I just finished
reading "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6
order from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
Read a review of this book by the American Health Physics Society at:
http://www.comby.org/media/
articles/articles.in.english/
HealthPhysics-NUC-July2002.htm

www.ecolo.org
Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy [EFN]

Nuclear power is 30% cheaper than the coal power we have been
duped into using. We have 5000 years worth of nuclear fuel if
we recycle it rather than waste it as we do now. Nuclear is also
the safest, cleanest and cheapest form of energy available.

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

We don't have the time frame this article talks about, either for the peak oil scenario to play out or for irreversible global warming to begin.

The next president needs to declare an energy emergency. Reduce all speed limits by 20% and embark on an Apollo Program for electrification of transportation through battery electric vehicles while upgrading the grid with solar, thermal, geothermal, wind and other renewable energies.

Conservation is our cheapest form of energy. Make insulation of all buildings a prioirty by allowing loans to be put on property tax bills and repaid over time, fully deductible. New national green buiding codes with property tax penalties for McMansions. New zoning requirements for increased density and transportation mileage. Funding for infill projects that increase densities and lower energy usage. There are of course more ...

Will this happen ... ? ... I have little hope.

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

If we were in fact capable of substituting another liquid fuel for oil, the net effect would be the contraction and collapse of our modern lives in a faster and more assured manner.

Peak Oil is a symptom, not a problem. The problem is recognizing that we live in a finite world, where resources must be used with restraint and consideration. We as a society have never done so because humans are not capable of such.

And it's just not oil that is in ever more expensive and in short supply; so are water, top soil, minerals, rare and precious earth metals, uranium, natural gas, etc. We are on the precipice of running out of everything.

The problem is unrestrained, exponential population growth. There are about 6.5 billion of us today with another 3 billion projected within 30-50 years. If you think we are constrained right now, imagine what the consequences will be with a third more people vying for the same finite resources. In short, it won't be possible.

At some point we all must come to the difficult conclusion that we got it wrong, that the life we are living was never meant to be.

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

The only solution to Peak Oil is conservation. The development of alternatives will accelerate fossil fuel depletion and give us electric power, which is not what we need: liquid fuels for tractors/combines, trucks, trains, and home heating. Read all about it here: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

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

Yes, we need to conserve first and then broaden our base of zero-carbon electricity generating systems, but (no) nuclear energy does not belong in that package. There is a large, hidden carbon and pollution backdrop to the apparently clean process of boiling water with nuclear fission. The best writing on this topic I've found is: "The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy", available as a PDF file here:

www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear

Here is one of the reviews for the document:

"The most telling argument for nuclear power is that, if it can be a major source of energy which does not contribute to climate change, it is worth putting up with the pollution, waste and risk. In this careful and very readable analysis, David Fleming demolishes that argument."
~ Edward Goldsmith, Founder, The Ecologist Magazine

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

1.The equation that ‘practical’ energy is necessarily from Nuclear or Oil or Coal is just not a reasonable examination of the facts

2. Wealth is intimately tied up to (a) cheap energy) (b) affordable money/ credit

3. Alternative energy sources can be extremely CHEAP, if you employ enough SCALE

4. Current elites, particularly the extractive industries and PARTICULARLY the Oil industry, are the greatest bunch of ignoble, greedy, exploitative, dishonest shits that we as a species have ever had to deal with. Closely followed by the banks and the rest of ‘Big’ industry. The Nazis are almost likeable by comparison to the Cheney- Bush – Roves of today.

5. To examine ‘do-ability’ of energy; for a NUCLEAR powerplant of 1000 Megawatt size, at 8760 Hours per annum, OutPut kW/Hr Annual = 8,760,000 MegaWatt/Hrs At 75% Efficiency, (Grid inefficiencies Incl) and at $0.15 per unit (Retail), gives $985,500,000 Revenue (1 Unit of electricity = 1 kW/Hour)

HOWEVER: Solar, at a suitably large scale, 12.25 km x 12.25 km, in (most of) USA will give 150,001,256,250 Units of energy, At 15% efficiency (Photovoltaics are 13.5% and improving, expected to be at 20% efficiency within a couple of years) translates TO: 150,001,256,250 units, and at $0.15 per unit (Retail), gives $3,375,028,266 Revenue

The Difference is a factor of 3.4, PVs at the size indicated, give 3.4 TIMES more energy, and 3.4 times more revenue.

Thermal Solar is much higher efficiency, (initially 93%) but heat, while useful locally, is not as readily transmissable as electricity. Hence the comparison.

PLEASE ALL, Read Richard Smalley, "The Terrawatt Challenge" for interesting answers (Short pdf paper, just google it)

Now on the subject of conversion of existing Coal, Gas, Oil & Nuclear plants, yes I agree that coal is a terrible fuel, when simply burnt (though it might be a feedstock for a near future of synthetic diesel production)

BUT since all these generating stations essentially heat water from ambient temperature, to 100 Celsius, (steam) and then Superheat to ~500 Celsius, to power steam turbines, and considering that water takes a great deal of energy to heat from 20 to 100 Celsius, and a much smaller amount of energy to then top it up to superheat, then the implications and possibilities of FREE Solar heat become apparent.

So, consider pre-heating your water with thermal solar panels [Say 100 metres x 100 metres, 1 Hectare, ~ 2.4 Acres] This will give 10 MegaWatts for about 8 hours of most of your summer OR averaged across the year, 8-10 MegaWatt/Hours per annum. (Taking Solar Insolation as ~ 1 KW/hr per sq metre, per annum)

That is a lot of energy, for FREE (After you pay off the infrastructure costs, ($3,000,000 or Less?) for this 2.4 Acres of solar collection]

The next part of the trick has to be to design machines to process that 100 degrees Celsius heat to get it easily to say 450 degrees Celsius. So far, 150 Celsius is relatively easy.

Stop getting depressed; Start getting ACTIVE; intellectually bludgeon the careless Right (which is to say most of them) with the force of polite and effective FACTS; as somebody once said 'Don't let the bastards get you down!'


FACT: Solar power does NOT work at night

Did you forget about darkness at night?
How are you going to store this electricity?
How much money are you going to invest, total?

The sun's energy works constantly on this planet's disc.

The figures offered were "per annum", i.e. including the times of darkness.

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

HOWEVER: Solar, at a suitably large scale, 12.25 km x 12.25 km, in (most of) USA will give 150,001,256,250 Units of energy, At 15% efficiency (Photovoltaics are 13.5% and improving, expected to be at 20% efficiency within a couple of years) translates TO: 150,001,256,250 units, and at $0.15 per unit (Retail), gives $3,375,028,266 Revenue

The Difference is a factor of 3.4, PVs at the size indicated, give 3.4 TIMES more energy, and 3.4 times more revenue.

Thermal Solar is much higher efficiency, (initially 93%) but heat, while useful locally, is not as readily transmissable as electricity. Hence the comparison.

PLEASE ALL, Read Richard Smalley, "The Terrawatt Challenge" for interesting answers (Short pdf paper, just google it)

On 150 sq km of desert, (150 million sq metres) you would get, in say, Mojave, 35,000,000,000 kW/Hrs; of PV output, nett, electricity ready to use (at only 15% conversion efficiency),
where I live, in Ireland, ~11,812,000,000 kW/Hrs per annum

The same 15 sq km using the energy as heat, ~200,000,000,000 kW/Hrs,
In Ireland ~ 73,238,000,000 kW/Hrs (at 93% efficiency)

The cost of plant is chiefly the cost of these solar machines, per sq metre. I suggest that a reasonable cost for a project this size, is $300 per sq metre, photo-voltaic, therefore $45 Billion

By comparison, the cost of solar thermal, vacuum heat pipes, is $200 per sq metre, therefore $30 Billion to construct

The energy storage issue is I think best dealt with as heat, at these quantities, and with our present level of technology.

Heat storage and losses therefrom obey a 'Cube- Square Law' of performance; the larger the tank, the lower the potential losses, as a percentage of the quantity stored. So a small tank might lose energy at 50% per 24 hours, but a VERY big tank might lose at a rate of less than .00000005% per 24 hour

Solar Heat gives a unit (kW/Hr) cost of ~ $0.03 (i.e. 3 cents)
Solar PV gives a unit (kW/Hr) cost of ~ $0.29 (i.e. 29 cents)

These are based on the construction costs offered, Plus 50% for bank interest, then divided by 20 for a yearly cost, this new per annum cost divided by quantity of energy collected (output)

All very do-able, and cheaper than nuclear, with a greater degree of security (in every sense), and with a greater beneficial effect on economies which engage in this. Check it out.

Just google "terawatt challenge"
the URL is: http://cohesion.rice.edu/NaturalSciences/Smalley/
emplibrary/120204%20MRS%20Boston.pdf
and re-join the url

STORING THE HEAT

I suggest that the cheapest is also probably the best. Pure water, at capacity of 65 kW/Hrs per cubic metre (1 Tonne, 1000kgs)

I plan on a test model at home of about 300 cubic metres (underground tank) The storage capacity is therefore (un-pressurised) ~19,500 kW/Hrs. At our energy cost this is only worth about $4,000, so the economics don't quite work for this small scale, BUT it is a start. This to be fed with ~50 sq metres of solar thermal collection (vacuum tube type)

SCALE is all important, especially in the reduction of percentage heat losses. The figures change for the better the larger you go. (Cube- Square rule of performance versus cost)

Other storage materials (e.g. liquid sodium) store more energy, but are expensive, corrosive and difficult to implement. Regrettably, none of these concepts are patentable, so no riches there, but anybody who gets their ass in gear EARLY can probably do very nicely, financially.

Let me add, that while my energy concerns are chiefly with acquiring heat, for washing, ambient comfort, etc., that those in warmer climates can use the same heat energy to air-condition the house. Paradoxical, but true

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

With regards to solving the fuel efficiency quest we will need devoted leadership and lots of support from the technology sector. There already exists specific well designed technology that is being succesfully used right now. The cost effectiveness at $0.03 per treated gallon can't be matched at this time by any other solutions. It is environmentally benign (food grade) and comes with significant emission reductions as well. Polyisobutylene (PIB) acts at the combustion level, therefore there is no add on expensive capturing devices or need to tune the engines. If every gallon of diesel fuel was treated with PIB tomorrow there would be an immediate fuel consumption improvement of at least 10% and our air would improve dramatically. This is NOT a technology being developed.......it can be purchased today. Does it work? I use it everyday with great improvement in performance, fuel reduction and emission reduction.
A ton of studies have been conducted and a great place to start a review is visconUSA.

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

Check out Gaviotas, a small village- community in in a desert part of Colombia, who have been experimenting on sustainability for years


It makes absolutely no sense to move to nuclear power. Start with conservation, wind and solar, allow the economies of scale to take over, and let the revolution of distributed renewable sources in a green world take over!

As regards nuclear, that it is or is not an appropriate technical response to our energy problems is a VERY moot point.

Nuclear has a (small, scientific research, running down existing facilities)) place in the future world; it is a bit unlikely to be the mainstream. Look at, check out, examine critically: SOLAR.

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

Just the other day, I read that Israel has begun negotiations with an electric vehicle builder to provide an integrated network of charging stations throughout the country.

I do not recall the time frame for the proposal, but the little bit I read seemed to indicate that it was a done deal. Part of the plan includes a huge solar field in the desert for electrical energy.

I find it hard to imagine that in such a fragile political climate an equally fragile technology is being installed. But if Israel, sitting on the borders of huge oil resources, opts for electric cars, they may be harbingers of what we all should do.

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

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]

Storing heat in water doesn't work for electricity.

We were talking about providing BASE LOAD ELECTRICITY.
Heating your house is irrelevant and a distraction. STICK TO
THE SUBJECT. The subject is providing ELECTRICITY at all
times at constant voltage and per demand. You have not
answered the question. To make electricity from the heat, you
have to boil water. Actually, we wanted steam at high pressure
and temperature. Hot water cannot boil water. Steam is NOT a
storage medium. You have failed to prove your case.

NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY CURRENT
REPLACEMENT FOR COAL FOR BASE LOAD POWER
THAT WORKS EVERYWHERE.

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

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]

"[T]he peak oil problem will not 'destroy suburbia' or the American way of life."

Too bad, because that lifestyle is totally environmentally and ecologically destructive, even without greenhouse gas emissions, and needs to be destroyed in order to save the Earth. People who live by the U.S. model need to greatly simplify their lives and live near work, shopping, and school, because even roads without vehicles are ecologically destructive. Transportation by private motor vehicle must be eliminated and changed to walking, biking, and public transit.

The "two primary solutions to peak oil" touted by the author -- "fuel efficiency and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles run on zero-carbon electricity" -- are not solutions to anything but the myopic supposed problem of oil prices and human transportation issues, and will only create more environmental harm by encouraging humans to keep driving and even to drive more. This is the opposite of what's needed.

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

Viewpoint: German nuclear phase-out
Outgoing German environment minister Jurgen Trittin
Mr Trittin: "Renewable energies are essential"
Outgoing German environment minister Jurgen Trittin played a key role in the country's decision to shut down all its nuclear reactors by 2020.

Although the new Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party wanted to extend the closure deadline, outgoing Chancellor's Gerhard Schroeder's SPD party have retained the environment ministry in coalition negotiations and say they do not intend to review the policy.

As Britain gears up for a debate on the future of its nuclear industry, Mr Trittin, a member of Germany's Green Party, explains to the BBC News website why he believes his country should consign atomic energy to the past.

Wind turbines in Germany
Germany has invested heavily in renewable energy
We want to follow a path towards a sustainable energy supply, for the protection of the global climate, the conservation of finite resources and for the sake of future generations.

We want to make even greater energy savings, increase energy efficiency even further and expand the use of renewable energies. In Germany this is known as the 'Energiewende' - the transformation of our energy system.

'No wiser'

Nuclear power is not needed to achieve this. Quite the contrary: technically speaking, this base-load relic of the past is standing in the way of flexible and intelligent electricity production.


In contrast to Germany, Finland has commissioned Europe's first new reactor in a decade. MP Mikko Elo supports the decision.

Viewpoint: Finland's new reactor
The safety risks associated with nuclear power have in no way decreased in recent years - in particular with regard to the threat of terrorism, they have in fact increased dramatically.

And as far as the long-term management of radioactive wastes is concerned, we are fundamentally no wiser than we were 30 years ago.

The use of nuclear power is and will remain a global risk, especially for future generations.

Who can today presume to say, or even begin to imagine, what the world will be like in 24,000 years?

This is the half-life period of plutonium-239, which is generated in huge volumes during nuclear fission.

However, what we do know today is that 24,000 years ago Olkiluoto [where Finland is building a new reactor], for example, was buried under around 3,000m of ice.


GERMANY'S ELECTRICITY GENERATION
48.9% - coal and lignite
27.5% - nuclear
10.2% - natural gas
4.5% hydro
4.1% - wind
1.6% - oil and diesel
3.2% - other (solar, biomass, waste)
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt
In contrast, renewable energies are essential to solving pressing issues for the future.

With the further rapid expansion of wind and hydropower, solar power, the use of biomass and geothermal power - we can create an alternative to a nuclear and fossil fuel energy supply in a step-by-step process.

Progress on renewables

We have already made good progress. In 2004, 9.8% of electricity in Germany came from renewable sources.

Ten years ago, the figure was not even half this. And this trend is set to continue. Our goal in Germany is to provide at least 20% of electricity from renewable energies in the year 2020.

And by the middle of the century, we want to cover about 50% of our total energy consumption with renewable sources.

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

[& with acknowledgements to the BBC

Biblis nuclear power station, Germany
The last nuclear power station is scheduled to close in 2020
The expansion of renewable energies is ecologically beneficial and economically viable. In Germany, a strong and rapidly growing sector has developed around renewables.

Today, renewables contribute over 6% of the total energy consumption - a figure that will increase - while the 5.7% share of nuclear power lies below this and continues to decrease.

Revenues totalled around 11.6 billion euros (£7.9bn) in 2004 - for both the setting up and the operation of installations. That is more than in the pharmaceutical industry, for example.

This is creating jobs. There are already around 150,000 jobs in the renewables sector.

New opportunities are opening up - not only for solar engineers and steel workers for the construction of wind power plants, but also indirectly in delivery companies, commercial agencies, advertising, planning offices, in the financial services sector and in research and development.

And in contrast to jobs in the fossil fuels energy supply sector, jobs in the renewables sector have the great advantage of being based on innovation, supply security and ecological compatibility.

Renewables energies create future-oriented jobs.

Cleaner air

Renewables protect the environment. The use of these energies enabled a saving of around 70 million tonnes of CO2 in Germany last year.

This is much more than the Kyoto commitments of many countries. And they are also helping to keep the air in Germany clean.

Less combustion of fossil fuels also means a reduction in the emission of air pollutants that contribute to acidification and eutrophication and that damage human health.

Surveys show that both the increased use of renewable energies and the phase-out of nuclear power are supported by a broad majority of the population.

All this shows that we are on the right track with the expansion of renewables. We will reach our Kyoto targets without having to become further entangled in the risks and burdens of nuclear power.

We are convinced that Germany has chosen the right energy policy path.

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

Oil, it's price, and the Energy Matrix

Most of the postings have been about the benefits, or otherwise, of Nuclear Power. Which is fair enough

I suggest that the immediate future should include
(1) Conserve. In the vehicle & in the home. Forget about gas oil. Plan on Diesel, for the immediate.

(2) Implement conversion policies to electric propulsion.Initially batteries, tax policies/ incentives.

(3) Massively improve public transport (See Curitiba, Brazil). Road tax private cars, after an initial 'free' usage amount (weighted in favor of rural dwellers)

(4) Forget about Hydrogen for propulsion. It's too valuable for other purposes, and too expensive for vehicles, except in a relevant environment (like space) Fuel Cells will not do it.

(5) Plan on travelling slower. If you reduce your energy demand on the engine, the figures can improve tremendously. e.g. It takes as little as 1.5 K/Watt (~1.9 HP) to propel your automobile at a constant 20 mph; 38 k/Watts (~46 HP) to propel the same vehicle at a constant 80 mph [on the flat, having arrived at that constant speed]

(6) Plan on a near future of Solar Thermal. Look at energy in the round. Whatever happened to the Enginion company? (Berlin) Who killed Cock Robin?

(7) The price of oil is, in significant part, a stitch up, where market sentiment is manipulated
Quantity of oil in a Barrel is 40 US Gal, approx 160 liters. The Daimler-Benz people and the Honda people, and I suppose, others have successfully made synthetic diesel (calling it 'Sun-Diesel') from scrap cellulose (no food implications, grass cuttings, wood clippings, etc.) They have made it in a process which has some relationship to the old Haber-Bosch process of the early part of the previous century. They 'crack' the product under intense pressure.

The price per liter, is ~ 95 cent, US.
The consequence should be obvious. Oil cannot go higher than about $150 - $160 per barrel, because you can MAKE IT for that price (Carbon Neutral) and if you were using sensible vehicles, sparingly, that would be affordable

Within 30 years we will not be using internal combustion engines (spawn of the devil), except perhaps in agriculture, where the compact and portable energy profile will, I think, have it's use.

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

Courtesy Wikipedia:

Oil barrel: 42 US gallons, 158.9873 litres,[1] or 34.9723 Imperial (UK) gallons.

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

Sorry, squarehead, you can't convince the big oil companies
to do it your way without a law. And your way requires at least
the same energy input as any other syncrude.

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

This optimistic article starts with the totally false premise of "optimistically assuming we have a decade before peak". His timelines for the proposed solutions thus assume we have another ten years or so before the problem becomes totally critical and irreversible.

The actual fact is that we hit the peak of world oil production in 2005. Check it out. World oil production has decreased in 2006 over 2005, and again decreased in 2007. Major oil fields, like Cantrell in Mexico, are in drastic decline. OPEC pretends that it isn't producing more oil due to political considerations, but the truth is more likely they simply can't.

Game's over, folks.

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

Renewable energy could 'rape' nature
11:10 25 July 2007
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."

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

By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted November 10, 2007.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/67478/

"If the governments promoting biofuels do not reverse their
policies, the humanitarian impact will be greater than that
of the Iraq war. "


The price of food has already gone up in the US because
of biofuel. The shelf is bare at the food pantries.
Americans are going hungry already.

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

whether he knows it or not, by granting coal a reprieve while we
explore another blind alley. We would need 2 or 3 more Earths
to grow enough Biofuel. If we had 2 or 3 more Earths, we
wouldn't be in trouble yet. Clamoring for Biofuel, solar power
and wind power is just noise that the coal industry needs to
distract everybody from the necessity to shut down the coal
industry NOW. Squarehead, go to college. It is very obvious
that you do not have a degree in engineering or science of any
kind. Everybody: Get a degree in engineering or science if you
don't already have one. At least take the Engineering and Science
Core Curriculum. You need the training to get the understanding
you need to make intelligent decisions as a voter. Without the
education, you will continue to give aid and comfort to the enemy,
King Coal.

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

All the discussion regarding possible "replacements" for oil and gas as fuels are totally irrelevant since we will be forced to radically change our way of life in the near future, long before any "renewable" energy can replace what we now use. The simple reason is that because of world population increase and its attendant demand on resources, no amount of "alternative" energy will be able to meet the increasing world demand. No matter how many people switch to Prius cars or solar rooftops, the developing world's demand for energy will crush any significant reductions in world energy consumption. How many compact fluorescent light bulbs does it take to offset the five coal burning power plants that the Chinese put on line each week? Instead of some "miracle" of technology coming to the rescue of our lifestyle, everyday existence will change dramatically for the world's inhabitants, particularly those accustomed to living the "developed" world's "good life." These changes need not be catastrophic, though they most probably will owing to the simplistic mindset of the human being, not to mention the lack of vision exhibited by their leaders. It appears that food and water will become increasingly more important than oil and electricity in the very near future. Should make for some interesting times, eh?

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

X: In fact, the 9/11 Commission found that Al
Quaeda at one point considered crashing two planes into two
nuclear facilities as part of its original plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The containment building walls, ceiling & floor are a yard thick of
heavily reinforced concrete. Inside that, the core has a
thick stainless steel shell. Inside that, the fuel rods [tubes]
contain fuel pellets. Putting a hole in the containment building
does NOT make a radiation leak. The containment building is a
pressure vessel.

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

Why a Nuclear Powerplant CAN NOT Explode like a Nuclear
Bomb

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]

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]

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]

Why terrorists can't rob radioactive materials from nuclear
reactors

Suppose a gang of terrorists tries to do a bank robbery type of
operation against a nuclear reactor. What problems do they
encounter that they wouldn't when robbing a bank?
1. There is no nuclear fuel within reach of any human.
2. The fuel is inside a containment building that is harder to
penetrate than a bank vault.
3. The fuel is inside a machine that was not made for human
access. 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]

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]

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]

Environmental policy = energy policy
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.

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 1.3 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 have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

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

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]

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.

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

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]

It is exhausting constantly re-visiting the science, to dis-prove your posts. Do you read or think about what others have written?

You realize we are only talking to each other? Everybody else has gone to bed, or the bar, or ANYWHERE. You must have made 50% of the posts here, but too much of copy & paste

"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."

150 Square Km IS 12.5 km X 12.5 Km

I covered in an earlier post that EVEN in photovoltaics, at 14% efficiency, you get 3.7 TIMES the output disscussed (1000 MegaWatts)

AGAIN:

HOWEVER: Solar, at a suitably large scale, 12.25 km x 12.25 km, in (most of) USA will give 150,001,256,250 Units of energy, At 15% efficiency (Photovoltaics are 13.5% and improving, expected to be at 20% efficiency within a couple of years) translates TO: 150,001,256,250 units, and at $0.15 per unit (Retail), gives $3,375,028,266 Revenue

The Difference is a factor of 3.4, PVs at the size indicated, give 3.4 TIMES more energy, and 3.4 times more revenue.

Thermal Solar is much higher efficiency, (initially 93%) but heat, while useful locally, is not as readily transmissable as electricity. Hence the comparison.

PLEASE ALL, Read Richard Smalley, "The Terrawatt Challenge" for interesting answers (Short pdf paper, just google it)

On 150 sq km of desert, (150 million sq metres) you would get, in say, Mojave, 35,000,000,000 kW/Hrs; of PV output, nett, electricity ready to use (at only 15% conversion efficiency),
where I live, in Ireland, ~11,812,000,000 kW/Hrs per annum

The same 15 sq km using the energy as heat, ~200,000,000,000 kW/Hrs,
In Ireland ~ 73,238,000,000 kW/Hrs (at 93% efficiency)

The cost of plant is chiefly the cost of these solar machines, per sq metre. I suggest that a reasonable cost for a project this size, is $300 per sq metre, photo-voltaic, therefore $45 Billion

By comparison, the cost of solar thermal, vacuum heat pipes, is $200 per sq metre, therefore $30 Billion to construct

If your source, now identified as Jesse Asubel, cannot cover this basic stuff, it reflects rather badly on his credentials. To qoute further from the New scientist article involved:
" takes away from the focus and value of the debate," says John Turner of the US government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Turner says that even if the US got all of its power from solar energy, it would still need less than half the amount of land that has been paved over for highways. Further, it need not take up additional land. “We could get a quarter of our energy just from covering rooftops of existing buildings,” he says.

The same "dual use" also applies to wind power. "The footprint for wind is only 5% of the land that it covers," says Turner. "Farmers can still farm the land that the turbines are on."

Turner says looking solely at land use is an oversimplification of the issue. "I’m not sure I’d want to build one of these nuclear plants in Afghanistan, but we could certainly put in wind and solar power," he adds."

I would go with NREL as being a very legit source. Solid work, Solid Science, freely available.

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

The third choice is the only choice.

In order to dramatically and permanently reduce greenhouse gases the world must be united under one non profit simplified and standardized governing system. That means eliminating all the jobs that can be automated or eliminated like the private banks, stock markets, salesman, advertisers, soldiers, military weapons manufacturers and possession lawyers. Stay home you do less damage and when you come to work do only good things that need to be done keep the environmenmt friendly and prosperous.

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