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

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


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Technology That Will Save Us from Runaway Climate Change

By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted December 12, 2007.


All the talk in Bali about cutting carbon means nothing while ever more oil and coal are being extracted and burned.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by George Monbiot

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Ladies and gentlemen, I have the answer! Incredible as it might seem, I have stumbled across the single technology which will save us from runaway climate change! From the goodness of my heart, I offer it to you for free. No patents, no small print, no hidden clauses. Already this technology, a radical new kind of carbon capture and storage, is causing a stir among scientists. It is cheap, it is efficient and it can be deployed straight away. It is called ... leaving fossil fuels in the ground.

On a filthy day last week, as governments gathered in Bali to prevaricate about climate change, a group of us tried to put this policy into effect. We swarmed into the opencast coal mine being dug at Ffos-y-fran in South Wales and occupied the excavators, shutting down the works for the day. We were motivated by a fact which the wise heads in Bali have somehow missed: if fossil fuels are extracted, they will be used.

Most of the governments of the rich world now exhort their citizens to use less carbon. They encourage us to change our lightbulbs, insulate our lofts, turn our televisions off at the wall. In other words, they have a demand-side policy for tackling climate change. But as far as I can determine, not one of them has a supply-side policy. None seeks to reduce the supply of fossil fuel. So the demand-side policy will fail. Every barrel of oil and tonne of coal that comes to the surface will be burned.

Or perhaps I should say that they do have a supply-side policy: to extract as much as they can. Since 2000, the UK government has given coal firms £220m to help them open new mines or to keep existing mines working. According to the energy white paper, the government intends to "maximise economic recovery ... from remaining coal reserves".

The pit at Ffos-y-fran received planning permission after two ministers in the Westminster government jumped up and down on Rhodri Morgan, the first minister of the Welsh assembly. Stephen Timms at the department of trade and industry listed the benefits of the scheme and demanded that the application "is resolved with the minimum of further delay". His successor, Mike O'Brien, warned of dire consequences if the pit was not granted permission. The coal extracted from Ffos-y-fran alone will produce 29.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide: equivalent, according to the latest figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to the sustainable emissions of 55 million people for one year.

Last year British planning authorities considered 12 new applications for opencast coal mines. They approved all but two of them. Two weeks ago, Hazel Blears, the secretary of state in charge of planning, overruled Northumberland county council to grant permission for an opencast mine at Shotton, on the grounds that the scheme - which will produce 9.3m tonnes of CO2 - is "environmentally acceptable".

The British government also has a policy of "maximising the UK's existing oil and gas reserves". To promote new production, it has granted companies a 90 percent discount on the licence fees they pay for prospecting the continental shelf. It hopes the prospecting companies will open a new frontier in the seas to the west of the Shetland Isles. The government also has two schemes for "forcing unworked blocks back into play". If oil companies don't use their licences to the full, it revokes them and hands them to someone else. In other words, it is prepared to be ruthlessly interventionist when promoting climate change, but not when preventing it: no minister talks of "forcing" companies to reduce their emissions. Ministers hope the industry will extract up to 28bn barrels of oil and gas from the continental shelf.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: carbon capture, fossil fuels, bali, global warming, climate change

George Monbiot is the author Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

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


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You want a technology for carbon capture?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Dec 12, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Replant the trees we have cut down worldwide, not as "sustainable harvest" tree farms (which aren't sustainable), but as preserves... REAL preserves, not the kind that get looted by the timber industry.

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

This is true
Posted by: phaedrus2u on Dec 12, 2007 11:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for your voice George; here in this article and in your other texts and actions. The correlatable and causal phenomenon related to global warming is C02 emissions. To stop global warming we must stop emitting. If we are going to stop emitting, we must stop extracting and combusting carbon fuels. How easy - yet so hard.

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

» RE: This is true Posted by: Knot_Rich
"Letting be" is not a technological solution.
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 14, 2007 12:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I assume the reference to shutting down the coal mine as a "technology" was the famous British tongue-in-cheek. Still, it is part of our problem that we are largely unaware or not interested in non-technological approaches.

Thank you for pointing out that when oil runs out, we will burn and/or process coal and resume the expansion of nuclear energy. We would rather live sick than not live at all.

Your British scientist Lovelock of Gaia fame predicts that the Earth's human population will fall from the current 6+ billion and growing to one-half billion by the end of this century. (See Rollingstone Magazine, 10-17-07.) That's proportionally equivalent to what happened to the people on Easter Island when they burned up the last of their fuel resources.

Learning from human history requires more than the technology of a school system. It requires courageous teachers. We have such but they are a pitiful minority, because character has nothing to do with technology.

I am starting to hate the fact that I am beginning to accept Lovelock's predictions as most likely. If the options are technology or courage, we will choose the system.

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

The only replacement for coal is nuclear
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 14, 2007 2:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please read this book: "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
Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy [EFN]

Fossil fuels such as coal oil, and gas, massively pollute the Earth's atmosphere
(CO, CO2, SOX, NOX...), provoking acid rains and changing the global climate
by increasing the greenhouse effect, while nuclear energy does not participate in
these pollutions and presents well-founded environmental benefits.

Renewable energies (solar, wind) not being able to deliver the amount of energy
required by populations in developing and developed countries, nuclear energy is
in fact the only clean and safe energy available to protect the planet during the XXI
st century.

This book answers essential questions about nuclear safety, the Chernobyl
accident, the public health problems our society has to face, viable solutions for
nuclear waste, the benefits of clean nuclear energy for the environment, and
important information about the future of our planet.


Book Review by the American Health Physics Society:

"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

www.ecolo.org

Reproduced from the journal "Health Physics" with permission from the Health
Physics Society.
Subject book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
AT A TIME when most of the media and politicians seem to be brainwashed by
antinuclear cults, it is refreshing to encounter a book that presents the issues
regarding nuclear energy in a clear and dispassionate manner. In plain non-
technical language, the author, a French environmentalist trained as a nuclear
engineer, presents a primer, in large letters, of the essential facts regarding all the
major areas of controversy about nuclear power.

The first half of the book, titled "The Atomic Paradox," describes in layman's
language the risks of nuclear power, its environmental impact, quality and safety
standards, waste management, why a power reactor is not a bomb, energy
alternatives, nuclear weapons, and other major global and environmental problems.
In each case the major conclusions are framed for greater emphasis. Although
examples are taken from the French nuclear power program, the conclusions are
equally valid elsewhere.

The second half of the book is titled "Information on Nuclear Energy and the
Environment" and briefly provides a historical survey, an explanation of the
different types of radiation, radioactivity, dose effects of radiation, Chernobyl,
medical uses of radiation, accident precautions, as well as a glossary of terms and
abbreviations and a bibliography (…)

Its simple language makes the book suitable as a primer for high-school classes,
teacher training courses, or environmental discussion groups.

Despite the slightly provocative title, it is a well-balanced if unapologetic
exposition of the competitive advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy as a
power source. It should appeal to all readers with an interest in the subject who
have not already closed their minds.

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

Book Review by the American Health Physics Society continued
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 14, 2007 2:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
Table of Contents
Preface of the English edition by James Lovelock
INTRODUCTION
An environmentalist For Nuclear energy

PART I :

THE ATOMIC PARADOX

CHAPTER 1: Nuclear energy: it's cleaner than you think.

CHAPTER 2: A well-designed nuclear power plant has little effect on the
environment.

CHAPTER 3: The risk of accident is reduced by strict quality and safety standards.

CHAPTER 4: Safe management of nuclear waste.

CHAPTER 5: A nuclear power station is not an atomic bomb.

CHAPTER 6: Managing the planet's energy as best we can.

CHAPTER 7: The economic and strategic advantages of nuclear energy.

CHAPTER 8: The real environmental issues lie elsewhere: starvation, malnutrition,
political unrest in third world countries, drugs, alcohol and cigarette addictions,
destruction of tropical forests, chemical pollution of the environment, urban
wastes, overpopulation…

CHAPTER 9: The example of France, the world's leader in nuclear energy.

CHAPTER 10: Nuclear fusion: an almost unlimited supply of clean energy for the
future?

CHAPTER 11: No to nuclear war: for an end to nuclear weapons and the specter
of nuclear war.

CHAPTER 12: The environmentally friendly solution to transportation problems:
electric vehicles.

CHAPTER 13: Modern, efficient, and intelligent environmental program: pro-
nuclear green movements for tomorrow.

CHAPTER 14: Errors to avoid.

CHAPTER 15: For better information - and against disinformation.


Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy PART II:

IN FAVOR OF BETTER PUBLIC INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR ENERGY

Principal dates in the history of nuclear power. What is an atom? The principle of
nuclear fission. The principle of nuclear fusion. What is radioactivity? What is
radiation? How we can protect ourselves from radioactivity and radiation.
Different types of radiation. The difference between irradiation and radioactive
contamination. The natural disintegration of uranium 235 to lead. The natural
disintegration of uranium 238 to lead. Units of measurement of radioactivity and
irradiation. How do we measure radioactivity? Permitted and lethal doses of
irradiation. The effects of intense irradiation on the human body. Authorized limits
for human irradiation. A few examples of received doses. Natural radioactivity is
considerably different from region to region. Average natural irradiation by region
in France. The Chernobyl accident. International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) -
classification of nuclear accidents and incidents. Irradiation resulting from the
Chernobyl accident. The medical use of radiation. Doses of radiation delivered
during some medical radioisotopic examinations. Comparison of the effect of
nuclear arms, of nuclear medicine and of the nuclear power industry. How a
nuclear power plant operates. Diagram of a PWR nuclear power unit. Nuclear fuel.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. How to prevent accidents in a modern nuclear
power plant. Three successive confinement barriers isolate nuclear fuel from the
environment. Countries possessing nuclear arms and the problem of their
proliferation. The half-life of some radioactive substances. The irradiation of food
products. Authorized food irradiation table. What to do in case of a nearby nuclear
accident war (or atomic bomb explosion).

Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. http://www.ecolo.org/

http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseus.htm

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

A better-yet technology
Posted by: socialpsych on Dec 14, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is birth control.

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

» RE: Indeed! Posted by: boydranchitos
Nobody's heard of energy from the vacuum?
Posted by: rockpicker on Dec 14, 2007 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom Bearden and his group have built and demonstrated the motionless electrical generator.

Kanzius and Moray are dissociating salt water and producing much more energy in Btu's than they are putting in.

There are videos and papers on the subject.

Go here to find out more.

http://freeenergynews.com/

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

» Free? Posted by: Ignatz deFyre
» RE: Free? Posted by: rockpicker
» Thanks for that link rocky. Posted by: Centavo
And then what?
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 14, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, much as I am disgusted with the “right”, the Left also has plenty of faults. Let us not forget that it was they who allowed Big Oil/Coal/Nuclear to get its way 70 years ago when they approved of the allowing the vested business interests to use the “drug war” to outlaw Cannabis which could have and still can save us from dependence on fossil fuels. And if you don’t believe that hemp doesn’t replace petroleum, doesn’t deplete the land, and doesn’t contribute to global warming and other environmental degradations, take a look at this article for a change instead of LOSERboit’s goofy bullshit:

http://www.freelabs.com/~whitis/politics/hemp/

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

» RE: And then what? Posted by: Azraelsjudgement
I've got one word for you
Posted by: Rune on Dec 14, 2007 3:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CONSERVATION

Not only is it the only technological approach that can scale up in a hurry using existing know-how today (it's realistic to reduce energy use by at least 5% per year without unwelcome inconvenience), it can largely pay for itself over time (especially if damage to the environment is factored into energy costs), in many applications it results in additional health and comfort benefits, and it fits nicely with Monbiot's prescription for leaving dirty energy stocks in the ground.

Just one problem. It doesn't make money hand over fist for large investors in the short term. Instead, it requires the investment in highly skilled labor to identify and implement energy saving opportunities. And, with a business class that has grown up believing that the best way to enrich one's self is to engage global labor into a race to the bottom of wages and conditions, investing in lots of training of well paid people instead of ever cheaper machines and new sources of energy to run them just doesn't get a lot of attention.

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

The trick is "burn as little as possible"
Posted by: saltoafronteira on Dec 14, 2007 4:01 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no revolutionary way to change such things as human habits. You cant switch everything from night to morning.In my opinion the issue here is, simply, what kind of transitory energetic solutions will be possible to choose in the next 50 years or so to keep our energy spending standarts, while nuclear fusion is not yet operational, allowing us, simultaneously, to keep our standart civilization, and the survival of the eco-sistem, till then.
That may be an apparent contradiction, but the fact is that our so called developed societies haven't, nowadays, moral might, or animical force, to allow cuts on its wellfare, at least without the use of force, and the governments are well aware of it. So, that's the reality we have to cope with.
Besides that, countries like India or China, will not accept being deprived or their development opportunities, that imply the fossile energy use, at least by now. So, the question here is not how to simply cut, in one day, the using of fossile energy in a gigantic switch, but how to manage a quick transition without imposing fascist measures. I'm obviously thinking in a basis of a good faith process (wich is not the case of many states in Bali, specially the Anglo-Saxon informal alliance, along with others such as russia), and not counting with lobbying. However, it is important to know where we stand, what is the starting point, as to say.
And the starting point here is trying to implement the use of the so called transition energies that may gradually substitute oil and, of course, coal. But, be real, if we could reduce it, let's say, by 50% percent in the next 20 years, it would be an enormous victory. Another victory would be to convince the new economical powers to design new models of energy consuming before they go to far into building structures based on oil and coal, gaining a technological supremacy in the process. Alas, I fear it is impossible to simply cut down the oil and coal options overnight. The solution, will be a technological race towards efficiency and profitable use of clean energies and, of course, a serious compromise to be fair and help its development by tax reducing benefits and other.

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

Monbiot's rule is simple.
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 14, 2007 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It points clearly to where a crime against humanity and the earth is being committed -- whenever more carbon is taken from deep in the ground, almost all of it ends up as carbon dioxide. There's a value in simplicity.

That said, the rule isn't enough. It's always a crime against everyone's great-grandchildren to take uranium out of the ground, and often a crime to take other toxic metals such as lead and mercury out of the ground.

The rule is also not enough to stop global warming. However, it clearly slows the process down.

We need permanent carbon sinks. Megatons of carbon need to go back under the mountains, or into the mud at the bottom of the ocean, or into desert and tundra soils, or down into a peat bog, or else we need to build permanent structures out of carbon.

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

Actually, a revolutionary change...
Posted by: rockpicker on Dec 14, 2007 9:29 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in how science views the electro-magnetic nature of the universe and applied technologies for taping into the abundant electrical energy that is all around us is already well underway. It has mass appeal and speed, or momentum, if you will. There is no going back. From here on out, you are going to hear more and more about zero point energy systems. Antigravity, electrogravitics, energy from the vacuum, all these ideas and technologies have been the subject of intensive research by "black" government/industry projects. Now, private inventors and groups working independently are sharing data and designs and a real awakening is about to blossom throughout the general public.

As Tom Bearden explains on his dvd, Energy From the Vacuum, we don't need to burn coal, or natural gas to make electricity. We need to reconfigure our electrical circuits and allow our collection systems to operate without destroying the dipoles that pull in electromagnetic energy from the space around us.

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

the climate change situation is beyond active control
Posted by: wli on Dec 15, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The discussion of climate change needs to be significantly broadened from mostly futile attempts to control the climate in the face of irreversible damage already done to reduction of harm. The concrete consequences must be catalogued and attempts to mitigate them must be taken in addition to reducing human impacts on the climate.

Severe damage has been done already. The consequences of climate change can't be prevented. The degree of further climate change beyond what's already committed can, but the consequences are already too severe to ignore. Population transfers must be arranged to evacuate threatened coastal regions and a number of whole countries. Global analogues of China's One Child Policy or potentially even more stringent analogues need to be deployed. Agriculturally fertile land needs to be managed efficiently on a global scale as arid and fertile regions shift dramatically. Deforestation needs to be halted even in the face of strong economic pressures. Modes of transportation and city planning must be radically changed against strong economic pressures. Enormous urban areas need to be remade. Conservation of food, water, fuel, and electricity must be undertaken on grand scales.

None of these things will happen.

The "must" above is only meaningful with the proviso "in order to save lives and minimize damage to quality of life." Such concerns have no place in the structure of global society as now constituted.

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

So, John Bedini is a fraud?
Posted by: rockpicker on Dec 15, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And his devices don't work, as claimed?

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

So, you shut 'em down for a day?
Posted by: Philip Newton on Dec 15, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bully for you. What did you do the next day?

This article, aside from self-congratulating the author for a bit of an eco-terror lark, is empty.

Leave it in the ground. Right. Then watch as the starving massesstrip every cell of biomass in a suicidal efort to remain warm and full.

Ridiculous.

Grade: D

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

The best way to reduce CO2 creation is to kill alot of people...
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Dec 16, 2007 4:34 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...since they are not going to willingly allow you to reduce their living standards to the stone age.

And when you global-warming folks go and try to kill them, they will resist and fight back, and maybe just kill you instead.

I am not worried about GW. I am just watching to survive the war you will create in any lunatic attempt to "prevent" it.

Choices: Learn to find a peaceful way to live with warmer world or a horrible war.

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

Core meltdown not possible in 2 newest types of reactor
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 16, 2007 8:52 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 200 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]

Urban Legends from Chernobyl
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 16, 2007 9:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
on Chernobyl: A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Lab wrote to me: "The
reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-of-date (1st generation)
design that has to be precisely controlled to prevent cooling water from boiling.
Water carries away heat and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles
form in water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused Chernobyl to
blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly going to high pressure steam
and erupting into a steam explosion. Since the building top was simply resting by
its weight on the walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion
burped the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently igniting a
carbon fire." The United States and other Western countries DO NOT now build
and do not now posses or operate ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do
we allow containment buildings to have easily removable tops. Containment
buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released only 200 tons of radioactive material, as
much as a coal-fired power plant would release in 7 years and 5 months. The
Chernobyl accident had a shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The
radioactive material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why the
Chernobyl accident had impact. Only 52 people died at Chernobyl , mostly fire
fighters, a hazardous job in any case. The Three Mile Island incident did NOT
release a noticeable amount of radiation into its neighborhood, it was just
expensive to clean up the inside of the reactor. Nobody died and nobody was
injured at Three Mile Island.

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

High level nuclear "waste" should be used for pacemaker batteries
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 16, 2007 9:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium.

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

Uranium mine not needed. Coal cinders contain uranium.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 16, 2007 9:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The complete list of impurities in coal includes every element in
the periodic table. The important impurities are: 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. We should be able to get all the uranium and thorium we
need to fuel nuclear power plants for centuries by using cinders
and smoke as ore. Remember that, to get a given amount of
energy, you need almost 100 MILLION TIMES as much coal as
uranium.

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

3 Cheers for George Monbiot
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 16, 2007 9:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming is the ONLY environmental problem that will
cause the EXTINCTION OF HOMO SAPIENS [US, Humans,
People] in about 100 years, and the fall of civilization much
sooner. Global Warming is the ONLY environmental problem
that IS causing a truly major extinction event NOW. Global
Warming is therefore the ONLY problem, not just the only
environmental problem, worthy of attention at this time; except
for the problem of escaping from Earth and setting up a self-
sustaining colony on Mars, just in case. Read the following:

Book: "Under a Green Sky" by Peter Ward
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2553.html
Under a Green Sky
Summary (Dec 13, 2007): In Peter Ward’s newest book, “Under a
Green Sky,” he explains how global warming has led to the loss of
life throughout Earth’s history. “If you look at the fossil record, it
is just littered with dead bodies (from past catastrophes),” Ward
says. He says that only one extinction in Earth’s past was caused
by an asteroid impact – the event 65 million years ago that ended
the age of the dinosaurs. All the rest, he claims, were caused by
global warming. “The Earth was ‘Al Gored’,” jokes Ward.

Book: "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. See a summary at
http://www.marklynas.org/2007
/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary
-of-six-degrees-as-published
-in-the-guardian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why terrorists can't rob radioactive materials from nuclear reactors
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 17, 2007 7:55 AM   
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]

Zero point energy
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 17, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zero point energy is the motion that remains because of the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics at the
temperature of absolute zero. Since there is no temperature lower
than absolute zero, Zero point energy cannot be extracted. That
is basic thermodynamics. Zero point energy as a source of useable
energy, works in Science Fiction and no place else.

[« 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
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 17, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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.
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. Sorry, but we can't wait for research, no matter how interesting.
We have to implement what we know right now. The only technology we have
right now to replace coal fired power plants is nuclear power plants. I like solar,
wind, hydro, and geothermal, but all of them together cannot replace the base load
capacity of coal. Sorry, but nuclear is the only option. 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. Civilization may fall anyway well before
2050, but we can avoid going extinct by 2100. 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.

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

Terra Preta Soils to Master the Carbon Cycle
Posted by: erich on Dec 19, 2007 6:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
after finding no mention of CC&S for top soils via charcoal in your article, I thought this ubiquitous carbon sink might interest you. Here's the current news and links on Terra Preta (TP)soils and closed-loop pyrolysis of Biomass, this integrated virtuous cycle could sequester 100s of Billions of tons of carbon to the soils.



Terra Preta Soils Technology To Master the Carbon Cycle

This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
Thanks,
Erich

UN Climate Change Conference: Biochar present at the Bali Conference

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/steinerbalinov2107

After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies.


The main hurtle now is to change the current perspective held by the IPCC that the soil carbon cycle is a wash, to one in which soil can be used as a massive and ubiquitous Carbon sink via Charcoal. Below are the first concrete steps in that direction;

S.1884 – The Salazar Harvesting Energy Act of 2007

A Summary of Biochar Provisions in S.1884:

Carbon-Negative Biomass Energy and Soil Quality Initiative for the 2007 Farm Bill



There are 24 billion tons of carbon controlled by man in his agriculture and waste stream, all that farm & cellulose waste which is now dumped to rot or digested or combusted and ultimately returned to the atmosphere as GHG should be returned to the Soil.

If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP web site I've been drafted to co-administer. http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node

It has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of EPRIDA , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who's back round I don't know have joined.

Glomalin, the recently discovered soil protien, may be the secret to to TP soils productivity;
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2003/030205.htm

Man has been controlling the carbon cycle , and there for the weather, since the invention of agriculture, all be it was as unintentional, as our current airliner contrails are in affecting global dimming. This unintentional warm stability in climate has over 10,000 years, allowed us to develop to the point that now we know what we did,............ and that now......... we are over doing it.

The prehistoric and historic records gives a logical thrust for soil carbon sequestration.
I wonder what the soil biome carbon concentration was REALLY like before the cutting and burning of the world's forest, my guess is that now we see a severely diminished community, and that only very recent Ag practices like no-till and reforestation have started to help rebuild it. It makes implementing Terra Preta soil technology like an act of penitence, a returning of the misplaced carbon to where it belongs.


Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
(540) 289-9750
shengar@aol.com

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

To Erich J. Knight on sequestering carbon in soil as charcoal.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 20, 2007 10:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Adding charcoal to soil is a fine idea as long as the farmers find it
beneficial enough to pay for it. According to Al Gore, we are
producing 70 Million tons of CO2 each day. Multiply that by
365 days and you get 25.55 Billion tons per year of CO2. That is
many orders of magnitude larger than the amount of charcoal that
could be produced each year. Sequestering carbon as charcoal
added to soil for agricultural purposes is a very small wedge, and
you do need energy of some kind to drive off all of the other
substances in whatever you make into charcoal. What will the
source of that energy be, and how much carbon will it cost?
While possibly helpful, it may be too small to be detected, or even
negative if you burn something to make the heat. We will need
many wedges to reduce our CO2 production by 90%. The
biggest single wedge is the elimination of coal fired power plants,
and that is 34%. 34% is 38% of the required reduction.

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

CO2 VS Carbon
Posted by: erich on Dec 21, 2007 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"you get 25.55 Billion tons per year of CO2"
which is about 10 billion tons of CARBON

The pyrolysis process uses heat from the biomass, and once started becomes exothermic.

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