NYT: Solution to Greenhouse Gases Is New Nuclear Plants, Bush Says

[DeepModem Mom]

Solution to Greenhouse Gases Is New Nuclear Plants, Bush Says
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: May 25, 2006

LIMERICK, Pa., May 24 — With Democrats seizing the national stage on gasoline prices and the environment, President Bush came here Wednesday to take it back, calling for the construction of more nuclear power plants to help reduce the greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming.

"Let's quit the debate about whether greenhouse gases are caused by mankind or by natural causes; let's just focus on technologies that deal with the issue," Mr. Bush told workers at the Limerick Generating Station, a nuclear power plant here in Montgomery County. "Nuclear power will help us deal with the issue of greenhouse gases."

Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Democrats have accused Mr. Bush, who grew up in the Texas oil country and was in the business, of being too cozy with the petroleum industry. He and his fellow Republicans had previously shrugged off such charges, as well as those from environmental groups that his administration was ignoring scientific findings on global warming and human involvement in its causes.

But during this crucial election year for Republicans, Democrats have been trying to place the blame for high gas prices at the feet of Mr. Bush and his Congressional allies.

Speaking in front of this town's twin nuclear cooling towers on Wednesday, Mr. Bush promoted the 2005 energy bill he signed into law, which provides tax incentives, loan guarantees and federal risk insurance for companies building nuclear plants. Before the law, he said, only 2 companies were considering building plants, but now 16 are....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/25/washington/25bush.html

[w4rma]

1. Easy, effective targets for terrorists. (nt)

[A-4300SX]

50. Not really

True, it is, in fact, a target. It's just that it's what is call a "hard target"; lately, it would appear that "soft targets" are currently in vogue, for whatever reason.

Definitions:

Hard target (difficult, hard to handle, relatively ineffective):


Soft target (much easier, very effective):


And besides, nuclear reactors used for electrical generation (nothing more than water boilers) use mostly the U-238 isotope, which can't be used to make "mushroom cloud" bombs; the worst that could ever happen would be a "dirty bomb" (Chernobyl) where the half-lifes of the nasty stuff is measured in weeks...(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)

No source of power is 100% safe; but it's been over fifty years, and the nukes used for electrical generation have been relatviely benign poluters, even with Chernobyl withstanding...(hats off to all the posters here - some good, sound, discussion!)

[magellan]

2. A nuclear reactor in every car

Depleted uranium bumpers and a hood-mounted rocket propelled grenade launcher. I'm a-waitin' on it, yes indeedy, cuz I want to be kind to my envi-roh-ment.

[dysfunctional press]

41. an electric battery-driven motor in every car...

that's charged overnight on electricity from the nuke plant.

[doubleplusgood]

46. Ford Nucleon 1958 "concept" car

Imagine what a fender-bender in one of these would do to your community for, oh, a few THOUSAND years maybe...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_nucleon

From wikipedia

The Ford Nucleon was a nuclear-powered concept car developed by Ford Motor Company in 1958. The car did not have an internal-combustion engine, rather, it was powered by a small nuclear reactor in the trunk of the car. The vehicle featured a power capsule suspended between twin booms at the rear. The capsule, which would contain radioactive core for motive power, was designed to be easily interchangeable, according to performance needs and the distances to be traveled.

The passenger compartment of the Nucleon featured a one-piece, pillar-less windshield and compound rear window, and was topped by a cantilever roof. There were air intakes at the leading edge of the roof and at the base of its supports. An extreme cab-forward style provided more protection to the driver and passengers from the reactor in the rear. Some pictures show the car with tailfins sweeping up from the rear fenders.

The drive train would be integral to the power module, and electronic torque converters would take the place of the drive-train used at the time. It was said that cars like the Nucleon would be able to travel 5,000 miles or more, depending on the size of the core, without recharging. Instead at the end of the core's life they would be taken to a charging station, which research designers envisioned as largely replacing gas stations. The car was never built and never went into production, but it remains an icon of the Atomic Age of the 1950s.

The mock-up of the car can be viewed at the Henry Ford Museum in Detroit, MI.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Actually, Chimp's right.

I'm amazed.

I was just reading a old National Geographic from 2 months ago, and it had a graphic that shows that nuclear power emits the least greenhouse gas.

However... I STILL don't want it near me. Think Chernobyl.

Hawkeye-X

[Solo_in_MD]

4. Scared me so bad I had to lie down for a while

when I found that I also agreed with him on this

[AngryAmish]

14. I took a knee

Had to clear my head.

[Briar]

6. Don't just think emissions

though. One has to factor in how much carbon is emitted building the darned thing.

And we have stocks of uranium for the next 50 years only. Nuclear is a short term solution with a long term toxic heritage of staggering proportions.

[midnight armadillo]

34. au contraire

Fast neutron reactors (which make their own fuel) could run civilization for the next 100,000 years.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Especally if they are built

by friends of BushCo.

It's not the idea that scares me, it's the execution.

[lindisfarne]

12. Did they consider solar panels and wind power? & conservation? n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

18. That will help but wont be enough

[yardwork]

27. It would be enough if we put some money into research & development

[Solo_in_MD]

33. I do not agree

Its been a little while since I looked at it,but just about every calculation out there says that even at near theoretical levels of efficiency for solar and wind coupled with massive conservation, there is just not enough available energy for the world population. Also consider that energy taken out of the environment via solar and wind farms has an impact. Short of a massive reduction of the planet population, we are going to need more than solar and wind can provide.

[LivingInTheBubble]

53. Can you cite information on that?

The reason we are all stuck using dirty fuels like fossil fuels and nuclear is because its more profitable, governments and companies don't want to research technology that could mean that households supply *their own* energy needs.

The sun alone could easily supply our energy needs. Countries already get a fifth of their electricity needs from wind, add in other technologies and energy saving measures and it is quite achievable.

Tony blair has been pushing for nuclear for a while, though he did go quiet for a bit last year when the same day he was promoting it there was a nuclear leak. Of course he is going through the usual motions of commissioning studies that back up his (and bush's) view.

[dysfunctional press]

43. you can't change the laws of physics, no matter how much you spend...

or who you bribe.
just saying it, or wishing it so doesn't make something possible.

[Massacure]

23. The anatomy of a U.S. reactor doesn't allow a Chernobyl type event.

U.S. reactors have massive containment domes around them. The Soviet reactors generally did not use containment domes. That is one of the major things that sets Three Mile Island apart from Chernobyl.

[daleo]

29. Three Mile Island could have easily lost containment

An explosion of a hydrogen gas buildup.
A melt-through of the core after coolant loss.
Probably other things as well.

Both were very real possibilities, and still are.

[Massacure]

37. Do you have facts or figures about what would have needed to happen?

[daleo]

38. From the NRC website, about the hydrogen bubble and meltdown:

Regarding the hydrogen bubble:

"Within a short time, the presence of a large hydrogen bubble in the dome of the pressure vessel, the container that holds the reactor core, stirred new worries. The concern was that the hydrogen bubble might burn or even explode and rupture the pressure vessel. In that event, the core would fall into the containment building and perhaps cause a breach of containment. The hydrogen bubble was a source of intense scrutiny and great anxiety, both among government authorities and the population, throughout the day on Saturday, March 31. The crisis ended when experts determined on Sunday, April 1, that the bubble could not burn or explode because of the absence of oxygen in the pressure vessel. Further, by that time, the utility had succeeded in greatly reducing the size of the bubble."

Regarding a core meltdown:

"Because adequate cooling was not available, the nuclear fuel overheated to the point at which the zirconium cladding (the long metal tubes which hold the nuclear fuel pellets) ruptured and the fuel pellets began to melt. It was later found that about one-half of the core melted during the early stages of the accident. Although the TMI-2 plant suffered a severe core meltdown, the most dangerous kind of nuclear power accident, it did not produce the worst-case consequences that reactor experts had long feared. In a worst-case accident, the melting of nuclear fuel would lead to a breach of the walls of the containment building and release massive quantities of radiation to the environment. But this did not occur as a result of the Three Mile Island accident."

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

Obviously in this case neither worst-case catastrophe happened, but had circumstances been a bit different they could have. It's a bit like Apollo 13 - the worst didn't happen, but it could have. We know that the worst can happen from the two space shuttle disasters.

[Massacure]

39. "perhaps" That still doesn't tell me HOW easily.

And nuclear technology has advanced since Three Mile Islands. Modern reactors are primarily designed to use passive safety features rather than having to rely in mechanical ones. The chances of gravity or the laws of physics going to hell are 0%, which cannot be said about mechanical systems. Of course there are other risks, but that doesn't mean we should scrap nuclear power. It's less dangerous than fossil fuels after all.

[daleo]

40. The space shuttle was more advanced than Apollo

Stuff happens, though.

I agree that we have to move away from fossil fuels. In my opinion, more emphasis should be put on renewables and on using less energy. Some countries in Europe have gone into wind power in a major way, for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/465520.stm

"In Denmark, wind provides almost 10% of the country's electricity, and the country's target is 50% by 2030."

Nuclear just seems to have too many downsides in my estimation - waste disposal that is needed for unrealistically long time frames, the possibility of catastrophic accidents, spills of low level waste, nuclear weapons proliferation, concerns about terrorism, etc. Plus, it takes a lot of energy to build, maintain, and decommission nuclear plants and to mine, process and safeguard nuclear fuels. It isn't even clear whether there is much of a net energy gain, when all is said and done.

[Oak2004]

44. Space Shuttle was a piece of Nixonian trash

that should never have been built.

The shuttle isn't just more advanced, it is vastly more complicated. More complicated + untested technology = engineering disaster almost inevitable. It would be worth the risk if the goal was lofty, but the "goal" of the space shuttle is to spin around endlessly in orbit doing make-work and jobs better done with simple, practical space stations (think Skylab and Mir, not the piece of Reaganish trash known as the ISS, invented to justify the construction of the Shuttle). Rely on Republicans to trash space exploration while generating cost overrruns.

Reactors can no longer be said to be untested technology. The technology is 60+ years old. That's not to weigh in in favor or against nuclear reactors (I'd just as soon do that in a separate post, if at all, as my opinion is not a simple "yes" or "no") -- just to give discredit where discredit is due when it comes to the space shuttle, and to note that reactors are a different situation from an engineering perspective.

[daleo]

56. I didn't mean to claim the space shuttle was a good idea

Just that it too was a high tech device in which a lot of money was sunk. Many people assume that makes things essentially fail-safe, which is clearly not the case. I agree that manned space flight hasn't accomplished all that much for decades.

Besides the technical considerations, I am doubtful about nuclear technology because of its inherent tendency to bigness and corporate concentration. Giving a few players control most over energy decisions has resulted in a lot of harm.

[dysfunctional press]

42. and with pebble-bed technology, the risks are even less.

nuke plants are going to be a part of the ultimate solution.

[Massacure]

45. I do not like pebble beds. Using fuel assemblies only once is stupid.

Not to mention unsustainable.

[Up2Late]

5. Would someone PLEASE Tell him that he's used up his STUPID IDEA capital

...on his STUPID WAR! :banghead: :grr:

[truthisfreedom]

7. excuse me but please, Kerry should say "bush wants more US terror targets"

and he should say it often.

[crickets]

8. What a moran

Production of nuclear energy is fine in terms of less greenhouse gas emissions. It's the nuclear WASTE that's the problem, not to mention the chance that no matter how well regulated (under Bush, ha) nuclear plants are, accidents happen. Nuclear accidents have long term repercussions to put it mildly.

Regulation, oversight and hyperaware safety codes and compliance are necessary -- is Bush really a Mr. Safety, Regulations and Oversight guy? NO.

And the HUGH!! pink elephant in the room that no one has EVER adequately addressed in the history of nuclear power, much less in all of these recent 'let's go back to nuclear!' scenarios, is what to do with the spent fuel rods, the waste left afterwards. There is no way to adequately dispose of depleted uranium. It's an issue that has dogged nuclear energy all along. DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years.

Let's quit the debate about whether greenhouse gases are caused by mankind or by natural causes; let's just focus on technologies that deal with the issue

Trade the greenhouse gases for nondisposable poison! WHEE!

He's more and more an idiot every day. We already went through this fight in the seventies. Why must we keep going over the same old ground? With all of the scientific advances in the last few decades, doesn't it strike anyone as odd that we don't have more alternative fuels and means of energy production? Where's that good ol' Yankee know-how, that can-do spirit? Nuclear energy is not the way to go. We can do better than that.

Of course, Bush doesn't have any cronies in other emerging energy markets, so...

[pezdespencer]

9. I Agree

As for the waste it creates bush is secretly proposing to put all the waste from the 100,000 new plants in the rio grand river to keep the brown people out (sarcasm!!!)

[crickets]

20. Hi pezdespencer!

Welcome to DU! :toast:

(Wow, it feels weird typing that abbreviation in this context.)

[Nihil]

13. Not sure if I have the energy for this but anyway ...

So many points to choose from the most important one first ...

> Regulation, oversight and hyperaware safety codes and compliance
> are necessary -- is Bush really a Mr. Safety, Regulations and
> Oversight guy? NO.

100% agree with you on this point.

The problem is not with the technology (running safely in other
countries) nor with the implementation of such regulations (running
safely in other countries) but with the "maximum profit/minimum care"
approach that is likely to be adopted by Bush's America.


Ok, now for the disagreements ...


> Nuclear accidents have long term repercussions to put it mildly.

How many nuclear power station accidents have claimed more lives than
a car crash? Two. The most serious - Chernobyl - killed 31 people.

Compare this worst case for the nuclear industry to the worst case
for a chemical plant (Bhopal 2,000+), a plane crash (New Delhi, 349),
an oil rig (Piper Alpha, 166), a coal mine (sorry ... being tactless).
Now multiply out by the number of occurrences.

Or did you mean the 60 indirect (radiation-caused) fatalities at
Chernobyl? OK, that's now getting close to the number of murders
in New York city in 6 weeks.

Or maybe even the "estimated" 4,000 additional fatalities expected
within the lifetimes of those exposed?

That's the same number as died from cirrhosis and chronic liver
disease in England in 1999, the same number as died from accidental
falls in the UK (in 1994) and also as died from motor vehicle accidents the same year. Wonder if any of the "estimated 4000"
happily attributed to Chernobyl also drink alcohol, drive a vehicle
or are ever more than 5' above the floor?

(Don't add the deaths from the fallout from the US mainland and
Pacific bomb tests though ... or accidents with medical radioactive
sources ... or those who die from the radioactive components of coal
ash that is legally thrown into the air by every coal-fired power
station.)

Or was it 9,000 additional fatalities (revised, probably more accurate
figure) or possibly 90,000 (hysterical, totally inaccurate figure)?

If so, balance the numbers against those from particulate pollution,
mercury poisoning, fuck it, why bother ... human mortality is still
running at 100% last I heard and you are far safer within a ten mile
radius of a nuclear power station than within the same distance of
a coal-powered one.


> And the HUGH!! pink elephant in the room that no one has EVER
> adequately addressed in the history of nuclear power, ...
> is what to do with the spent fuel rods, the waste left afterwards.

Some people have adequately addressed the problems. Sadly, most
are not living in America and few have any power whatsoever.


> There is no way to adequately dispose of depleted uranium.

The current US solution is to distribute it as a fine powder across
Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq and a large number of training grounds
around the world. Care to compare the amount of DU "disposed of"
in projectiles over the last few years with the amount produced by
the US nuclear power industry? Just curious ...


> It's an issue that has dogged nuclear energy all along.
> DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years.

Sat away from my reference books, I can't check your figure but it
sounds a bit long to me. Even so, that's actually better as the
things that cause damage are those with *short* half-lives as they
are emitting at a much higher rate ... I'll have the U, you can
have the Sr.


> Let's quit the debate about whether greenhouse gases are caused by
> mankind or by natural causes; let's just focus on technologies that
> deal with the issue

No, let's not *continue* putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
at an increasing rate while taking our time about "focussing" on the
technologies to deal with the issue.


> Trade the greenhouse gases for nondisposable poison! WHEE!

Don't forget that "the greenhouse gases" come with free gifts ...
undrinkable water, unbreathable air, wars fought for fuel and loads
of (equally nondisposable) waste.


> With all of the scientific advances in the last few decades,
> doesn't it strike anyone as odd that we don't have more alternative
> fuels and means of energy production?

Not while the means of financing such things is driven by the
short-sighted goal of short-term greed. The shitheads who refuse
to support alternative technology (or who cut away at the safety
margin for nuclear technology for that matter) are only interested
in megabuck returns to fund their hedonistic lifestyles. They have
no perception of the true cost of their action, only the totally
artificial profit/loss cost on their spreadsheets.


> Where's that good ol' Yankee know-how, that can-do spirit?

You outsourced it to China and the Far East :-)


> Of course, Bush doesn't have any cronies in other emerging energy
> markets, so...

He really wants to stick to oil but would like a fallback plan,
preferably one that makes his cronies rich. The problem is not
with nuclear energy per se, it is with corrupt & greedy people.

The smart solution is to purge the latter and make use of the former.
Sadly, I doubt that the smart solution will prevail.

[crickets]

19. Not feeling terribly energetic today either, but...

>> Nuclear accidents have long term repercussions to put it mildly.

I still stand by this statement. That's a nice list of death stats you've got there, but pointing out that more people have died from something other than a nuclear reactor accident doesn't make the potential harm of an accident any less real.

What is the point of going from one energy source (fossil fuel) so expensive over the long term in environmental and health risks to another which has potentially catastropic environmental and health repercussions?

After growing up in the cold war fearing the bomb, I've never understood how people were supposed to embrace an atomic energy source. I never made the leap from wanting to get rid of the bomb to welcoming an energy source that can never truly be safe, no matter how well run a nuclear plant is. Maybe my perception of the power of the atom will be forever colored by my fear of nuclear weapons. Given their very nature, maybe it should be.

You state that other countries are safely using nuclear power (and there are still plants running in the US as well) but the definition of "safely" in my mind is "with no accidents so far." Well, except for Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, that we know of. Even though I lived nowhere near Three Mile Island, that accident was a frightening, frightening experience. I never want to go through that again, I never want to see communities near a nuclear reactor go through that again, and I hope we never do. I think the people of Chernobyl as well as the countries downwind might disagree with you on the impact the disaster had on them in terms of outright deaths as well as ongoing cancer rates, not to mention the swath of land rendered unfit for safe human habitation. This is the part where I'm too tired (lazy) to go look up actual figures. Prior browsing through the data and the pictures of the plant itself, as well as the now empty communities around it, is soul achingly real enough proof for me as to how devastating the accident was.

Again, with the safety issues involved in running nuclear plants, given the current deregulation carelessness going on in other industries I would neither welcome nor trust a push toward new nuclear reactors in the US. No way. Even given the most safety conscious approach, I'd still be against it because of the waste issue. There's just no getting around it.

Maybe my views seem alarmist to you, but I tend to think of them as a healthy sense of self preservation. :)

As for fossil fuels, I didn't mean to give the impression I thought we should stick with them. Far from it. Many energy sources used today produce an unacceptable level of pollution and need to be replaced, but using nuclear energy as a stopgap will only drag out the time spent looking for something ELSE that does less harm to environment and health.

Just to quickly address a few points, as this could get into a really long rant (not directed at you, btw) if I don't reign it in:

The use of DU weapons is an abomination. I consider it a breach of treaties as well as a war crime perpetrated on both the people we've attacked with these weapons as well as our own soldiers and their families. I can't see how anyone aside from a few soulless freaks at the Pentagon could say otherwise.

> Sat away from my reference books, I can't check your figure but it
> sounds a bit long to me.

*whispers (quite hypocritically given my above comments)*: You are sitting in front of your computer. Google. I must have found half a dozen sites right off the bat last night with the info that depleted Uranium (U-238) has a half life of 4.5 billion years. Really.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

It's a mind boggler. I had the same reaction you did - "Wait, that can't be right." But it is. That's a pretty 'forever' number. It's just not possible to safely store radioactive waste for 4.5 billion years, and so far no one has found a safe way to get it off the planet. We're already sitting on a time bomb of waste produced thus far. Why add to it? I'd argue that until the waste issue is realistically addressed (and there's no guarantee that will ever happen) we really need to get rid of nuclear power plants as well.

> Not while the means of financing such things is driven by the
> short-sighted goal of short-term greed. The shitheads who refuse
> to support alternative technology (or who cut away at the safety
> margin for nuclear technology for that matter) are only interested
> in megabuck returns to fund their hedonistic lifestyles. They have
> no perception of the true cost of their action, only the totally
> artificial profit/loss cost on their spreadsheets.

On this we are in absolute agreement! :toast:

>> Where's that good ol' Yankee know-how, that can-do spirit?

> You outsourced it to China and the Far East

Nono, unless I'm mistaken, and correct me if I am, the JOBS are being outsourced, not every single person capable of doing those jobs. ;)

> He really wants to stick to oil but would like a fallback plan,
> preferably one that makes his cronies rich.

Yep. Bastid.

> The problem is not with nuclear energy per se, it is with corrupt & greedy
> people. The smart solution is to purge the latter and make use of the former.

Hee, I agree with the purge part anyway.

> Sadly, I doubt that the smart solution will prevail.

Sadly, I fear you are correct.

We may not agree on this nuclear power issue, and I'm pretty sure neither of us is going to budge in our opinions, but thanks for the polite exchange. Well met!

[Nihil]

25. Thanks for replying!

> Not feeling terribly energetic today either, but...

... at least it's nearly the weekend! :toast:

> That's a nice list of death stats you've got there, but pointing out that more
> people have died from something other than a nuclear reactor accident doesn't
> make the potential harm of an accident any less real.

No, I was merely trying to put it into perspective: not denying the problems from
a nuclear powerplant accident but balancing the risk against all of the other
invisible risks that we ignore every day.

> What is the point of going from one energy source (fossil fuel) so expensive over
> the long term in environmental and health risks to another which has potentially
> catastropic environmental and health repercussions?

I suppose my argument is basically "it is better to risk one major event in the
future against the known fact of a series of minor events now". Put like that,
it seems like a gamble. Put against the known damage over the last few years,
it seems like a lifeline - not a way of life for the long-term but a chance to
actually *get* to the long-term.

> After growing up in the cold war fearing the bomb, I've never understood how
> people were supposed to embrace an atomic energy source.

I used to belong to a local branch of the (UK) Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
and from there joined Greenpeace (primarily to campaign to save the whales and
reduce the human impact on the planet). I left Greenpeace (last decade) when I
examined the options for power generation and couldn't integrate their total
anti-nuclear views with my own (anti-nuclear-weapon but pro-nuclear-power due to
the lack of large-scale alternatives to coal, oil & gas).

> Maybe my perception of the power of the atom will be forever colored by my fear
> of nuclear weapons. Given their very nature, maybe it should be.

Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm just being too optimistic about the chances for
efficient, safe nuclear power (as run in other countries) and being too harsh
on my normal cynical aspect that shouts "The people in power will ALWAYS take
the cheapest short-term path to profit regardless of the real-world impact".
Thanks for humouring me in my optimistic (manic?) phase as opposed to my usual
pessimistic (depressive) phase!

> ... the definition of "safely" in my mind is "with no accidents so far."
> Well, except for Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, that we know of.

Correct. I discounted Three Mile Island in my list through the criteria applied
(more than a car-full of people dying) ... more people died at Chappaquiddick than
at Three Mile Island ...

Mind you, I did include a second civilian nuclear accident that claimed more than
five lives (see - I can use Google after all! .. just forgot to when addressing
the half-life comment :blush: )


> Maybe my views seem alarmist to you, but I tend to think of them as a healthy
> sense of self preservation.

Not alarmist, merely a difference in opinion.

> ... but using nuclear energy as a stopgap will only drag out the time spent
> looking for something ELSE that does less harm to environment and health.

I agree that this is a risk (more so than the risk from a reactor explosion IMO)
but my patience over the last few years has suffered ... having seen the good
range of alternatives sitting in expensive isolation - a.k.a. only for the better-off
Green citizens, not the world at large - I would rather "risk" the nuclear power
option for the following reasons:
1) The nuclear power option reduces the need for coal-fired powerstations a.s.a.p..
2) The use of nuclear power will drive a large (IMO) segment of the caring
population towards better, greener power sources in the future, thus driving
down the price per unit for solar thermal, PV, local wind, ground source heat pumps,
passive solar, biomass, ... thus leading to a higher renewable component of our
total energy needs than would be provided by any other path.

> Just to quickly address a few points, as this could get into a really long rant
> (not directed at you, btw) if I don't reign it in

Taken as written!

> The use of DU weapons is an abomination ...

Totally agree. Sadly, I think that the inhuman use of DU is a bonus point in
the minds of the Bush administration (along with the $M signs shared with their
friends).

>> Sat away from my reference books, I can't check your figure but it
>> sounds a bit long to me.
>
> *whispers (quite hypocritically given my above comments)*: You are sitting in
> front of your computer. Google. I must have found half a dozen sites right off
> the bat last night with the info that depleted Uranium (U-238) has a half life
> of 4.5 billion years. Really.

Oops ... laziness will out ... (only thought of that after hitting "Post" but that
is no excuse) ... sorry.

My following comment still applies however: the longer the half-life, the lesser
the short-term threat (per unit mass) that the substance provides.

4.5 billion years is a freaking long time - long outliving humanity (or any other
species on this planet) and thus passing into the realm of geological timescales,
not human ones (or even timescales at the species level for non-humans).

I am concerned about the safe storage of the short-lived isotopes, the ones that
actually do the damage to human tissue, and as long as this is controlled by
the isolation/vitrification/storage plans, that solves the problem for more
generations than we can sensibly consider.

> We're already sitting on a time bomb of waste produced thus far.
> Why add to it? I'd argue that until the waste issue is realistically addressed
> (and there's no guarantee that will ever happen) we really need to get rid of
> nuclear power plants as well.

My view is that the waste from a country's nuclear power plants can be stored in
a few (controlled) warehouses. That from the same country's coal power plants
will continue to be thrown into the atmosphere, the rivers and the soil in much
greater volumes and with much greater impact on the population.

Personally, I vote for the "controlled warehouse" option.

>>> Where's that good ol' Yankee know-how, that can-do spirit?
>>
>> You outsourced it to China and the Far East
>
> Nono, unless I'm mistaken, and correct me if I am, the JOBS are being outsourced,
> not every single person capable of doing those jobs.

You are correct, I was being flippant. There is a shitload of really intelligent
people not only *able* to work on the problem but *actually* working on the problem.
The disconnect comes with the "non Yankee know-how" knobs in charge of the money.

I have little doubt that all of the technical problems of our global issues can be
solved by the incredibly smart people spread across several countries. The real
problem (as far as Homo Sapiens is concerned) is that the leaders are not in that
group ... in fact they are wilfully insulating themselves from the intelligent
element of the species for the sake of their own petty (incredibly) short-term goals.


> We may not agree on this nuclear power issue, and I'm pretty sure neither of us
> is going to budge in our opinions, but thanks for the polite exchange. Well met!

And thank you for your polite reply - well met indeed!

[AngryAmish]

15. How do you shield the radiation from DU?

Cover it with confetti. DU is mostly a alpha emitter. DU is a toxic heavy metal, not a radiation source. As a matter of fact it is used as a radiation shield.

[Psephos]

26. DU stands for Depleted Uranium

In other words, it's been depleted of the radioactive isotopes, and left with the stable ones.

Any radioactive substance that has a half-life of 4.5 billion years is so mildly radioactive that it poses no more problem than other natural sources of background radiation, such as granite or cosmic rays. Remember, half-life means the time it takes for half of the mass to decay. Hot radioactive isotopes have half-lives measured in years (or even hours), not eons.

I'm not saying there's no problem here, but I am saying it's next to no problem.

Peace.

[daleo]

30. 4.5 B years isn't a problem, but there are many intermediate products

From nuclear reactors that are intensely dangerous for generations. Some are intensely dangerous for hundreds to thousands of years. Those are the problem isotopes.

[Psephos]

31. You're quite correct - but my post was in response only to the DU post

And I don't mean Democratic Underground. :-)

How you doin', Daleo? You and me seem to like the night shift here...

Peace.

[daleo]

36. I am doing well, thanks

I am so dedicated to DU (Democratic Underground, not depleted uranium) that I sometimes double-shift. And I always appreciate a civilized discussion, even if we don't always see eye to eye. :toast:

[crickets]

52. I know. Sorry this is so long.

> In other words, it's been depleted of the radioactive isotopes, and left with
> the stable ones.

Forgive me, but this is a misconception. The name itself tends to give the wrong impression:

Depleted uranium is a misnomer, according to Doug Rokke, a physicist who in 1991 headed a DU cleanup team in Saudi Arabia and in 1994 cowrote DU education and training materials for the military. "Calling it 'depleted' uranium makes it sound like there's no hazard," Rokke said in an interview. "The word depleted gives the connotation of no problem."

From a DU Fact Sheet and other sources easily googled:

The term "depleted" uranium is misleading and does not mean that DU is not radioactive or that it is harmless. DU is mostly comprised of moderately radioactive U-238, but also contains small amounts of more highly radioactive U-235 and U-234 (under 1% in total). Various U.S. military statements imply that DU is less radioactive – and therefore less dangerous – than uranium that occurs naturally in soil and water throughout the world; this implication is completely untrue. "Depleted" uranium emits about 60% as much alpha radiation as naturally occurring uranium that has been processed and concentrated, about 85% as much gamma radiation, and essentially the same amount of beta radiation. However, DU (or any other form of uranium that has been removed from the ground and concentrated) is much more radioactive than uranium in its natural state spread throughout rock in very small quantities. DU’s chemical toxicity is the same as that of natural uranium.

DU is also created when spent nuclear reactor fuel is recycled. Spent fuel has been recycled since about 1950 and was often intentionally blended into mined uranium. Spent fuel contains highly radioactive substances including plutonium, neptunium, technetium, and U-236. Some amount of these "transuranic" substances remains in DU created by reprocessing spent fuel. Concentrations vary substantially among different spent fuel tailings, and data on them is incomplete. It is known that plutonium is 200,000 times more radioactive than U-238, so contamination of DU with these substances presents an even more serious danger than "depleted" uranium itself.

Granted nuclear waste stockpiles aren't deliberately aerosolized by being blown to bits as part of an illegal weapon of war, but I am nonetheless uncomfortable with their toxicity.

1. As others have mentioned, what a great target! Reactors themselves may be hardened to withstand an airstrike, hopefully, but the waste stores are NOT.

2. Given past history of pollution and accidental radiation releases (that we know of) I do not trust the current standards and practices for storage of nuclear waste. Also found in the DU Fact Sheet:

As should be apparent, radioactive and toxic waste are generated at each stage of the uranium life cycle. Production of the amount of nuclear fuel necessary to fuel one 1300 Megawatt reactor for one year can produce the following amounts of waste: mining – 597,907 tons of waste rock; milling – 119,311 tons of mill tailings; conversion – 159 tons of solid waste and 47,447 cubic feet of liquid waste; enrichment - 295 tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride; fuel fabrication – 448 cubic feet of solid waste and 8,080 cubic feet of liquid waste; power generation – 31 tons of spent fuel.

Spent fuel from the end of the process is initially far more radioactive than other waste products such as waste rock, mill tailings, and DUF6. However, over time the radioactivity of spent fuel falls fairly steadily, dropping below that of other radioactive wastes after approximately 100,000 years. Depleted uranium represents the major source of radioactivity from these wastes over the very long term, although radon released by mill tailings and carbon-14 released by power plants account for the largest known radiation exposures to the general public.

Lax handling of radioactive wastes – including DU – is common. For example, at the Sandia National Laboratory mixed waste landfill in New Mexico, tons of DU were dumped into shallow unlined pits and trenches that sit above Albuquerque’s drinking water aquifer. The large volumes of waste generated throughout the uranium life cycle, combined with the toxicity and radioactivity of these wastes and irresponsibly handling, have caused widespread damage to humans and the environment, particularly in Indigenous communities.

EYE on YUCCA: EPA Holds Public Hearings on Proposed Yucca Radiation Rule

Depleted Uranium: Huge Quantities of Dangerous Waste (excerpt) - Dr. Michio Kaku

Googling for DU and nuclear superfund site information also brings no joy; incidental information stumbled upon calls into question the actual safety record of nuclear plants, particularly in England and Wales, when charting cancer and childhood leukemia rates among those living near certain plants.

As if that's not bad enough, there are fools out there who actually want to recycle nuclear waste, including DU. Recycling in this context does NOT mean treating for reuse in power production. Sad to say, it's been going on for a while. Really. No, really. So, does anyone feel safe about being exposed to DU in airline ballast and ordinary household items? I don't.

3. I disbelieve the "DU is relatively harmless" argument. Sites like this are spewing Happy Talk:

Depleted uranium (DU) is natural uranium which is depleted in the rarer U-235 isotope (see below). It is a heavy metal and, in common with other heavy metals, it is chemically toxic. It is also slightly radioactive and there is therefore said to be a hypothetical possibility that it could give rise to a radiological hazard under some circumstances, e.g. if dispersed in finely divided form so that it is inhaled.

However, because of the latency period for the induction of cancer by radiation, it is not credible that any cases of radiation-induced cancer could yet be attributed to the Kosovo conflict. Furthermore, extensive studies have concluded that no radiological health hazard should be expected from exposure to depleted uranium.

The risk from external exposure is essentially zero, even when pure metal is handled. No detectable increases of cancer, leukaemia, birth defects or other negative health effects have ever been observed from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium concentrates, at levels far exceeding those likely in areas where DU munitions have been used. This is mainly because the low radioactivity per unit mass of uranium means that the mass needed for significant internal exposure would be virtually impossible to accumulate in the body - and DU is less than half as radioactive as natural uranium.

What a load of bullshite. They are LYING to you and to me. Gulf War Syndrome is not imaginary. Neither are the DU babies being born in Afghanistan (warning! graphic). It's obvious DU waste at nuclear power plants doesn't cause effects anywhere near as startling as those experienced when exposed to DU weapons, but it does point to the lie when information sources try to minimize the risks. If sites like these so baldly refuse to tell the truth about DU weapons, they call into question the validity of any other information they provide.

See also: WHO repudiates agreement with IAEA. Interesting.

The Uranium Medical Research Centre seems to have a much better handle on reality.

Fiction: There are no serious effects from low-level exposure to Uranium

Fact: The effects of internal contamination with Uranium have been well documented. For a review of 200 years of scientific literature on the medical effects of internal contamination with Uranium see Dr. Durakovic's review paper "Medical Effects of Internal Contamination with Uranium" CMJ 1999, Vol 40, No 1.

Serious long-term effects include: Compromised immune system, metabolic, respiratory and renal diseases, tumours, leukemia, and cancer.

A 1998 study conducted by Dr. Livengood showed that DU contamination transforms normal bone cells into tumorous ones.


I apologize if it sounds like I'm biting your head off, Psephos. Though the topic can get me a bit worked up, I'm not angry at you. If you're not convinced that DU waste might be more dangerous than the industry lets on, perhaps we can just respectfully agree to disagree.

> Peace

I like that. :) I sincerely wish the same to you.

[midnight armadillo]

35. that's not quite right

There is no way to adequately dispose of depleted uranium. It's an issue that has dogged nuclear energy all along. DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years.


Such an exceedingly long half life means it's pretty harmless. You could keep an ingot on your desk and never suffer any ill effects. It's the isotopes with the half lifes of, oh, hours or months that are really dangerous.

[lindisfarne]

11. This campaign will give us plenty of opportunity to hear * say Nucular.n/t

[hunter]

16. Well sure, so long as his incompetent corporate buddies aren't involved.

Enron. FEMA. Etc.

I hate to imagine a nuclear power plant built and managed by these evil clowns.

[RubyDuby in GA]

17. Wrong again Dubya. Damn, is he ever right about anything?

This question was asked to Al Gore at the sneak preview showing of his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, at Atlanta just over a week ago. He said that in order to produce the energy needed to reduce greenhouse gases to acceptable levels, nuclear power plants would have to be built all over the world, not just in America. That means putting them in places that probably wouldn't just use them for energy purposes. Also, the cost would be astronomical.

The construction time is slow and harms far outweigh the benefits. At this time...

www.climatecrisis.net

[Raine]

21. GAWD

he is such dumbing fucking asshole! :mad:

[jwirr]

22. Sure! There are all kinds of nuclear plants that have taken years

(TVA 22 years - TX 17 years) to build and when they were finished were already out of date, many of them have been built and never produced any energy at all, others are not safe. This is not an answer that can help in the near future. However, if we could build them safely/timely they could do their part. Read "The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century" by James Howard Kunstler.

[sweetheart]

24. limerick!

Once a lying fool from yale law,
became exceptionally flawed,
He trashed all the jobs,
fought with the mob,
and bought new nukes for us all.

:-)

[Clarkie1]

28. Not THE solution...PART of the solution. n/t

[Vogon_Glory]

32. Dubya, Conservatives, and Nukular Power: What Scares Me

What scares me about nuclear power plant construction and operation with the current set of bozos in Washington is that politically-appointed regulators will continue the typically cavalier "conservative" mindset that also ignores health and safety issues in other industries.

I might think that fission power is a better choice than coal-fired fossil fuel power plants when dealing with global warming, but I don't believe that it is the sort of technology that can tolerate typical "conservative" recklessness and sloppiness without causing accidents.

[Bossy Monkey]

47. Only George would come to a 'nucular' plant in PA...

to reveal such a brilliant conclusion. Why not Harrisburg, chimp?

[Joe Bacon]

48. Send ALL the nuclear waste to Bush's ranch and let HIM sleep on it!

They were made for each other!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

49. What a brilliant speech!!

Reminds me of the 'I promise that my first priority will be the rebuilding of New Orleans' speech.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

He sure does a great impersonation of someone who cares!!!

[Orsino]

51. And let me guess...

In order to spur growth, it's imperative that you dismantle some more regulations on the industry.

That's what you were going to say--right, Georgie?

[MadHound]

54. Nuclear is not the way to go, for two big reasons

First, there is no good solution to the problem of radioactive waste, and until we find such a solution we don't need to be adding even more waste.

Second, human error, the leading cause of nuclear accidents and incidents in both the US and the world. Until you remove the human factor from the equation, you're going to have accidents and incidents. Trouble is, even a little'"oopsie" can have major consequences.

We don't need nuclear power, in fact micro generators, wind and solar, are producing more electricity both in the US and worldwide than all of the nuclear reactors. Wind alone has the potential to fulfill all of our electrical needs forever. Add in solar, and with our extensive nationwide electrical grid we can power our country cheaply, cleanly and domestically. If Enron can transmit electricity over a thousand miles, so can we, thus if the wind isn't blowing in LA, we ship it in from Sacto or Lubbock:shrug: There is an immense energy potential in wind and solar, about time we started tapping it.

[Massacure]

57. So what do you propose instead?

[MadHound]

59. Like I said in the post above, wind and solar

According to a 1991 DOE report, there is enough harvestable wind energy in three states, Kansas, North Dakota and Texas to fill all of our electrical needs, including factoring in for growth, through the year 2030. Now we know that we can't put all of our wind farms in one place like that, but that does show the potential we have with wind and solar.

And given that our national electric grid can transmit a few hundred miles without significant loss of energy, we can set up wind and/or solar across the fifty state area to provide energy for all of the US, and when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing in one area of the country, we can transmit the power needed from another area. Hell, we can decentralize this to the point where each new house is built with shingles made from the new thin film photovoltaics, thus helping everybody.

The potential energy that can be derived from these two forms of clean renewable energy is enormous, so enormous that we don't have to rely on either fossil fuels or nuclear power anymore. It is high time that we started putting these energy sources to work, for a cleaner, greener Earth.

[retread]

55. Yeah let's build those fission plants before the rest of the world

perfects fusion plants and obsoletes fission.

[cosmicdot]

58. Pictures of Chernobyl

this was posted at DU some time ago

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html


someone posted upthread that only 31 people died at Chernobyl?

is that 31 too many?

appears Chernobyl died, too

from the photo diary:

"How many people died of radiation? No one knows - not even approximately. The official casualty reports range from 300 to 300,000 and many unofficial sources put the toll over 400,000.

"The final toll will not be known in our lifetime, and maybe not our childrens either."

Welcome to