McCain and Lieberman have an op-ed on global warming in The Boston Globe today. It's good enough, but this bit -- no one will be surprised to hear -- rubs me the wrong way:
How can Congress close the deal to prevent catastrophic global warming while it still has the chance? In the same way it has enacted every other major environmental law in the past 30 years.
Congress must listen to the companies that will be governed by the new climate law. After all, they are the ones who will develop and deploy the advanced energy technologies that will solve this problem. While intransigent firms should not be allowed to weaken the legislation, lawmakers must be open to a good-faith business perspective that can help solve this urgent global problem. As the bill reflects, lawmakers must also have the courage to promote safe climate-friendly nuclear energy.
Comments
View as Flat
Jim ONeill Posted 11:55 pm
13 Feb 2007
Small business and decentralized renewables are the way to go. Just my opinion.
Permalink
miles44 Posted 12:40 am
14 Feb 2007
I know people who lived through the nuclear arms race equate nuclear power with nuclear weapons. And yes, there's a risk of accident and the still-unresolved-after-all-these-years question of what to do with the waste.
But to me, it's the zero (or near zero) carbon emission that matters. Simply dismissing nuclear power seems closed-minded to me.
http://thegreenmiles.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:44 am
14 Feb 2007
It might not be as bad as Chernobyl.
Actually a government study found that each one of over 100 "swimming pool" used nuclear fuel rod storage facilities (located at nuclear plants all over the US, some on earthquake fault lines)could release 8 to 17 times the contamination of the Chernobyl incident.
Or it might be the deadly silent (covered up by nuclear contractors/regulators)contamination in your groundwater that gets you.
Or the yellowcake dust in the air from uranium mining.
Or nuclear proliferation of weapons made possible by nuclear power plants, like those in Iran. And N Korea, and Pakistan, and on and on.
Or nuclear winter caused by nuclear weapons "exchanges" in the middle east.
Let's take the chicken's way out instead. Forget " the courage to promote safe climate-friendly nuclear energy".
Wind power, wave power, solar power, conservation, plugin vehicles.... cowardly yes. But a lot better for the planet.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:44 am
14 Feb 2007
If, however, one can go over their head to the electors, the prospects are much better. 'Courage to promote' is easier for McCain and Lieberman because they have that power, and they're trying to share it with other lawmakers, encourage them to ignore the lies their own staffs will tell them. 'Courage to subsidize' is, of course, a false quotation. The subsidy lie is not one that these politicians are likely to tell.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:38 pm
14 Feb 2007
There are nuclear power plants located on earthquake faults? Which plants are those?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:08 am
15 Feb 2007
With pictures and everything. Yikes!
An earthquake and 16 to 36 times the contamination potential of Chernobyl. There are two "swimming pools" with used nuclear fuel rods containing highly flamable zirconium there.
Lose the water in the pools (from an earthquake or terror incident or even simple negligence)and those rods start burning spontaneously from the heat created by the still radioactive fuel.
And no insurance either! The whole area would be rendered uninhabitable for centuries with absolutely no compensation to home or business owners or farmers. Not even an evacuation plan, no radiation suits for emergency workers, EMTs or firemen, disaster ready to happen and completely ignored by industry/government.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:11 am
15 Feb 2007
The negligence around nuclear power issues is truly mind boggling.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:07 pm
15 Feb 2007
Lose the water in the pools (from an earthquake or terror incident or even simple negligence)and those rods start burning spontaneously from the heat created by the still radioactive fuel.
aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/02-2-159_report.pdf
Another possibility discussed regarding nuclear power plants involves the scenario of an aircraft crash somehow igniting the Zirconium cladding on the nuclear fuel elements. Unlike Sodium, which burns on exposure to air, or Magnesium, which ignites at relatively low temperature, solid Zirconium will not burn. Zirconium doesn't melt until approximately 3,330 degrees Fahrenheit. However, fine Zirconium shavings or dust will burn. In order to cause a Zirconium fire, it would be necessary for a terrorist to fracture the nuclear fuel cladding into small pieces before subjecting it to a source of ignition. Even assuming that the Zirconium was fragmented into chips, the spent fuel elements are either under water (upwards to 50 feet in many cases) or contained in massive shielding systems. This means that it would take an incredibly large quantity of heat to raise the temperature of the Zirconium and the surrounding shielding to the point of ignition.
Zirconium -- Melting Point: 1852.0 °C google
Uranium Dioxide -- Melting Point: 2846.85°C google
That seems to suggest that when and if the zirconium gets hot enough, it simply melts off of the UO2. Would that be dangerous? How could an earthquake drain the pools in the first place? If the pools were somehow drained, why wouldn't the workers simply fill them back up? If the pools could not hold water, why would the workers not spray water on the fuel rods, rather than letting them get hot?
Amazingdrx wrote: The whole area would be rendered uninhabitable for centuries
What would cause the area to be rendered uninhabitable?
Amazingdrx wrote: Not even an evacuation plan
What makes you think there is no evacuation plan for Diablo Canyon?
Amazingdrx wrote: no radiation suits for emergency workers
What is a radiation suit?
Permalink