Below the fold, I've put the entire portion of the transcript from last night's Dem debate that deals with climate and energy. It is to the candidates' credit that they took a narrow, stupid question about Yucca Mountain and managed to expand it into a discussion of energy.
JMG scolded me for not giving kudos to John Edwards for bringing up the fact that coal is the enemy of the human race. And rightly so: he deserves kudos. This is what he said:
I believe we need a moratorium on the building of any more coal-fired power plants unless and until we have the ability to capture and sequester the carbon in the ground. Because every time we build a new coal-fired power plant in America when we don't have that technology attached to it, what happens is, we're making a terrible situation worse.
To his great credit, he pushed this onto the table, and to their shame, both Clinton and Obama dodged. Now, from the pure text, it looks like Edwards' position has gotten considerably stronger -- remember, as we've discussed at length, he used to call for a moratorium on coal plants that aren't compatible with sequestration, which is quite different from banning coal plants without actually existing sequestration. I suspect that he just isn't being careful with his language, and his position is the same. Either way, good on him for bringing it up.
(And good for Obama for pushing efficiency into the mix.)
Here's the whole thing:
WILLIAMS: We have to, at this point, turn a bit more local.
And let's talk for a moment about Yucca Mountain.
As sure as there's somebody at a roulette table not far from here convinced that they're one bet away from winning it all back, every person who comes here running for president promises to end the notion of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.
And the people of Nevada have found it's easier to promise to end it than it is to end it.
Anyone willing to pledge here tonight, beginning with you Senator Obama, to kill the notion of Yucca Mountain?
OBAMA: I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure the people in Nevada that they're going to be safe. And that, I think, was a mistake.
Now, you hate to see billions of dollars having already been spent on a mistake, but what I don't want to do is spend additional billions of dollars and potentially create a situation that is not safe for the people of Nevada. So I've already -- I've been clear from the start that Yucca, I think, was a misconceived project. We are going to have to figure out how are we storing nuclear waste.
And what I want to do is to get the best experts around the table and make a determination: What are our options based on the best science available? And I think there's a solution that can be had that's good for the country but also good for the people of Nevada.
WILLIAMS: Thirty seconds each, Senators Clinton and Edwards.
CLINTON: Well, I voted against Yucca Mountain in 2001. I have been consistently against Yucca Mountain. I held a hearing in the Environment Committee, the first that we've had in some time, looking at all the reasons why Yucca Mountain is not workable. The science does not support it. We do have to figure out what to do with nuclear waste.
You know, Barack has one of his biggest supporters in terms of funding, the Exelon Corporation (NYSE:EXC) , which has spent millions of dollars trying to make Yucca Mountain the waste depository. John was in favor of it twice when he voted to override President Clinton's veto and then voted for it again.
I have consistently and persistently been against Yucca Mountain, and I will make sure it does not come into effect when I'm president.
WILLIAMS: Your rebuttal to the...
OBAMA: Well, I think it's a testimony to my commitment and opposition to Yucca Mountain that despite the fact that my state has more nuclear power plants than any other state in the country, I've never supported Yucca Mountain. So I just want to make that clear.
WILLIAMS: Senator Edwards?
EDWARDS: Well, I'm opposed to Yucca Mountain. I will end it for all the reasons that have already been discussed, because of the science that's been discovered, because apparently some forgery of documents that's also been discovered -- all of which has happened in recent years.
But I want to go to one other subject on which the three of us differ. And that is the issue of nuclear power.
I've heard Senator Obama say he's open to the possibility of additional nuclear power plants. Senator Clinton said at a debate earlier, standing beside me, that she was agnostic on the subject.
I am not for it or agnostic. I am against building more nuclear power plants, because I do not think we have a safe way to dispose of the waste. I think they're dangerous, they're great terrorist targets and they're extraordinarily expensive.
They are not, in my judgment, the way to green this -- to get us off our dependence on oil.
WILLIAMS: Tim Russert?
CLINTON: Well, John, you did vote for Yucca Mountain twice, and you didn't respond to that part of the question.
EDWARDS: I did respond to it. I said the science that has been revealed since that time and the forged documents that have been revealed since that time have made it very -- this has been for years, Hillary. This didn't start last year or three years ago. I've said this for years now -- have revealed that this thing does not make sense, is not good for the people of Nevada, and it's not good for America.
Which, by the way, is also why I am opposed to building more nuclear power plants.
RUSSERT: I want to pick up on that.
Senator Obama, a difference in this campaign: You voted for the energy bill in July of 2005; Senator Clinton voted against it.
That energy bill was described by numerous publications, quote, "The big winner: nuclear power." The secretary of energy said this would begin a nuclear renaissance.
We haven't built a nuclear power plant in this country for 30 years. There are now 17 companies that are planning to build 29 plants based on many of the protections that were provided in that bill, and incentives for licensee construction operating cost.
Did you realize, when you were voting for that energy bill, that it was going to create such a renaissance of nuclear power?
OBAMA: Well, the reason I voted for it was because it was the single largest investment in clean energy -- solar, wind, biodiesel -- that we had ever seen. And I think it is -- we talked about this earlier -- if we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we're going to have to ramp up how we're producing energy here in the United States.
Now, with respect to nuclear energy, what I have said is that if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don't want is to produce more greenhouse gases. And I believe that climate change is one of the top priorities that the next president has to pursue.
Now, if we cannot solve those problem, then absolutely, John, we shouldn't build more plants. But part of what I want to do is to create a menu of energy options, and let's see where the science and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the American people take us.
That's why I want to set up a cap and trade system. We're going to cap greenhouse gases. We're going to say to every polluter that's sending greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, "We're going to charge you a dollar -- we're going to charge you money for every unit of greenhouse gas that you send out there." That will create a market. It will generate billions of dollars that we can invest in clean technology.
And if nuclear energy can't meet the rigors of the marketplace -- if it's not efficient and if we don't solve those problems -- then that's off the table. And I hope that we can find an energy mix that's going to deliver us from the kinds of problems that we have right now.
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, Tim, I think it's well accepted that the 2005 energy bill was the Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill. It was written by lobbyists. It was championed by Dick Cheney. It wasn't just the green light that it gave to more nuclear power. It had enormous giveaways to the oil and gas industries.
It was the wrong policy for America. It was so heavily tilted toward the special interests that many of us, at the time, said, you know, that's not going to move us on the path we need, which is toward clean, renewable green energy.
I think that we have to, you know, break the lock of the special interests. That's why I've proposed a strategic energy fund, $50 billion to invest in clean, renewable energy.
How would I do that? Take the tax subsidies that were given in the 2005 that Dick Cheney wrote; take them away from the gas and oil industry. They don't need our tax dollars to make these enormous profits.
Let's put to work the money that we should get from the oil and gas industry, in terms of windfall profits taxes, so that we can begin to really put big dollars behind this shift toward clean, renewable, green energy.
It's not going to happen by hoping for it. And these small, you know, pieces of puzzle that are starting to take shape around the country are not sufficient for us to break our addiction to foreign oil.
So that 2005 energy bill was big step backwards on the path to clean, renewable energy. That's why I voted against it. That's why I'm standing for the proposition -- let's take away the giveaways that were given to gas and oil, put them to work on solar and wind and geothermal and biofuels and all the rest that we need for a new energy future.
RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, you say you're against nuclear power.
But a reality check: I talked to the folks at the MIT Energy Initiative, and they put it this way, that in 2050, the world's population is going to go from six billion to nine billion, that CO2 is going to double, that you could build a nuclear power plant one per week and it wouldn't meet the world's needs.
Something must be done, and it cannot be done just with wind or solar.
EDWARDS: Well, yes, there are a lot of things that need to be done.
If you were to double the number of nuclear power plants on the planet tomorrow -- if that were possible -- it would deal with about one-seventh of the greenhouse gas problem. This is not the answer.
It goes beyond wind and solar. We ought to be investing in cellulose-based biofuels. There are a whole range of things that we ought to be investing in and focusing on.
I want to come back to something Senator Clinton said a minute ago. I agree with her and Senator Obama that it's very important to break this iron grip that the gas and oil industry has on our energy policy in this country.
But I believe, Senator Clinton, you've raised more money from those people than any candidate, Democrat or Republican. I think we have to be able to take those people on if we're going to actually change our policy.
Now, what we need in my judgment is we need a cap on carbon emissions. That cap needs to come down every year. We need an 80 percent reduction in our carbon emissions by the year 2050. Below the cap, we ought to make the polluters pay.
That money ought to be invested in all these clean renewable sources of energy: wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels. As I said earlier, I'm opposed to building more nuclear power plants.
But I'd go another step that at least I haven't heard these two candidates talk about. They can answer for themselves. I believe we need a moratorium on the building of any more coal-fired power plants unless and until we have the ability to capture and sequester the carbon in the ground.
Because every time we build a new coal-fired power plant in America when we don't have that technology attached to it, what happens is, we're making a terrible situation worse. We're already the worst polluter on the planet. America needs to be leading by example.
WILLIAMS: Rebuttal time to both senators, 30 seconds, please. Senator Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, I have a comprehensive energy plan that I have put forth. It does not rely on nuclear power for all of the reasons that we've discussed. I have said we should not be siting any more coal-powered plants unless they can have the most modern, clean technology. And I want big demonstration projects to figure out how we would capture and sequester carbon.
But you know, this is going to take a massive effort. This should be our Apollo moon shot.
This is where a president needs to come in and say, "We can do this, America. You know, we can make this change." We've got to do it by having a partnership with what needs to happen in Washington, but there's work for everybody to do -- the states, communities and individuals.
That's what I want to summon the country to achieve, and I think we can make it.
WILLIAMS: Senator Obama?
OBAMA: Well, I think that one thing that we haven't talked as much about that we need to is reducing the consumption of energy. We are inefficient, and oftentimes during the presidential campaign, people have asked, what do we expect out of the American people in bringing about real change.
This is an example of where ordinary citizens have to make a change. We are going to have to make our buildings more efficient. We're going to have to make our lighting more efficient. We're going to have to make our appliances more efficient. That is actually the low-hanging fruit if we're going to deal with climate change. That's the thing that we can do most rapidly.
And there's no reason why, with the kind of presidential leadership that I intend to provide, that we can't make drastic cuts in the amount of energy that we consume without any drop in our standard of living.
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Los Angeles rejects solar plan, still likes solar power
Comments
View as Threaded
Easterbunny Posted 9:19 am
16 Jan 2008
I especially like Obama's last line. That's the key message!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:45 am
16 Jan 2008
An excellent step forward.
Permalink
LGT Posted 10:51 am
16 Jan 2008
"Calaf [Obama, Clinton et al,] Il principe ignoto (the unknown/unidentified prince), falls in love at first sight with the beautiful but coldhearted Princess Turandot [Oval Office]... To wed Turandot, however, he must first answer three questions. [...] if he fails, he will be beheaded:
"1. Where do people of Pianura dump their own garbage..."
"2. What happened to the two billion euros paid out by the government over the past 14 years to 'solve' the garbage disposal problem?"
Continued at...
http://msrb.wordpress.com/
The Swiss Solution: Send it to Switzerland!
Out of the Italian Mafia Frying Pan, Into the Swiss...
http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/swiss-solution/
Permalink
dstrand Posted 11:41 am
16 Jan 2008
Obama is the only presidential candidate who is a Senator to be an original cosponsor, mostly alongside global warming denying Republican Senators deep in the pocket of big coal though Sen Byrd finally relented under great pressure from big coal interests in his home state of West Virginia.
S. 154 & S. 155, the Coal to Liquid Fuel Energy Act and the Coal to Liquid Fuel Promotion Act would both spend billions of tax payers dollars on subsidizing "developing" the already existing technology to put coal in are fuel tanks and subsidizes necessary infrastructure to put coal in american gas tanks at such a high level and combination of grants, tax incentives and even government guarantee of return on private loans to do these projects that the renewable sustainable and ecologically friendly energy industry in this country would dare dream of recieving in their wildest of dreams.
This, combined with Obama's incredibly enthusiastic support for nuclear energy coming from a state with 30 some nuclear facilities, among the highest concentrations anywhere, and his lack of exposure to any critical analysis of the nuclear industry from much of his current constituency makes him clearly unsuitable for president in terms of anyone serious about environmental concerns.
His ballyhooed programs on global warming are not enough and don't go much further than things Bush has already agreed to support or the strongest carbon emissions standards in the country signed into law by Republican governors in Minnesota and California working in concert with public pressure and Democratically controlled state legislatures.
We must do better than Obama on these issues this election cycle!
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 3:12 pm
16 Jan 2008
Not only does it call for no new nuclear facilities, but also for the decommissioning of what we have.
It call for removing the subsidies from fossil fuels so that the true costs are visible.
It calls for the development of a distributed grid so that available wind / solar / hydro can be used to dynamically meet demand, as Kassel Univ. shows can be done.
In total, if small g greens are looking for a reason to vote for ecological sustainability, I assure you that the substance is here.
By the time everyone counts the votes on Feb. 5 and figures out that there is still no clear winner for the Democrats, we will have a statement of ecological action for the first 100 days should everyone decide to elect a Green president rather than a green washed one.
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
wildleaf Posted 4:56 pm
16 Jan 2008
The Black Car Project Killing cars before they kill us!
Permalink
Donald Hawkins Posted 8:44 pm
16 Jan 2008
London , 15 January 2008 - Global warming is accelerating the quest for the North Pole's vast energy resources, which are becoming accessible due to the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, Jane's Defence Weekly reports. Claiming Arctic sovereignty is fast becoming a high-stakes - and potentially dangerous - game.
Unsurprisingly, the Arctic nations are locked in territorial disputes. Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the USA are all vying for access. Their claims may become even more contentious should energy reserves be proven to be recoverable in the vast, unforgiving environment.
A preliminary assessment by the US Geological Survey (USGS) suggests the Arctic seabed may hold as much as 25 per cent of the world's undiscovered oil and natural gas reserves. Diminishing ice coverage will make extracting resources in the North Pole more feasible.
The Northwest Passage opened for the first time in human memory in 2007 and is poised to become a premium navigation route. As an alternative to the Panama Canal, it would cut roughly 7,000 km from the traditional shipping route between Asia and Europe, saving shippers fuel and time.
No country has clear legal authority to conduct maritime interdictions, ensure safe transit of commercial shippers or conduct routine surveillance of maritime traffic. This lack of clear jurisdiction has created a major security vacuum in the waterway.
"There is a risk that the Northwest Passage will become attractive to those who wish to traffic in weapons of mass destruction, missile components, centrifuges and other things of both national and global security concern," said Michael Byers, an Arctic expert at the University of British Columbia.
Sovereign rights to energy resources in the Arctic seabed are also still largely undetermined under international law. The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a legal framework to govern all uses of the world's oceans and resources, but the major players in the Arctic are still gathering evidence to bolster their own claims under the treaty. The US has not even ratified the UNCLOS.
Competition to claim parts of the Arctic seabed is likely to intensify as Arctic energy reserves become more accessible and the price for oil rises. The region could be ice-free in the month of September as early as 2040, according to a 2006 study sponsored by the US National Science Foundation and NASA.
Arctic powers are expanding their military and civilian footprints in the region. Canada, Russia and the US are investing in northern-capable research, surveillance and combat assets and boosting their Arctic operations tempo to include more military exercises, overflights and exploration missions using icebreakers. Forces operating in the Arctic region are exploring the full range of military capabilities, since there is no ban on weapons in the Arctic as there is in Antarctica.
Some experts say the build-up suggests that debates about Arctic sovereignty and security have reached a critical juncture: progress must be made on the diplomatic front or conflict may be unavoidable. The critical question is whether territorial disputes in the Arctic will descend from diplomatic annoyances to military brinkmanship or even armed conflict.
- Ends -
Yes that is just the way it was done. A little secret by 2040 to get the oil and gas from the North will probably not be on the table.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:13 pm
16 Jan 2008
John Edwards came close, though. Whether he is the "greenest" candidate, as Wildleaf says, I do not know. And whether he always negotiates quite fluently the terms that he uses, as DR suggests he does not, I do not know. But surely he is at least as green as Hillary and Obama. And he certainly is second to none in going after the complications caused by heavy-handed interested parties.
E.g., like the Neapolitan Mafia, the Camorra, who are sitting on the trash disposal crisis in Naples and vicinity, there is already a considerable history of powerful, monied interests who chose Yucca Mountain as an optimum site for the disposal of nuclear waste material. John Edwards is supremely qualified and motivated to identify the military/industrial/energy interests operative in the history of Yucca Mountain, both locally and nationally.
By contrast, Obama's "getting the best experts around the table" is pathetic. It sounds brilliant, sure. But in fact, the problem of nuclear waste disposal has been studied now for a long time; from among many options, subterranean deposit seems to be the most feasible and secure; and there are a number of security issues, especially involving transportation and geophysics, that make Yucca Mountain look like an unacceptable option. One gets the impression that Obama is representing the interests who are lamenting the millions that have already been spent on Yucca Mountain.
And on this point at least, Hillary gets it. For a number of reasons I continue to prefer Edwards to Hillary, but I like her response here.
Similarly, I was not impressed by Obama's response to Tim Russert's question. (By the way, in defense of Russert, whose interviewing style was recently criticized in Gristmill, I think his first question was very good. His second question, on another interesting topic, was a good bit more muddled and unfair.) Obama's line about a "menu of options, and let's see where science and American know-how and entrepeneurship take us," is gorgeous (though LegumeSam, Patrick in Beijing, the late John Paul II and I would want to insist that capitalism be constantly mistrusted and scrutinized). But there you are: the line can be interpreted in either a pro-business or a pro-market sense; and one cannot help suspecting that Obama would be in fact too accommodating on the pro-business side, and not strong enough on the pro-market side.
And I strongly dislike Obama's last line, which so impressed Easterbunny. A true leader will require us to rethink what our "standard of living" is, and to ask what about the way we live is worth keeping, what is worth chucking, what is worth enhancing. But simply to state that our "standard of living" is untouchable sounds pretty much like Dick Cheney's evil counsel, that conservation is no more than a personal virtue.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Donald Hawkins Posted 10:52 pm
16 Jan 2008
Permalink
ids Posted 3:33 am
17 Jan 2008
Right. The conversation turns to curbing co2l plants (thanks to Edwards) and Coalbama changes the subject to efficiency.
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 5:01 am
17 Jan 2008
Then, we have the settlement with Massey Energy over watershed contamination. Another big ($20 Million) fine for King Coal. "Massey is now going to pay for their Clean Water Act violations and we are glad the federal EPA is finally paying attention," said Earthjustice attorney Steve Roady. "However, it is inconsistent that EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are actually allowing Massey and other coal companies to blow the tops off West Virginia's mountains and bury nearby streams with their waste. Thousands of miles of Appalachian streams have been buried because the EPA and the Corps have failed to follow the Clean Water Act."
Massey's mountaintop removal mines use some of the most environmentally devastating types of mining, flattening the landscape and burying miles of streams. Mountaintop removal mining has already permanently buried more than 1,500 miles of streams and flattened 500,000 acres of mountains in Appalachia. I have a copy of the press release that contained this in my email but have not found a link yet.
The contacts are:
Virginia Cramer, Sierra Club, 202-675-6279
Jared Saylor, Earthjustice (202) 667-4500
Vivian Stockman, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (304) 360-1979
Cindy Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (304) 924-5802
Joe Lovett, Appalachian Center for the Economy & the Environment (304) 645-9006
Judy Bonds, Coal River Mountain Watch (304) 854-0479
Finally, let me remind you that the Mountain Party of WV (affiliated with the Green Party) makes this a major issue: "I've been to many states to bring the message that WV is `ground zero" in the global climate debate. Mountaintop Removal is still a term that Greens in others state have not heard of and I'm working to change that situation as I speak across the nation," said [Green Presidential Candidate Jesse] Johnson. Johnson just returned from Minneapolis where he addressed state Green Party members at their convention. If you can find the videos at YouTube, listen to the closing statements. Johnson is passionate about this.
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
Asteroid Miner Posted 4:03 pm
17 Jan 2008
should not be wasted.
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and
people steal it. The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to
is Israel. This happened in a small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa
1970. A company called Numec was in the business of
reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would
have the advantage of lasting many times as long as any other
battery, eliminating many surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec
did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost" half a ton of enriched
uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled both
their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing
nuclear "waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran
or the United States. It is only when you don't have access to
nuclear "waste" that you have to do the difficult process of
enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "CANDU"
reactor or a British Magnox reactor, both of which run on
unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel
in the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution
at that time, given that private corporations did the reprocessing.
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government
Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO
plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion
would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.
Permalink
Asteroid Miner Posted 4:14 pm
17 Jan 2008
to safely trap and store the CO2." There is no safe way to
confine trillions of tons of CO2 at high pressure for ever.
For Ever is a lot longer than the 100000 years that people
want nuclear "waste" to be stored. The CO2 WILL
leak out and suffocate millions of people. CO2 is denser
than air and displaces air at ground level. CO2 has caused
suffocation in Africa. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm
"Cameroon's 'killer lake' degassed"
"More than 1,700 people died after deadly gases spewed
from Lake Nyos 15 years ago. "
"In August 1986, the lake released a cloud of carbon
dioxide which hugged the ground and flowed down
surrounding valleys to suffocate thousands of local villagers
and animals.
The rare phenomenon also occurred at Lake Monoun in the
same volcanic zone two years earlier killing 34 people. "
The CO2 storage facilities proposed by Al Gore, besides
being prone to leak, will be a target for terrorists. A
terrorist has only to cause a leak to kill more people than a
nuclear bomb would. Leaks are very easy to cause in high
pressure containers. CO2 storage is a silent disaster
waiting to happen.
The pledge Should read: "I will learn enough about nuclear
physics so that I will no longer be paranoid about nuclear
power. I will advocate the replacement of coal fired power
plants with the newest nuclear power plant designs."
I [Asteroid Miner] have no financial or other interest in
nuclear power and no connection with the nuclear power
industry.
It is HOT CO2 that goes up smolestacks. Being hot it is
less dense so it goes up and disperses. Stored CO2 is cool.
A gas gets colder as it leaks out from high pressure to low
pressure. That is the secret of air conditioning. CO2 at
the same temperature as air is denser than air because CO2
is a heavier molecule than N2 or O2. The cold CO2 will
stick to the ground and suffocate people and other animals.
No other gas is required to explain the deaths in Cameroon.
Here in the US, more CO2 will leak out into areas with
more people, so the death toll could be in the millions.
Permalink
Asteroid Miner Posted 4:26 pm
17 Jan 2008
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee
Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal
is a rock. The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2
parts per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per
million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal fired power plant
burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4 million
tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of
that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000
pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of U235. An average 1 billion
watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235
every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the
stack or into the cinders. Since a reactor full fuel load is around
11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and one load lasts about 10
years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the air and
cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1
divided by 4 Million = 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%.
Remember that only 2% of that is U235. The nuclear power
plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal fired power
plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant
consumes U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could
carry that much weight in a briefcase.
U238 can be bred into Plutonium and Thorium can be bred into
Uranium. We can fuel our nuclear power plants for
CENTURIES just by extracting uranium and thorium from coal
cinders and smoke.
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. Coal smoke and
cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements.
Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for
cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic
poisoning because Chinese industrial grade coal contains large
amounts of arsenic. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze it not
only mine by mine but even lump by lump.
Permalink
Asteroid Miner Posted 4:42 pm
17 Jan 2008
"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938- ...
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."
Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.h ...
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life." That extinction would include humans.
http://www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&n ...
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&n ...
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2509.html
http://astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name= ...
These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point. The human race goes extinct.
The global warming is already 1 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summ ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:45 pm
17 Jan 2008
Nuclear power is too expensive and too dangerous, and as you point out the waste can even be turned into nuclear weapons. Just too risky.
Leave nuclear power in the sun, and harvest it with wind, solar, wave, biogas and so forth.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 8:19 pm
17 Jan 2008
American know-how would go a lot further if it weren't for its dependency upon American entrepreneurship, which insists upon making money (i.e. bringing in government subsidy) upon the whole thing. Better to get rid of capitalism altogether, and allow people power to make the big economic decisions.
But simply to state that our "standard of living" is untouchable sounds pretty much like Dick Cheney's evil counsel, that conservation is no more than a personal virtue.
Actually our "standard of living" is quite touchable, with millions of "standards of living" wiped out by the shrinkage of "free markets" all over the world every once in a while. What Obama means is that we are to continue to view the natural world as the source of our favorite consumer appliances rather than attempt, on some grand scale, to live with it.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:47 pm
17 Jan 2008
Two things (for example) about American politics elude me:
The libertarian bit: What the hell is the problem with such drugs as marijuana and cocaine, such that they should be by law declared illegal substances? Would it not reduce crime terrificly, and make everybody very much happier, if such items as marijuana, cocaine, LSD and peyote were sold across the counter at Duane Reade's?
The Victorian-British-Library bit: Why the hell in American political discourse are "American" and "free" and "liberty" inevitably associated with capitalism, while anything that looks vaguely Marxist and socialist at once is brought under suspicion and considered "un-American"?
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 2:07 am
18 Jan 2008
Yes, but the shadow government is in the crime business... it wouldn't be profitable for the CIA to deal the stuff if it were legal... of course, prohibition is one of the main vehicles for racism in mainstream society, as the punitive weight of the drug laws falls disproportionally upon nonwhites...
One of the ways in which the EZLN used to obtain weapons is through the drug trade -- the Zapatistas used to pose as drug dealers and buy them from the Mexican government. They probably still get weapons this way.
Ending prohibition is probably the number one way in which the Right in America (the only active political faction) can be motivated to do something good. Thanks for bringing this up.
Why the hell in American political discourse are "American" and "free" and "liberty" inevitably associated with capitalism, while anything that looks vaguely Marxist and socialist at once is brought under suspicion and considered "un-American"?
Probably because of the endless, and tiresome, invocation of the Soviet bogeyman. Since we are all now advocating mere "economic democracy" under conditions of "radical decentralization" and identity politics, toward a global, ecologically sustainable society, this shouldn't matter, but the Right tars us all with the same brush nonetheless. We are a bunch of evil Reds. Their alternative, of course, is capitalist "two party" dictatorship, maintaining corporate hegemony until abrupt climate change wipes out our habitats.
The Right on Gristmill, for instance, offers us endless sales pitches for "alternative energy," none of which will stop one barrel of oil from being pumped from the ground, refined, and burned. But, see, this is their version of "freedom," never mind the children who will have to live, and die, through its blowback. At some point it will be necessary to tell little Junior that he's toast, because Mommy and Daddy couldn't give up being bourgeois capitalists for anything. Hey, they tried their best; they bought a Prius.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:38 am
19 Jan 2008
Kidnapping and torturing children and holding them without any legal rights in a secret prison ought to be a crime, but in this bushwacked version of the US, it is official administration policy.
Have we all gone numb in the face of tyranny? Evidently so, we are used to it now.
I guess when the bushwackers decided to destroy the water system in Iraq in the early rounds of "schock and awe" bombing, dooming 100s of thousands of the most vulnerable, young children, from water borne disease. The value of human life was set at less than a gallon of oil?
Check out the blimptv take on the bushco mass murderers.
http://blimptv.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-bush-coins.html
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink