Dutch abandon nuclear phase out. Set guidelines for new nuclear power.

[NNadir]

Earlier today I wrote that I expect that all of the announced "nuclear phase outs" in Europe will ultimately be overturned as global climate change worsens and begins to destroy more and more of Europe.

Of course the nation at the most risk from global climate change is the Netherlands, where sea level rise will almost surely inundate the entire nation.

Thus it comes as no surprise that the Dutch are one of the first to explicitly chuck the absurd anti-nuclear pretense into the waste heap where it belongs.

Dutch outline nuclear future.
The Dutch government has set conditions for new nuclear plants, confirming the abandonment of its earlier phase-out policy. On behalf of the economics minister, the formerly anti-nuclear minister for environment said nuclear power could reduce carbon emissions. Any new reactor must be a Generation III model with levels of safety being those of Areva's EPR, at a coastal site. Before its operation, and no later than 2016, the government must decide on a disposal strategy for existing high-level waste. Used fuel should be stored until 2025, when a choice would be made between direct disposal, reprocessing, or partitioning and transmutation. Plants should be dismantled promptly after closure, and decommissioning funds clearly earmarked. Uranium should be sourced from certified, environmentally responsible mining operations, with in-situ leaching (ISL) preferred due to their low environmental impact.
Platts 29/8/06, EPZ 29/9/06.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/news/2006/latestissue.htm

[bahrbearian]

1. I like that " absurd anti-nuclear pretense into the waste heap "

what an absurb statement, don't foget "waste heap"

[NNadir]

2. Actually the most serious waste problem is fossil fuel waste.

Nobody knows what to do with fossil fuel waste, so they dump it in the atmosphere. It amounts to billions of tons per year and kills millions of people around the world each year.

There is not one person on the face of the earth who has ever been killed by commercial spent nuclear fuel in Western Europe. Or in the United States. Or South America. Or Japan.

The idea that so called "nuclear waste" is "dangerous" is a completely dumb idea, totally dependent on selective attention and poor reasoning.

The Dutch are abandoning the nuclear phase out because they've read the report on External Energy. They can understand something called data. http://www.externe.info/expoltec.pdf

Now many people typically take this opportunity to pipe up with all sorts of distorted inflated ideas about what wind, solar and the blah, blah, blah (insert wishful thinking here) that so characterizes denial and personal confusion about what can and cannot diplace fossil fuels but I note where wind is concerned the dutch have "been there, done that."

They're going nuclear, spearheaded by their formerly anti-nuclear Minister for the Environment, Van Geel. Of course, Van Geel, is claiming that the reason for building nuclear power is to provide for a "transition to more sustainable forms of energy" but, living below sea level, he's not pretending that such "sustainable" forms of energy are available now.

In fact the renewable energy game is largely a huge scam of making vast promises and not delivering. Reading around here at DU, you'd almost think that the world is going solar in a vast way. But the rolling 12 month production figures for solar energy in the United States show that production in units of energy have actually fell from 2005 to 2006, from 545 thousand kilowatt-hours to 503 thousand megawatt-hours, not that it really matters, since solar energy is a trivial form of energy. In comparison a typical EPR of the type the Dutch are planning produces more than 11,000 thousand megawatt-hours in a year. Put another way a single nuclear power plant can produce twenty times as much energy as all of the solar power plants in the United States.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile1_1_a.xls

No one will be able to address global climate change without nuclear power. It's easy for fools like Amory Lovins to claim otherwise, but then again, Amory Lovins is living on an isolated mountain top in a vast mansion with other consumerist millionaires. The Dutch are living behind dikes in a nation mostly below sea level. The conversation is very different. Amory Lovins doesn't have to give a fuck since the onus for his weak thinking will not actually fall on him. (He's sort of like Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney predicting a cakewalk in Iraq.)

Speaking of waste heaps, do you know what to do with fossil fuel waste, or is it merely a kind of waste that you pretend doesn't exist?

[jpak]

3. Spent fuel not dangerous???? - that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard

Spent fuel is highly radioactive and extraordinary measures have to be taken to shield it and prevent fission products from release into the environment.

and the same old tired ad hominem attacks....

***yawn***

[bananas]

4. Fools like Amory Lovins and Al Gore

No one will be able to address global climate change without nuclear power. It's easy for fools like Amory Lovins to claim otherwise

Fools like Amory Lovins, Al Gore, Michio Kaku, Stephen Pacala, and several hundred utility executives:

Al Gore major policy address at NYC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x67917

Michio Kaku
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x23960

Stephen Pacala
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=65621&mesg_id=65634

several hundred utility executives
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=65306&mesg_id=65358

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Strange bedfellows...

So, you've got utility execs who are happy to burn coal; Kaku who is talking about NASA deep space probes; and Stephen Pacala who says we should double the current global nuclear capacity to replace coal-based electricity.

You should have stuck with Al Gore.

[bananas]

6. Pacala: "I personally think nuclear is a non-starter."

"I personally think nuclear is a non-starter. In the article we were not trying to choose sides, only to point out the mitigation technologies that are already in place. However, I cannot imagine that in this era of concerns about terrorism that we are going to start the production of fissionable material all over the world. It is disingenuous when the Bush administration says that the way to solve this problem is through coal and nuclear. Clean coal through carbon capture is fine if it can be made to work. But if you actually injected all of the CO2 produced in the United States (1.5 billion tonnes) the entire country would jack up in the air by 1mm/year. You don’t have to be a scientist to know that is not sustainable. If you try to solve even one wedge of this problem with nuclear, it would require a doubling in the amount of nuclear power deployed. Solving the problem entirely with nuclear means increasing deployment by a factor of 10, and if you calculate how many of these plants would have to be in countries like Sudan and Afghanistan, you are just not going to do it."

[Dead_Parrot]

7. I guess it depends which you find more scary...

Brown people with beards, or the extinction of a million or so species.

I used to have a beard, and they're not that bad. But by all means, stock up on tuna if it gets you through the night.

[NNadir]

8. Al Gore will not be able to address global climate change without nuclear

power. His "denunciation" is hardly ringing in this speech you quote; he says "he thinks" it won't play a role.

Abraham Lincoln didn't think that his job was to end slavery.

You of course, hear what you want to hear, read what you want to read. The fact is that the Netherlands is phasing out its nuclear phase out. I guess they have no interest in what you want to hear and want to read.

I recently corresponded with one of Pacala's colleagues on this subject and I found out that he knows as little about nuclear engineering as you do. However he appreciated what I had to say and reminded me that his NRDC past aside, he's not against nuclear power.

[bananas]

9. Al Gore disagrees with you

and I agree with Al Gore.

[NNadir]

18. How do you know?

You claim to speak for Al Gore now?

I'm quite sure that you can't interpret his speeches, since you frequently quote a speech in which he explicitly says that he's not against nuclear power. Then you assert that he is against nuclear power.

I am supporting Al Gore because he is rational. If I thought he embraced the kind of tortured dogmatism that characterizes the anti-nuclear movement, I wouldn't vote for him. Of course we are all aware that he knows all about climate change, which is enough for me. The options for addressing global climate change are very limited. One must use every climate change technology available - including those that are of lowest risk and lowest cost and the most commercial success. That would be nuclear energy. I completely trust Mr. Gore to see what is obvious, just as the the world, from the Romanians, to the Chinese, to the Japanese, to the French, to the Finns have recognized what is obvious.

Should he take the office to which he was elected, he will be required to embrace policies that work.

If Al Gore serves in the office of the United States Presidency he can either assert that "nothing will work," or he can enact policies that will not work. In both cases he will be a failure. That will make him just another politician. If he wants to succeed he will have to be bold and visionary and that automatically assumes that he will participate, with the rest of the world, in the full exploitation of the only new primary source of energy discovered in the last century, nuclear fission energy.

Even if Al Gore was going around saying, "I loathe nuclear power," - and he clearly isn't - history - for those who can comprehend history - is full of Presidential candidates who seemed to reverse themselves after elections. Woodrow Wilson ran in 1916 on a platform of keeping the US out of the World War. Likewise Roosevelt in 1940. Abraham Lincoln ran on a platform of not interfering with slavery where it existed. Richard Nixon ran on a "fight Red China" and support Taiwan policy. Lyndon Johnson ran on a peace platform.

I have always despised Richard Nixon, but I agree with the historical interpretation that he was probably the best man for opening US relations with the most populous nation on earth. If there is any good in Nixon's history, it is that in that one place, he did what was necessary. It may not have been ideal - and he may not have been able to secure his party's nomination had he made such plans explicit - but it was necessary. He did what was necessary. I don't think Hubert Humphrey could have pulled that off quite so easily.

I have no doubt that if there is one man who can pull off the necessary broad commitment to nuclear energy, it is Al Gore.

Now, I don't speak for Mr. Gore. I would never presume to do so. If however he comes to office - should he come to office - and begins muttering like a member of Greenpeace, I will be sure that the United States will fail. I am confident, however, that he will not do so. Why? Because his whole career has been about change, and change is what must come in this disaster.

There is still a (shrinking) fragment of the Democratic Party, regrettably, that mutters inanities about renewables and conservation in the face of the current emergency - and responds with rote denunciations of nuclear power. I think of them as our equivalent of the Repuke's religious fundamentalists.

However, I've been a pro-nuclear power Democrat for decades, and I very much sense that many of my political allies have experienced a sea change in response to the very clear and unavoidable realities of the times. Sure I can come hear and listen to you, JPak, and a few others recite your thirty year old litanies about so called "nuclear waste," and a picocurie of tritium in some groundwater somewhere, but increasingly such thinking is irrelevant. You have been discredited. But the mere fact that I can go to Democratic websites and state my case and receive support for my ideas is in itself something. I would have had much more difficulty even ten years ago.

Should Al Gore or some other Democrat be seated in the White House, I do not worry that your old dogmas will weigh policy down very much.

The best and most successful Presidents exhibit flexibility of mind. That is all we can ask of a successful President. It should be the primary criteria by which we elect Presidents. It is certainly superior to reading a laundry list of issue statements. I'm quite sure that Al Gore is readily aware of what is involved in the expansion of nuclear energy - even as those who assert things about him as you do - are not. He is not a scientist, but he knows how to glean information from scientists, which is his claim to fame. Most scientists understand the laws of thermodynamics, including the first law. The first law places some restrictions on what is possible and what is not. Specifically it says that energy is neither created nor destroyed - it doesn't come from prayer, but from physical principles. There are only a few primary energy sources available on earth right now. At least one set of them - fossil fuels - is too dangerous to continue to use. Mr. Gore knows that. It's his cause celebre.

You don't speak for Al Gore. Al Gore is an urbane man with wit and insight and broad exposure, a man who regularly reinvents himself and responds to his experience. He is certainly not a person fixated on repeating 1970's era - or any other - dogma. Our media, of course, represents this as being "wishy washy" but I think the American people are heartily fed up with our media's interpretation of the world.

[jpak]

20. WTF???

This was a response to Bananas post - where does this come from???

"Sure I can come hear and listen to you, JPak, and a few others recite your thirty year old litanies about so called "nuclear waste," and a picocurie of tritium in some groundwater somewhere, but increasingly such thinking is irrelevant. You have been discredited."

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

[NNadir]

23. I mean that you are all clones.

You are all repeating thirty year old arguments, everything from tracking every trace of radiation detected in any nuclear power plant in the world, to representing that solar PV is a significant form of energy, to pretending that there is someone somewhere who is likely to be injured by spent fuel, to ignoring the risks of fossil fuels, pretending that the only damage done to the environment by energy technology is that which is related to nuclear energy. Neither of you are even close.

I am, again, relieved that most nations in the world, from Romania to Vietnam, to Indonesia, to France, to South Africa, to Nigeria, China, to Japan, have finally rejected these tired claims.

The rollback of "nuclear phase outs" is proceeding with urgency; the Gen IV nuclear program is making vast strides on advanced reactor design; nuclear plant performance is increasingly being streamlined; advanced fuel cycles are being characterized for a variety of existing and planned infrastructure; exciting advances in fuel chemistry and physics are being announced, the IAEA is making headway toward international control of the fuel cycle, weapons grade material from dismantled nuclear weapons is in reactors being fissioned; brilliant young people are pursing educations in the nuclear field, and vast environmental improvements are being made to what is already the cleanest and safest exajoule scalable form of continuous energy.

Oh and JPak, Bananas, and other posters still spout the irrelevant crap about how, some day, somewhere, somehow (cue up Natalie Wood) they'll find that first solar exajoule.

I know what you regard as stupid. I don't care. Neither does the rest of the planet. Here is a list of countries in the recent news that have reported events in an internationally integrated nuclear based economy in just this week.

1) The United States

2) Russia

3) Japan

4) Australia

5) Mexico

6) Ukraine

7) Kazakhstan

8) Belgium

9) Sweden

10) Finland

11) Romania

12) China

13) Canada

14) And, just so you can talk about it ad infinitum in a meaningless and confused way, North Korea.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/nb/nb06/latestnews.htm

If we go back to the September news we can add:

15) South Africa

16) Egypt

17) Georgia

18) Indonesia

19) Malaysia

http://www.world-nuclear.org/nb/nb06/nb0638.htm

20) South Korea

21) Uzbekistan

22) Lithuania

http://www.world-nuclear.org/nb/nb06/nb0637.htm

23) Namibia

http://www.world-nuclear.org/nb/nb06/nb0636.htm

Nobody is buying your shtick buddy, nor that of your equally confused buddy Bananas.

Unfortunately, much of the damage done to the earth by raising specious objections to nuclear power has already occurred. The delays and obfuscation that have characterized the misrepresentation of risk will probably result in tragedy on a vast scale, but it is too late to do anything about that. I am, however, hopeful that there may be time to save something if the nuclear movement continues to pick up momentum at the pace it's been doing at this year.

Don't trouble yourself though. Rather than cry, why don't you dig up some 5 or 10 peak Megawatts of "world's largest" solar plants, or give us some campaign buzz from the Steroid Crazed Governor Hydrogen Hummer Trillion Solar Roofs Boy, or something along those lines? That always seems to give you a lift, and always prompts some out to lunch, "isn't that just wonderful" posts from people who know as little about energy as you and Bananas do. Maybe it will make you feel better. It won't, of course, do much for me, but I neither want or need your approval. I'm relieved that what I've been saying for decades has become part of an international consensus and smart people are on the case.

By the way, the latest 12 month rolling production figures for solar energy are in. At the risk of an orgy of denial, I point out that solar energy production, the most minor of the minor contributor to the world's energy picture, non-hydro renewable energy, are down, not up:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile1_1_a.xls

Solar energy production is off by 8% since July of 2005, not that it really matters. For all the big and tiresome talk, going back decades, solar electricity still represents just a shade more than 1 one hundredth of one percent of total US electrical energy production. You've been spouting this stuff for three or four years that I've seen. When, exactly, will you be able to show more than that? 2050? 2100? 2584? All of the solar PV cells operating in the United States could all fail tomorrow and nobody would even notice. It's that insignificant. I for one, would be happy if the solar squad could do more than that. One percent would be something. It would help. Rather than opine about the drawbacks of nuclear energy, wouldn't it be more constructive to work on putting some money where your mouth is and actually addressing the continual failure of your pet schemes to actually deliver something meaningful? What, exactly, is shit like this going to do:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

You find this sufficient? You find this realistic? Do you have a fucking clue what numbers mean?
It's four hundred and sixty seven exajoules we need baby, and that table shows less than two.

It's less than one 400th of world energy demand.

So tell us again all about the latest "world's largest" solar plant. Give it your best shot, which will be exactly the same as your last shot. You've been spouting the same crap for years here, with little result. Two years ago you were telling us all about the grand solar hydrogen future: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=8692#8701

What's been done since then? Anything? Are you still talking about the Schatz project over on the campus of Humbolt State University or can you point to one commercial scale solar hydrogen plant that has been put on the drawing board since then? One tenth of one exajoule? Is there any sense of urgency in the "solar will save us" community? Have you seen what's happening? Do you care? Do you even care about the scale of the disaster before us?

You really must think I'm stupid. In fact, you must think everybody is stupid to even attempt to pass off crap like that as even remotely realistic approach to what must be done. Do you really believe that people can't add and subtract, divide and multiply?

I'm really sure you, Bananas, and Arnie Schwartzenkopfer and his hydrogen Hummer and the ten houses with hydrogen lines on Utsira are going to save us, and I'm sure you and Bananas will continue to prattle on all about it while running through all sorts of exercises in classically tortured thinking, much of which is described here:

www.fallacyfiles.org

Dick Cheney. Al Gore. Whatever. Nobody cares what you say.

The rest of the planet has serious business, nuclear business, as these reports from countries all around the world show.

[bananas]

24. So now you're calling Al Gore a liar?

First you say he's a fool, now you say he's a liar, that he really doesn't mean what he says.
You're absolutely convinced that once elected, he will flip-flop on the issue.

[NNadir]

25. No I'm saying you don't know how to interpret what people say.

There's no flip flopping involved.

While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity.

(Bold mine.)

He also indicates that he regards most of the alleged "problems" as solvable.

http://thinkprogress.org/gore-nyu

The main reason for my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world’s energy future is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let’s assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved.

Because you hear only what you want to hear, you are running around interpreting this as a strong anti-nuclear statement, mostly because you are obsessed with dogmatic balderdash. However, he rather blithely sweeps away three of the big objections you guys raise continuously, assuming they can be solved. His big concern? Reactors are too big?

This speech sounds very much like a political speech with hedged bets. It's politically astute because it doesn't alienate some of the weaker thinkers in our party - guys and gals like you - but it clearly allows for the nuclear option to remain on the table. It's good politics and, in the limits of politics - about as honest as you can be while leaving your options open.

Now, if Al Gore took office and approved another 200 nuclear reactors to displace coal - which he should do - will anyone be able to say he was lying when he said "not opposed?" If the reactors are built, he could say, "Gee I doubted it would happen, but here it is, and by the way the US has reduced carbon dioxide output by two billion tons a year.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh4co2.xls

Pundits would be saying, "President Gore showed bold iniative in reducing US dependence on fossil fuels!" blah, blah, blah. No one would will be digging through old speeches to see what he said he would do.

No one could accuse him of lying anymore than anyone could accuse someone who said a week and a half ago, "I doubt that the Mets will sweep the Dodgers in the playoff." By the way, only a niave asshole with a weak mind would expect every politician to do exactly what he promised in a campaign. In 1940, Roosevelt promised to keep us out of World War II. Should he have stuck to his pledge rather than have someone like you call him a liar?


You guys are more and more and more and more and more and more tortured every day. In raising the issue of what Al Gore thinks - even if he bought into the load of crap you continually dump, and he doesn't - you are appealing to the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority." Your claim is intellectually dubious to start, but what is even more amusing is that you are completely distorting or misapprehending what is being said in the first place.

What a suprise!

Now maybe you don't know what the words "not opposed" means, but it doesn't matter. You can't stop nuclear energy. The world doesn't give a fuck with whether or not you can figure out how technology works or what words mean. You're irrelevant now. Given your interpretive skills, it's easy to see why.

[bananas]

32. Free in every box of Cap'n Crunch Cereal! A Secret Al Gore Decoder Ring!

LOL, maybe he doesn't really believe in global warming, either.

[NNadir]

33. Well, I'd buy you a box of Cap'n Crunch but I don't think it would do any

good. I think even with the ring, you'd have trouble garnering meaning from text.

I suppose that you and I will vote for Mr. Gore for very different reasons, should he run.

There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. It's politics.

[bananas]

10. So even people who aren't against nuclear power agree it's not a solution

Gore says he's not opposed to nuclear power - you claim Pacala isn't against nuclear power - yet they both conclude it's not a solution to global warming, that there are much better solutions...

[Dead_Parrot]

11. There's a single solution?

Do tell...

[bananas]

12. perhaps you missed the second "s" in "solutions" nt

[Dead_Parrot]

13. So you'll agree "people... agree it's not a solution"

is either a huge strawman or complete nonsense?

Just checking. :)

[NNadir]

14. This "appeal to authority" argument is particularly weak.

First of all, neither of these individuals is particular adept at industrial practice.

Mr Gore, a politician who I support, is particularly careful to "hedge" his claim.

Politically there are still many people who use tortured reasoning to oppose nuclear energy, a mix of radiation paranoia, selective attention, delberate confusion about weapons, etc.

I note that the Dutch Environment minister has been forced to reject these claims. That is because there is reality and fantasy. If you just talk you can embrace the fantastic. If you are required to produce results, you must embrace reality.

I have no doubt that if elected, Mr. Gore will have to sing a different song than he might as a candidate. There are no "better options." They don'te exist.

[jpak]

15. In situ leaching has a low environmental impact????

Injecting sulfuric acid or ammonium carbonate into ground water is environmentally benign?????

Guess again...

ttp://www.wise-uranium.org/uisl.html

<snip>

In the case of Königstein (Germany), a total of 100,000 tonnes of sulfuric acid was injected with the leaching liquid into the ore deposit. At present, 1.9 million m3 of leaching liquid are still locked in the pores of the rock leached so far; a further 0.85 million m3 are circulating between the leaching zone and the recovery plant. The liquid contains high contaminant concentrations, for example, expressed as multiples of the drinking water standards: cadmium 400x, arsenic 280x, nickel 130x, uranium 83x, etc. This liquid presents a hazard to an aquifer that is of importance for the drinking water supply of the region.

Groundwater impact is much larger at the Czech in-situ leaching site of Stráz pod Ralskem: 28.7 million m3 of contaminated liquid is contained in the leaching zone, covering an area of 5.74 km2. This zone contains a total of 1.5 million tonnes of sulphate, 37,500 tonnes of ammonium, and others. In addition to the chemicals needed for the leaching operation (including 3.7 million tonnes of sulfuric acid, among others), 100,000 tonnes of ammonium were injected; they were a waste product resulting from the recovery of uranium from the leaching liquid.
Moreover, the contaminated liquid has spread out beyond the leaching zone horizontally and vertically, thus contaminating another area of 28 km2 and a further 235 million m3 of groundwater. To the southwest, the groundwater contamination has already reached the second zone of groundwater protection of the potable water supply of the town of Mimon. In southeastern direction, the contaminated groundwater is still at a distance of 1.2 - 1.5 km from the second zone of groundwater protection of the Dolánky potable water wells, which supply 200 l/s for the city of Liberec . The migration of the contaminated liquids in an easterly direction towards the Hamr I underground mine is at present intercepted by a hydraulic barrier: decontaminated water is injected into a chain of wells to prevent further migration of the contaminated groundwater.

In Bulgaria, a total of 2.5 million tonnes of sulfuric acid was injected into the ore deposits exploited by in-situ leaching. It is estimated that about 10% of the surface area used for ISL could be contaminated from solution spills. This is of concern, since the area is to be returned to its previous owners for agricultural use.
After termination of the ISL operations, the contaminated groundwater spreads offsite. Some in-situ leaching facilities (for example Bolyarovo, Tenevo/Okop) are located close to drinking water wells.
The impacts of ISL on surface and groundwater are catastrophic:

"Very high concentrations of sulfate ions are measured in surface water and even in wells of private owners as a result of accidental spilling of solutions in sites of in-situ leaching. At the site "Cheshmata" (Haskovo), in the valley downstream from the sorption station, the measured content of sulfates is 1400 mg/l, free H2SO4 is 392 mg/l and pH is 2.2 (5.5 - 8.5 for 3-rd category water). A similar case has been recorded in Navusen where in a valley the sulfate concentration is 13362 mg/l and almost 5 g/l H2SO4, which means that actually the water is leaching...In the underground water of such sites the salt content is >20 g/l, from which the sulfates are 12-15 g/l."

<more>

The Dutch have set a very high bar for their "abandonment" of nuclear abandonment and there are lots of caveats in this supposed "statement" )from a nuclear industry website)...furthermore, these were the conditions that would have to be met to build an new nuclear plant in the Netherlands - not a commitment to do so.

I call BS on the OP...

[NNadir]

16. When sulfuric acid rains from the sky as a result of coal burning,

or leaches into rivers from abandoned coal mines, many people are more or less indifferent. Put the word "uranium" in a sentence, and the usual selective attention is stirred.

There are many lakes in the Northeast that are acidic with pH's below 3 - all in this condition because of coal burning. Just about the entire surface of the earth has been exposed to sulfuric acid from coal burning. If one exposes sulfur trioxide - a combustion product in most of the world's coal burning - to water, sulfuric acid is the result. Hundreds of millions of tons, if not billions of tons of sulfuric acid have been released through coal burning. Further, acid run-off from coal mines covered thousands of square miles of permanently ruined land is an international problem for which no solution exists.

Ammonium carbonate is simply a condensation product of carbon dioxide and ammonia. Most of the world's ammonia is produced for agricultural production, including the pet non-starters like biomass for energy, but also for food production. When ammonia is exposed to air, ammonium carbonate is the result.

The arguments against nuclear power continue to be extremely tortured and depend on selective attention. It reminds one of the Mark Foley repuke morality play in the depth of the hypocrisy.

The anti-nuclear argument is running out of whatever credibility it had, mostly because of the absurdity. I'm sure Van Geel was resistant to the pro-nuclear argument and didn't take office thinking he'd call for a reversal of the Dutch nuclear phase-out. I'm sure he could parrot all of the anti-nuclear absurdities chanted here much as many people can parrot the "Hail Mary." Many people are viscerally anti-nuclear, because most people never think deeper than what they hear on TV and are trained to respond "bad" when the high priests say the word "nuclear." W

When you examine the details and employ critical thinking skills, the rational responses are incontrovertibly obvious however. Undoubtedly Van Geel has been forced to think critically and has met the challenge. Good for him.

I started supporting nuclear power not because of climate change - which when I first considered the matter, was an abstraction - but because of the other environmental effects of coal, especially mining, the fires, the deaths, the stripped mountains, the destroyed rivers, the ash pits, the holes in the earth, the metals, - the acid - the nitrogen oxides, the ozone etc. I've been at this for some decades, and I really am impressed with the rapidity with which the world is coming around to my outlook that it is coal, not nuclear, that represents an unacceptable risk. Until now, I thought I was living in an insane asylum, and maybe I was. It's some, but not much, relief that rationality has poked its lovely head through the smoke though. Now, I do think it's too little, too late, but the fact that the claims of the opposition to nuclear power have been swept aside gives one whatever hope one can have.

The energy/mass density of uranium makes its mining extremely low in environmental impact compared to every other option, including those requiring massive metals production. It uranium mining harmless? Assuredly not. It is just lower in impact than other resource mining strategies.

One can, and should, minimize uranium mining by the use of fuel recycling. However uranium mining will never have the impact of other forms of energy mining. As always, nuclear energy need not be perfect, only better than its alternatives, which, as always, it is. Eventually recovery from seawater - which is very low in environmental impact - will become economic, but until then, in situ extraction - especially with the carbonate complex improvement - is a very good approach, the best we have.

Do I think nuclear energy will save the day? Probably not. It's probably too late. However it's the only real shot we have, and so we must take it ASAP because no other option is really proved as nuclear energy has been proved. Apparently this reality is dawning on Europe much as it has in the rest of the world. One hopes that with the blinders off, we can save at least something.

[hunter]

17. Yes, compared to coal.

For example, look at the all those "no fish" streams in Pennsylvania.

1,714 miles of waterways where fish can't live because of acid mine drainage.

1,525 miles of waterways where fish struggle to live.

If somebody was smoking a cigarette and telling me they won't go in their basement because there might be radon down there, I would have to think they had their priorities a little mixed up. On a per-kilowatt hour basis nuclear power does much less environmental damage than coal. In the case of coal we are looking at a planet wide disaster that will probably mean the end of this civilization, especially if sea levels start to rise and industrial agriculture fails. The environmental damage done by nuclear power is not so grim.

[jpak]

19. Tortured logic indeed

US and New Jersey sulfur dioxide emissions are currently ~13.6 million and ~44 thousand tonnes per year, respectively.

Yet nuclear advocates, see nothing wrong with a SINGLE uranium mine that deposited to 2.5 million tonnes of sulfuric acid into local ground water, mobilized tonnes of toxic metals and reduced the pH of the groundwater to 2.2.

It seems the "clean and green" uranium mining industry - like the pronuclear Devil Bush - is quite sulfurous indeed.

Nuclear advocates also blithely ignore the consequences of massive additions of ammonium carbonate into ground water. Ammonium is produced from natural gas. This process releases CO2 - a greenhouse gas - into the collapsing atmosphere. Nitrifying bacteria oxidize ammonium to nitrate and produce nitrous oxide (a powerful greenhouse gas that also destroys stratospheric ozone). Nitrification consumes oxygen and alters the redox potential of ground water which also mobilizes toxic metals. At high concentrations, both ammonium and nitrate are toxic to plants and animals. Nitrate leaching from these mines will lead to the eutrophication fresh and estuarine waters and produce more N2O from denitrification.

...but that's OK...ISL uranium mines are clean and green!!!!11111

Rather than engage in critical thinking, nuclear advocates play the ostrich and ignore the insanity which is nuclear power.

There is only one sustainable source of green energy and that energy is renewable energy!!!

QED

[NickB79]

21. Deleted

nt

[NNadir]

22. So your new claim is that the world's ammonia goes to nuclear mining?

Let me understand this tortured argument. Is it coming from a "biofuels" advocate?

Spare me the freshman biology lecture. I'm not a dumb kid in West Florida googly-eyed over whether she gets a D minus or a C for not knowing about denitrifying bacteria on quiz number 2. Of course, if I were teaching chemistry, I would fail anybody who couldn't understand enough about acid base chemistry to calculate the pH of ammonium carbonate.

You do not call for the banning of any mining except uranium mining. That's tortured. Specifically you have no problem with mining coal, either to make steel for your silly windmills, or to provide energy when renewables remain, as they have for decades, unable to supply even a fraction of the world's energy needs.

You do not call for the banning of nitrogen fixation except for where it is connected with uranium. Specifically you advocate biofuels, ignoring, in typical tortured appeals, that the largest demand for fixed nitrogen in the world is agriculture. That's tortured.

US emission of fixed nitrogen and the sources (as nitrous oxide) are listed right here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/noemissions_tbls.html

The biggest drivers are crops and - what a surprise - burning fossil fuels. So hypocritical concern for fixed nitrogen is not an element of your agenda. That's tortured.

Here is one plant in Trinidad and Tobago that produces 2.098 million metric tons of ammonia per year. If world uranium production shut tomorrow - and it won't because no one gives a shit what you say - this plant would still operate and still have a market. Or do you deny that? Is it OK if we just distribute that nitrogen all over the continental United States, let it flow into the gulf of Mexico because JPak thinks the world's cars can run on soybean oil?

Some US ammonia plants and their capacity are listed here: http://www.the-innovation-group.com/ChemProfiles/Ammonia.htm Do you have any clue why so many are in the midwest? Uranium mining is the main industry in Iowa?

Nowhere is uranium mining listed as a primary driver for the fixed nitrogen business. This is because the mass density of uranium is enormous. Each kg of uranium is the energy equivalent of 600,000 gallons of gasoline.

You don't do data, you just make stuff up. Here however is data on the output of sulfur oxides from fossil fuels in the United States over the last ten years: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p1.html

This does not include acid leach from mines, just what's injected into the air. The sum of the sulfur oxides released in just ten years, in just one country, ours, is over 100 million metric tons. If I tell you that it leaches uranium from granite will you suddenly give a shit about that? No, you won't. In order for you to give a shit about sulfur oxides, it has to be connected to the nuclear industry about which you know next to nothing.

I have not said that uranium mining is without risk. I have just said that it is of lower risk than any alternative. There's nothing tortured in that statement. It's a simple comparison.

You might wish to write the environmental minister of the Netherlands, Van Neer, with your objections, but I'm guessing he'll put them in the circular file, exactly where they belong. He's a grown up apparently.

[jpak]

26. I have no problems mining coal??? Really??? I said that???

No, that is false.

and biofuels comprise what percent of world agricultural production????

and I advocate fertilizers for their production???

No, that is false - I advocate organic and low-impact agriculture and sustainable forestry for the production of biofuels and efficient low-emission low-carbon transportation systems to use them.

Your claim is false

The steel used in silly windmills, unlike the irradiated steel used in nuclear reactors, is recyclable and can be used to produce many generations of future silly windmills with less energy input than it takes for the de novo synthesis of steel.

You ignore the nitrous oxide emissions from ammonium carbonate used to intentionally pollute ground water for uranium production.

It is neither clean or green - and no amount of bluster can change that.

Make stuff up??? I stated that annual US sulfur dioxide emissions were 13.6 million tonnes (in 2003) - which is correct.

And there is no sulfuric acid leaching from uranium mines - ISL or otherwise???

There is...

Tortured logic indeed.

[NNadir]

27. Well if your happy that biofuels represent a tiny, infinitesimal

portion of the world's agricultural production, that's fine. It just goes to show that you are satisfied with the status quo.

Nitrogen oxides dumped on fields also intentionally pollute the fields, at least to the same sense that you - in tortured language - describe a uranium mining as doing. For the record, more modern extraction techniques will rely on supercritical carbon dioxide and will be sort of like a well, sequestration plant. The chemistry of carbonate complexes of uranium is well understood, but you wouldn't know that. In fact there are some in situ mines that use sodium bicarbonate. Now I know that you seem not to understand what a buffer is, but the sodium bicarbonate buffer is a buffer that operates in human blood, as well as in cupcake chemistry.

Most people are aware of the effects of agricultural run-off. Biofuels are neither clean nor green and no amount of splitting words and torturing language can change that. There's a guy who set himself on fire to protest the "green" fossil fuel industry.

Of course, people will buy and make biofuels - there's a tremendous subsidy for it everywhere - and it will not compare to the damage done by petroleum. No one, however, realistically believes that petroleum will eliminate petroleum, as desirable as elimination will be. The question is how much agriculture can expand to meet whatever is possible. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the world's glaciers are disappearing. These glaciers feed much of the world's agriculture. So this raises the question of what, exactly, is sustainable.

When you "advocate low-impact agriculture and sustainable forestry" it is the same as advocating Santa Claus. You cannot demonstrate the existence of these practices for the majority of biofuels, although we are well aware that you can tell us all about tiny systems that work for 10 or 20 people. The largest biomass industry the world is burning wood. Now I know that there are some trust fund kids in Maine who "manage" their land "sustainably," but in many places in the world, the use of wood leads to deforestation. Of course you will deny that, but it makes no difference. I really don't think that your denial will restore the forests of Nepal, or for that matter, Brazil.

Most of the world's aquifers are stretched. Saline intrusions and desertification are clearly proceeding at a rapid pace. I know you will deny that this situation will impact the plans of trust fund kids to drive their Volkswagens with biodiesel, but I don't give a shit about your denial, any more than I give a shit about your denial of the fact that solar PV energy will never have a major impact on climate change, not in our lifetimes.

I'm quite sure that you are very happy with 13 million tons of sulfuric acid released from coal, but my original contention is that billions of tons have been released over the lifetime of coal burning - which by the way you have no evidence that you can replace on scale. In your tortured reasoning you continually refer to the lifetime accumulations of nuclear energy's so called "waste," but once again you distort the situation with happy "coal pollution is not that bad" horse shit by producing the number for one year. What do you want, a fucking medal? Coal as dumped billions of tons of sulfuric acid into the air in the lifetime of nuclear power.

I have pointed out many times - to be met with your denial although I've produced lots of scientific papers on the subject - including the description of pilot operations, detailed experiments on pore size, flow rates, cross linking, etc - that uranium can be recovered from seawater using amidoxime resins. For this to happen, the price of uranium will need to rise to $200/kg, but ultimately I believe that will happen, sometime late in this century. In fact the driving energy for this chemical separation - ocean currents - is completely renewable and involves very little toxicity to the ocean. Of course, you will jump up and down with all sorts of ridiculous objections, not because you understand the science, or because you are competent to even understand what the technology is about - but because you will torture a description any detail of nuclear technology because of your religious objection to nuclear power. Now I happen to think we should pass laws to require the use of this technology now. Why? Because it's cleaner. I also believe that all spent nuclear fuel should be recycled, even though it is more expensive than $200/kg. Why? To conserve important resources for future generations.

Yes your reasoning is tortured. I note that if anyone raised the risk requirements for renewable energy to the same level as you raise objections to nuclear power, the renewable industry would die tomorrow, especially the biofuels industry, but almost certainly the solar PV industry (which has a higher external cost than nuclear) and maybe even the wind energy.

I am advocating systems that are immediately available and not in some futuristic la-la land of trust fund imaginations. Why? Because the emergency is now, not in some future la-la land populated by trust fund kids sipping wine while visiting the family estates up North.

In the next three years, in seven countries around the world, almost 10,000 MWe of new nuclear capacity will be completed and placed on line - representing, at about 30% efficiency, about one exajoule energy production annually. These new reactors will produce almost as much energy as the entire combined existing output of all non-hydro renewable resources produced in 2004.

In the following three years, another 15,000MW of new nuclear energy will come on line, representing
representing another 1.7 exajoules of primary energy.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip19.htm

Thus the growth in nuclear capacity in just these six years is likely to exceed the entire output of renewables to date, which represented just 1.2 exajoules worldwide from all sources, solar, wind, geothermal, wind, garbage burning and wood in 2004. (Note: Except for wood, efficiency doesn't matter for renewable resources like wind and solar. The fact that solar cells only recover a portion of the solar flux is energetically meaningless, since sunlight is different than the fuel of thermal systems. The same is true for wind. Thus I have made the assumption that primary energy is nearly the equivalent of electrical energy, even though this is not strictly true for wood.)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

The energy content of the world's coal was 120 exajoules (115 quads):

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee4.xls

Thus just six years of building new nuclear plants will represent enough energy to displace 2% of the world's coal demand, on top of the energy 26% of coal equivalent energy that nuclear already represents.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

(To derive the primary energy produced by nuclear means, multiply the figure for worldwide nuclear production, 2619 billion kilowatt-hours, by 3.6 X 10¹⁵ joules per billion kilowatt-hours and divide by ¹⁸ to get the number of exajoules of electrical energy generated by nuclear means worldwide. Then assume 30% efficiency to get 31.4 exajoules.)

Now nobody is trying to stop you or anyone else from building windmills. (Well the Danish government is trying to stop building more Danish windmills, but that's another question.) But it is an out to lunch delusion to assume that building whatever windmills can be forced through NIMBY groups is enough.

The fact is that by increasing the world's supply of nuclear energy by a factor of 4 to completely displace all of the world's coal energy. Were we to build another 1200 reactors beyond the 443 now operating, coal mining, coal burning, coal ash, regular coal mining deaths numbering in the thousands, heavy metals released by coal, coal related acid rain, would all be gone. Moreover, by instituting fuel recycling with advanced proliferation resistant fuel cycles of the CORAIL type, the need for mining could be minimized. In fact there has been very little need for uranium mining in the last ten years, since the world was burning much surplus weapons stock in that period. That's how energetically dense uranium is. Recovering the energy in spent fuel and depleted uranium already mined offers the possibility of a similar outcome in future decades, as would an extension of nuclear disarmament.

As to whether that will happen, I note that every year the pace of nuclear building is increased. China alone, intends to build 40 reactors in the next 15 years:

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050407024531.vn97m1hl.html

Right now China is adding two or three reactors a year, but I would not be surprised if in 10 years they are adding 5 or 10 a year, much as we did in the US in the 1960's and 1970's. (France built about 5 per year in the 1980's.)

Russia plans 40 more in the next 25 years: http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/530e0c8c-3a1e-4fd8-aad8-8cf0c3a9c39c.html

Nobody expected any US reactors a few years ago, but now parts on are on order for the first two new US reactors in decades. The current number of reactors under consideration here is up to 21. Earlier this year it was about 10. Next year the number may be in the 30's. It is no longer a question of if new reactors will be built here, but when.

To attempt eliminate coal with renewable energy - and neither wind nor solar can replace coal, since coal is used for base load power - would require a scale up by a factor of 100 - and there's no evidence that this can or will be done. Indeed, recent attempts to scale solar PV - which produces much less than 1% of the world's electricity was met with world wide delays, back-orders, and rising prices. Neither is there any evidence that such an attempt - and no one is seriously advocating it - would not completely destroy all of the earth's water and land resources.

This is why the world has rejected your arguments and why you are irrelevant. There are 28 reactors under construction, 62 ordered or planned, and 160 proposed. The people involved in these hundreds of projects don't give a fuck what you think. They have serious concerns - climate change being an important one. The reactors under discussion, if all built, (they are on average, larger than past reactors) will represent another 22 exajoules of primary energy production, or roughly 1/5 of all the energy now produced by coal.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm

[jpak]

28. "Nobody expected any US reactors a few years ago"

You can thank Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force for that.

It is also clear that you cannot argue a point without posting personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you or creating a ridiculous straw men to "prove" your point.

"I'm quite sure that you are very happy with 13 million tons of sulfuric acid released from coal"

"It just goes to show that you are satisfied with the status quo."

"Maybe you haven't noticed, but the world's glaciers are disappearing. These glaciers feed much of the world's agriculture."

*yawn*

Here's a good one...

"but my original contention is that billions of tons have been released over the lifetime of coal burning - which by the way you have no evidence that you can replace on scale."

Yes I have - Coal-fired power plants produce ~50% of US electricity (consuming ~900,000 million tonnes of coal per year). The Electric Power Research Institute concluded several years ago that current technology could be used to reduce US electrical demand by 24-45%. The DOE published a study recently that concluded that the US could sustainably produce ~1 billion tonnes of biomass fuel per year (the energy content of biomass fuels are similar to the energy content of coals). Conservation and biomass could thus sustainably replace ALL energy related coal use in the US - and there would be plenty of biomass left over for other energy uses.

I am not worried one bit about the future of renewable energy - it is the only viable option civilization has for sustainable energy supplies and - unlike nuclear power - enjoys wide popularity. Renewables are growing faster than nuclear energy and will be the major sources of electricity and thermal energy in the US and worldwide by 2050.

You can bank on it.

I am also not worried about the future of nuclear power - it has none beyond 2050 or so (something about limited nonrenewable resources as I remember) - and when the Democrats retake the House and Senate this November US nuclear energy policy will not be so "Cheney Friendly".

and finally, only Santa Claus believes commercial scale uranium extraction from seawater has net positive energy balance and is environmentally benign.

As I have pointed out many times - the volumes of seawater required to support the current US (or global) nuclear power industry are enormous - more than ten times the annual discharge of the Mississippi River for the US alone (>7500 cubic kilometers per year). One can delude one's self all they want, but in the real world this scheme would be an environmental disaster.

*yawn again*

[NNadir]

29. I assumed you would say "Dick Cheney" in response.

I also assume that you claim Dick Cheney is responsible for the nuclear programs in the 21 countries I mentioned. This is typical of your use of logical fallacies.

As for commercial uranium extraction from seawater, I do understand that you are incapable of understanding the physics, chemistry and engineering but we'll just add the authors of all the following papers to the list of people who don't give a fuck what you think and are going to do heave your wishful thinking on the pile of discredited assertions:

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1994,33, 657-661 Recovery of Uranium from Seawater. 15. Development of Amidoxime
Resins with High Sedimentation Velocity for Passively Driver Fluidized
Bed Adsorbers

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 42, 5900-5904 Selective Concentration of Uranium from Seawater by
Nanofiltration

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 31, No. 1, 1992 Preparation and Performance of Amidoxime Fiber Adsorbents for Recovery of Uranium from Seawater

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2000, 39, 2910-2915 Comparison of Amidoxime Adsorbents Prepared by Cografting Methacrylic Acid and 2-Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate with Acrylonitrile onto Polyethylene

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1994,33, 662-666 Effect of Seawater Temperature on Uranium Recovery from Seawater.

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1993,32, 709-715 Recovery of Uranium from Seawater. 14. System Arrangements for the Recovery of Uranium from Seawater by Spherical Amidoxime Chelating
Resins Utilizing Natural Seawater Motions

Znd. Eng. Chem. Res. 1993,32, 540-547 Recovery of Uranium from Seawater. 13. Long-Term Stability Tests for High-Performance Chelating Resins Containing Amidoxime Groups and Evaluation of Elution Process Using Amidoxime Adsorbents

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as ususal.

Here is some text from one of the papers describing the nature of one test:

Towing and/or Mooring Exposure Tests in Imari Bay (Tests III and IV).

In test III, four kinds of the resins wereused: thenontreated RNH-2 and RNH-5 dresins and the alkali-treated ones. A 3.5-mL portion of each resin was packed into thin rectangular bags (3.5 X 5.0 cm) made of a polyethylene net (80 mesh). After the bags were sealed (thickness of the packed resin layer, ca. 2.6 mm), they were fixed onto the inner bottom of adsorption beds (acting as support of the bags). The features of the beds and location of the hags on the inner bottom of each bed are shown in Figure 2. The beds were then fastened to frameworks made of metal pipes. The thus assembled setup was called an “adsorption-bed unit”, and its configuration is shown in Figure 3. The sc-called units were towed and moored in Imari Bay. The units were towed by a small ship at a veloeity of 1 m/s for 10 h in a day as shown in Figure 4, and then moored in the bay until the next towing. This towing and mooring cycle was repeated three timesuntiltotal towing andmooring periods attained 30 and 50 h, respectively (run 1). At this point, the bags labeled R1 (refer to Figure 2) were taken out from the units. The units with the remaining hags Labeled R2 were further moored for 830 h in the bay. During this mooring, the units were covered with a light-shielding sheet (Mark Unitika Co. Ltd., Osaka) in order to prevent growth of marine plants on the units. Finally, the towing and mooring cycles were repeated again just as in run 1.

Consequently, the overall towing and mooring periods in run 2 were 60 and 930 h, respectively...

They apparently didn't bother to check with you about your assertions about the volume of the Mississippi River before doing the experiment because basically they have no interest in your dogmatic assertions. They don't give a fuck what you think, nor is there any evidence they should.

Nobody buys your bullshit fantasy about biofuels either. If they did, you would be able to produce commercial systems under construction that match the nuclear systems listed in my previous post. Your fucking talk is meaningless. Maybe you're boring yourself with all that dumb yawning, I don't know.

I have shown new nuclear capacity under construction that will produce between 2 and 3 exajoules of energy in six years. You on the other hand produce an unsupported statement that reads,

Yes I have - Coal-fired power plants produce ~50% of US electricity (consuming ~900,000 million tonnes of coal per year). The Electric Power Research Institute concluded several years ago that current technology could be used to reduce US electrical demand by 24-45%. The DOE published a study recently that concluded that the US could sustainably produce ~1 billion tonnes of biomass fuel per year (the energy content of biomass fuels are similar to the energy content of coals). Conservation and biomass could thus sustainably replace ALL energy related coal use in the US - and there would be plenty of biomass left over for other energy uses.

When exactly? 2336?

You have been producing could and would statements endlessly. They're useless. What we need are is statements, as in "The Cernavoda-2 reactor is under construction in Romania and will come on line in 2007."

Where exactly are the plants to produce 3 exajoules of new renewable biomass energy under construction? Nowhere. They aren't planned; they are under construction; they aren't looking for financing. They're pipe dreams.

You seem to think - and I recognize this as a trust fund sensibility - that people should believe what you say because you say it.

Now maybe you think that your blank assertions should assure everybody, but you have no credibility. Personally, I don't even bother to read half of what you write anymore, because I know that it will be nonsense because you say it.

It's not just me who doesn't give a shit about your ravings. The world has rejected your claims, and chanting "Dick Cheney" all fucking night long isn't going to give you any more credibility than the zero credibility you have. Saying "Dick Cheney" will not stop one Chinese reactor, nor one Indian reactor, nor one Romanian reactor, nor one Finnish reactor, nor one Japanese reactor, nor one South Korean reactor. It won't stop one US reactor either, which is a good thing, because the emergency at hand demands the work of serious people. There are plenty of people who support nuclear energy and don't like Dick Cheney. The fact that you insist on a talismanic/demonic approach to addressing this issue clarifies the level at which you think.

The anti-nuclear movement is done. You can stick a fork in it.

[jpak]

30. I most certainly do understand physics and chemistry and engineering

and most certainly do understand what it takes to extract, let's say, 234Th from seawater.

234Th deficits are routinely used by oceanographers to estimate particulate organic carbon fluxes. 234Th (a daughter of 238U) and is readily adsorbed to particulate organic matter. When these particles sink, they reduce the concentration of 234Th in surface waters. The size of the 234Th deficit is proportional to the rate of particle sinking - which is calibrated using moored or floating sediment trap arrays.

Large submersible electric pumps are used to process thousands of liters of seawater to obtain a few nanograms of 234Th and other radionuclides.

and some of us use cation and anion exchange resins to quantify trace elements in seawater. They don't leave them in seawater for months at a time as microbial biofilms and sessile macroorganisms quickly colonize these materials and render them useless.

And some of us find it funny that anti-renewable types will poo-poo the work of the HSU reseachers and the Utsira hydrogen project ("too small" they say) but in the same breath crow about the *few* grams of 235U that some Japanese researchers "claim" they have isolated from seawater.

Hypocrisy indeed.

Furthermore, Dick Cheney and the massive subsidies in the GOP Energy Bill of 2005 are the ONLY reason any US utility would consider building a new nuclear power plant.

and most of us understand this....and we don't resort to name calling to prove our points...

[NNadir]

31. Not in my opinion.

I insist that for the reasons described in my previous posts that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I gave scientific references indicating that people who do know what they're talking about don't give a flying fuck about what you assert.



Sprinkling a little pseudoscientific terminology into a set of absurd contentions will not help either. You still are clueless. I have long been aware that you have no idea about the nature of nuclear equilibrium; I recall that several times you denied its existence. Now you raise subject that is related to that phenomena in an effort to sound "informed." Actually though, since it is has nothing to do with the subject at hand, it makes you even more ridiculous.

No matter.

Like I said, you are irrelevant.

This may come as a surprise to the little princes hiking around the family estates musing to themselves about how much firewood they can "sustainably" cut off Mommy and Daddy's acreage, but there are many people who are not Dick Cheney who support nuclear power and who are unimpressed by the unreferenced mutterings such as you produce.

I'd like to think that people like me played a role in the building of new nuclear reactors, by pointing out by word of mouth just how fucked up and weak the anti-nuclear arguments are. I was speaking as I speak now before most people even heard of Dick Cheney. I am sure that there are a fair number of people who when they hear of a new nuclear reactor are relieved, because they have understood what I have taken the time to discuss with them.

I'm sure of my own motivations. My Mommy and Daddy didn't manage land that had been in their family for generations. They didn't have "holdings" and investments. They were laborers, union members. When strikes came, my mother didn't wander the family property looking for the ideal tree to harvest. She worried if she could buy food, or keep clothing on my back or stay in her home. Because I grew up in such a world, I have sympathy for those who are not doing well, those who do not live in a world of academic abstractions, but in the day to day world of mere survival, those who live in fear of deprivation and suffering and denied access.

Sometimes things were rough, but at others they were surprisingly good: I am a child of the well regulated capitalism of the 1950's, 60's and early 70's, where mass production and public ethics made decent living standards broadly available across a vast and largely honorable middle class. My world was made by people like the Roosevelts, people who believed in fairness, opportunity, and justice and basic human rights, including economic rights. All of these things were available because there were resources, especially energy resources.

But there is a difference between a decent standard of living and a devotion to rich boy toys: The modern equivalents of my parents are not concerned with buying elaborate PV systems and huge banks of batteries and shelling out twice their annual salaries earned in places like Walmart so they can satisfy the bizarre representations of the little princes. Some of them are just trying to keep their kids fed and clothed and warm, just as my parents did. These need affordable and continuously available energy; one might argue that having these things is a human right.

The main reason that US utilities are considering nuclear power is because nuclear reactors work and produce cheap and clean power. Until the operational bugs were worked out, nuclear reactors typically worked at low capacity utilization. Now that decades of experience - thousands of reactor years - of experience are available, the situation is quite different. Nuclear energy has the highest name plate capacity utilization of any form of energy in the United States, coal included. For this reason, any company that owns and operates a modern reactor is probably experiencing it as a cash cow. Such a lesson is not easily lost on business executives.

I think for a long time, they worried about public acceptability, and bullshit delaying tactics used by lame Greenpeace types, but when they finally got around to checking out the climate they were surprised to have communities like that of Calvert Cliffs Maryland begging for more reactors.

I'd like to think that the attitude where people ask to have nuclear power plants built in their area have only come to pass because of lots of people like me, who worked hard to clarify what's going on. To the extent that I have helped to change public attitudes, I feel proud of my efforts.

Moreover, I think many utility executives know that carbon controls are going to come and a few cute little windmills in Maine and the bullshit promises of Arnie Steroid man's solar roofs, aren't going to do the trick. Thus utility executives - seeing the writing on the wall - want nuclear power to diversify their sources against the business implications of (necessary) regulation. They may not be able to get gas, and they may not be allowed to get coal. (Hooray for that!) Finally, not to rain on the little parade of our socialist Fidelite friends, some people who work in utilities are not in fact little demons who need to be struck down by the Holy Brats of Greenpeace waving windmill blades like swords. Some of them are working people who care about the future, who care about their children, and who care about the earth. People who care about their children, who care about the future, and who care about the earth don't gamble these things on bullshit unproved day dreams of puerile morally and intellectually isolated. They know that nuclear power is safer and cleaner than any of the alternatives. They want nuclear power because they want to be proud of what they do.

None of these people give a fuck about how often you can say "Dick Cheney." They know that Dick Cheney is irrelevant, much as you are irrelevant. I assure you that most people are smart enough to understand what a Dick is, and whatever Dicks might say, it means dick about the matter of nuclear energy.

And now from the grand world of sustainable biofuels, let's take a look at a satellite view of Haiti, one of the most impoverished nations on the face of this dire planet, where most of the biofuels do not come from Mommy and Daddy's acreage, but right out of the flesh of the raped and ravaged wilderness, where desperately impoverished people burn just about anything they can find that can be burned:

The border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Haiti is to the left and the Dominican Republic is the greener area to the right

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002600/a002640/

[jpak]

34. The Dominican Republic practices responsible forestry and Haiti does not

Political instability, violence and corruption in Haiti make it difficult for local and national governments and NGOs to halt the destruction of Haiti's forests or remediate them.

This is not the case in the Dominican Republic (which has over 1.1 million hectares of forest). It is clear from that photo that their forest policy works.

The argument that sustainable forestry cannot work in developing countries is just plain wrong.

Where unsustainable forestry *does* take place in the developing world, it is often illegal and/or benefits corrupt governments, officials and commercial enterprises. Logging in these areas produces timber for pulp and wood products - not firewood. Any suggestion to the contrary is just plain wrong.

Inexpensive appropriate wood burning technology (and solar cookers) could reduce the demand for firewood and reduce indoor and outdoor pollution in developing countries...

http://journeytoforever.org/at_woodfire.html

Biogas from animal manures and night soil could also be used for cooking and heat - China is the world leader in developing rural biogas projects. The processed manure is far less polluting than the raw material and is also used as a high quality fertilizer.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiogasChina.php

Solar LEDs bring light into poor rural homes - these can be purchased with micro-loans (note: this year's Nobel Peace Prize went the developer of micro-loans in Bangladesh). These devices would eliminate the need to purchase kerosene for lighting - and these saving would quickly offset the initial cost of the PV/LEDs.

http://environment.about.com/b/a/233210.htm

Small-scale PV systems and wind turbines could produce electricity for irrigation, cellular telephone networks and drinking water purification. Inexpensive solar collectors could preheat water for cooking and cleaning too.

Can Haiti afford a nuclear power plant???

Nope.

Does Haiti have a modern functioning grid to bring electricity to Haiti's rural poor???

Nope.

Could Haiti's rural poor even afford nuclear electricity????

Nope

Who would benefit from nuclear power in Haiti - the corrupt Haitian elite???

Yup.

Have the rural poor of Gabon and Niger benefited from French exploitation of their uranium resources???

Nope

Have the rural poor of the Congo benefited from Belgian exploitation of their uranium resources???

Nope

Are the rural poor of Gabon and Niger and other African counties exposed to the environmental impacts of (foreign) uranium mining???

Yup

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=46864

www.calla.ecn.cz/data/energetika/seminare/eaje/diehl.pdf

Did uranium mining bring prosperity to the Navajo????

Nope - only suffering and death...

http://www.sonic.net/~kerry/uranium.html

and all the infantile name calling in the world won't make these inconvenient facts go away...

[NNadir]

35. Of course if we follow your program for rich people, we can all be Haitian

The fact is that a clean renewable scheme is a program for rich middle class brats, trust fund kids who can afford catalysts and the like. For the rest of the world the renewable business - which is really simply the persistence of primitive technology - has been an unmitigated disaster.

You write about your "could be" bullshit as if it were standard practice. Your general approach is to take specific cases and pretend that they are general, while failing to be bothered at all about the general state of affairs.

In the third world, in his the hereditary landed classes - those who have had land in their generations - who profit. Some of them attempt to assume mantles of decency, but mostly it's just crap. I have no doubt that an element of the decay of the United States into third world status - a process that is well underway - will produce the same state of affairs here. I firmly believe that your reactionary approach to energy and the environment will lead to broad impoverishment and wholesale environmental destruction. It's a "let them eat cake" approach, filled as aways with "coulds" and "woulds". You are completely blind however - and frequently engage in outright denial of - what is happening.

Inexpensive appropriate wood burning technology (and solar cookers) could reduce the demand for firewood and reduce indoor and outdoor pollution in developing countries...

Biogas from animal manures and night soil could also be used for cooking and heat - China is the world leader in developing rural biogas projects. The processed manure is far less polluting than the raw material and is also used as a high quality fertilizer.

Solar LEDs bring light into poor rural homes - these can be purchased with micro-loans (note: this year's Nobel Peace Prize went the developer of micro-loans in Bangladesh). These devices would eliminate the need to purchase kerosene for lighting - and these saving would quickly offset the initial cost of the PV/LEDs.

I see such an approach as elitist and frankly, morally indifferent. The last of your statements that I have quoted is so ringing in its contempt for the magnitude of its (upper) middle class indifference to real and current human suffering as to be a classic. Exactly how many Haitians do you think are going to have LED's in the next one hundred years? If there's two of them, no doubt you will fill these pages with breathless "feel good" "isn't it wonderful?" wishful thinking - providing all sorts of links to rich kid websites about the wonderful situation of the two Haitians - but billions of people worldwide will simultaneously remain in serious and exigent risk unremarked by a single Greenpeace brat anywhere.

As for facts, isolated and as dogmatic as you are, you have little appreciation of what a fact might actually be as every single one of your posts in this, and many other threads so clearly demonstrate.

I have not pretended that nuclear power is easy to provide or simple, but I note some of those countries that a pursuing the nuclear option with the highest sense of urgency are precisely those nations that have huge and restless underclasses, specifically India and China. There are 28 nuclear reactors now under construction and 16 of them are in these two countries.

I'm sure that this trend will continue - since at least in the Chinese case - there are no hereditary aristocrats who see the world through rose colored glasses. I note, though, that of the 17 new nuclear reactors that have been ordered in the last year or two around the world, 7 of them are Japanese. The Japanese have made a commitment to become more like France in the share of energy provided by nuclear power and specifically have announced an intention to do so with the idea of reducing their use of fossil fuels.

That's neither here nor there though. In China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, India and Pakistan, in Finland, France, the Netherlands, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, in Argentina and Brazil, and in South Africa and Nigeria, in the United States and Canada, nobody gives a flying fuck about what you say. These and many other nations - announced and unannounced - are recognizing that nuclear energy is an essential element of addressing the crisis that is now before us.

But look, your middle class blinders aside, sometimes you manage some marginal successes. That was a great story that you posted about another "world's largest" solar power station in Germany. I notice that you've finally managed to insert the word "peak" while mentioning the tiny "world's largest" facility. That is a surprise. I always look forward to your latest "world's largest" announcement, and really, I would have no objection whatsoever if non-hydro renewable energy someday makes it to ten or twenty exajoules. I doubt it will happen, having spent decades listening to this crap, but I would love to be surprised and proved wrong, since anything that is greenhouse gas free is good.

[jpak]

36. NGOs are already installing PV systems and building solar cookers in Haiti

http://www.grupofenix.org/Projects/Haiti_Solar_Work/haiti_solar_work.html

<snip>

While we were taking this trip, they were installing a satellite dish for an Internet hookup. We got that going for a while that evening, and later got it going for about 2 hours a day, using the diesel engine for power. As part of the course, we designed the PV power system for this "Ciber Café", which will serve the local school and the peasants, who can pay a small hourly fee to get online for the first time in their lives. The first PV modules we made will go on the roof of the cyber café when they are not being used to pump water, but they plan to make many more to get the 2 to 3 Kw we calculated will be necessary to run the cyber café 6 hours a day every day. The hookup fee for the internet is $100 per month. and they hope to collect that amount from the users.

<snip>

The next stage of the course were the two irrigation workshops. The first workshop site was a MPP nursery next to a small river, where we had to pump water about 8 meters to the top of the storage tank. We used a type of diaphragm pump, new to this work, that is normally used to circulate water through the bait boxes on Maine lobster boats. It is continuous duty and very efficient; we discovered that it would pump about 700 gallons per day using just one of the 35 watt PV modules made in Haiti (with a bit of extra electricity in the middle of the day, that can be put into a storage battery to run lights in a small home at night). We used the low pressure T-Tape to deliver the water to the fields in both this and the second installation, which was a much smaller head situation, but the diaphragm pump still proved to be a better choice than the marine bilge pump we also got working from the PV modules. The bilge pump only costs about $40 (instead of almost $100 for the diaphragm pump) but it needed 100 watts of PV module power and still didn't pump as much water in a partly cloudy day.

The course ended up with an evening Fiesta, with a real African flavor and a wrap-up session where it was decided that the Grupo Fenix now has a permanent relationship with the Haitian peasants.

<more>

Grupo Phenix has been providing the rural poor in Nicaragua with solar technology for many years...

http://www.grupofenix.org/Projects/projects.html

Enersol has provided PV systems to 100,000 people in the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Honduras...they create local solar businesses and micro-loan payment programs to fund make PV accessible to the rural poor.

www.enersol.org/documents/Enersol-Annualreport2003.pdf

http://www.enersol.org/edudulcis_haiti.html

Dulcis (May 2002)

Through a partnership with the Peace Corps, a local Catholic school, and support from the Weyerhaeuser family's CHERBEC Fund, Enersol provided a portable solar energy kit to run notebooks computers in this remote Haitian village. Enough power is generated to run the computers for 2 hours each day. The user population numbers approximately 20 high school students.

<more>

SWTDI is providing solar cookers to rural Haitians today...

http://www.nmsu.edu/~tdi/International/InternationalLocations/WestIndies.html

<snip>

Haiti

SWTDI staff went to the Centre de Energie Alternative in Port-Au-Prince, Haiti in 1994 to help advance solar cooking technology into the rural countryside. Solar cookers are becoming increasingly important in Haiti as deforestation is decimating fuelwood availability.

<snip>

...and solar dealers/installers have been been doing business in Haiti for 23 years...

http://64.20.42.182/solar/index.htm?

And how many nuclear plants are they building in Haiti???

none

[NNadir]

37. See, I knew you'd come up with some project for twenty people.

The population of Haiti is 8.3 million, but who's counting? Just to think, that's enough Haitians to give 400,000 opportunities for rich white boys to assauge their liberal guilt by providing 2 hours on a solar computer to a group of twenty people for 2 hours a day. (That of course comes down to 12 minutes a day - less time that it takes to write this post, but let's be clear, the Haitians aren't reading Democratic Underground.)

Fucking Haiti looks like a renewable energy paradise: Stripped of forests, impoverished and hungry people and oh yeah, years of stupid rich kids taking pictures of a Catholic school with a set solar cells on the roofs.

To answer your question about nuclear plants planned in Haiti: They are building zero nuclear plants in Haiti, which is why the country is living in hell, not that there's a single hereditary landowning aristocrat who gives a flying fuck about how Haitians really live, so long as they don't have nuclear power.

Thanks for telling us all about the Haitians being able to run their computers for two hours a day. Any idea what the per capita Haitian ownership of computers are? Why am I not surprised to find - in the context of Haiti - this remark:

While we were taking this trip, they were installing a satellite dish for an Internet hookup. We got that going for a while that evening, and later got it going for about 2 hours a day, using the diesel engine for power.

Now Haiti's real problem is addressed: Internet hook-ups.

Another classic.

The per capita energy consumption in Haiti is 3.4 million BTU, the lowest in the Western Hemisphere, and 1/100th of the United States. In fact, the Haitian per capita energy consumption would be the lowest in the world if there weren't so many African nations where solar cooking is so popular.

Let me clue you in, the low Haitian energy consumption is not the result of the fact that all Haitians have Energy Star hot-tubs in which they sit under the stars at night, sipping wine, listening to recordings of the London Philharmonic playing Debussy and Dvorak on an energy star stereo as they contemplate another day managing the renewable forest. If fucking Haiti is relying on renewable energy, it's pretty easy to see what that means: Poverty.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls

I'm sure the Haitians all look forward, on the days they aren't rummaging through waste heaps or trying to fill their stomaches with partially edible roots, to hearing the rich white boys come down from the US to give lecture series on solar energy.

I love it when clueless aristocrats lecture the peasants about how to live. It's just so, well, uplifting. You feel so warm and fuzzy when you get back to the club and tell Buffy, Mom and Dad all about your noble efforts to save all the cute little French speaking black kids.

Let them eat cake, rich boy, let them eat cake.

To see exactly how misleading your representation of the renewable paradise in Haiti is, though, let's look at the EIA figures for renewable electricity generated in Haiti:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

What part of zero don't you understand?

I guess the EIA hasn't been informed of the grand commercial success of the solar dealer near the airport of the solar dealership near the entrance of the Djoumbala Night Club.

The night club, almost certainly solar powered by the way, is representative of the active night life that all Haitians enjoy. From my understanding, the Djoumbala night club serves the best Hors D'ouevre's in a miserably impoverished country in the world. They have a nice wine list too. You can find some wonderful Medoc, and if you should happen to spit some wine on the floor during a tasting, the nice local Haitians are always happy to lick it up, at least if their mouthes are covered with sores.