Keith, > Why all the subsidies? Weapons industries you say. That's why, eh? > The IAEA exists to spread "the peaceful use of the atom", it says, > but is there such a thing as the peaceful use of the atom for power > supply?
Why all the subsidies? Well..., start with the re-up of Price Anderson last year. The nuclear industry is virtually incapable of acquiring insurance on the open market due to the exponential volume of financial risk in the event of catastrophe. So Price-Anderson was invented and renewed in order to keep the industry alive. Then move on to the cost per kWh when "disposal" costs are incorporated - well over $0.10 per kWh - certainly non-competetive with wind and hydro and even solar photovoltaic for the past several years. Then continue towards the fact that the corporate mindsets of this industry are still stuck in first gear relative to economies of scale, completely oblivious to the law of diminishing returns. Essentially, what this means is that they would rather go with HWR (heavy water reactors) that generate exponential amounts of power and butt loads of waste in comparison to safer, modular, gas-cooled reactors, which oddly enough cannot attain a high enough temp to go (quote unquote) "supercritcal" (in the meltdown sense of the word). So from a distributed generation perspecitve the industry steers clear of modular/gas-cooled. From a safety perspective the industry steers clear of modular/gas-cooled. From a national security perspective the industry steers clear of modular/gas-cooled. From a waste-products/"co-products"/environmental perspective the industry steers clear of modular/gas-cooled. From a "securing the rights and concerns of the citizenry in areas surrounding and down-wind from plants the industry steers clear of modular/gas-cooled and continues to opt for the potentially more distructive HWRs. Let's face it. One, the industry has its head up its ass and its hands in the tax payer's wallet. If the nuclear industry had not been subsidized since day one, first at the research level for military purposes, then at the developmental level for military applications and then at the maintenance level for supporting and perpetuating those military applications, there would be no nuclear power today. Nor would there be the inherant/incumbant problems relative to nuclear power, much less old school nuclear power generation. And these boys and our government just aren't ready to step up to the plate of responsibility yet. Maybe someone should hold a gun against their collective heads for a change? Here's a little mind teaser for the day. What was the name of the world's first 1,000 mW nuclear power plant? Come on. Go ahead and guess............ Answer: Commonwealth Edison's "Zion 1," Lake Michigan / Chicago They also had several "Dresden" plants. I'll leave it to the theologians/historians to guestimate the significance of these namings. Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Big Oil on Global Warming > Thankyou Todd. I seem to recall you've been into some detail on > fossil fuels and nuclear power awhile back somewhere else. Let me see > if I can dig it up rather than your doing it all over again. > > > > What are the fossil fuel inputs of > > > building and running a nuclear power plant (including waste > > > "management")? > > > >Well..., for starters, one of the filthiest coal fired plants in the world > >is just south of here - dedicated strictly to the processing of enriched > >fuel for nuclear power and weapons industries. That's not exactly carbon > >neutral. But the nuclear power industry seems to forget little nuances such > >as "inputs." > > > >Which, of course, is all well and fine when the entire industry is so > >heavily subsidized that it would instantaneously go belly up and bankrupt if > >it were to attempt to stand on its own two legs. > > > >Take away the subsidies and solar photovoltaic would look like a bargain > >basement sale in comparison. > > Why all the subsidies? Weapons industries you say. That's why, eh? > The IAEA exists to spread "the peaceful use of the atom", it says, > but is there such a thing as the peaceful use of the atom for power > supply? > > Of course the Bushies are hot for it, and pushing "new" technology - > the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor and the Gas Turbine Helium Reactor. > South Africa seems to be the leader with the pebble bed mini-nukes, > though I don't think they've built one yet. Allegedly cleaner and > safer. Ho-hum. I'm wondering however if they have similar > fossil-fuels inputs and the apparently essential links with weaponry. > Any possible reason in sight to change Earthlife Africa's slogan > "Nuclear Energy Costs the Earth"? > > Best > > Keith > > > > > >Todd Swearingen > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> > >Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 1:57 PM > >Subject: [biofuel] Re: Big Oil on Global Warming > > > > > > > This yarn is a few weeks old, but then the spin it's debunking is > > > also getting a little old. > > > > > > I don't think this is right: "Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power > > > emits no carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change." On the > > > surface of it perhaps, but I think the nuclear industry doesn't get > > > to exist without fossil fuels. What are the fossil fuel inputs of > > > building and running a nuclear power plant (including waste > > > "management")? > > > > > > -------- > > > > > > Debunking A Lot Of Hot Air > > > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=535576 > > > The International Atomic Energy Agency, which promotes nuclear > > > power, concluded that "even under the most favourable circumstances," > > > nuclear power wouldn't slow global warming. An IAEA report predicted > > > that global warming would decrease more if "no new [nuclear plants > > > were] built beyond those already planned," because "the world would > > > have to be so prosperous to afford" a significant increase in nuclear > > > plants that greenhouse gas emissions "from fossil fuels would have > > > grown even faster." The IAEA's findings undercut the Nuclear Energy > > > Institute's claims that "nuclear energy ... helps to keep the air > > > clean, preserve the Earth's climate, avoid ground-level ozone > > > formation and prevent acid rain." > > > SOURCE: The Independent (UK), June 27, 2004 > > > > > > http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0626-05.htm > > > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=535576 > > > > > > Nuclear power 'can't stop climate change' > > > > > > By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor > > > > > > 27 June 2004 > > > > > > Nuclear power cannot solve global warming, the international body set > > > up to promote atomic energy admits today. > > > > > > The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which exists to spread > > > the peaceful use of the atom, reveals in a new report that it could > > > not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - > > > even under the most favorable circumstances. > > > > > > The report - published to celebrate yesterday's 50th anniversary of > > > nuclear power - contradicts a recent surge of support for the atom as > > > the answer to global warming. > > > > > > That surge was provoked by an article in The Independent last month > > > by Professor James Lovelock - the creator of the Gaia theory - who > > > said that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's > > > main energy source could prevent climate change overwhelming the > > > globe. > > > > > > Professor Lovelock, a long-time nuclear supporter, wrote: > > > "Civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear - the one > > > safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be > > > inflicted by our outraged planet." > > > > > > His comments were backed by Sir Bernard Ingham, Lady Thatcher's > > > former PR chief, and other commentators, but have now been rebutted > > > by the most authoritative organization on the matter. > > > > > > Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide, the main > > > cause of climate change. However, it has long been in decline in the > > > face of rising public opposition and increasing reluctance of > > > governments and utilities to finance its enormous construction costs. > > > > > > No new atomic power station has been ordered in the US for a quarter > > > of a century, and only one is being built in Western Europe - in > > > Finland. Meanwhile, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden have > > > all pledged to phase out existing plants. > > > > > > The IAEA report considers two scenarios. In the first, nuclear energy > > > continues to decline, with no new stations built beyond those already > > > planned. Its share of world electricity - and thus its relative > > > contribution to fighting global warming - drops from its current 16 > > > per cent to 12 per cent by 2030. > > > > > > Surprisingly, it made an even smaller relative contribution to > > > combating climate change under the IAEA's most favorable scenario, > > > seeing nuclear power grow by 70 per cent over the next 25 years. This > > > is because the world would have to be so prosperous to afford the > > > expansions that traditional ways of generating electricity from > > > fossil fuels would have grown even faster. Climate change would doom > > > the planet before nuclear power could save it. > > > > > > Alan McDonald, an IAEA nuclear energy analyst, told The Independent > > > on Sunday last night: "Saying that nuclear power can solve global > > > warming by itself is way over the top." But he added that closing > > > existing nuclear power stations would make tackling climate change > > > harder. > > > > > > © 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
