Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Hi Ken and Hakan, I have been reading your arguements about the energy it takes to build an energy producing plant. I founded Solar Technology Inc. in 1975 and started making 20 watt solar panels using 36, 3 dia. silicon cell that I produced by a low cost, low energy consumption process. In 2005, thirty years later, the company I started, located in Camarillo, CA, is now owned by Royal Dutch Shell. The product produced now is a 120 watt panel using 36, 6 dia. silicon solar cells. This plant is the largest solar cell and panel production plant in North America, making about 75 megawatts (peak) of solar panels per year. 100% of these panels are sold, around the world, to users who connect the generators for various uses in remote and now local grid connected applications. You questioned the amount of energy it takes to make a solar panel compared to the output of power in a year from the panel in normal sunlight. In California (a good location) it takes less than 12 months to pay back all the energy input to build the panel. This includes the poly-silicon purification which is the largest energy input, the glass, the plastic encapsulation, the aluminum frames and structures to install the panels, EVERYTHING. These energy calculations are published in many papers for NREL written by Terry Jester of Shell Solar (before that it was called ARCO Solar, then Siemens Solar). The calculations and assumptions are open and simple to understand, nothing is hidden. At a new company I am starting in Santa Clara, CA, www.solaicx.com we are making the silicon wafers with a new crystal grower and wafer sawing process that is continuous and reduces energy consumption by a factor of 5X. Another company in the San Diego area, http://www.jcschumacher.com/Schumacher.html, has built a pilot poly silicon plant using a fluid bed process, again continuous, which reduces the energy from 90 kwhr/kg of silicon to 15 kwhr/kg of silicon output. When we use this new silicon in our continuous crystal grower this will reduce the payback time to less than 3 months. The company is called Diamond Cubic on the web site. Another new company funded by T.J. Rogers of Cypress Semiconductor is called SunPower Corp. http://www.sunpowercorp.com/html/ and is now producing silicon cell panels with their 21% efficient silicon cells. This year they will produce and ship 25 megawatts (starting up in 1994). Next year they are expanding to 100 megawatts according to published plans. Our energy calculations include similar energy requirements to the SunPower Corp. cells. These megawatt production levels are very small compared to the US electric energy requirements. Where the solar panels are being used now is in California with a panel and inverter being installed on every house in new subdivisions that have air conditioners. These kind of installations generate power in the summer when AC is on and cause the utility companies to not have to turn on their gas turbine back up systems when the local temperature goes up. Analysis has shown this is the most cost effective use of solar panels, not making all the power for California, but cutting off the peaks due to sunlight. Of course most of these new houses also incorporate passive solar design to minimize energy losses. In Japan, Sharp is offering complete kitchens using efficient microwave and inductive cooking appliances, liquid crystal thin TV sets, and super efficient lighting along with solar panels to power the whole thing. The Japanese probably live in a little more frugal situation than we, but I use our Sharp Microwave oven to cook a lot of our food. Sharp is the largest producer of PV panels, and probably produced 400 to 500 megawatts (peak) of solar panels in 2004. The world-wide production in 2005 is expected to be one gigawatt and growing at a rate of 35% per year (for the last 12 years). When this type of powerplant is installed on location where the power is being used, as in houses or building, no transmission lines are required and no losses for starting and stopping the generators. Bill Yerkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one? Hakan, Your argument that conservation would eliminate the need for building nuclear power has merit but does not speak to the use of fossil fuel as a reason to scrap nuclear. The problem is that many people do not care to conserve. Look at the facts - Bush's energy plan is simply to drill for more oil. Energy conserving tax benefits have been scrapped - gone is the program to provide insulation for houses for the poor, the tax break for hybrid autos is gone while the tax break for the big suv's is extended. The tax breaks for using renewable energy are almost all gone. We are living
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
There's so much about all this in the list archives, it's not as if they're exactly new questions. So please, go ahead and discuss it again if you wish, no problem, but do a bit of delving, eh? Otherwise it'll mostly just go round and round in the same old circle. The archives contains more than 46,000 messages over nearly five years. The question you want to ask or the topic you're interested in has probably already been covered. That's no reason not to ask it again, but if you know what's gone before you'll ask a better question and get better answers. - List rules: http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 5-May/07.html More than 50,000 messages actually. Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ (At the end of each message you receive.) Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner We have basically two arguments against nuclear power in the referenced article. 1) It is a fallicy that production of nuclear energy does not contribute to greenhouse gases. 2) Nuclear energy takes so much investment energy to get started that it will take 18 years before there is a net gain in energy and if we consider dismantling the power plant after its useful life and storage of contaminated material it could be an energy negative. My original comment related to the first argument and not the second. I believe the second argument has merit but I am skeptical of the figures. As for solar photovoltaic and its lifetime net gain or loss, this is the type of thing that should be discussed and labored over thoroughly, rather than just relying upon any understanding. Using the term understanding is just lazyness on my part, in the past I have read several articles that maintained that photovoltaics were a energy negative. I have neither the time or inclination to do an internet search for the exact figures. Same questions should be asked for nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal, wave, hydrogen, etc. What is perfectly clear is that if the same lifecycle equation was run relative to emissions, coal and all fossil fuels run dead last. You might call it hard math, but I call it questionable statistics. There a lies, damn lies and statistics. There are other considerations besides your hard math. The intermittent nature of wind and solar will add to its cost both in loss of energy efficiency and net energy investment. People still need electricity when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Geothermal may be very nice but it is of no use to me here in central Pennsylvania, nor is photovoltaics because of the limited amount of sunshine. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Ken, You get the same number of sun hours in PA as we do in OH. It's more a matter of degree of income and degree of commitment. We're not there yet either and probably never will be if we have to pay someone to install a system rather than do it ourselves. That more than doubles the cost per kWh. As for what works for you or doesn't, whether it's geothermal or hot air from the White House ducted underground to Pennsylvania and fueling Sterling engines, that's not really the point. The point is to critically examine all energy sources, all their lifecycle energy and emissions equations, stack them up side by side and then let the numbers speak for themselves. That's the first step in a responsible energy plan at any level. To simply discount an energy source off-hand because we don't think it will work or we've been told it won't, or because we surmise it might be too expensive or any of a dozen other reasons that aren't predicated on hard numbers is unhealthy, to say the least. As for geothermal in PA? :-) Geothermal is universal. It just all depends how it's implemented. Heat pumps come to mind right off the cuff. And here in Ohio, the land of perpetually gray skies from the humidity, underground or shaded/insullated mass water storage is an attractive method to produce chilled and de-humidified air. Same technology as a root cellar essentially. (Of course the squirrels that power the fan are paid union scale.) As for people still needing electricity when the sun doesn't shine? That in itself is a bit of a strawman and the way so many people phrase that aspect makes it sound as if the wind stops blowing when the sun goes down. At the industrial scale, the wind is always blowing somewhere and industry is quite capable of distributing power from hundreds of miles away. It's a matter of will and scale. There is no all-in-one perfect solution Ken. But there are a few thousand bites that can be taken out of the elephant. And even after the elephant has been picked clean, the skeleton will always remain. In an energy sense, that skeleton would be a series of prime-power grid generators. But looking at it strictly by percentages, the skeleton is a phenomenally small portion of the entire ratio of the present day elephant. Todd Swearingen Ken Riznyk wrote: We have basically two arguments against nuclear power in the referenced article. 1) It is a fallicy that production of nuclear energy does not contribute to greenhouse gases. 2) Nuclear energy takes so much investment energy to get started that it will take 18 years before there is a net gain in energy and if we consider dismantling the power plant after its useful life and storage of contaminated material it could be an energy negative. My original comment related to the first argument and not the second. I believe the second argument has merit but I am skeptical of the figures. As for solar photovoltaic and its lifetime net gain or loss, this is the type of thing that should be discussed and labored over thoroughly, rather than just relying upon any understanding. Using the term understanding is just lazyness on my part, in the past I have read several articles that maintained that photovoltaics were a energy negative. I have neither the time or inclination to do an internet search for the exact figures. Same questions should be asked for nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal, wave, hydrogen, etc. What is perfectly clear is that if the same lifecycle equation was run relative to emissions, coal and all fossil fuels run dead last. You might call it hard math, but I call it questionable statistics. There a lies, damn lies and statistics. There are other considerations besides your hard math. The intermittent nature of wind and solar will add to its cost both in loss of energy efficiency and net energy investment. People still need electricity when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Geothermal may be very nice but it is of no use to me here in central Pennsylvania, nor is photovoltaics because of the limited amount of sunshine. __ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
--- Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken, Are you saying that the refining of uranium and nuclear power in general does not contribute to greenhouse gases? No, my point was that arguing that coal was used in its production was spurious since everthing uses fossil fuel to some extent. Seems as if you glossed over this part: Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. How many years must a photo-voltaic panel or solar thermal collector operate before it produces one net calorie of energy? I don't know what your point is here. It is my understanding that photo-voltaics are still negative in that its production uses more energy than is recouped in its usable lifespan. I could build a solar thermal collector that would pay back my investment in less than a year but if I tried to figure out the oil consumed to manufacture the plastics I used, and the fossil fuel used in transporting supplies to my house, any electricity used for pumps and electricity used for my power tools, the fossil fuel cost of manufacturing the power tools I used etc. etc. I suppose it could take several years before a net calorie is produced. A wind turbine? A hydro project? Maybe you should give up the coal-fired water pump in lieu of a horse-driven bellows pump? Just think!!! Double the bang for the buck, 'cause the horse doesn't eat coal either!!! Yes, but doesn't the horse does eat oats in which oil products are used for fertilizer and gasoline for tractors and coal in the manufacture of tractors. I don't think the point was from an all or none perspective, only from a relative gain/loss perspective. I wasn't coming from an all or none perspective only pointing out the foolishness in the argument buy using extremes. Ken __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Hakan, Your argument that conservation would eliminate the need for building nuclear power has merit but does not speak to the use of fossil fuel as a reason to scrap nuclear. The problem is that many people do not care to conserve. Look at the facts - Bush's energy plan is simply to drill for more oil. Energy conserving tax benefits have been scrapped - gone is the program to provide insulation for houses for the poor, the tax break for hybrid autos is gone while the tax break for the big suv's is extended. The tax breaks for using renewable energy are almost all gone. We are living in a country where driving a Hummer is an inalienable right and damm everyone else. Ken --- Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken, I do not find it ludicrous at all. 25 to 50% saving of energy nullifies the need to build nuclear power stations. The potential saving of energy, without noticeable effect on living standard is 60 to 70%, that is the size of the energy waste. Considering the 5 to 10 years it take to build a nuclear power station, a program for energy saving will always outperform the nuclear alternative in time, return of investment and job creation. The problem is that it would add less to GDP, in the way we now is measuring GDP. This is one example of the flaws with including energy in GDP. Regarding health risks, energy efficiency will make true improvements, compared to a shifting of problems with nuclear. It is a question of investment priorities and it should be a moratorium on investment in nuclear, until the investment opportunities in energy efficiency and renewable are no longer available. Hakan At 04:35 PM 6/10/2005, you wrote: The argument that coal is used in the production of uranium therefore nuclear power contributes to green house gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted to eliminate the use of coal we would essentially have to do nothing at all. The automobile engine that you are running your biodiesel in was manufactured using large amounts of coal to produce the steel and to power all the assembly plants. If you are using a thermometer to check you biodiesel batch or turning on a light to see it better you are using coal. Myself I have vowed to stop my bathroom use since the water used to flush the toilet was pumped to my house using electricity that was generated by coal. Ken Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous - and Uneconomic By Dr. Helen Caldicott Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is clean and, therefore, the answer to global warming. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the scale we're talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor. From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
A, But Ken, you used the term ludicrous, although you did qualify the degree with the words a bit. By all accounts, that still generally means the thought having no merit. And if we discount one very energy intensive endeavor so readily, then we might as well just all throw our hands up in the air and discount everything exactly in the same manner, no? Yes? I gathered your drift, as readily as I gather your elaboration below. But that still doesn't answer the question(s) as to at what age does an energy investment yield its first net gain calorie or btu? This is a question that is vital in an energy/business market with ever increasing costs. And it's no different an equation than any business conducts, only this time profit dollars are exchanged for net calories or btus. As for: I don't know what your point is here. Sure you do. You eluded to it rather well with your reply. The point is that a cradle-to-grave energy balance sheet needs to be laid out for each energy medium. That includes mining any materials used in construction and operation, transportation of materials and labor, maintenance and eventually disposal. All that energy consumption is offset by the amount of energy produced to give either a net gain or a net loss. And then each energy type is compared side by side. At the same time a net emissions equation needs to be run. It's a no brainer to pick one energy production method over another if one has considerably less lifetime emissions, especially if the life cycle costs are comparable. Essentially, everything needs to be judged by the EXACT SAME standard in order to be able to make a prudent decision. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry and most nuclear advocates refuse and/or neglect to do this, omitting whatever aspect du jour suits them. As for solar photovoltaic and its lifetime net gain or loss, this is the type of thing that should be discussed and labored over thoroughly, rather than just relying upon any understanding. For instance, a short ton of coal yields ~2,100 kWh. On the other hand 100 watt solar panel yields ~2,475 kWh over a 15 year period (lifecycle?), averaging 4.5 sun hours daily. How much energy went into materials for that 2,100 kWh portion of the coal plant? How much energy went into materials for that 2,475 kWh portion of the solar cell? Same questions should be asked for nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal, wave, hydrogen, etc. What is perfectly clear is that if the same lifecycle equation was run relative to emissions, coal and all fossil fuels run dead last. And since the fuel for solar and wind doesn't have to be refined and nuclear has the nasty little habit of being vented here and there, nuclear probably doesn't come in that great of a winner either. In any event. what I'm saying is that the numbers have to be laid on the table. Understandings as we'd like to hold them, doesn't do justice for hard math. Todd Swearingen Post script: There's a lot less iron in a two-row plow and a team of mules than there is in an International tractor. Rule of thumb on a farm - if the animal doesn't pay its own way, it's not kept for very long. Ken Riznyk wrote: --- Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken, Are you saying that the refining of uranium and nuclear power in general does not contribute to greenhouse gases? No, my point was that arguing that coal was used in its production was spurious since everthing uses fossil fuel to some extent. Seems as if you glossed over this part: Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. How many years must a photo-voltaic panel or solar thermal collector operate before it produces one net calorie of energy? I don't know what your point is here. It is my understanding that photo-voltaics are still negative in that its production uses more energy than is recouped in its usable lifespan. I could build a solar thermal collector that would pay back my investment in less than a year but if I tried to figure out the oil consumed to manufacture the plastics I used, and the fossil fuel used in transporting supplies to my house, any electricity used for pumps and electricity used for my power tools, the fossil fuel cost of manufacturing the power tools I used etc. etc. I suppose it could take several years before a net calorie is produced. A wind turbine? A hydro project? Maybe you should give up the coal-fired water pump in lieu of a horse-driven bellows pump? Just think!!! Double the bang for the buck, 'cause the horse doesn't eat coal either!!! Yes, but doesn't the horse does eat oats in which oil products are used for fertilizer and gasoline for tractors and coal in the manufacture of tractors. I don't think the point was from an all or none perspective, only from a relative gain/loss perspective. I wasn't coming from an all or none perspective
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
We have basically two arguments against nuclear power in the referenced article. 1) It is a fallicy that production of nuclear energy does not contribute to greenhouse gases. 2) Nuclear energy takes so much investment energy to get started that it will take 18 years before there is a net gain in energy and if we consider dismantling the power plant after its useful life and storage of contaminated material it could be an energy negative. My original comment related to the first argument and not the second. I believe the second argument has merit but I am skeptical of the figures. As for solar photovoltaic and its lifetime net gain or loss, this is the type of thing that should be discussed and labored over thoroughly, rather than just relying upon any understanding. Using the term understanding is just lazyness on my part, in the past I have read several articles that maintained that photovoltaics were a energy negative. I have neither the time or inclination to do an internet search for the exact figures. Same questions should be asked for nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal, wave, hydrogen, etc. What is perfectly clear is that if the same lifecycle equation was run relative to emissions, coal and all fossil fuels run dead last. You might call it hard math, but I call it questionable statistics. There a lies, damn lies and statistics. There are other considerations besides your hard math. The intermittent nature of wind and solar will add to its cost both in loss of energy efficiency and net energy investment. People still need electricity when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Geothermal may be very nice but it is of no use to me here in central Pennsylvania, nor is photovoltaics because of the limited amount of sunshine. __ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
The argument that coal is used in the production of uranium therefore nuclear power contributes to green house gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted to eliminate the use of coal we would essentially have to do nothing at all. The automobile engine that you are running your biodiesel in was manufactured using large amounts of coal to produce the steel and to power all the assembly plants. If you are using a thermometer to check you biodiesel batch or turning on a light to see it better you are using coal. Myself I have vowed to stop my bathroom use since the water used to flush the toilet was pumped to my house using electricity that was generated by coal. Ken Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous - and Uneconomic By Dr. Helen Caldicott Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is clean and, therefore, the answer to global warming. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the scale we're talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor. From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth. Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities. Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from generation to generation. Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon. Thus far, nuclear power has generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium. So, nuclear power adds to global warming, increases the burden of radioactive materials in the ecosphere and threatens to contribute to nuclear proliferation. No doubt the Australian government is keen to assist the uranium industry, but the immorality of its position is unforgivable. NOTE: Dr. Helen Caldicott is founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Regards, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the full Biofuel list archives (46,000 messages): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Search the Biofuels-biz list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/ __ Discover Yahoo! Get
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Ken, Are you saying that the refining of uranium and nuclear power in general does not contribute to greenhouse gases? Seems as if you glossed over this part: Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. How many years must a photo-voltaic panel or solar thermal collector operate before it produces one net calorie of energy? A wind turbine? A hydro project? As for having to give up all human activities (you said do nothing)due to human dependancy upon coallet's see...human unkind has been around how many millenia? And we've been mining coal for how long? Maybe you should give up the coal-fired water pump in lieu of a horse-driven bellows pump? Just think!!! Double the bang for the buck, 'cause the horse doesn't eat coal either!!! I don't think the point was from an all or none perspective, only from a relative gain/loss perspective. Perhaps if you could lead a list to some reliable number sources on energy ratios for different mediums there could be more constructive discussion/comparison? There are bound to be a few life cycle studies out there for diferent types of power generation that include energy inputs/outputs and emissions. Todd Swearingen Ken Riznyk wrote: The argument that coal is used in the production of uranium therefore nuclear power contributes to green house gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted to eliminate the use of coal we would essentially have to do nothing at all. The automobile engine that you are running your biodiesel in was manufactured using large amounts of coal to produce the steel and to power all the assembly plants. If you are using a thermometer to check you biodiesel batch or turning on a light to see it better you are using coal. Myself I have vowed to stop my bathroom use since the water used to flush the toilet was pumped to my house using electricity that was generated by coal. Ken Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous - and Uneconomic By Dr. Helen Caldicott Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is clean and, therefore, the answer to global warming. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the scale we're talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor. From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth. Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities. Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles,
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Ken, I do not find it ludicrous at all. 25 to 50% saving of energy nullifies the need to build nuclear power stations. The potential saving of energy, without noticeable effect on living standard is 60 to 70%, that is the size of the energy waste. Considering the 5 to 10 years it take to build a nuclear power station, a program for energy saving will always outperform the nuclear alternative in time, return of investment and job creation. The problem is that it would add less to GDP, in the way we now is measuring GDP. This is one example of the flaws with including energy in GDP. Regarding health risks, energy efficiency will make true improvements, compared to a shifting of problems with nuclear. It is a question of investment priorities and it should be a moratorium on investment in nuclear, until the investment opportunities in energy efficiency and renewable are no longer available. Hakan At 04:35 PM 6/10/2005, you wrote: The argument that coal is used in the production of uranium therefore nuclear power contributes to green house gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted to eliminate the use of coal we would essentially have to do nothing at all. The automobile engine that you are running your biodiesel in was manufactured using large amounts of coal to produce the steel and to power all the assembly plants. If you are using a thermometer to check you biodiesel batch or turning on a light to see it better you are using coal. Myself I have vowed to stop my bathroom use since the water used to flush the toilet was pumped to my house using electricity that was generated by coal. Ken Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous - and Uneconomic By Dr. Helen Caldicott Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is clean and, therefore, the answer to global warming. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the scale we're talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor. From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth. Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities. Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from generation to generation. Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon. Thus far, nuclear power has generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium.
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Ken wrote, "Myself I have vowed to stop my bathroom use..." DON'T DO THAT! You'll be sorry. :-) Mike Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken,I do not find it ludicrous at all. 25 to 50% saving ofenergy nullifies the need to build nuclear powerstations. The potential saving of energy, withoutnoticeable effect on living standard is 60 to 70%,that is the size of the energy waste.Considering the 5 to 10 years it take to build anuclear power station, a program for energy savingwill always outperform the nuclear alternative intime, return of investment and job creation. Theproblem is that it would add less to GDP, in the waywe now is measuring GDP. This is one exampleof the flaws with including energy in GDP.Regarding health risks, energy efficiency will maketrue improvements, compared to a shifting of problemswith nuclear.It is a question of investment priorities and it shouldbe a moratorium on investment in nuclear, until theinvestment opportunities in energy efficiency andrenewable are no longer available.HakanAt 04:35 PM 6/10/2005, you wrote:The argument that coal is used in the production ofuranium therefore nuclear power contributes to greenhouse gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted toeliminate the use of coal we would essentially have todo nothing at all. The automobile engine that you arerunning your biodiesel in was manufactured using largeamounts of coal to produce the steel and to power allthe assembly plants. If you are using a thermometer tocheck you biodiesel batch or turning on a light to seeit better you are using coal. Myself I have vowed tostop my bathroom use since the water used to flush thetoilet was pumped to my house using electricity thatwas generated by coal.Ken Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous - and Uneconomic By Dr. Helen Caldicott Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is "clean" and, therefore, the answer to global warming. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the scale we're talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor. From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth. Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities. Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from generation to generation. Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
More answers: Even as we speak the green house effect will cause seriuos climate changes. It does not matter whether the carbon dioxide is generated from fossile oil, fossile gas or coal. As long as we maintain our dependence on fossile energy this development will proceed. Concerning the nuclear power, it is a fairytale to believe that somebody can guarantee safe keeping of nuclear waste for at least 1.000 years ahead. The more we adapt to atomic power, the more waste, the bigger the fairytale. And even if technology in the future will allow recycling of nuclear waste, splitting atoms to generate electricity brings dangerous radiation and another serious nuclear power plant accident will take place sooner or later. Did anybody know that the nuclear power plants in Sweden are un-insured ? There is no insurance company willing to take the risk of a nuclear accident ! Jan WarnqvistAGERATEC AB [EMAIL PROTECTED] + 46 554 201 89+46 70 499 38 45 - Original Message - From: bmolloy To: Biofuel Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:24 AM Subject: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one? Hi Michael, Re your quote from Herron as follows:snip Our only real sources of useful and practical energy are oil, gas, coal and nuclear. It's true that our oil supply will eventually decrease, but coal is nearly inexhaustible and newer methods of processing it eliminate the smoke and by-products. Nuclear is the energy of the future and must be de-politicized. It will be totally clean, very economical and inexhaustible. In the meantime let's stop hindering our search for oil, including Alaska, off-shore and on federal lands. Firstly, our uses of, and search for sources of energy are limited only by our imagination. Our current love affair with oil and other fossil fuels is but a temporary aberration. Necessity will force us to use of renewables. Wind energy is but one, solar another, tidal energy is at present almost unharnessed, geothermal (just drill a hole in your backyard and keep going down until you reach useable heat - the New Zealanders currently lead the world in geothermal power) equally so. There are many other completely renewable and environmentally supportive means of energy production, but that is not the nub of this post. I wish only to address the statement that nuclear is the energy of the future. Not only is this not the case. Use of this form of power would eventually remove the possibility of any future at all for the human race.As evidence, I offer the following blast from a medical doctor when the Australian government recently toyed with the idea of nuclear power Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous - and Uneconomic By Dr. Helen Caldicott Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is "clean" and, therefore, the answer to global warming. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the scale we're talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor. From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Hi Todd Hey Keith, Perhaps this bit of BS wasn't worth acknowledging: Nahhh, it was. I was just thinking about the normal 250 word limit on letters to editors. Ulp... Is the eight years since I last worked for a newspaper a good enough excuse, d'you think? LOL! I've said it before but it didn't stick, let me give it another try: NEVER AGAIN! Hey, now I feel all better. :-) Addressing CAFE and the unclear (nuclear) option Heh! would have taken another 250 words and probably would have started to make me appear to be a fanatical, unhinged, left-wing, tree-hugging, dirt-worshipping, bunny-luvin, anti-patriotic, heretic. Well now, that'd never do. I think if I trawled the archives I might even manage to find you claiming to be exactly that, but fear not, I'd never do such a thing. Maybe someone else will extend the effort I hope so, in which case they'll find much ammo in the list archives. Besides, I don't have the time to write an op-ed piece every day unless I get paid the going rate.. Quite. I'm not about to assume that the likes of Mr Herron are doing it for free, not exactly a level playing field. All best Keith Todd Swearingen Keith Addison wrote: Well done, Todd. Perhaps this bit of BS wasn't worth acknowledging: Raising CAFE standards would accomplish little except to cost more lives and make driving more dangerous and less enjoyable. That approach has gone too far already. Though a lot of thoroughly-spun Americans still think that. BS? Sure is, as you know - demolished here already three times I think (see archives). One wonders if Mr Herron is to be counted among the spun or the spinners. Maybe the website might give a hint, but I'm not about to register with the Frederick News Post just to read a letter to the editor. One way or the other, it's all too clear where he's coming from, his every paragraph roots for the hopeless mob that got us into this mess in the first place. And we're supposed to look to them to get us out of it. Hm. Best Keith How would any of you answer this one? Perhaps like this Michael. I'd suggest others do the same since the Frederick News Post is read by maybe as much as a quarter of those who work inside the beltway in DC. --- William Herron's June 1 letter to the editor is grossly incorrect, misleading and does the energy consuming public an enormous dis-service. Contrary to Mr. Heron's claim of net energy loss for both ethanol and biodiesel, ethanol production yields a net energy gain between 38% (1:1.38 ratio)and 162% (1:2.62 ratio), depending upon the technology and practice used. (Please see source provided below.) Biodiesel manufacture yields a net energy gain between 151% (1:2.51 ratio) and 310% (1:4.10 ratio), depending upon the technology and practice used. (Please see source provided below.) Both fuels/industries are net energy producers and have the capacity to become zero-carbon gain fuel sources (CO2 is released when the fuel is consumed and re-absorbed by the plants with each new growing cycle) - a direct contrast to the mining, refining and use of fossil fuels, which only release carbon dioxide and increase the rate of global warming. Mr. Herron also lays the grossly misleading claim that wind turbines are avian butcheries. Yes, it was sadly determined in the '70s and early '80s that the old-style lattice towers used to support wind turbines attract birds and in turn have exacted a high mortality. But lattice towers have been abandoned by the commercial wind industry and older towers are being phased out in lieu of monocoque designs (tubular towers) that don't afford a resting and nesting attraction. It's unfortunate that Mr. Herron presents ancient data and long debunked urban mythology to propigate error in public opinion on issues as vital as energy independence, renewable fuels and environmental sanity. The question that should be posed to Mr. Herron is why? Todd Swearingen -, Ohio 1 - How Much Energy Does It Take to Make a Gallon of Ethanol? Lorenz Morris, 1995, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, www.carbohydrateeconomy.org 2) - How Much Energy Does It Take to Make a Gallon of Biodiesel? Ahmed, Decker Morris, 1994, Institute for Local Self-Reliance Michael wrote: Now that Duck is a candidate ... Publish Date: 05/30/05 http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/displayletter.ht m? storyid=41384 Andrew Duck's May 22 commentary, Bartlett talks the talk on energy issues, but doesn't always walk the walk criticized Roscoe Bartlett's voting record on energy issues. That letter by itself may not have been worth replying to but, now that he's intending to run for Mr. Bartlett's congressional seat, his costly, energy-wasting ideas need to be addressed. While burning corn instead of gasoline sounds great, a true
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Have always wondered about the caution expressedagainst milk products to minimize the personal risk of prostate cancer. The same risk from prostate cancer has also been associated with red meat. And, there are broader implications. Reasonfor thisrisk seemsobvious from the waysignificant sources of carcinogens are routinelyspread over the environment,efficiently gathered by grass consuming animals, and spread to humans in their milk and red-meat products whichalmost everyone consumes. Including also grain crops from whichcomevarieties ofother food products. Coal burning and other plantscontinuouslyspreadcarcinogenic flumes of smoke, including significant amounts of radioactivity from coal burning,widely around the Nation's environment from their 300-ft high smoke stacks, the presumption beingthatthese noxious productsspread thinly enough around the environmentwill not cause significant environmental risk.(Ironically, not true of nuclear power plants which do not spread radioactivity, at least not in this way.) IMHO this presumption needs to be challenged, for reason that we have some veryefficient mechanisms going to gather and spread these noxious products. Cattlegraze upon the grass upon which these noxious products fall, efficiently concentrate them, and they become widely consumed in themilk and red meat we buy from the supermarkets. Alternatively, these noxious products fall upon hay and grain crops which are harvested, andagain, these noxious products, apparently,find their way intofood products. Has this theory ever been challenged that noxious products do not hurt anyone if spread thin enough around the environment? Glenn Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last month, researchers at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia published the results of a study that examined the association between calcium and dairy product intake and the increased risk of prostate cancer. Using data from the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-Up Study, nearly 10 years of medical records were collected on more than 3,600 men. All of the men had completed dietary questionnaires in the early 80s. The Fox Chase team identified 131 cases of prostate cancer. After adjusting for age, race, smoking and other factors, they produced the following conclusions: Men who reported the highest dairy product intake were 2.2 times more likely to develop prostate cancer compared to men who had the lowest intake - In their conclusions, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the researchers write: "The mechanisms by which dairy and calcium might increase prostate cancer risk should be clarified and confirmed." ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the full Biofuel list archives (46,000 messages): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Search the Biofuels-biz list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/
