Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Hello Michael, Rick and all To any and all who may be interesting in my two bits. As a relatively long time watcher of this list, it has been my experience that the issues raised by the press releases that are sent to this list by the super well read Keith Addison are both important to be published, and appealing in terms of at least tangential interest to anyone who is at least curious about both our world and our impact on said world. Thankyou! But not the super well read bit, not anymore anyway, I have a lot of difficulty getting a book read since I started this project, it's a sore point. But this machine here on the desk with the screen and keys and so on is well-plugged in, the stuff comes my way anyway, I just check it when I get the time. Not to mention . . . judicious us of the delete key can be almost completely avoided by using an up to date email application, and use a rule set to filter out the discussions that may offend your sensibilities. Yea verily. Nobody's forcing you to read anything you don't want to read... It also solves the problem for the newbie who gets all fraught that it's flooding his mailbox. Only one mailbox. I admit there's a problem with Yahoo and Hotmail and so on, but otherwise it isn't a problem, just the lack of a fairly essential skill. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg21651.html A grain of salt may be required to digest anything that I say. Sweet as a nut Michael. Michael On Wed, 2005-13-07 at 18:09 -0500, Richard Littrell wrote: Dear Hakan, I may be naive as I am fairly new to the list but it looks to me like the question grew out of a ISIS press release about nuclear power. That it did, or it preceded the question anyway. As I am more interested in biofuels myself I'd hate to get into a long thing that would detract from that Lots of overlap between the two issues. but I am curious as to the answer to Joey's question as the technology in all areas of energy generation seem to be changing almost daily. Here's Joey's question again: Keith, What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching) methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact? -Joey I don't know why he asked me, there are several people here who're much more knowledgeable about nuclear energy than I am. Maybe he thought the ISIS piece was my opinion rather than just information. Anyway, ISL, aka Uranium Solution Mining: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf27.htm World Nuclear Association | Information and Issue Briefs In Situ Leach (ISL) Mining of Uranium June 2003 The Uranium Information Centre Ltd in Melbourne has the same information: http://www.uic.com.au/nip40.htm In Situ Leach Mining of Uranium Earth Science Australia has the same information in html format: http://www.earthsci.org/energy/uranium/insitu.htm Insitu Uranium Mining The WISE Uranium Project has a different view: http://www.wise-uranium.org/uisl.html Impacts of Uranium In-Situ Leaching So does the Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia: http://www.anawa.org.au/mining/isl.html In-Situ Leach Mining That's adapted from this: http://www.sea-us.org.au/isl/islisbad.html ISL - Out of Sight, Out of Mind : The Hidden Problems of ISL Worldwide Where you can also find these: http://www.sea-us.org.au/isl/islnotgood.html ISL - An Overview of How In Situ Leaching Works http://www.sea-us.org.au/isl/islsuks.html An Environmental Critique of In Situ Leach Mining : The Case Against Uranium Solution Mining http://www.sea-us.org.au/pdfs/isl/islsummary.html Summary of An Environmental Critique of In Situ Leach Mining : The Case Against Uranium Solution Mining Anyway, that's just the mining, or part of it, not quite the only problem with the myths of clean green nuclear energy. Here's the original ISIS post, Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths: http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 5-July/001332.html Best wishes Keith Rick ___ 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] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
At long last... thanks for the links Keith. Wasn't sure if I was going to get any actual information there. The reason I posed the question to you is that I figured you may have been able to reduce it down to a sentence or two, based upon your consumption of periodicals. I now have the tools to do it myself. And now apologies: I had no intention of sparking a list spat about the pertinence of thread subjects. I think some folks on the list are a wee bit sensitive and may benefit from longer coffee breaks. all the best, Joey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 7:11 AM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths Hello Michael, Rick and all To any and all who may be interesting in my two bits. As a relatively long time watcher of this list, it has been my experience that the issues raised by the press releases that are sent to this list by the super well read Keith Addison are both important to be published, and appealing in terms of at least tangential interest to anyone who is at least curious about both our world and our impact on said world. Thankyou! But not the super well read bit, not anymore anyway, I have a lot of difficulty getting a book read since I started this project, it's a sore point. But this machine here on the desk with the screen and keys and so on is well-plugged in, the stuff comes my way anyway, I just check it when I get the time. Not to mention . . . judicious us of the delete key can be almost completely avoided by using an up to date email application, and use a rule set to filter out the discussions that may offend your sensibilities. Yea verily. Nobody's forcing you to read anything you don't want to read... It also solves the problem for the newbie who gets all fraught that it's flooding his mailbox. Only one mailbox. I admit there's a problem with Yahoo and Hotmail and so on, but otherwise it isn't a problem, just the lack of a fairly essential skill. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg21651.html A grain of salt may be required to digest anything that I say. Sweet as a nut Michael. Michael On Wed, 2005-13-07 at 18:09 -0500, Richard Littrell wrote: Dear Hakan, I may be naive as I am fairly new to the list but it looks to me like the question grew out of a ISIS press release about nuclear power. That it did, or it preceded the question anyway. As I am more interested in biofuels myself I'd hate to get into a long thing that would detract from that Lots of overlap between the two issues. but I am curious as to the answer to Joey's question as the technology in all areas of energy generation seem to be changing almost daily. Here's Joey's question again: Keith, What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching) methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact? -Joey I don't know why he asked me, there are several people here who're much more knowledgeable about nuclear energy than I am. Maybe he thought the ISIS piece was my opinion rather than just information. Anyway, ISL, aka Uranium Solution Mining: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf27.htm World Nuclear Association | Information and Issue Briefs In Situ Leach (ISL) Mining of Uranium June 2003 The Uranium Information Centre Ltd in Melbourne has the same information: http://www.uic.com.au/nip40.htm In Situ Leach Mining of Uranium Earth Science Australia has the same information in html format: http://www.earthsci.org/energy/uranium/insitu.htm Insitu Uranium Mining The WISE Uranium Project has a different view: http://www.wise-uranium.org/uisl.html Impacts of Uranium In-Situ Leaching So does the Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia: http://www.anawa.org.au/mining/isl.html In-Situ Leach Mining That's adapted from this: http://www.sea-us.org.au/isl/islisbad.html ISL - Out of Sight, Out of Mind : The Hidden Problems of ISL Worldwide Where you can also find these: http://www.sea-us.org.au/isl/islnotgood.html ISL - An Overview of How In Situ Leaching Works http://www.sea-us.org.au/isl/islsuks.html An Environmental Critique of In Situ Leach Mining : The Case Against Uranium Solution Mining http://www.sea-us.org.au/pdfs/isl/islsummary.html Summary of An Environmental Critique of In Situ Leach Mining : The Case Against Uranium Solution Mining Anyway, that's just the mining, or part of it, not quite the only problem with the myths of clean green nuclear energy. Here's the original ISIS post, Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths: http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 5-July/001332.html Best wishes Keith Rick ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
To any and all who may be interesting in my two bits. As a relatively long time watcher of this list, it has been my experience that the issues raised by the press releases that are sent to this list by the super well read Keith Addison are both important to be published, and appealing in terms of at least tangential interest to anyone who is at least curious about both our world and our impact on said world. Not to mention . . . judicious us of the delete key can be almost completely avoided by using an up to date email application, and use a rule set to filter out the discussions that may offend your sensibilities. A grain of salt may be required to digest anything that I say. Michael On Wed, 2005-13-07 at 18:09 -0500, Richard Littrell wrote: Dear Hakan, I may be naive as I am fairly new to the list but it looks to me like the question grew out of a ISIS press release about nuclear power. As I am more interested in biofuels myself I'd hate to get into a long thing that would detract from that but I am curious as to the answer to Joey's question as the technology in all areas of energy generation seem to be changing almost daily. Rick Great big Snip ___ 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] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Joey, Biofuel? How did you get to this issue. LOL Do you belong to this group of people that regularly visit energy lists and try to provoke a nuke discussion? I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan At 07:14 AM 7/13/2005, you wrote: Keith, What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching) methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact? -Joey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:03 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 11/07/05 Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths Peter Bunyard disposes of the argument for nuclear power: it is highly uneconomical, and the saving on greenhouse gas emissions negligible, if any, compared to a gas-fired electricity generating plant Peter Bunyard will be speaking at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SWCFA.phpSustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005. References to this article are posted on http://www.i- sis.org.uk/full/DTNPMFull.phpISIS members' website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/members.phpDetails here Limitations due to the quality of uranium ore A critical point about the practicability of nuclear power to provide clean energy under global warming is the quality and grade of the uranium ore. The quality of uranium ore varies inversely with their availability on a logarithmic scale. The ores used at present, such as the carnotite ores in the United States have an uranium content of up to 0.2 per cent, and vast quantities of overlying rocks and subsoil have to be shifted to get to the 96,000 tonnes of uranium-containing rock and shale that will provide the fresh fuel for a one gigawatt reactor [1]. In addition, most of the ore is left behind as tailings with considerable quantities of radioactivity from thorium- 230, a daughter product of the radioactive decay of uranium. Thorium has a half-life of 77 000 years and decays into radium-226, which decays into the gas radon-222. All are potent carcinogens. Fresh fuel for one reactor contains about 10 curies of radioactivity (27 curies equal 1012 becquerels, each of the latter being one radiation event per second.) The tailings corresponding to that contain 67 curies of radioactive material, much of it exposed to weathering and rain run-off. Radon gas has been found 1 000 miles from the mine tailings from where it originated. Uranium extraction has resulted in more than 6 billion tonnes of radioactive tailings, with significant impact on human health [2]. Once the fuel is used in a reactor, it becomes highly radioactive primarily because of fission products and the generation of the transuranics' such as neptunium and americium. At discharge from the reactor, a tonne of irradiated fuel from a PWR (pressurized water reactor such as in use at Sizewell) will contain more than 177 million curies of radioactive substances, some admittedly short-lived, but all the more potent in the short term. Ten years later, the radioactivity has died away to about 405 000 curies and 100 years on to 42 000 curies, therefore still 600 times more radioactive than the original material from which the fuel was derived [3]. Today's reactors, totalling 350 GW and providing about 3 per cent of the total energy used in the world, consume 60 000 tonnes of equivalent natural uranium, prior to enrichment. At that rate, economically recoverable reserves of uranium - about 10 million tonnes - would last less than 100 years. A worldwide nuclear programme of 1 000 nuclear reactors would consume the uranium within 50 years, and if all the world's electricity, currently 60 exajoules (1018Joules) were generated by nuclear reactors, the uranium would last three years [4]. The prospect that the amount of economically recoverable uranium would limit a worldwide nuclear power programme was certainly appreciated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy in its advocacy for the fast breeder reactor, which theoretically could increase the quantity of energy to be derived from uranium by a factor of 70 through converting non-fissile uranium-238
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Just because something may be doable doesn't mean that it's feasible, whether that feasibility is higher ratios of waste, expanded dispersal of radioactivity, increased economic cost, increased energy cost, etc., etc., etc. Even if all things are equal in comparison to traditional refining, you still have the same problems/pitfalls/inefficiencies for nuclear power that are distinctly pointed out in the article below. Essentially, nuclear power is in the same realm as petroleum. It's a non-renewable resource and its waste products are particularly voluminous and destructive in their own right. Yet still governments push for increased nuclear capacity. Same mindset as pushing for increased petroleum capacity. What was it Einstein said? The problems we face will not be solved by the minds that created them. Todd Swearingen Joey Hundert wrote: Keith, What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching) methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact? -Joey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:03 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 11/07/05 Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths Peter Bunyard disposes of the argument for nuclear power: it is highly uneconomical, and the saving on greenhouse gas emissions negligible, if any, compared to a gas-fired electricity generating plant Peter Bunyard will be speaking at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SWCFA.phpSustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005. References to this article are posted on http://www.i- sis.org.uk/full/DTNPMFull.phpISIS members' website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/members.phpDetails here Limitations due to the quality of uranium ore A critical point about the practicability of nuclear power to provide clean energy under global warming is the quality and grade of the uranium ore. The quality of uranium ore varies inversely with their availability on a logarithmic scale. The ores used at present, such as the carnotite ores in the United States have an uranium content of up to 0.2 per cent, and vast quantities of overlying rocks and subsoil have to be shifted to get to the 96,000 tonnes of uranium-containing rock and shale that will provide the fresh fuel for a one gigawatt reactor [1]. In addition, most of the ore is left behind as tailings with considerable quantities of radioactivity from thorium- 230, a daughter product of the radioactive decay of uranium. Thorium has a half-life of 77 000 years and decays into radium-226, which decays into the gas radon-222. All are potent carcinogens. Fresh fuel for one reactor contains about 10 curies of radioactivity (27 curies equal 1012 becquerels, each of the latter being one radiation event per second.) The tailings corresponding to that contain 67 curies of radioactive material, much of it exposed to weathering and rain run-off. Radon gas has been found 1 000 miles from the mine tailings from where it originated. Uranium extraction has resulted in more than 6 billion tonnes of radioactive tailings, with significant impact on human health [2]. Once the fuel is used in a reactor, it becomes highly radioactive primarily because of fission products and the generation of the ‘transuranics' such as neptunium and americium. At discharge from the reactor, a tonne of irradiated fuel from a PWR (pressurized water reactor such as in use at Sizewell) will contain more than 177 million curies of radioactive substances, some admittedly short-lived, but all the more potent in the short term. Ten years later, the radioactivity has died away to about 405 000 curies and 100 years on to 42 000 curies, therefore still 600 times more radioactive than the original material from which the fuel was derived [3]. Today's reactors, totalling 350 GW and providing about 3 per cent of the total energy used in the world, consume 60 000 tonnes of equivalent natural uranium, prior to enrichment. At that rate, economically recoverable reserves of uranium - about 10 million tonnes - would last less than 100 years. A worldwide nuclear programme of 1 000 nuclear reactors would consume the uranium within 50 years, and if all the world's electricity, currently 60 exajoules (1018Joules) were generated by nuclear reactors, the uranium would last three years [4]. The prospect that the amount of economically recoverable uranium would limit a worldwide nuclear power programme was certainly appreciated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy in its advocacy for the fast breeder reactor, which theoretically could increase the quantity of energy to be derived from uranium by a factor of 70 through converting non-fissile uranium-238 into plutonium-239. In the Authority's
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear. Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. Bob In a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence.I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOLHakan ___ 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] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
a) It's not a board. It's a mailing list. b) List rules state that calls to limit topic discussion are explicitly forbidden. Or in the words of our fearless list owner: No Topic Cops. c) It isn't your place to decide what the purpose of this board is. Learn to use your delete key; if you aren't interested, just ignore the thread as it will die soon enough anyway. jh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear. Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. Bob In a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan ___ 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/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ 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] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
jh, "Deciding" wasn't what I had in mind, nor was I trying to be a "Cop." As parties interested in biofuels and interested in keeping this site dynamic, I think we all exercise some self-restraint in what we post here.My caution, along the lines of Hakan I believe, is that, as a practical matter, people tend to drop membership in mailing lists, etc., when the discussions stray too far afield from the nominal topic of the group. Hakan, myself, and I'm sure many others have dropped off what might otherwise be very useful to others interested in that nominal topic. I understand the use of the delete key, but when it has to be used too often, keeping membership on a list just gets too frustrating. I'm grateful to"our fearless list owner" for creating and maintaining this list and certainly did not intend to run afoul of any rules. I was simply trying to post an observation about voluntary restraints to keep this a place to keep coming to and for sharing information about biofuels and "naturally" related issues. Bob a) It's not a board. It's a mailing list.b) List rules state that calls to limit topic discussion are explicitly forbidden. Or in the words of our fearless list owner: No Topic Cops.c) It isn't your place to decide what the purpose of this board is. Learn to use your delete key; if you aren't interested, just ignore the thread as it will die soon enough anyway.jh ___ 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] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Hello Bob, Hakan Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear. Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. Bob In a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan I know who you mean Hakan. I also don't think they can hijack this list. LOL again. But let's get it straight. You say: All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. The discussion is okay, the disinfo group isn't okay. But Bob says: Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear... but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. What won't happen is that we'll ban nuclear discussions and send them to other lists in case we have problems with trolls if we don't ban it. I hope we can deal with trolls without killing any discussion. As it is, the list archive is a good resource on nuclear issues, but it wouldn't be for long without new input. Anyway nuclear power IS a biofuels issue. Among the main contenders as clean green carbon-neutral world-saving energy sources are biofuels, and nuclear energy. The nuke message is just new wine in the same old broken bottles, PR stuff, spin, but a lot of people are buying it. We've just been involved in this here in Japan, again. We've promoted biodiesel at quite a few environment expos and summer festivals and so on, among other things, and last month we provided free biodiesel for diesel power generators at the five-day Sun and Moon Midsummer Festival at Kyoto University. There was quite a lot of publicity and Midori was there for two days running a booth from the open back of the Toyota TownAce with its new Elsbett SVO system. Journey to Forever biodiesel powered the hall, including three stages for music, as well as the fairground and all the stalls. It went well, lots of people, especially alternative people from all over Japan, no problems and lots of interest. Last night two members of one of the groups that played at the festival visited us. We're friends, they got us involved in it in the first place, but it was only when they were playing onstage that they realised how they felt about it. They put it very clearly: We are very happy that we can play our music without nuclear power. Seems they're not alone, two of the other groups there have applied for our next seminar, and several people who were at the festival came to the last one, which was last Sunday. The site at Kyoto University is itself part of Japan's alternative society, that whole section of the university, including a big hall and a fairground, is a student autonomous zone, they run it, not the university authorities. It's been that way since the student protests of the 70s, which is still at the core of the environment movement and the protest movement here. It's complicated and interesting, but the movement is alive and well - they have no power but they fight their battles, and usually lose them, but they win some too, and even when they lose they don't stop fighting. Probably the major issue is nuclear energy. It would have to be, if you think about it. Japan's the #3 domestic nuclear user, with the government committed to 42% nuclear power generation by 2010, against a lot of opposition. Biodiesel as an alternative to nuclear power is a strong message. For the groups, it fills a hole in their defences: How are you going to play your guitar without nuclear power? They'd love to have a good answer to that. They mostly use diesel vans too, with a similar problem and the same solution. Quite a lot of the people we work with are in this position, like people running organic food delivery trucks, they really like biodiesel. There's an alternative economy too, including some places that use local currencies, and a lot of bartering. We
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Hello Todd, Joey Just because something may be doable doesn't mean that it's feasible, whether that feasibility is higher ratios of waste, expanded dispersal of radioactivity, increased economic cost, increased energy cost, etc., etc., etc. Even if all things are equal in comparison to traditional refining, you still have the same problems/pitfalls/inefficiencies for nuclear power that are distinctly pointed out in the article below. Essentially, nuclear power is in the same realm as petroleum. It's a non-renewable resource and its waste products are particularly voluminous and destructive in their own right. Yet still governments push for increased nuclear capacity. Same mindset as pushing for increased petroleum capacity. They're both the great green answer to global warming, don't you know, nuclear even more so - it's turns out it's the *only* answer to global warming, according to a worldwide campaign now in motion at a media-outlet near you, if I read it right. Turn the spin-meter up, keep spare batteries, leave the terriers in the yard at night. What was it Einstein said? The problems we face will not be solved by the minds that created them. He didn't seem too sure himself what it was he said. Take your choice: #1. The world that we have made as a result of the level of thinking that we have done so far, has created problems we cannot solve at the level of thinking at which we created them. - Albert Einstein #2. You can never solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created the problem in the first place - Albert Einstein. #3. Long hair minimizes the need for barbers; socks can be done without; one leather jacket solves the coat problem for many years; suspenders are superfluous. -- Albert Einstein I'll settle for 2 for first place, and 3 in a tie for second place with your rendition, well ahead of Albert in fourth place. All best Keith Todd Swearingen Joey Hundert wrote: Keith, What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching) methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact? -Joey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:03 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 11/07/05 Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths Peter Bunyard disposes of the argument for nuclear power: it is highly uneconomical, and the saving on greenhouse gas emissions negligible, if any, compared to a gas-fired electricity generating plant snip ___ 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] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Dear Hakan, I may be naive as I am fairly new to the list but it looks to me like the question grew out of a ISIS press release about nuclear power. As I am more interested in biofuels myself I'd hate to get into a long thing that would detract from that but I am curious as to the answer to Joey's question as the technology in all areas of energy generation seem to be changing almost daily. Rick Hakan Falk wrote: Joey, Biofuel? How did you get to this issue. LOL Do you belong to this group of people that regularly visit energy lists and try to provoke a nuke discussion? I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan At 07:14 AM 7/13/2005, you wrote: Keith, What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching) methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact? -Joey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:03 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 11/07/05 Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths Peter Bunyard disposes of the argument for nuclear power: it is highly uneconomical, and the saving on greenhouse gas emissions negligible, if any, compared to a gas-fired electricity generating plant Peter Bunyard will be speaking at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SWCFA.phpSustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005. References to this article are posted on http://www.i- sis.org.uk/full/DTNPMFull.phpISIS members' website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/members.phpDetails here Limitations due to the quality of uranium ore A critical point about the practicability of nuclear power to provide clean energy under global warming is the quality and grade of the uranium ore. The quality of uranium ore varies inversely with their availability on a logarithmic scale. The ores used at present, such as the carnotite ores in the United States have an uranium content of up to 0.2 per cent, and vast quantities of overlying rocks and subsoil have to be shifted to get to the 96,000 tonnes of uranium-containing rock and shale that will provide the fresh fuel for a one gigawatt reactor [1]. In addition, most of the ore is left behind as tailings with considerable quantities of radioactivity from thorium- 230, a daughter product of the radioactive decay of uranium. Thorium has a half-life of 77 000 years and decays into radium-226, which decays into the gas radon-222. All are potent carcinogens. Fresh fuel for one reactor contains about 10 curies of radioactivity (27 curies equal 1012 becquerels, each of the latter being one radiation event per second.) The tailings corresponding to that contain 67 curies of radioactive material, much of it exposed to weathering and rain run-off. Radon gas has been found 1 000 miles from the mine tailings from where it originated. Uranium extraction has resulted in more than 6 billion tonnes of radioactive tailings, with significant impact on human health [2]. Once the fuel is used in a reactor, it becomes highly radioactive primarily because of fission products and the generation of the ‘transuranics' such as neptunium and americium. At discharge from the reactor, a tonne of irradiated fuel from a PWR (pressurized water reactor such as in use at Sizewell) will contain more than 177 million curies of radioactive substances, some admittedly short-lived, but all the more potent in the short term. Ten years later, the radioactivity has died away to about 405 000 curies and 100 years on to 42 000 curies, therefore still 600 times more radioactive than the original material from which the fuel was derived [3]. Today's reactors, totalling 350 GW and providing about 3 per cent of the total energy used in the world, consume 60 000 tonnes of equivalent natural uranium, prior to enrichment. At that rate, economically recoverable reserves of uranium - about 10 million tonnes - would last less than 100 years. A worldwide nuclear programme of 1 000 nuclear reactors would consume the uranium within 50 years, and if all the world's electricity, currently 60 exajoules (1018Joules) were generated by
RE: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Keith, What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching) methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact? -Joey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:03 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 11/07/05 Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths Peter Bunyard disposes of the argument for nuclear power: it is highly uneconomical, and the saving on greenhouse gas emissions negligible, if any, compared to a gas-fired electricity generating plant Peter Bunyard will be speaking at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SWCFA.phpSustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005. References to this article are posted on http://www.i- sis.org.uk/full/DTNPMFull.phpISIS members' website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/members.phpDetails here Limitations due to the quality of uranium ore A critical point about the practicability of nuclear power to provide clean energy under global warming is the quality and grade of the uranium ore. The quality of uranium ore varies inversely with their availability on a logarithmic scale. The ores used at present, such as the carnotite ores in the United States have an uranium content of up to 0.2 per cent, and vast quantities of overlying rocks and subsoil have to be shifted to get to the 96,000 tonnes of uranium-containing rock and shale that will provide the fresh fuel for a one gigawatt reactor [1]. In addition, most of the ore is left behind as tailings with considerable quantities of radioactivity from thorium- 230, a daughter product of the radioactive decay of uranium. Thorium has a half-life of 77 000 years and decays into radium-226, which decays into the gas radon-222. All are potent carcinogens. Fresh fuel for one reactor contains about 10 curies of radioactivity (27 curies equal 1012 becquerels, each of the latter being one radiation event per second.) The tailings corresponding to that contain 67 curies of radioactive material, much of it exposed to weathering and rain run-off. Radon gas has been found 1 000 miles from the mine tailings from where it originated. Uranium extraction has resulted in more than 6 billion tonnes of radioactive tailings, with significant impact on human health [2]. Once the fuel is used in a reactor, it becomes highly radioactive primarily because of fission products and the generation of the transuranics' such as neptunium and americium. At discharge from the reactor, a tonne of irradiated fuel from a PWR (pressurized water reactor such as in use at Sizewell) will contain more than 177 million curies of radioactive substances, some admittedly short-lived, but all the more potent in the short term. Ten years later, the radioactivity has died away to about 405 000 curies and 100 years on to 42 000 curies, therefore still 600 times more radioactive than the original material from which the fuel was derived [3]. Today's reactors, totalling 350 GW and providing about 3 per cent of the total energy used in the world, consume 60 000 tonnes of equivalent natural uranium, prior to enrichment. At that rate, economically recoverable reserves of uranium - about 10 million tonnes - would last less than 100 years. A worldwide nuclear programme of 1 000 nuclear reactors would consume the uranium within 50 years, and if all the world's electricity, currently 60 exajoules (1018Joules) were generated by nuclear reactors, the uranium would last three years [4]. The prospect that the amount of economically recoverable uranium would limit a worldwide nuclear power programme was certainly appreciated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy in its advocacy for the fast breeder reactor, which theoretically could increase the quantity of energy to be derived from uranium by a factor of 70 through converting non-fissile uranium-238 into plutonium-239. In the Authority's journal [5], Donaldson, D.M., and Betteridge, G.E. stated that, for a nuclear contribution that expands continuously to about 50 per cent of demand, uranium resources are only adequate for about 45 years. The earth's crust and oceans contain millions upon millions of tonnes of uranium. The average in the crust is 0.0004 per cent and in seawater 2 000 times more dilute. One identified resource, the Tennessee shales in the United States, have uranium concentrations of between 10 and 100 parts per million, therefore between 0.1 and 0.01 per cent. Such low grade ore has little effective energy content as measured by the amount of electricity per unit mass of mined ore [6]. Below 50 parts per million, the energy extracted is no better than mining coal, assuming that the uranium is used in a once-through fuel cycle, and is not reprocessed, but is dumped in some
