It was in 1996 that I was first contacted by an organization called the Standing for Truth About Radiation (STAR) Foundation. The Long Island-based group, a loose bundle of veterans of the anti-nuclear movement, local artists, businessmen with large investments in second homes on the East End and scientists with a career-long dedication to the issue were attempting to raise awareness about the Brookhaven National Laboratory and its nuclear-powered research facility, the High Flux Beam Reactor.
The reactor operations at Brookhaven were reported to have released billions of gallons of tritiated water into the headwaters of the Peconic River during the period of its operations from 1965 to 1996. BNL, the U.S. Army's former Camp Upton and the site of decades-long research into all things nuclear, had been the base of operations for some of the earliest work on the atomic bomb. A coalition of different community groups had been opposing the HFBR at BNL for years. Pro-business lobbying groups warned that closing the reactor would have dire consequences to the Long Island economy, as national laboratories, with their high-skill, high-paying jobs, were viewed as "sexy" components of any area's business landscape. Opponents of BNL pointed out that levels of soft tissue cancers and rare diseases such as rhabdomyosarcoma were extraordinarily higher adjacent to the water recharge area near the lab. More effectively, the anti-BNL groups pointed out that Long Islanders had already voiced their opinion of having nuclear reactors in the area when they agreed to absorb the unconscionable amount of money necessary to shutter the Shoreham nuclear power plant several years earlier.
The Long Island Lighting Company, one of the most horrifically mismanaged public utilities in U.S. history, had thrown the switch and already gone "online" with a utility reactor on the North Shore of Suffolk County, a decision that represented a game of chicken with the area's rate payers. Once the reactor went "hot", any move to shut it down would surely mean hundreds of millions of dollars extra in decommissioning and decontamination costs. Long Island residents said, "Bring it on." Already the highest utility rate payers in the forty-eight contiguous states, LILCO customers absorbed billions in costs, amortized over several years, and Shoreham closed. Soon after that, then Governor George Pataki set up another darling of Albany politicos, a quasi-public authority (the Long Island Power Authority or LIPA) to, among other things, evacuate LILCO's overpaid executives who were responsible for the Shoreham debacle. All the information you could possibly want on this issue was brilliantly covered by one of the greatest journalists in the area, Karl Grossman.
Shoreham was closed because even the Feds could not argue that Long Island had no effective evacuation plan, a vital issue for people who would have to either bottleneck through the biggest city in the U.S. or swim to Connecticut in the event of some disaster. That fear also applied to BNL. Soon, the HFBR was closed as well.
During that time, I became acquainted with Dr. Ernest Sternglass, whose work (studying the accumulation of ambient radioactive materials which mimic calcium in the developing human fetus and, thus, serve as scientifically effective markers for radiological spikes in the atmosphere) helped to leverage the test ban treaty during President Kennedy's administration. Dr. Sternglass, along with Dr. Jay M. Gould, founded the Radiation and Public Health Project, which I support today. In 1996, during the period where BNL was on one burner, RPHP turned my attention toward the reactor mess in Millstone, Connecticut; Millstone is one of the dirtiest and most often fined reactors in this country. We gathered information about Indian Point, and worried about implications of a containment breach there long before 9/11 heightened that risk. We gathered information about Oak Ridge, Tennessee, The Gaseous Diffusion plant in Piketon, Ohio. The problems with operations at Dresden, Illinois. At Turkey Point in Florida. And we immersed ourselves in the problems surrounding the Oyster Creek facility in Tom's River, New Jersey.
I started going down to Oyster Creek in 1996. I returned there with a 60 Minutes camera crew a couple of years ago. I have a strong and abiding belief that true knowledge of what does and does not go on in Tom's River, as well as in both Trenton and Washington, combined with unbiased knowledge about nuclear power in utility reactors could kill any of the talk about reviving this industry. The truth not only could but would kill it, if it were known and were disseminated in the press fairly.
In my next post I will comment on last Saturday's broadcast of Weekend Edition on NPR and how Scott Simon appallingly allowed Stewart Brand to burble on and on with his outrageous pablum about "the new safe and clean nuclear power." I will tell you some of what I have learned during the years I've worked with RPHP down in Tom's River and how I view some of the efforts I have joined, with people like the tireless and courageous Joe Mangano who now heads RPHP, as some of the most important work I have ever undertaken.
Lovelock, a climatologist, has been on record for nearly two decades as not opposing nuclear energy as an alternative to energy created by greenhouse gas producing fuel sources. But he stirred the pro-nuclear pot in May 2004, writing in an editorial in the UK's Independent, "I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. ... We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet."
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3679
Renowned climatologist James Hansen:
“One of the greatest dangers the world faces is the possibility that a vocal minority of anti-nuclear activists could prevent phase-out of coal emissions.”
http://www.grist.org/article/Dear-Barack-and-Michelle/
Thorium reactors were proven in hundreds of tests at Oak Ridge from the ’50s through the early ’70s. But thorium hit a dead end. Locked in a struggle with a nuclear- armed Soviet Union, the US government in the ’60s chose to build uranium-fueled reactors; in part because they produce plutonium that can be refined into weapons-grade material and Thorium does not. The course of the nuclear industry was set for the next four decades, and Thorium power became one of the great what-if technologies of the 20th century.
After Thorium has been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste. And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts. Because it’s so plentiful in nature, it’s virtually inexhaustible.
Renowned climatologist James Hansen specifically cited Thorium as a potential fuel source in an “Open Letter to Obama” after the election to prevent climate change.
India, China, Russia and France are moving fast on Thorium reactors (liquid fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR). The USA should be leading both because we invented it here and because we don’t want to be importing our future power plants. We need to keep the lead, and the jobs, here.
Read more:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19758
solar wind and waste bio fuels can supply all the worlds energy needs clean, safe and forever.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
me neither.
"Rooftop solar is several times more dangerous than nuclear power and wind power. It is still much safer than coal and oil, because those have a lot of air pollution deaths.
Rooftop solar can be safer [0.44 up to 0.83 death per twh each year).
Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh.
World average for coal is about 161 deaths per TWh.
In the USA about 30,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 2000 TWh.
15 deaths per TWh.
In China about 500,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 1800 TWh.
278 deaths per TWh.
Hydroelectric power was found to to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TWh (883 fatalities for every TW·yr) in the period 1969–1996
Nuclear power is about 0.04 deaths/TWh.
The average yearly deaths from rooftop solar is 0.83/TWh. Those who want a lower bound estimate can double the life of the solar panels (0.44deaths/TWh). This is worse than the occupational safety issues associated with coal and nuclear power. (see table below). 12 to 25 times less safe than the projected upper bound end effect of Chernobyl (from WHO figures). "
The links Fabco uses that state low amounts of energy, assume that land is used to grow energy, and is diverted from other human needs.
Apparently, you didn't read them, as they do not make the same grandiose claims for biochar or biofuels, that you do.
All your links state qualifiers for the higher estimates that you leave out, from population growth, to food production competition, to a revolution in the way we farm today, that you convienently ignore.
No estimate that ignores population growth will ever be correct. The coal industry says there is 300 years of coal remaining, if only population doesn't grow anymore.
From REASEARCH's own link:
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2815
"governments interested in entering the bioenergy sector to calculate the effect of their policy decisions on the food security of their populations… Bioenergy can affect food prices and rural incomes and thus has important implications – both positive and negative — for food security."
"Potential negative effects are increased food prices for poor urban populations."
http://pragmatic-environmentalist.blogspot.com/2009/03/ccs-and-biochar-slippery-slope.html
It's a concept far beyond Fabco's ken.
Your own links confirm this. You just aren't reading anything past the one cherry you are picking to make your idea look good.
When and if you ever get some plausable or factual answers to some of these questions, as opposed to your usual meaningless one line retorts, please post them.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/37360
"Not every country has the same capability to grow biomass for making biofuels. "Countries with low agricultural efficiency and a limited population density are likely to have the greatest biomass resources," Faaij told environmentalresearchweb. Regions such as Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe fall into this category.
In order to protect natural forest and maintain food production for local people, Laurijssen and Faaij stress that it is essential for biomass-producing countries to become more efficient at producing food. "
"Total bio-energy potential is estimated to be maximum 1545 Exajoules per year by 2050, the bulk of it found in Africa and Latin America. 1545 EJ is more than 6 times the current amount of petroleum used by the entire world (total global energy demand today is 420EJ/yr, of which around 220EJ comes in the form of oil products)"
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2815
30% solar, 30% wind 30% bio fuels is a good goal.
See my profile for details.
http://www.biochar-international.org/images/Biochar_book_Chapter_1.pdf
"bioenergy, in general, and pyrolysis, in particular, may contribute significantly to securing a future supply of green energy. However, it will, most likely, not be able to solve the energy crises and satisfy rising global demand for energy on its own.
An assessment of the global potential of bioenergy from forestry yielded a theoretical surplus supply of 71EJ in addition to other wood needs for 2050 (Smeets and Faaij, 2006), in comparison to a worldwide energy consumption of 489EJ in 2005 (EIA, 2007). If economical and ecological constraints were applied, the projection for available wood significantly decreases (Smeets and Faaij, 2006)."
http://www.uce-uu.nl/index.php?action=1&menuId=1&type=project&id=3&
CAT1:"Large areas for energy farming require global structural application of HEI production systems and therefore serious changes in the way food is being produced. This category may have zero potential. "
CAT2:"Biomass production possibly expensive or non-competitive because of low productivity. This category may have zero potential through competition food supply. "
CAT3:"The demand for biomass in this category must be deducted from categories I and II."
CAT4:"Depends of yield/residue ratios and total agricultural area. Large fraction of residues required for soil fertility and nutrient supply."
CAT5:"Long term utilisation uncertain. "
CAT6:"Literature estimates, strongly depends upon development stage, consumption and use of biomaterials"
"40 – 1100 EJ Maximum range. (200 – 700 EJ) Between brackets: average range for the total supply of biomass in a world"
Proving your use of the 1100EJ figure is unrealistic at best, disengenous spin and hype at worst.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-11-how-much-energy-does-the-us-waste/
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Waste_to_Worth_-_CEFWC_submission.pdf
good paper on existing landfill versus bio fuels.
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/garbage-energy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuse-derived_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy
http://www.covantaholding.com/big_waste.shtml 50% of Municipal waste is landfilled 14 sq km per year.
In total, the upper limit of the bio-energy potential could be over 1000 EJ per year. This is considerably more than the current global energy use of 400 EJ.
http://www.uce-uu.nl/index.php?action=1&menuId=1&type=project&id=3&
(Use low estimates since using the WASTE)
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/company list of BioChar companies.
http://www.agri-therm.com/solution.html portable bio fuel oil BioChar units.
http://www.advbiorefineryinc.ca/news/ meat rending waste BioChar.
http://terrapretapot.org/
Once we have stopped throwing away stuff, if we still need more fuels, we can go to algae farming.
The CO2 that comes from Bio Char energy can be using to feed the algea, further reducing carbon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
RESEARCH == exaggerated, cherry picked facts.
"Major transitions are required to exploit this bio-energy potential. It is uncertain to what extent such transitions are feasible. Depending on the factors mentioned above, the bio-energy potential could be very low as well, i.e. around 40 EJ. "
The EPA only regulates 7 emissions. What else is being emitted by this combustion? If the same emissions scrubber were employed for coal, how would it compare? What is the lifecycle analysis of this technology, for all of it's emissions and inputs? Sadly the answers to these questions are missing....
http://www.covantaholding.com/efw_basics.shtml
"Energy-from-Waste (EfW) or waste-to-energy (WTE) is a process that takes municipal solid waste –including plain old household trash -- and transfers it into combustion chambers where it is reduced to 10% of its original volume in the process.
For every ton of waste processed in a EfW facility, almost one ton of GHG is avoided.
The advanced technology in combusting waste is the air quality (emission) control system. Energy-from-waste facilities meet or exceed the strictest federal standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "
You seem to have a penchant for spin to the extreme upside when it comes to your pet proposals, while failing to provide rebuttal, or much of anything besides hysterical fearmongering against all things nuclear.
Unfortunately, your being against making any drastic improvements in nuclear technology, like the LFTR, does not make all things nuclear go away. It only keeps badly needed improvements from happening. Looks like you are only fooling yourself again. Still waiting to see you prove a darn thing.
http://www.uce-uu.nl/index.php?action=1&menuId=1&type=project&id=3&
"In total, the upper limit of the bio-energy potential could be over 1000 EJ per year. This is considerably more than the current global energy use of 400 EJ.
However, this contribution is by no means guaranteed. Crucial factors determining biomass availability for energy are:
Population growth, average diets and economic development.
The efficiency and productivity of food production systems that must be adopted worldwide and the rate of their deployment in particular in developing countries.
Feasibility of the use of marginal/degraded lands.
Productivity of forests and sustainable harvest levels.
The (increased) utilisation of biomaterials.
Major transitions are required to exploit this bio-energy potential. It is uncertain to what extent such transitions are feasible. Depending on the factors mentioned above, the bio-energy potential could be very low as well, i.e. around 40 EJ. "
We stop "throwing things away" and stop all the environmental damage, cost and energy needed for dumps.
We supply huge amounts of electricity, heat natural gas, bio oil, and Bio Char fertilizer.
Add Wind and solar, and all the world energy needs are easily met.
Agricultural waste is not "thrown away" right now. Crop residues are returned to the soil to resupply those nutrients. Yes, co2 is released in the process, but if you don't return the residues, pretty soon the land won't grow crops.
To bring the rest of the world to our standard of energy use by 2015 would require 80 trillin KW. World energy needs for 2050 are forcast to be 80 trillion KW with conservation and austerity cutting avg use to a lot less than what we use today. The world could use a lot more energy than that to increase living standards rather than drop them.
http://energyfromthorium.com/2006/04/29/how-much-thorium-would-it-take-to-power-the-whole-world/
Please provide someone that has actually measured the numbers proving the world's energy needs can be supplied by biochar, solar and wind?
http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html
Remember that Nuke power promised "Clean" and to cheaper to meter.
don't be fooled agin.
thorium reactors don't exist, still lead to proliferation, still have 1000 years deadly waste, and are still great terrorist targets.
it's bait and switch.
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/32/64/66/PDF/FP355.pdf
http://lpsc.in2p3.fr/gpr/gpr/peren-neutroniqueE.htm
Cancer: http://www.tapcanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tap_fact_sheet1.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12938722 France has very high radiation type cancers rates.
25 cent per kwh nukes 9$ per W average. http://energyeconomyonline.com/uploads/Is_New_Nuclear_Competitive_July_10_2009_FNS_Event.pdf
25 cents per KWH for new Nuclear.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/
10$ per W nuclear minimum.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/15/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/
Nukes failed during deadly heatwave: 15,000 deaths in France, 32,000 all of Europe.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2003/update29
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jul/30/energy.weather
http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/HotNukesFactsheet.pdf
Add: Their huge processing plants fire, their dumping of waste all over the world, proliferation,
Nukes are a huge deadly disaster,
that will take
a million years to clean up
Energy use will double and double again as the world's population goes from 6 to 10 billion people in the next few decades. At that rate, by the time you could barely convert the world's electricity baseload to biochar, your entire fuel potential is no longer enough to meet demand, even with severe austerity conservation cuts.
There is enough thorium energy for several thousand years without austerity. Why convert to biochar, only to then have to spend more resources to convert to thorium?