Unmaking the waste is the only responsible course. Using an accelerator to do that may require as much energy as nuclear power has provided. So, nuclear power is a battery that you use once and then have to pay back. Fossil fuels have some characteristics like this, but biochar production for carbon sequestration can be energy positive.
The link on the failure of Yucca Mountain misses the key issue: http://www.macalester.edu/acad... Scientists at USGS falsified Quality Assurance reports. Doing this meant that no confidence could be placed in the work. There was no way to know if Yucca was suitable and every reason to think it was not.
The cost of nuclear power makes it very nonbeneficial right now. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C... Regarding waste, we don't know what to do with it, so we don't have a handle on the additional cost.
Since data were deliberately misreported, we can't really ever know if Yucca could be used safely or not. What was being covered up seems to indicate not, but scientific malfeasance pretty much blows the whole project no matter what.
This is the most interesting one. What is threatened is the artificial cooling pond. Wave action at the base of the levy used to hold the pond may undermine it. A design decision to avoid the perilous coast and its storms has been overcome by the coast coming to the power plant.
The NRC is responding to a court order to show that the nuclear waste issue is under control. They are trying to claim that it can be stored for a long long time at nuclear power plants. It seems pretty clear that climate change makes that claim false in some cases.
The book "Reinventing Fire" looks at both technologies. It gives electric the headstart but sees fuel cells as catching up in about 15 years or so. http://www.rmi.org/reinventing...
And, when Stanford divested from tobacco, it made it hard for tobacco companies to get Stanford Medical School grads to shill for them. Divestment has broad effects.
Stanford's own Professor Mark Jacobson and twenty Stanford students demonstrated that California could be entirely fossil fuel free by 2050. Stanford should divest from all fossil fuel companies. http://www.stanford.edu/group/...
Nice link. Yes, the per capita doesn't work anymore because the Chinese emissions are the same as Europe now. Remember, we can only impose tariffs as long as China does not have its own environmental law limiting emissions. But, tying them to federal climate expenses seems like a good message to send.
Time to turn them around. As pointed out in the IPCC WG III report Ch. 13 “Non-Annex I countries as a group have a share in the cumulative global greenhouse emissions for the period 1850 to 2010 close to 50%, a share that is increasing,” - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind... Some countries are cutting emissions, but some are not. That has to change.
The flood and crop damage we are experiencing are covered by federal insurance programs, but
the extra damage is caused by growing emissions. We should not be raising premiums in
response to this, but rather we should impose climate damage tariffs on imports from countries
that are increasing emissions to try to gain advantage in world markets. GATT Article XX
provides for this. http://www.wto.org/english/tra...
Using greenhouse gas emissions as a weapon to disadvantage our agricultural exports and damage
our manufacturing infrastructure near flood plains must be stopped.
The US capitol is very prone to earthquake damage. And it turns out that is is surrounded by shale formations where fracking is or could occur. The Marcellus Shale formation to the North and now "The Taylorsville basin runs through some of Virginia and across the Potomac River to cover much of Charles County, some of Prince George’s and up to Annapolis. That basin was assessed and found to contain an estimated 1,064 billion cubic feet of natural gas" to the South surround it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... The last earthquake did serious damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2....
Slashdot Mirror
The molten salt experiment was a failure resulting in a huge mess.
Unmaking the waste is the only responsible course. Using an accelerator to do that may require as much energy as nuclear power has provided. So, nuclear power is a battery that you use once and then have to pay back. Fossil fuels have some characteristics like this, but biochar production for carbon sequestration can be energy positive.
That was depleted uranium, not reactor waste. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
The link on the failure of Yucca Mountain misses the key issue: http://www.macalester.edu/acad... Scientists at USGS falsified Quality Assurance reports. Doing this meant that no confidence could be placed in the work. There was no way to know if Yucca was suitable and every reason to think it was not.
The cost of nuclear power makes it very nonbeneficial right now. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C... Regarding waste, we don't know what to do with it, so we don't have a handle on the additional cost.
Yes, in your back yard is good, if it is far away.
Since data were deliberately misreported, we can't really ever know if Yucca could be used safely or not. What was being covered up seems to indicate not, but scientific malfeasance pretty much blows the whole project no matter what.
It costs something to feed prisoners. Maybe transporting them to Australia and leaving them there would save some money. Oh, wait...
Nuclear waste in much much more dangerous than natural uranium.
There is the London Dumping Convention as well which prohibits dumping nuclear waste at sea. Have to make sure the stuff does not sink.
They like sacrifice there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
There is some evidence of geological stability there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
This is the most interesting one. What is threatened is the artificial cooling pond. Wave action at the base of the levy used to hold the pond may undermine it. A design decision to avoid the perilous coast and its storms has been overcome by the coast coming to the power plant.
England has planned for that kind of thing. In parts of the US, the ground is too porous for that approach to work.
One of the most severely affected plants is Turkey Point, yet Florida just approved and expansions. http://www.pennenergy.com/arti... Why new power would be needed when the customer base is eroding hard to fathom. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...
The NRC is responding to a court order to show that the nuclear waste issue is under control. They are trying to claim that it can be stored for a long long time at nuclear power plants. It seems pretty clear that climate change makes that claim false in some cases.
The book "Reinventing Fire" looks at both technologies. It gives electric the headstart but sees fuel cells as catching up in about 15 years or so. http://www.rmi.org/reinventing...
And, when Stanford divested from tobacco, it made it hard for tobacco companies to get Stanford Medical School grads to shill for them. Divestment has broad effects.
Stanford's own Professor Mark Jacobson and twenty Stanford students demonstrated that California could be entirely fossil fuel free by 2050. Stanford should divest from all fossil fuel companies. http://www.stanford.edu/group/...
Proper tariffs would help with that.
Nice link. Yes, the per capita doesn't work anymore because the Chinese emissions are the same as Europe now. Remember, we can only impose tariffs as long as China does not have its own environmental law limiting emissions. But, tying them to federal climate expenses seems like a good message to send.
Time to turn them around. As pointed out in the IPCC WG III report Ch. 13 “Non-Annex I countries as a group have a share in the cumulative global greenhouse emissions for the period 1850 to 2010 close to 50%, a share that is increasing,” - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind... Some countries are cutting emissions, but some are not. That has to change.
Emergency Powers! WHO! Where's the paranoia?
The flood and crop damage we are experiencing are covered by federal insurance programs, but the extra damage is caused by growing emissions. We should not be raising premiums in response to this, but rather we should impose climate damage tariffs on imports from countries that are increasing emissions to try to gain advantage in world markets. GATT Article XX provides for this. http://www.wto.org/english/tra... Using greenhouse gas emissions as a weapon to disadvantage our agricultural exports and damage our manufacturing infrastructure near flood plains must be stopped.
The US capitol is very prone to earthquake damage. And it turns out that is is surrounded by shale formations where fracking is or could occur. The Marcellus Shale formation to the North and now "The Taylorsville basin runs through some of Virginia and across the Potomac River to cover much of Charles County, some of Prince George’s and up to Annapolis. That basin was assessed and found to contain an estimated 1,064 billion cubic feet of natural gas" to the South surround it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... The last earthquake did serious damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2....