Nuclear curbing alternatives?

The Ontario government’s goal of increasing the amount of green power in its 20-year electricity plan can’t be met unless it pulls back on its commitment to nuclear, a coalition of influential environmental groups argued yesterday.

The energy ministry’s response: Current nuclear levels are here to stay.

“We’re still not moving off maintaining that commitment of 50 per cent nuclear,” ministry spokesperson Amy Tang said.

Gary Griggs, Our Ocean Backyard: Nuclear not a real answer to energy problems

Important questions about energy confront our newly elected political leaders: What sources of energy will we depend on in the future? How long will they last? What are the impacts of using different energy sources?

In my last column, I wrote that U.S. oil reserves are limited, and even if we decide to increase drilling offshore, it would take at least five years to get a platform ready to drill. Well, it’s always encouraging to learn that people actually read this column; the president of a Texas offshore wind power company wrote to correct my statement regarding how long it would take to get a drilling rig ready.

Nuclear is not the future for Wales

As a fellow exile from Neath, along with Sian Lloyd (Western Mail Business, October 15), I read with some incredulity that the West Wales Business Forum has joined the atomic advocacy club.

But generously, it is supporting a new reactor being constructed in Anglesey – just about as far away from West Wales as it is possible to go without leaving the nation.

Of course, even if planning permission for such a plant was to be given this month (which it won’t!), it would take at least 10 years before any power could be generated.

The present Wylfa reactor is due to close within 18 months, so what is Anglesey Aluminium – a major user of the nuclear electricity from Wylfa – to do in the intervening eight years?

These simple numbers demonstrate that new nuclear power is irrelevant to Anglesey Aluminium’s future.

Reliable power from other non-nuclear sources, preferably wind, or combined cycle gas turbines, both of which can be installed rapidly, are relevant, and is what all local Anglesey politicians should be backing.

Meantime, I note that Alun John Richards (Letters, October 7) has joined his fellow Swansea resident Jack Harris in praising the merits of nuclear power in your letters columns.

When Alun and Jack argue for the siting of new nuclear plants in Swansea, perhaps a nice shiny reactor in Morriston, near my family home, and the necessary radioactive waste disposal repository in the less densely populated Gower (transported to the repository through the centre of the city), then their atomic power enthusiasm must be considered as just hot air.

They can remain on their own planet of the apes (atomic power enthusiasts).

Politically, there is no chance any Westminster (or central) Government imposing either a new nuclear plant or a nuclear disposal site against the will of the elected Welsh Assembly Government, whatever the current legislative division of labour may be between Cardiff and London, and quite right too.

NUCLEAR SAFETY IS FOR WUSSES

NUCLEAR SAFETY IS FOR WUSSES…. For months, John McCain has blasted Barack Obama for his reluctance to support expanded nuclear power plants. Obama has pushed back, noting that he supports nuclear as part of a comprehensive energy strategy, but before an expansion, he wants to resolve lingering questions about the security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgEmZ39EtFk]

Campaigning in Iowa yesterday, McCain responded with the kind of intellectual rigor and seriousness of thought we’ve come to expect of the Republican nominee.

“You know, the other night in the debate with Senator Obama, I said his eloquence is admirable, but pay attention to his words,” McCain said. “We talk about offshore drilling and he said he would quote, consider, offshore drilling. We talked about nuclear power, well it has to be safe, environment, blah, blah, blah.”

Now, the Republican activists on hand for the speech found “blah, blah, blah” to be absolutely hilarious. I haven’t the foggiest idea why.

But it does raise a question about McCain’s approach to the issue. Obama has clear concerns about safeguards for nuclear power; McCain believes these safeguards are not only irrelevant, but worthy of mockery.

I’m curious: which concerns, specifically, does McCain dismiss as trivia? The security of spent fuel, storing nuclear waste, or nuclear proliferation?

Nuclear vet families test bid

THE children and grandchildren of Britain’s nuclear test veterans could be tested to see if they suffered genetic damage as a result of their family’s exposure to radiation 50 years ago.

North Durham MP Kevan Jones promised to consider the research following a House of Commons debate in which it was revealed a similar study carried out in New Zealand showed effects had been passed down the generations.

Mr Jones, Parliamentary Under Secretary for the Ministry of Defence, also offered to meet the veterans and MPs who have been lobbying for the study.

He said: “Once that meeting has taken place, I propose to ask officials to discuss with experts the best way to design and develop a possible research programme.

“It is important that this study and the terms of reference for it are correct, and that we are not asking people to do the impossible. That is the commitment that I give.”

Up to 20,000 British troops and thousands of their Commonwealth comrades took part in a series of atomic and nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s on Christmas Island in the Pacific, as well as Montebello Islands, Maralinga and Emu in and around Australia. Only 3000 survivors remain.

The British Nuclear Test Veterans are bringing a class legal action against the MoD in January over claims its members suffered rare cancers and other ailments because of their exposure to radiation.

BNTV chairman John Lowe of Whitley Bay, North Tyneside, said: “We are due to meet Mr Jones this week to discuss the best way forward.

Russia’s Nuclear Shutdown Pads Reactor Orders, Purges Chernobyl

`All zones, fire at the nuclear power plant,” booms a loudspeaker at 9:00 a.m. near the Volgodonsk station deep in southwest Russia.

Within 3 minutes, emergency personnel known as liquidators spill out of fire trucks wearing rubber boots and gloves to guard against electric shock as flames dance inside. At 9:14 a.m. an armored car rolls up, turret slowly twisting, measuring radiation. The command center receives a reading transmission: Abnormal.

The shutdown, staged over two days each September and involving 800 specialists, is a rehearsal for an event the Russians are trying to show will never happen again 22 years after the Chernobyl disaster. At stake this year is an $80 billion global backlog of orders for Russian reactors and nuclear fuel that underpin the industry’s future.

“Moscow, we are in the Ready-for-Emergency mode,” Volgodonsk director Alexander Palamarchuk reports over a satellite camera to his superiors in the Russian capital 1,200 kilometers (740 miles) north.

Are Nuke Labs ‘Vulnerable’ to Spies?

The former chief of security for the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in California says that staffing and intelligence-collecting problems at the facility could potentially have “catastrophic consequences,” according to a letter released today before a congressional hearing on security breaches at the Department of Energy.

Terry D. Turchie, a 29-year veteran of the FBI who headed security at the Lawrence Livermore facility until last year, wrote to Rep. John D. Dingell, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The letter describes staffing problems at the facility and the “dangerously chaotic state of counterintelligence” within the Department of Energy.

“The vulnerability of DOE personnel and facilities to hostile intelligence entities has increased exponentially,” wrote Turchie, who formerly was a deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counterterrorism division. Dingell said Turchie’s letter “raises a number of concerns.”

Nuclear case hinges on waste

Every form of energy generation, including nuclear power, has shortcomings and advantages. But a fair comparison of electricity-generation options is now generating a growing consensus that our nation should expand its nuclear-power capacity.

That consensus extends to both major-party presidential candidates. It also extends to our state, where we generate roughly half of the electricity we need, though we don’t use all of it, instead, sending some of it to other states. That’s much more than the rate for the nation, which gets about a fifth of its electricity from nuclear.

Our S.C. congressional delegation strongly supports nuclear power. Third District Republican Rep. Gresham Barrett, along with former U.S. Energy Secretary and S.C. Gov. James Edwards, came to North Charleston last week to tout his energy legislation that would facilitate an expansion of nuclear power. Both later visited this newspaper for the same cause.

Rep. Barrett, citing Department of Energy estimates, told us: “If we don’t increase our base load, it’s not a question of if we run out of power, it’s a question of when.”

But raising the nuclear output depends on “when” we resolve the critical issue of waste disposal. Rep. Barrett contends that technological advances have eased that problem to a degree, now that 90 percent — or more — of nuclear waste can be reprocessed. But there’s still the question of what to do with the waste that remains.

Washington long ago promised to provide a suitable disposal site for the waste and even charge utilities a fee to establish a fund for that purpose. That promise has not been kept.

Thank you for helping this blog reach the 10,000 hit plus mark

I put in information about Sarah, so that I could know of this person’s background. We all need to be informed voters. I am nor picking on her, but attempting to let the US population have some background information. By just pointing out flaws that I see it gives us a chance to see her true qualities. The job she is running for is only a heart beat away, from what Paris Hilton calls the wrinkly, white hair guy, our possible next president. All of the voter and others need to know about her record, “Such exactly what does a Vice-President do” and other statements and decisions that she has made before be chosen as a Hillary-type opponent. Coverage on Sarah and her lipstick, will stop on election day. Was it Teddy Resovelt who said “Talk softly and carry a big lipstick” LOL?h

But thanks for helping this blog reach 10,000 viewers so quickly,

Nuclear is not the answer

Nuclear is not the answer <!– –> <!––>29th August 2008, 10:30 WST <!––>At the Federal election last year, the people of Australia made it quite clear they wanted climate change addressed. Since then we have the Minister for Plastic Bags do nothing, and nothing but a lot of hot air has arisen from our Federal [...]