Category Archives: advanced energy structures

Gasoline Hits $100 A Gallon – The world ends

Posted on by
Reply

Well actually it doesn’t. But it will definitely change our lifestyles and our foodchain. But not really the way either the right or the left think or at least want you to believe. Believe me I am not being callous when I simply say that lots of people will die. There is no denying that and if we let it CHAOS could insue. But I don’t it will happen that way. One way or another we will either very quickly get a lot more renewable energy sources in place or we as a nation will be forced to return to a small farm society. The Saudi’s know for sure what is coming because they just anounced another huge solar project. Something like this:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D07E1D71639F932A35752C1A965948260

TWO years ago, this village of 3,000 people, only 20 miles from Riyadh, the capital of this kingdom, had no electricity. Today, villagers proudly display their televisions, toasters and other accouterments of an electrified society.

But when Saudis here turn their lights on at night, they are using energy generated not by their country’s vast oil reserves, but by the sun.

This village and two others nearby are the first in the kingdom, or anywhere, to be powered continuously and primarily by solar power.

:}

:}

I realize that yesterday I gave sort of a short shift to the Peak Oil people. I kinda acted like everyone in the audience would know what that is. So here are some of their more promenant sites:

http://www.theoildrum.com/

http://www.peakoil.com/

Energy Sites
 wakeuptosolars.gif

:}

Please note the bell shaped curve above. That is their arguement in a nutshell. In other words demand has exceeded the ability of the oil producers to provide oil. That ability to produce will eventually “fall off” as the supply ends and prices will go through the roof (read: become prohibitive). So what does that mean for the now Industrialized Foodchain?

In Michael Pollan’s 2006 book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, he lays out huge problems with our corporate food chain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Omnivore’s_Dilemma

 Industrial

Pollan begins with an exploration of the food-production system from which the vast majority of American meals are derived. This industrial food chain is largely based on corn, whether it is eaten directly, fed to livestock, or processed into chemicals such as glucose and ethanol. Pollan discusses how the humble corn plant came to dominate the American diet through a combination of biological, cultural, and political factors. The role of petroleum in the cultivation and transportation of the American food supply is also discussed.

A fast food meal is used to illustrate the end result of the industrial food chain.

:}

In fact a scientist said that if humanity quit using nitrogen fertilizer it would be like taking EVERY automobile in the WORLD off the road.

However its interesting that he actually fails in what he sets out to do. His goal was actually to grow throught the progression of Industrial—> Small Farm—> Vegan—>Make my own meal. He wanted to make the point that Vegatarion was the way to go to save the planet from us humans. His thought being that he would make up a giant tofu salad at the end of the book. It did not go that way, because he quickly discovered that going meatless is tougher than he thought AND that it would take MORE energy inputs than we currently use to take the whole USA vegatarian. In other words we omnivores by DESIGN (duh) and we can’t change that by wishing it to be so. In the end he makes his meal and includes fish in it to show that heh you can “eat locally”.  Hunting animals is a lot tougher  than fishing. But heh he does not say how long it took to catch the one he shared.

Next – On to King Corn.
:}

Food And Oil – We are all gona die

Posted on by
Reply

Since the Peak Oil people have managed to scare the begeezus out of the whole world. I though that it was time to engage in a meditation on the Relationship between Food and Energy. Having sat through similar meditations on Religion and Energy Conservation (18 posts) and Energy Policy and the Presidential Candidates (17 posts) I can assure you this will not take more than 3 or 4 posts and will probably include Weird Bird Friday.

But let’s start with  Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Delimma and a film, King Corn, by Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, to take an initial pass at the problem.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/

http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php

But before we do let’s do a little thought experiment because King Corn and the Omnivore’s Dilemma both ultimately fail in what they hope to accomplish.  In fact, I think that the high price of oil right now is being manipulated by the producers, the futures market and the refiners and it will come down. But as I have said to the Peak Oil people all along, we are maybe at the “oil Plateau”, but we are not at the “decline” part of the curve. It WILL COME. Thus, it is good to think about the situation to see what may happen.

As an aside here for another second. I have actually thought about farming for alot of my life because I believe that the world is warming because of our release of greenhouse gases, and that warming will destabalize our weather. That in effect would disrupt the farmers and thus the food supply. Under the “Peak Oil” senario what would happen is that all of the energy inputs into our industrial linear monocultural food chain would be withdrawn. This means no fertilizers, and no transportation for the food grown. Or maybe foods that can travel less distances. But eventually this would leaves us with no fuel to drive the tractors to plant the seeds and a loss of refrigeration. Or at least the type of refrigeration we are used to. If you believe their worst case senarios this could happen rather quickly. Think, as one of their leading bloggers recently said, about the impact of gasoline that costs 100$$ a gallon. I live about 6 or 7 miles from Springfield and I can tell you I would be walking to town at that point.

Still would we all die? If you mean ALL as Humanity, yes many of us would die if the worldwide food chain were disrupted. But think about it in another way, food would become trapped in the producing and exporting nations. So those countries would be awash in the foods that they produce. As we have seen in this last round of oil price increases the poorer countries of the world would face food riots, mass starvation, disease and death. In a moral cataclysm, the question for the 3rd world would be what to do with the bodies. Burying them would be dumb, burning them even worse…but should we recycle dead humans? Maybe we need to think about that.

In much of the world and even in parts of the third world what would happen is that we all would have to become hunters and gathers again. I am not saying that lives would not be lost, and that tremendous tumult would not result but at least initially we all would have to become small plot croppers like we did during WWII. When I mention Victory Gardens to the PO (peak oil) folks they go ballistic. They jump up and down and shout, “It’s the population stupid.”

 

So if the ALL in We Are All Going To Die is we folks in the US of A then let’s look at it. In 1940 there were 133 million people in the US, now there are roughly 280 million people. So a simple analysis could say that 150 million people here would die. That is to die back to the point where Victory Gardens were effective. But I have my doubts about that. Looking at the worst disaster to hit this country, the Flu Pandemic of 1918 the US suffered a net loss of population of 60 thousand people. That was .06% of the population.

 

I also am intellectually opposed to “science fiction” posturings where the rich rule the world and the poor eat Solent Green. Nonetheless I am not naïve enough to assume that millions won’t die here. The Pandemic actually wiped out a birth rate producing 1.5 million people a year before it “went negative”. Would we survive as a capitalist democracy? That is a much bigger question. It would be imperative in that first farming year that fuel prices spiked that every scrap of food grown is preserved. Capitalists might not be willing to pay the cost of that. Would many of us end up eating field corn or something made out of it. Heck yes. Would our livestock have to get by on grass? Oh yah. Would the megacities empty. I don’t know, but again the problem is corporate land ownership. That land would have to be expropriated to put small producers on it. Is democracy up for the test? It may have no choice.

 

Would I survive as a country boy living in the middle of Illinois? Yes, I believe I would. Country Boys Will Survive. God, I have always wanted to say that.

Where Will Coal to Liquids Go? Maybe up in the air

Posted on by
1

This has been widely reported but I think people have overlooked the broader implications. This could actually work and be good for the environment:

 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/air-force-begin.html

Air Force Begins Testing Synfuel Blend in Fighter Engine

30 April 2008

Engineers at the US Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) have begun testing a Pratt & Whitney F100 engine, the power plant for the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon, with a blend of alternative synthetic fuel in the J-1 simulated altitude jet engine test cell. Once testing and evaluation is complete, this will be the first fighter jet engine to use the synthetic blend.

Since 2006, AEDC has taken an active role in its support of the US Air Force’s Alternative Fuels Certification Office in the evaluation and certification of the synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) alternative fuel, which is derived from natural gas or coal using the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process, for use in all Air Force aircraft.

Testing at AEDC on the GE F101 engine, the power plant for the B-1 Lancer bomber, was the first series of testing of a high performance, afterburning engine with FT fuel for a combat aircraft. (Earlier post.) This engine was also tested in the center’s J-1 high altitude jet engine test cell.

The Air Force has already certified the engines for the B-52 Stratofortress bomber to operate on FT fuel and the C-17 Globemaster III transport has flown on SPK fuel.

 http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/3167/Synthetic-fuel-testing-begins-on-fighter-engine.html

and

 http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Sci/sci.military.naval/2008-05/msg02235.html

U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push Dependence on Oil Seen as too Risky

The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of
all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department’s overall
energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available —
almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force’s bill for jet
fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House
submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel
costs.

Do you wonder why the Navy thinks nuke is a good idea?

U.S. Military Launches
Alternative-Fuel Push
Dependence on Oil
Seen as too Risky
B-1 Takes Test Flight
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
May 21, 2008; Page A1

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. — With fuel prices soaring, the U.S.
military, the country’s largest single consumer of oil, is turning
into an alternative-fuels pioneer.

In March, Air Force Capt. Rick Fournier flew a B-1 stealth bomber code-
named Dark 33 across this sprawling proving ground, to confirm for the
first time that a plane could break the sound barrier using synthetic
jet fuel. A similar formula — a blend of half-synthetic and half-
conventional petroleum — has been used in some South African
commercial airliners for years, but never in a jet going so fast.
[Major Expense]

“The hope is that the plane will be blind to the gas,” Capt. Fournier
said as he gripped the handle controlling the plane’s thrusters during
the test flight. “But you won’t know unless you try.”

With oil’s multiyear ascent showing no signs of stopping — crude
futures set another record Tuesday, closing at $129.07 a barrel in New
York trading — energy security has emerged as a major concern for the
Pentagon.

The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of
all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department’s overall
energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available —
almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force’s bill for jet
fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House
submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel
costs.

Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is
expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil
if it’s mass-produced.

Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its
dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq
alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring
countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security
advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers
could cripple military operations around the world. “The endgame is to
wean the dependence on foreign oil,” says Air Force Assistant
Secretary William Anderson.

Some Pentagon officers have embraced planning around the “peak oil”
theory, which holds that the world’s oil production is about to
plateau due to shrinking resources and limited investment in many of
the most oil-rich regions of the Middle East. Earlier this year, they
brought Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons to the Pentagon for
a presentation on peak oil; he warned that under the theory, “energy
security becomes an oxymoron.” House Democrats have proposed creating
a new Defense Department position to manage the military’s overall
energy needs.

:}

Many Readers might be suprised that I might support this idea…But Why? Well, what if the military did it right. My main objection to Coal to Liquid Programs in Illinois  is that they either involve bogus methods of carbon sequestration (untested deep well injection into sandstone) or they don’t. Which would amount to just more global warming when alternatives are available. Using the end product of Liquid To Coal processes as jet fuel for The Defense Department makes excellent sense because there is no alternative. If the Liquid To Coal plant is on a military base there is no environmental ruckus, the US Goverment becomes liable for the Risks and the Cleanup. In addition, if they sited them near one of the depleted secure oilfields , like in OHIO or OKLAHOMA, the sequestration option is viable because they could build a pipeline and pump the effluent to the oil fields. They would in effect be waste free. But Mr. CES you say, will the military do things right? I know, but maybe this time they will.

:}

Nuclear Power – The ultimate anti nuclear groups

Posted on by
Reply

Grandpa can I build a nuclear powerplant?

What son?

Oh never mind….

:} 

It does not get more antinuclear than this:

http://www.gensuikin.org/english/index.html

gen1.jpg

. About GENSUIKIN — Its Organization and Activities —

The official name of GENSUIKIN is The Japan Congress Against A- and H-Bombs. Established in 1965, we are one of Japan’s largest anti-nuclear and peace movement organizations. We have chapters in 47 prefectures and include 32 nationwide labor unions and youth groups in our membership (as of March 1997). Our activities are undertaken in collaboration with radiation victims’ groups, labor unions, and political parties. We sponsor two major annual events. A public rally held in March, “3-1 Bikini Day,” commemorates the crew of the fishing boat Daigo Fukuryu-Maru (Lucky Dragon), which was exposed to fallout from nuclear testing at Bikini in 1954. The World Congress Against A- and H-Bombs is held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, the month when atomic bombs were dropped on those cities. Our core activities include efforts to foster solidarity with anti-nuclear activists around the world; anti-nuclear pro-peace campaigns; various initiatives toward a nuclear-free society; and activities in support of radiation victims

 gen2.jpg

 But because the nuclear industry is so inept in Japan the anti nuclear power sentiment has grown.

1999 – Two workers killed in explosion at Tokaimura plant

2003 – 17 Tepco plants shut down over falsified safety records

2004 – Five workers killed by steam from corroded pipe at Mihama

2007 – Damage inflicted on Kashiwazaki plant from earthquake

 The Japanese operate an incredible 55 nuclear reactors. One of the largest and newest anti nuke groups there is

Stop Rokkasho – which represents opposition to a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.

http://stop-rokkasho.org/

Which is led by musicians and I wish I could show you more of the site. But, it’s all Adobe Flash presentations and music downloads which I can’t copy. So you will just have to go look for yourself.

But this is their petition:

Prime Minister of Japan

I, the undersigned, am deeply concerned about the opening on March 31st, 2006 of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant. It is not only an issue for Japan but for the whole world. If operation continues and the plant keeps emitting radioactive waste into the air and the ocean, it would seriously damage the natural environment of the whole region, thereby threatening the health and welfare of innumerable human residents for many generations to come.

I also believe the hyper-toxic plutonium produced in reprocessing will present a grave security risk for an earthquake-prone country like Japan, will make the nation more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and jeopardize the process of worldwide nuclear disarmament.

I, as one of the concerned citizens of the world, respectfully ask the Japanese government to courageously reconsider the approval of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, thereby contributing to environmental protection, regional security and world peace. I am confident that Japan, with its excellent technological capacity, can show good leadership in the world by shifting its energy policy away from nuclear power and towards renewable energy. I believe this is the only path towards a sustainable world.

Dear Prime Minister, please lead your government in stopping the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant.

The undersigned.

:}

A more conventional Japanese anti nuke site is:

http://cnic.jp/english/

We demand that the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant be closed

The Group of Concerned Scientists and Engineers Calling for the Closure of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant (KK Scientists) was formed shortly after the Chuetsu-oki earthquake. It was started by four people who, on 21 August 2007, issued an appeal. To date over 200 scientists and engineers have endorsed this appeal. They are actively demanding that objective scientific and technical investigations be carried out “keeping in mind the possibility of permanent closure of the plant”.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has established the “Subcommittee for Investigation and Response to the Nuclear Facilities affected by Chuetsu-oki earthquake”, chaired by Haruki Madarame, a professor of Tokyo University, and ordered Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) to check equipment and carry out seismic response analysis. However, these investigations are clearly being carried out based on the premise that the plant will be restarted in the near future. It would therefore be difficult to call them objective scientific and technical investigations. In addition, the nuclear industry is trying to lend authority to these investigations being carried out by the government and TEPCO by holding an international symposium in February this year in Kashiwazaki City*2.

As scientists and engineers, we believe that it is necessary to condemn and highlight the problems of this type of biased investigation, which is being carried out by the regulatory authorities and TEPCO without the participation of residents. We have prepared this document for this purpose and welcome comments on its contents.

Our key arguments are as follows:

  • Kashiwazaki-Kariwa was never a place to build a nuclear power plant.
  • Sloppy safety examination overlooked an over 40 km-long submarine active fault.
  • This time was a miraculously lucky escape.
  • The danger of another large earthquake remains. The government is violating its own seismic design rules.
  • Important safety equipment may have been seriously damaged.
  • TEPCO’s equipment checks are not capable of identifying all the damage.
  • TEPCO’s seismic response analysis fails to identify the true situation.
  • Struck by the double blow of aging and an earthquake, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa should not be restarted

:}

Nuclear Power – Grandma I want to build a nuclear powerplant but no will let me

Posted on by
Reply

Why would you want to build a Nuclear powerplant?

Because the world needs electricity and all the cool kids are doing it.

So you think building a Nuclear powerplant will make you cool?

Yah Grandma, they are huge, and shiny and they generate megawatts and they have big cooling towers and stuff!

Well how much clean water to they take to cool the reactor?

Oh hundrens of gazillions of gallons.

Well what are all the little fishes supposed to do when you take their water?

Oh I don’t know Grandma.

You know that mining uranium creates lots of toxic waste. What would happen to that?

Oh I don’t know Grandma.

You know that uranium is dangerous. What would you do with it when you were done playing with it?

Oh I don’t know Grandma.

Well you know, you need to think about that before you start playing with Nuclear power right?

I guesssss Grandma but shucks?

Why don’t you go play outside and we will talk about it more after you think about it.

OK Grandma!

Give us a kiss..

GRANDMA..

Go play now.

:}

Australia has an active antinuclear movement even though though they have no Nuclear powerplants in operation they are a huge source of uranium through the 3 mines in operation. 

:}

http://www.antinuclear.net/

 aussie.jpg

Even the Aborigines know better than to mess around with some things.

Uranium Mining and Aboriginal People -by Vincent Forrester

I follow the culture of my people. We belong to the land. We are the caretakers for the land. Our lifetime on this earth is only a blink in time, so our lifetime is spent protecting and caring for this land for future generations………

…..I want to tell you how I feel about uranium and how the whole nuclear cycle affects our land, our lives, our traditions….The people who I believe to be among the worst affected by the nuclear cycle are my people, the Aboriginal owners of Australia.It is our land which white miners rip apart to extract the poisonous yellowcake, and it is on our land where they dump the polluted tailingsI

It is on Aboriginal land that the British, with support from the Australian government of the time, exploded deadly nuclear weapons, with no regard for our people, their land or their future.
And it is on Aboriginal land that the government is examining the possibility of dumping deadly radioactive waste in untried synthetic rock.

I say to you, when you consider your attitudes to Australian involvement in the uranium industry, that you think first about what you are doing to our people……….

……..what do Aboriginal people of Arnhem Land know of these dangers? Our people in Arnhem Land and throughout Australia are not sufficiently informed about the extent of damages occurring from uranium mining. Nor do we know the extent to which they are being exposed to radiation in the atmosphere. Nor do we know the extent of contamination already present in the food chain.
There is simply no proper information given to Aboriginal people living in the area about the effects of uranium mining on the land. The monitoring scientists have made no attempt to interpret their findings to the affected Aboriginal people………..”

:}

But then there is the mining end of it:

Taxpayers cut BHP fuel bills CATHY ALEXANDER (AAP), CANBERRA The Advertiser 06 May 2008 – “State TAXPAYERS will subsidise the fuel bill of mining giant BHP Billiton by more than $100 million to help it work the world’s largest uranium deposit, a conservation group claims. State TAXPAYERS will subsidise the fuel bill of mining giant BHP Billiton by more than $100 million to help it work the world’s largest uranium deposit, a conservation group claims. ….

……………The foundation estimates the subsidy will be worth $29 million a year to BHP to expand Olympic Dam, where the company also mines the world’s fourth largest remaining copper deposit. “BHP does not need you and me to subsidise their diesel,” ACF executive director Don Henry said……………

…………The subsidy would be worth $117 million over the life of the study, ACF said.
Mr Henry said the fuel tax credits scheme would cost the Government $4.9 billion a year.
He has called on the Government to scrap the subsidy for the mining and transport sectors in next week’s Budget although it should be retained for farmers.
The money saved could be redirected to public transport

:}

And it is pretty ugly just in its own right:

olympic-dam.jpg

Herald Sun Christopher Russell and Nick Henderson May 02, 2008 – “BHP Billiton and the South Australian Government have been forced to scotch rumours of major doubts and delays over the Olympic Dam expansion.
The company said it was on schedule with its planning for the expansion of the copper-gold-uranium mine. Planning was more complicated than first anticipated…………

……….The rumours – reported on a Sydney website and then raised by SA Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith on ABC radio yesterday – said the project was plagued by problems and cost blowouts.

These included that the mine might not go ahead as an open-cut but would only be an expanded underground operation.

The rumours said costs of the pre-feasibility study, under which the company is considering all its options, had increased substantially and that BHP chief executive Marius Kloppers had refused to meet the extra costs……………………………..”.

:}

But then there are these people as well….

Australian antinuclear sites

People for a Nuclear Free Australia www.nuclearfree.com.au

Nuclear Free Australia www.nukefreeaus.org

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom www.wilpf.org.au

CODEPINK -Women for Peace http://home.vicnet.net.au/~codepink/

Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA www.anawa.org,au

NoNukes South Australia www.geocities.com/nonukesa

Nuclear Free Queensland www.nuclearfreequeensland

NORTHERN TERRITORY NEWS http://www.ntnews.info/

The Wilderness Society http://nuclear.wilderness.org.au/

Arid Lands Environment Centre www.alec.org.au

Sutherland Shire Environment Centre NSW http://www.ssec.org.au/

Canberra Region Antinuclear Campaign www.nonukescanberra.org

Independent media Pete’s Intelligence Blog spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

:}

Facts on all aspects of the nuclear industry www.energyscience.org.au

www.greenpeace.org/australia

Friends of the Earth www.foe.org.au

The Sustainable Energy and AntiUranium Service http://www.sea-us.org.au/

Medical Association for the Prevention of War www.mapw.org.au

Jim Green. Nuclear and Environmental research www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/

Opposing US/Australia military operations in Australia arranged in secrecy

www.peaceconvergence.com

:}

Nuclear Power – Daddy can I build a nuclear power plant?

Posted on by
Reply

Daddy can I build a nuclear power plant? Germany, China and Abu Dubai are.

Who?

Germany, China and Abu Dubai. They are cool kids at school. I want to be like them.

Well, I suppose….Did you ask your mother?

Yes I did.

Well I suppose…Wait – What did she say?

uhm atm eh duh

What did she say?

She said I cudnt?

You could not young man, speak up!

Well its not fair. She is always saying NO to me!

Why did she say no to you son?

She said it was dangerous and stuff. She always says that.

Yah and she is always right. Now go outside and play! You tried to con me and I don’t appreciate it!

Daaad..

Do not make me put this paper down young man…NOW go out side and play…

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0330-03.htm

Germany’s Greens Disappoint the Anti-Nuclear Movement

BERLIN – Since they joined the federal government, Germany’s Greens have proved a bitter disappointment to the country’s anti-nuclear movement from where it drew much of its original support.

Opposition to atomic power, widely regarded by ordinary people in Germany as an unacceptably dangerous and unsustainable form of energy, has been fundamental to the Greens’ political base.

This week’s huge confrontation between anti-nuclear militants and the forces of the state over a transport of highly radioactive waste across the country underlines the cleft which has now opened up between the Greens’ leadership and that base.

“Atomic state equals police state,” a common slogan of the militants read.

A central plank of the Greens’s coalition agreement with the Social Democrats of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder after the leftwing general election victory of 1998 was a commitment to negotiate a nuclear energy phase-out.

The turning point came last June when, after difficult negotiations, the government reached a compromise deal with the power companies for a phase-out which should see the last atomic plant closed around 2021.

The problem is that the phase-out is both vague and far in the future, as it is based on an average working life of Germany’s 19 atomic power stations of 32 years, and names no final date for the closure of the last of them.

The deal, negotiated by Environment Minister Juergen Trittin, also only provides for an end to the fiercely opposed cross-country convoys of nuclear waste from Germany’s power stations in 2005.

The disappointment with the Greens’ leaders goes beyond a section of the urban middle-class or the young hippie-like fringe from which many of the demonstrators against the “Castor” waste containers came.

It includes people of the Elbe valley region of Lower Saxony whose gentle, wooded countryside has been blighted by the establishment of the Gorleben dump for nuclear waste and the resultant repeated mass confrontations 

:}

And then there are these folks:

http://www.castor.de/12english.html

“Illegal” German nuclear funding challenged

(Translated by Diet Simon)German nuclear opponents criticise the continued government funding of nuclear energy although it is government policy to stop it.They allege that funding is channelled “through the back door” via the European Community, which is still putting billions of euros into helping the nuclear industry.Two groups fighting storage of nuclear waste in their areas say a congress on future energies in the Ruhr city of Essen on 19 February “made frighteningly clear the ambitious nuclear energy targets of the North-Rhine Westphalian government.“A forum on innovative developments in nuclear technology in North-Rhine Westphalia heard that nuclear energy promotion funding in the state flows to it via the detour of the European Community.”The most populous German state has a conservative government formed by the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) of federal chancellor, Angela Merkel.At national level there is an increasingly fractious coalition government between the CDU and Social Democrats. The Social Democrats brought into the coalition the decision to drop nuclear power made when they formed the previous government.The CDU, backed by most industries, has always resisted giving up nuclear power and is trying in various ways to keep it going.

North-Rhine Wesphalia contains many nuclear installations, including Germany’s only uranium enrichment plant at Gronau and a waste dump at Ahaus, both near the Dutch border and owned by power companies.

The Ahaus opponents and the opponents to dumping at the village of Gorleben in north Germany say in a joint statement that a Dr. Werner Lensa of Jülich Research Centre (near Cologne) told the conference about the development aims for future nuclear power stations.

:}

And they have a real cool anti-nuke sysmbol:

what-is-x.gif
:}

Nuclear Power – Mom all my friends are doing it, why can’t I

Posted on by
2

All my friends have nukes and they are building more. How come I can’t have one? Huh mom, Huh?

Lats see:

They are expensive,

They are dangerous,

They generate waste that is toxic for 1,000’s of years,

It is an inappropriate use of technology,

They are not sustainable,

And I said no!

But Moooom Everyone’s doing it?

I said NO!

Now go outside and PLAY!

http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index.php?menu=english&page=index

Réseau “SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE “

Network phasing out the nuclear age

 

An alliance of 821 French organisations

Download our presentation document

If you are a group, please join us!

GATHERING TOGETHER TO CREATE A NUCLEAR-FREE FUTURE

The Network ‘SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE’ is currently the main French antinuclear coalition, with a membership of 821 organizations and 18986 individual subscribers.
It is completely independent, entirely funded by donations and the subscriptions from its members.

Since 1997, 821 organizations have joined our Network “Sortir du nucléaire”.

Our mission is to unite everyone concerned with phasing out nuclear power.

Only  by combining our efforts can we build up enough strength to achieve concrete results.

Our goal is to convince France to phase out nuclear power generation by  :

  •  rethinking its energy policy
  •  improving the efficiency of electricity use
  •  developing alternative and sustainable generation scenarios.

The Network SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE :

  • supports actions for phasing out nuclear power, whether local, national or international,
  • launches petition and information campaigns,
  • is a resource center for nuclear power and sustainable alternatives : information, documents, access to experts and lecturers,
  • informs the public about the dangers of nuclear power and solutions for phasing it out thanks to its website, its quarterly magazine Sortir du Nucléaire and the publication of thematic documents aimed at the general public,
  • has a PR policy and close contact with the media for nuclear-related issues,
  • aims to inform elected representatives, local decision-makers, trade-unions, associations about all nuclear related issues.

Why phase out nuclear power ?

  • A nuclear accident provokes countless victims and leaves vast tracts of land uninhabitable for thousands of years. Is such risk morally permissible ?
  • There exists no possibility of rendering nuclear waste harmless. It remains a hazard for tens of thousands of years and more.
  • The real cost of nuclear power is very high if all the expenses are honestly taken into account : public scientific research, decommissioning of nuclear power facilities, endless management of nuclear waste …
    Part of the radioactive material produced in nuclear reactors has the potential and is used for hostile military use and for atomic bombs.
  • It may be that nuclear power contributes only small amount of greenhouse gases, but its waste contaminates the earth for millions of years. There is no choosing the lesser of two evils. The goal of a responsible, sustainable energy policy should be : no to nuclear, no to greenhouse gases.
  • The large component of nuclear energy in French power generation is an exception : we are the only country in the world to make such a confident bet on nuclear power. Neighbouring countries such as Italy, Germany, Belgium have already chosen to phase out nuclear power. Therefore it is also possible to do so in France.

How can we phase out nuclear

power ?

 :}The Answer to that is very carefully

Then there are all these folks:

http://www.nuclear-free.com/english/frames7.htm

British Columbia shuts door on uranium projects

25 APR’08, VANCOUVER–British Columbia has slapped an official moratorium on uranium exploration and development in the province, reinforcing a long-standing informal ban on the nuclear fuel and dashing the hopes of companies that hoped to take advantage of soaring prices for the commodity. The ban, announced yesterday, makes B.C. a no-go zone for uranium and confirms a moratorium put in place in 1980 by a previous government responding to anti-nuclear sentiment in the province (more from The Globe and Mail)…

Navajo Challenge Uranium Mining Permit on Tribal Lands

SANTA FE, New Mexico, April 19, 2008 (ENS)–For the first time in history, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, will be challenged in federal appeals court for its approval of a source materials license for an in situ leach uranium mine. The Navajo communities of Crownpoint and Church Rock, New Mexico will fight the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the permitted company, Hydro Resources, Inc., demanding that they stay off Navajo lands in New Mexico… The communities’ case is being presented with the assistance of the community group Eastern Navajo Dine against Uranium Mining, or ENDAUM, and [2006 Nuclear-Free Future Award recipient] Southwest Research and Information Center (more from Environment News Service)…

Inuit halt Aurora in Labrador

9 APR.’08, TORONTO–Aurora Energy Resources Inc.’s hopes of extracting uranium in Labrador were dealt a crippling blow after Inuit in the region imposed a three- year moratorium on uranium mining. The Nunatsiavut government voted 8-7 in favour of the ban which will prevent Aurora or any other mining firm from producing the radioactive metal until at least 2011. Shares of Vancouver-based Aurora plunged almost 34 per cent in response to the vote results, which became effective immediately (more from Andy Hoffman in the Globe and Mail)…

:}

:}

Nuclear Power Is The Ultimate Massive Boondoggle – Why would we do such a thing?

Posted on by
Reply

As Schmacher said in Small Is Beautiful, “Using uranium to boil water to generate steam to generate electricity is like using a firehose to spray an ant off a toilet seat. It is an inappropriate use of technology.” Which was a nice way to say that Nuclear Power Plants are stupid.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

End the nuclear age

Nastya, from Belarus was only three years old when she was diagnosed with cancer of the uterus and lungs. According to local doctors the region has seen a huge increase in childhood cancer cases since the Chernobyl disaster.

Greenpeace has always fought – and will continue to fight – vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

We need an energy system that can fight climate change, based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years.

Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will  squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions.  (Briefing: Climate change – Nuclear not the answer.)

“Nuclear power plants are, next to nuclear warheads themselves, the most dangerous devices that man has ever created. Their construction and proliferation is the most irresponsible, in fact the most criminal, act ever to have taken place on this planet.”
Patrick Moore, Assault on Future Generations, 1976

The Nuclear Age began in July 1945 when the US tested their first nuclear bomb near Alamogordo, New Mexico. A few years later, in 1953, President Eisenhower launched his “Atoms for Peace” Programme at the UN amid a wave of unbridled atomic optimism.

But as we know there is nothing “peaceful” about all things nuclear. More than half a century after Eisenhower’s speech the planet is left with the legacy of nuclear waste. This legacy is beginning to be recognised for what it truly is.

Things are moving slowly in the right direction. In November 2000 the world recognised nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in The Hague. Nuclear power was dealt a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001.

:}

If you are bored now, you can watch this advertisement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOI-Va5aU3U

And then there are these folks who have been at it since the beginning of time:

http://www.nirs.org/

 generaltop.jpg

Welcome to Nuclear Information and Resource Service& World Information Service on Energy

NIRS/WISE is the information and networking center for people and organizations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation, and sustainable energy issues.

Stop Import of Radioactive Waste!

Activists in Utah held a rally at a local Italian restaurant to bring attention to EnergySolutions’ application to import 20,000 tons of radioactive waste from Italy to the U.S. The waste would come in through the ports of Charleston, SC and New Orleans, LA, be shipped to Tennessee for incineration, other “processing” and “recycling.” Some would be dumped in regular trash in Tennessee and some sent to Utah to be buried.

Tell the NRC to deny Energy Solutions application. Public comment period ends June 10, 2008.
For more information, click here.

  

 

“We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.”

7,381 signers. Add your name!
432 U.S. org. signers so far
153 intl. org. signers so far
 

 Note: NIRS relies on contributions from people who use and/or appreciate our services for 1/3 of our annual budget. Your support is crucial! You can donate online by clicking the “Donate” button, or you may mail your tax-deductible check to NIRS. We thank you for your support.  NIRS is located at 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912; 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); fax: 301-270-4291; E-mail NIRS. WISE-Amsterdam is at P.O. Box 59636, 1040 LC Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 31-20-6126368; fax: 31-20-6892179; E-mail WISE. Web: www.antenna.nl/wise. Our NIRS Southeast U.S. office is at P.O. Box 7586, Asheville, NC 28802; 828-675-1792, E-mail NIRS Southeast office. Worldwide NIRS/WISE relay offices. Photo captions on the page header

:}

Nuclear Power Is The Future – Probably not…

Posted on by
2

People who tout Nukes as the Future take for granted that there is fuel out there.

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421123231.htm

Questioning Nuclear Power’s

Ability

To Forestall Global Warming

ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2008) — Rising energy and environmental costs may prevent nuclear power from being a sustainable alternative energy source in the fight against global warming, according to a new study.

    In the article, Gavin M. Mudd and Mark Diesendorf investigate the “eco-efficiency” of mining and milling uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. Advocates of nuclear power claim it has the potential to mitigate global warming. Detractors, however, link it to dangers such as proliferation of nuclear weapons and problems such as permanent disposal of nuclear waste.

The study points out that supplies of high-grade uranium ore are declining, which may boost nuclear fuel’s environmental and economic costs, including increases in energy use, water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, newly discovered uranium deposits may be more difficult to extract in the future — a further drain on economic and environmental resources.

“The extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs, such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and broader social issues,” the authors say. “These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium milling and mining.”
 

Don’t believe me? What about the guys and gals at MIT?

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/080201furber-warf-plotkin.php

Or maybe the the Australian Monthly Review?

The following article on “The Future of Nuclear Power” by Robert D. Furber, James C. Warf, and Sheldon C. Plotkin, scientists with a long history of addressing this issue, seeks to lay bare the realities of nuclear power. Although much more difficult to read than the typical MR article, we encourage all of our readers to study it closely. Its conclusion?: “any building of new [nuclear] plants would be a serious mistake….the future of nuclear power, as we know it, is very poor at best.”

The careful analysis of Furber, Warf, and Plotkin thus points to the irrationality of current proposals to resort massively to nuclear power as an answer to global warming. In order for nuclear power to make a dent in the global warming problem it would be necessary to build hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world, each one taking ten years to construct, and each an enormous hazard to the earth, generating radioactive wastes lasting for hundreds or thousands or millions of years. The most important principle of environmental thought is that of safeguarding the earth for future generations. To turn to nuclear power as a solution to global warming would be to abandon that trust.—Ed.

:}
:}

A Human Powered Car – What a concept!

Posted on by
Reply

Unfortunately I found this out initially from a website that advertises fraud. They are very happy about all those “run your car on WATER Scams”, so happy that they pick the TOP 3 for you. These creeps should be in jail. Another sad thing is that they are WAY better than me at finding cool energy technology. For that reason alone I WILL not tell you their website, but I will post their text from last year.

The Human Powered Car

August 10th, 2007

Human Car Seattle company HumanCar®, founded by Charles S. Greenwood PE, has been developing human powered vehicles for over 30 years. Their showcase creation is the human car, a 4-wheel, 4-passenger vehicle that can achieve remarkable speeds of 60+ mph! Unfortunately the car is not available to the public, the orginal prototype cost $250,000. The stated goal of the project is to develop efficient transportation alternatives that inspire a “sense of an evolving socioeconomical model”. According to HumanCar®, “The time is drawing near when all of the elements – manufacturing, marketing, and product optimization – come together in a cost effective and aesthetically pleasing form.”

For the reel deal, you can go here though I left the link above hot too:

http://www.humancar.com/

 Normally I would post chucks of their website. But it’s all done in Adobe Flash and PDF advanced file types that I can not copy. Fortunately they have a press release so I hope to do something with that.

:}

OKOK due to technival difficulties which transcend the time I have spent on this…NONE of the Press materials came through unscarred. It was transmitted as a ZIP file. I can’t even give you a real address because there is no “contact us” thingy…Maybe these guys aren’t so bright after all…While you wait here are 2 You Tubes about it which are basically the same…one is longer than the other..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=369463415941480101

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xp-923G8i4

Finally something by the inventor himself:

Charles Greenwood P.E. Inventor and Engineer of HumanCar® Inc welcomes you to join us for the launch of the Imagine™ LMV HumanCar®.

The Imagine™ LMV is rocking the world. Get involved. Imagine™ Electric Hybrid Pre-Order Information – The HumanCar® Imagine™ features an exoskeletal safety cage chassis, dual electric motors, variable human power input, Body-Steering™ patented chassis and SyncGuideway™ compatibility as standard equipment. It retails for $15k base. Feel free to email us here for a free pre-order number.

First 100 vehicles “Launch Series” Pre-Orders accepted now. Limited production prototype models are currently in build cycles. We are 6 to 12 months out from scale delivery. (HumanCar Inc. makes three models- the FM4 “Troublemaker”, The Rod, a 10 second 189-mph hybrid race car and the Imagine™ the revolutionary electric/human hybrid)

 

HumanCar® Inc. developing international appeal and The Great Change.

HumanCar vehicles may be used to generate power or transport people.

Deep Forest OREGON, USA: The evolutionary HumanCar® LMV Imagine™ street-legal dual electric motor/human hybrid vehicle in production, ” represents the entry point to the great change” says Chuck Greenwood CEO of HumanCar Inc. ” people globally will be able to solve critical resource problems locally and create individual efforts to reduce and regenerate their own power.”
He goes on to say that SBS Communications of Seoul just shot a documentary at a HumanCar R/D Center. “They were interested in the spiritual aspect and understood when the inventor and engineer of the project, my father Charles Samuel Greenwood, described how pure chi energy is charged to the heart chakra, it was magical. Thus is the nature of the project. The concept that one four-passenger human power interface can generate well over 2k Watts, enough to power a home or help maintain a charge for transportation is magical. The fun part is, it’s a reality” Mr. Greenwood chimes “As a part of the release this February we wanted to supply a FAQ that will answer new followers to the project’s questions.”
An Interview with Mr. Charles Samuel Greenwood P.E. inventor of the HumanCar.
How many bicycles were used to make the FM-4?
 
No Bicycle parts are used in the FM-4.
Where are the pedals?
 

The TWASTA Patent (Team Work and Strength Training Apparatus) defines a mobile – or stationery – full body work out device, for multiple participants. There are no pedals.
How does it handle?
 
BodySteer utilizes more degrees of freedom than leaning – like riding a motorcycle. High speed handling is critical to the safe performance of any vehicle. Why make a 200 MPH chassis/suspension system? Why not? BodySteer is at least as effective as wheel steering – some would say much more effective.
Then why have both front occupants steer?
 
Part of the fun of teamwork is to share tasks. Think of it as Pilot and Co-Pilot. Either can control the vehicle, but there is an exotic sensory input when you feel the others sharing the activity. Dominant/Submissive arrangements work, and so does real-time cooperation.
Do you need a full team?
 
Three people works quite well. Of course, with one or two people you are probably going to want auxiliary power.
Can you tell who is slacking and who is jacking?
 
Instantly.
Why does the FM-4 prototype not have a motor on it?

(Don’t answer that question. Make them go to the site and see.)

We’re hot rod builders, dirt bike riders, bicycling enthusiasts, and we love all kind of sports, with or without machines, with or without electronics. We love healthy people. You and your family will power yourselves down to the store and back. Then watch for some real exciting radical hardware.
____________________XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX______________________
Contact:
HumanCar Inc.
206 280 4772 mobile
http://www.humancar.com/
thehumancar@gmail.com

:}