Category Archives: Bali Protocols

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senario what would happen is that all of the energy inputs into our industrial linear monocultural food chain would be withdrawn.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.

Georgia Power and The Southern Companies Make A Huge Mistake – Nuclear power is expensive

Posted on by
Reply

I feel sorry for the electric customers in Georgia. While everyone else in the nation is busy implementing the new Carbonless Economy or going green; Georgia Power is going (pick a color, say) BLACK. With estimated cost ranges of 4 – 8 billion $$, are they, what (?), shocked they got no bids. You can see the future in your little 8 Ball…Let’s see, cost overruns, construction delays, and by the time it comes to fuel it – no uranium. Alberta just banned the mining of it. Australia is on its way to doing the same. Australia has seen the future and it is Hot Rocks. Drilling down to the Earth’s core. Not putting hot rocks in a reactor.

 http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2008/05/05/daily56.html?ana=from_rss

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Georgia Power nuclear proposal rolls along

Atlanta Business Chronicle

eorgia Power reported Wednesday it has garnered no bids from its 2016-2017 base load capacity request for proposals.

Two weeks ago, it signed an engineering, procurement and construction contract with Westinghouse Electric Co. and The Shaw Group Inc.‘s Power Group. At that time, Georgia Power said it would submit a nuclear self-build option for consideration. Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) rules require market bids to be compared with self-build proposals, but no market bids were received, Georgia Power said.

Georgia Power, a unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co. (NYSE: SO), said the self-build nuclear proposal will be reviewed by the Georgia PSC’s independent evaluator before the company submits a final recommendation to the Georgia PSC on Aug. 1 for approval. A final certification decision is expected in March 2009.

If certified by the Georgia PSC and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the two Westinghouse AP1000 units, with a capacity of 1,100 megawatts each, would be built at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site near Waynesboro, Ga., and would be placed in service in 2016 and 2017.

“Demand for electricity continues to grow in the Southeast and in Georgia,” said Mike Garrett, Georgia Power president and CEO. “While we will continue to increase our emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, we must also add large-scale base load generation to meet growing energy needs. While nuclear power plants cost more to build, they now have lower fuel and operating costs than fossil fuel plants. Nuclear energy would add needed diversity to Georgia Power’s fuel mix at a time when fossil fuel prices are increasing significantly.”


:}

Once you decide to be bad, I guess you might as well be very bad:

:}

http://www.cleanenergy.org/takeAction/detail.cfm?ID=65

WHY THE GEORGIA PSC SHOULD REQUIRE GEORGIA POWER TO PUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY AS A TOP PRIORITY:

  • Energy efficiency and renewable energy protect against increasing fossil fuel and natural gas prices
  • Hedge against energy supply shortages and disruptions
  • Avoid a growing dependence on natural gas
  • Reduce harmful air pollution and excessive water usage
  • Create local energy markets and increase employment
  • Avoid the high costs of building new conventional electric supplies.

Our Energy Security and Reliability is at Stake.

Currently, most of the energy used to power our homes and businesses comes from outside Georgia and the Southeast. There are no petroleum, natural gas, or uranium mines and reserves in the Southeast. According to the Energy Information Administration, Georgia’s electric power sector spent approximately $1.5 billion buying out of state coal and natural gas in 2003.(1)

Businesses and the Public Pay the Heavy Price.

Georgia and its utilities lag behind much of the country in investments in energy efficiency.  There is a lot of wasted energy that all utility customers must pay for when the utility builds more transmission lines and power plants than are necessary.  As fuel costs increase, consumers pay even more for this wasted energy.

Air Quality and Human Health Suffer.

Our current energy supply causes a great deal of damage to our health. Here are a few examples of the effects:

  • Soot and smog-forming nitrogen oxides are created from fossil fuel plants and engines.  These can harm children’s lung development and lead to asthma attacks, heart attacks and stroke.
  • Coal fired power plants release air-borne mercury that ends up in lakes, rivers and streams.  Neurological damage is linked with eating mercury-laden fish.
  • Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that is produced at all nuclear reactors, acts like water in the body and can pass across the placenta to affect a developing fetus.

Water for Coal and Nuclear Plants Competes with Cities, Businesses and Farms.

Coal and nuclear power plants are heavy water users.  In 2001 nuclear Plant Vogtle used approximately 64 million gallons of water a day from the Savannah River and only returned 21 million gallons per day.  Coal plant Scherer withdrew 59 million gallons of water a day from Lake Juliette (2).  These and other fossil fuel and nuclear plants compete with local industries—from the carpet industries of Dalton to the peach growers in Tifton—for much needed water.  The burden that our energy system places on the state’s water supplies will become even more severe if Georgia Power’s proposed plans for new power plants are carried out.

GEORGIA’S UTILITY REVIEW PROCESS:

Georgia law requires that Georgia Power submit an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) every three years for approval. The PSC is charged to review the company’s plan and to approve it or require revisions.

The centerpiece of the Georgia Power plan:

  • Build new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta which would divert massive amounts of water away from the Savannah River, competing with other needs, as well as create more radioactive waste that cannot be disposed of safely; 
  • Expand and upgrade its transmission lines to support several new power plants and increased electricity demand;
  • Build a new gas pipeline through properties from Union City to Smyrna.

The secondary part of the plan includes:

  • Minimal energy efficiency measures through “pilot programs” with limited investment;
  • Develop only about 200 MW of new renewable energy that amounts to less than 1% of Georgia Power’s current energy capacity (most of the company’s “green power” is currently landfill gas).

To view Georgia Power’s proposed plan and responses by independent experts, go to http://www.psc.state.ga.us/ (enter #24505 in the docket search box, and view documents filed on Jan. 31, 2007 by the company and documents filed by other parties on May 4 and May 7). 

They Died For You – Energy Warriors

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/uranium.html

2000

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is a part of the US Public Health Service (PHS). The PHS and NIOSH have conducted a series of studies since 1950 on the health of uranium miners. The following has information about the results of the latest study.

Background

The PHS began the study in 1950 because of concerns that uranium mining causes lung cancer. (We know that miners were not informed of these concerns at the time). We call it a mortality study because it looks at whether miners have been dying of certain diseases at a higher than normal rate.

NIOSH researchers took over the study in the 1970s, and it has been “updated” several times. The following describes the results of the most recent update.

How the Study Was Done

The mortality study did not include all uranium miners. The study group was only made up of uranium miners who worked underground for at least one month. Also, each miner must have taken part in at least one of the medical exams conducted by the PHS between 1950 and 1960.

First we obtained miners’ work histories. We obtained smoking histories from the medical exams. Next we used death certificates to find out what miners died from. Then we compared the death rates in miners to death rates in the general population of the mining states. The rates in the general population gave us the number of expected deaths in miners. When the number of deaths in miners is greater than the expected number, then an association with mining is suspected.

Because death rates are different for people of different races, we did one study on 3,238 white miners. We did a second study on 757 Native American, African American, and Asian miners. (All but 4 of the 757 miners were Native Americans, mainly Navajo). The following will review the results from each study.

Radon Gas and “Radon Daughters”

From the start, radioactive radon gas and radon “daughters” in the air were suspected as the cause of the lung cancer. Radiation can be thought of like invisible radio waves (only radio waves are harmless) or like specks of dust so tiny they are invisible. We estimated how much of the radon daughters each miner was exposed to by a unit called the working level month. We then looked to see if death rates increased with higher working level months.

This exposure-response relationship is strong evidence of an association between disease and exposure. It is used to show that the longer a miner is exposed to radon gas, the greater may be the risk of lung cancer.

Results for White Uranium Miners

The study looked at all causes of death. Only the causes of death listed below were significantly above normal. The results for all other causes of death were within the normal range.

  • We found strong evidence for an increased risk for lung cancer in white uranium miners. We expected about 64 deaths, but found 371. This means we found about 6 times more lung cancer deaths than expected.There was an exposure-response relationship with exposure to radon daughters in the mines. When radon daughters are breathed in, they decay radioactively in the lung. This can cause lung cancer.
  • We also found strong evidence for pneumoconiosis, a type of lung disease (other than cancer) which is caused by dust. We expected less than 2 deaths, but found 41. There were about 24 times more of these deaths than expected.This category includes silicosis, a disease caused by breathing in a particular mining dust, silica. Silicosis causes scarring of the lung and severe breathing problems. The risk of these lung diseases was greater the longer miners had worked in the mine.
  • We expected to see about 3 ½ deaths from the infectious lung disease tuberculosis (TB), but we saw 13. This is about 4 times more deaths than expected. This could have been related to the silicosis. People with silicosis are more likely to get TB.
  • We expected to see about 22 ½ deaths from emphysema but found 56. This is 2 ½ times more deaths than expected. Some of this result could have been related to cigarette smoking. People who smoke are more likely to get emphysema.
  • We expected to see about 68 deaths from injuries and found 143. This is over 2 times more deaths than expected.
  • We also saw a greater risk of deaths from the categories “benign and unspecified cancers” and “diseases of the blood”. Both of these categories had small numbers of deaths. Therefore, it is possible that the increased risk may not be due to mining.
  • Finally, we saw a greater risk for “all deaths combined”. We expected 986 deaths and found 1,595. This is 1 ½ times more deaths than expected.

Results for Non-White Miners

The study looked at all causes of death. Only the causes of death listed below were significantly above normal. The results for all other causes of death were within the normal range.

  • We found strong evidence for an increased risk for lung cancer in non-white uranium miners. We expected about 10 deaths, but found 34. This means we found over 3 times more lung cancer deaths than expected.There was an exposure-response relationship with exposure to radon daughters in the mines. When radon daughters are breathed in, they decay radioactively in the lung. This can cause lung cancer.
  • We also found strong evidence for pneumoconioses and other lung diseases (other than cancer). We expected about 8 deaths, but found 20. This means there were about 2 ½ times more of these deaths than expected.This category includes many different diseases. They include silicosis. a disease caused by breathing in a particular mining dust, silica. Silicosis causes scarring of the lung and severe breathing problems. The risk of these lung diseases was greater the longer miners had worked in the mine.
  • We expected to see about 4 ½ deaths from the infectious lung disease tuberculosis (TB), but we saw 12. There were about 2½ times more of these deaths than expected. This could have been related to the silicosis. People with silicosis are more likely to get TB.

They Died For You – Energy Warriors

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=16931

Fatalities in the energy fields: 2000-2006

SIDEBAR – April 2, 2007 by Ray Ring

At least 89 people died on the job in the Interior West’s oil and gas industry from 2000 to 2006, in a variety of accidents, including 90-foot falls, massive explosions, poison gas inhalations and crushings by safety harnesses. Some states choose to have the federal government handle worker safety regulation, and some create state agencies to handle it; all the agencies tend to go by the nickname OSHA, after the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Some fines in the cases listed below are not directly related to fatalities; sometimes investigators notice unrelated safety violations when they visit workplaces where workers have died.

This list is almost certainly incomplete, due to loopholes in requirements for reporting fatalities.

The list below includes the victims’ names, age at time of death, date of the accident, company(s) involved, a description of the accident, and fines, if any. Names with hotlinks connect to .pdf’s of complete OSHA incident reports.

COLORADO

Ricky Erb, 19 11/27/06 Schneider Energy Services
Head injury, blown out of 5-foot hole when a reportedly 40-year-old pipeline Pending ruptured. He and rest of crew were using a cutting tool to open the pipeline, and they didn’t expect it to contain pressurized gas.

Jacob Farmer, 19 11/16/06 Leed Energy Services Inc.
Struck by falling pulley on a well-servicing rig. The victim’s father works in oil and gas. Pending

Phillip Smith, 44 11/6/06 Easy Street Crane Service
Crushed by truck. Pending

Joshua Arvidson, 24 1/25/06 Calfrac Well Services Ltd.
Engulfed by 40,000 pounds of sand in a storage bin. $27,825

Zac Mitchek, 42 11/25/05 Patterson-UTI Drilling Co.
Electrocuted while doing maintenance on a light plant for a drill rig. $11,900

Larry Hill, 42 11/7/05 Union Drilling Inc.
Fell 55 feet from platform on drill-rig derrick while handling hoisted drill pipes. OSHA said the company did not ensure that the worker was using proper fall-protection gear. $19,990

Randall Taylor, 62 8/14/04 Wolverine Drilling Inc.
Crushed by pulley system that collapsed from top of derrick while rig was trying to lift 270,000 pounds of drill pipe from a hole 8,400-feet deep. OSHA issued violations for unrelated problems. $4,560

Scott Nelson, 26 6/1/04 Union Drilling Inc.
Crushed when the top of a drill rig collapsed. OSHA estimated the rig was built in the 1970s and said a faulty weld failed under the strain of more than 300,000 pounds of drill pipe. $18,225

They Died For You – Energy Warriors

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.usmra.com/disasters_80on.htm

Fatalities Occurring at Underground Coal Mine Disasters Since 1980

 
Date Company and Mine State/City No. Killed    

 
09/15/80 Ziegler Coal Co.
Spartan Mine		 IL, Sparta 3    
10/27/80 Frank Crawford Coal Co.
No. 1 Mine		 KY, Woodbine 3    
11/07/80 Westmoreland Coal Co.
Ferrell No. 17		 WV, Uneeda 5    
04/15/81 Mid-Continent Resources, Inc.
Dutch Creek No. 1		 CO, Redstone 15    
06/03/81 Grays Knob Coal Co.
No. 5 Mine		 KY, Grays Knob 3    
12/03/81 Elk River Sewell Coal Co.
Stillhouse Run No. 1		 WV, Bergoo 3    
12/07/81 Adkins Coal Co.
No. 11 Mine		 KY, Kite 8    
12/08/81 Grundy Mining Co.
No. 21 Mine		 TN, Whitewell 13    
01/20/82 RFH Coal Co.
No. 1 Mine		 KY, Craynor 7    
08/24/82 Island Creek Coal Co.
VA Pocahontas Mine		 VA, Oakwood 3    
06/21/83 Clinchfield Coal Co. VA, McClure 7    
07/04/83 Helen Mining Co.
Homer City Mine		 PA, Homer City 1    
02/16/84 Penna. Mines Corp.
Greenwich Collieries No. 1 Mine		 PA, Green Township 3    
09/12/84 Bon Trucking Co.
Berger No. 2 Mine		 KY, Evarts 4    
12/19/84 Emery Mining Corp.
Wilberg Mine		 UT, Orangeville 27    
08/19/85 R & R Coal Co.
No. 3 Mine		 KY, Woodbine 3    
12/11/85 M.S.W. Coal Co.
No. 2 Slope		 PA, Carlstown 3    
02/06/86 Consolidation Coal Co.
Loveridge No. 22 Mine		 WV, Fairview 5    
07/09/86 Freeman United Coal Co.
Orient No. 6 Mine		 IL, Waltonville 3    
01/04/89 Cumberland Valley Contractors
CV-2 Mine		 KY, Middlesboro 3    
09/13/89 Pyro Mining Co.
William Station Mine		 KY, Sullivan 10    
07/31/90 Granny Rose Coal Co.
No. 3 Mine		 KY, Barbourville 3    
02/13/91 J & T Coal, Inc.
No. 1 Mine		 VA, St. Charles 4    
03/19/92 Consolidation Coal Co.
Blacksville No. 1 Mine		 WV, Blacksville 4    
12/07/92 Southmountain Coal Co.
No. 3 Mine		 VA, Norton 8    
07/31/00 RAG American Coal Holdings, Inc.
Willow Creek Mine		 Helper, Utah 2    
09/23/01 Jim Walter Resources
No. 5 Mine		 AL, Brookwood 13    
01/22/03 McElroy Mining CompanyContractor: Central Cambria Drilling

WV, Cameron 3    
01/02/06 International Mines Corp.
Sago Mine		 WV, Tallmansville 12    
01/19/06 Massey Energy
Aracoma Mining Co.
Alma Mine No. 1		 WV, Melville 2    
05/20/06 Kentucky Darby LLC
Darby Mine No. 1		 KY, Holmes Mill 5    
08/06/07
08/16/07		 Genwal and Murray Energy Corp.
Crandall Canyon Mine		 UT, Huntington 6
3		    
Total 197    

Subsidies For The Oil Companies – The Big Pass Through

Posted on by
Reply

As CES’ continues to dissect the State Journal Register’s “guest” OP-ED piece by Dave Sykuta bear in mind that he is just one of at least 50 industry flacks that have probably published the SAME piece in one of their state’s newspapers probably in or near a state Capital near you. These guys coordinate their efforts and if you don’t think there is a global oil conspiracy…THINK again.

** Taxes are the second biggest factor in gasoline prices.  The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents and Illinois adds 19 cents.  Unfortunately, Illinois is one of only nine states that charge a sales tax on gasoline and the only one I know that allows additional local gas and sales taxes.These extra taxes are a massive self-inflicted price increase of almost 24 cents per gallon in Springfield and even more in Chicago, where an  85-cent total gas tax is the highest in the United States. And remember, gas prices include the tax! Consumers’ gas price perception would be different if the sign that says “$3.35 a gallon” said “$262.5 plus tax” as every other consumer item is priced.  According to AAA, the difference between Illinois, with the fifth-highest price, and Missouri, with the fourth-lowest price, is all taxes! Illinois politicians don’t like to talk about taxes. I wonder why.

:}

Well guess who else doesn’t like to talk about taxes:

http://zfacts.com/p/348.html

Oil Company Subisdies: $7 billion + 2.6 billion + …
Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil
By Edmund L. Andrews, NY Times, March 27, 2006

But last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it expected the government to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the industry incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than $28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of the program’s remaining restrictions proves successful.

”The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn’t cost anything,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last July. ”Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it’s like subsidizing a fish to swim.”

But on Aug. 8, Mr. Bush signed a sweeping energy bill that contained $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil and gas drillers and a modest expansion of the 10-year-old ”royalty relief” program.

  
  Oil-Company Profits The price-at-the pump is the sum of all the input costs plus, perhaps, some additional markup because of market power. We can tell if there’s market power by checking the price increases.Because there are 42 gallons / barrel, when the price of oil goes up by $10, say from $55 to $65, the price of gas should go up by $10/42 = 24¢ (popNote). It’s actually gone up faster than this, so we know oil companies are exercising some market power and passing through a “markup,” not just their actual costs.

:}

And if you don’t think that BIG Evil Oil doesn’t coordinate their efforts everyday, then go to this website and see for yourself:

 http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/energy/afarg5.html

Does that sound like the editorial Sykuta “wrote” or should we say plagerized?

 Here are some of the programs you pay for:

http://media.cleantech.com/node/554

Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

  • Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
  • Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
  • Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
  • Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
  • Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
  • Sales tax breaks – taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
  • Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
  • The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
  • Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
  • Allowing the industry to pollute – what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people’s lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
  • Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

It’s easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry “probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country”, according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.

:}

So remember, when the Politico’s says that your tax money is going to bridges and roads, think again! It’s really going to the Oil and Gas Companies.

:}

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)…

:}

:}