California regulators decreed that, by law, your your car has to be cool. Also seaweed killed a horse on a French beach using just fumes and British engineers suggested that buildings be wrapped in slime to absorb CO2. A fossil fuel reduced our carbon emissions. British scientists taught agricultural runoff to clean up nuclear waste.

Read more of this story »

James Lovelock - - who is one of the leading environmentalists on the planet has made a startling proposal: that the best way to save the Amazon from being destroyed is to turn it into a repository for nuclear waste.

He argues in “The Revenge of Gaia” that animals and plants don’t perceive radioactivity as a danger. What is far more threatening to ecosystems are people — who create extensive farming or mining and construction sites.  So to keep humans out of valuable ecosystems, we could dump our nuclear waste there.

That will keep people out.

Oddly, both plants and animals have increased around the areas of Belarus that were heavily radiated after the accident at Chernobyl, although radiation reduces their lifespan.

The lack of human intervention may make nuclear wildlife refuges more beneficial overall:

Read more of this story »

During the Sustainable Industries Economic Forum this morning in San Francisco, keynote speaker Ray Anderson, Founder and Chair of Interface, a true green business pioneering company, was asked what his best three pieces of advice for Barack Obama would be.

First was to shift the economy, and federal subsidies, from old technology to new and high tech industries.  It’s estimated that 50% of coal power plants would be unprofitable without subsidies.  “It’s time to shift the equation”, he said.

Second was to get a price on carbon.  “By hook or by crook,” Anderson said.  “It needs to happen, and I think a carbon tax is probably impossible politically, but cap and trade is possible.”  Anderson went on to say that “Carbon has been getting a free ride, and it’s time to change that.”

And third, Anderson cited the controversy over nuclear power.  Saying that our legacy of poison for future generations will be tough to justify, given that nuclear waste will outlast the lifespan of any language on the planet, so how can we possibly put good warning signs on our waste?

Scott Cooney is the author of Build a Green Small Business:  Profitable Ways to Become an Ecopreneur (McGraw-Hill).

Twitter Scott

Russia is planning to build floating and submersible nuclear reactors to power oil drilling platforms which it intends to use to extract the untouched oil and gas reverses of the Arctic.

A floating nuclear power plant is being constructed at the SevMash shipyard in Severodvins located in north-east of Russia.The reactors will provide power to drilling platforms of Gazprom, Russia’s leading oil & gas company. The reactors are described to be capable of storing the nuclear waste on board and would require maintenance once 12 to 14 years.

Environmentalists are up in arms against this move by Russia as such a move could spell doomsday for the pristine and untouched environment of the Arctic region.

Environmental Disaster

Just recently there were calls by environmentalists that the number of tourists visiting Antarctica need to be reduced as the fragile Antarctic ecosystem needed to be protected. Scientists have also raised concerns about the alien or non-native species arriving in Antarctic seas and affecting the balance of the region’s ecosystem. During his research, environmental scientist John Priscu found the adverse effects of the presence of humans, limited to researchers of various countries, on the frozen island.

Read more of this story »

Nuclear power is one of the most controversial alternative energies, partially due to the toxic waste it creates. Now physicists at the University of Texas at Austin have developed a system that uses fusion to eliminate the transuranic wastes created by nuclear plants.

Read more of this story »

“It is leading the United States, and quite frankly, even though the bulk of the United States is behind the developed world, I think California in many respects is partially leading the world,” newly-confirmed U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said in an interview for the special. “It’s wonderful to be director of a major research lab that wants to work on this energy problem in a state that is so receptive to this work.”

Read more of this story »

In what is becoming an annual ritual of civil resistance and direct action in Germany, more than 15,000 anti-nuclear protesters turned out along the route to Gorleben on Sunday—twice the number at a similar protest at the site two years ago—in the largest and most violent anti-nuclear protest in Germany since 2001.

Read more of this story »

Over the last few years the nuclear industry has used concerns about climate change to argue for a nuclear revival.  Although industry representatives may have convinced some political leaders that this is a good idea, there is little evidence of private capital investing in nuclear plants in competitive electricity markets. The reason is simple: nuclear power is uneconomical.

In an excellent recent analysis, “The Nuclear Illusion,” Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh put the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant at 14¢ per kilowatt hour and that from a wind farm at 7¢ per kilowatt hour. This comparison includes the costs of fuel, capital, operations and maintenance, and transmission and distribution. It does not include the additional costs for nuclear of disposing of waste, insuring plants against an accident, and decommissioning the plants when they wear out. Given this huge gap, the so-called nuclear revival can succeed only by unloading these costs onto taxpayers. If all the costs of generating nuclear electricity are included in the price to consumers, nuclear power is dead in the water.

Read more of this story »

The EPA has determined that the final standards (pdf) for the planned Yucca Mountain high-level waste disposal facility are “fully protective of human health” and the repository will not be allowed to open unless it meets these requirements. >>More on Yucca Mountain at Green Options

Bipartisan opposition to EPA decision

The Las Vegas Sun reports Nevada’s two senators blasted the proposed rules for radiation protection because they were based on flawed science that put millions of people at risk. In a show of a state-based bipartisan solidarity both Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) quickly reacted to the decision.

Read more of this story »

Milestone Move by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

It’s taken two decades and billions of dollars, but the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository project has finally reached a new plateau.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (NRC) has accepted an application for licensing, and will begin a lengthy process of safety studies, hearings and public meetings.

The application was filed June 3rd by the Department of Energy (DOE), and was accepted as “sufficiently complete” for the agency to move forward with the process which could take up to four years.

Read more of this story »

Yucca Mountain, “Yes”; transport waste through my state?, “No”; what Grand Canyon?

It’s hard to tell if Senator McCain’s age is catching up with his memory, or if he’s just trying to ride a lot of fences when it comes to nuclear power.

The Sierra Club sent out a release today, pointing out the Senator’s love affair with nuclear power, revealed a YouTube clip of McCain saying he would not approve of shipping 77,000 tons of dangerous nuclear waste through his home state of Arizona, but felt it would be ok to move it through 44 other states.

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

With this in mind, let’s examine his stand on drilling for uranium in the national parks surrounding the Grand Canyon.

Read more of this story »

I used quotes and capital letters to emphasize a point - I recognize that there are individual people concerned about the environment who have a more open mind and are willing to accept the notion that nuclear power has a place at the table in any discussion about our reduced carbon energy future. The officially recognized groups and spokesmen for The Movement seem unimpressed and continue to firmly oppose nuclear development. The remaining arguments end up being cost, waste and nuclear weapons.

Cost is an issue for another day, but the arguments against nuclear power on the matter of waste and relationship to nuclear weapons rest on shaky ground that is beginning to give way. More and more people, including some in responsible leadership positions, are beginning to realize that the tired arguments originated in the 1970s no longer apply. They actually never did.

There are about 55,000 tons of used nuclear fuel resting quietly in cooling pools and dry storage containers on the sites where the fuel was initially used. That may sound like a large amount, but compared to the fact that a single 1000 MWe coal fired power plant can release 45,000 tons of waste to the atmosphere every single day, 55,000 tons of used material after 50 years of nuclear plant operation seems vanishingly small.

You may have noticed that I have carefully avoided calling that slightly used material “waste”. Unlike the gases, ash and soot released to our common atmosphere from coal, oil, gas and biomass fired power plants, the materials left over from nuclear fission reactors are sealed in corrosion resistant cladding and look a lot like they did when they first entered the reactor. Inside those tubes, the material is still mostly solid uranium dioxide - only about 4-5% of the initial material has been converted into other elements.

Essentially all of the remainders from nuclear plant operation could be recovered and reused; some of it would best be used as feedstock for future reactors, other parts should be segregated and used in other material applications for long life batteries, catalysts, and irradiation source materials.

Both of the remaining US presidential candidates seem to be open to the idea that used fuel should be recycled and reused. That is a welcome position since it looks like there will be a number of new reactors under construction soon and they will provide a ready market for the recycled fuel. There will need to be a bipartisan effort to establish rules that do not change with political winds, however, before private industry will invest in the system.

ALL of the used fuel has been carefully stored away in a form that is easy to control and easy to keep segregated. It does not take up much space, does not cost much to watch (compared to the heat value that it provided), and it has never hurt anyone because the people that watch it understand the simple concepts of time, distance and shielding.

As a life time procrastinator, I am actually encouraged by the fact that while we continue to debate and pontificate about the pros and cons of long term disposal, the natural process of radioactive decay continues to make the fuel easier and easier to handle. That process can reduce the cost of recycling, when we finally get around to it.

Perhaps those of us who are advocates of the increased use of nuclear energy as a clean, emissions free source of reliable, low cost power should thank the people who have prevented the used fuel from being too hastily moved or recycled.

Not only do we have a growing volume of seasoned raw materials, but when we finally do get around to building facilities, we can do so using up to date methods and the lessons learned from the first generation facilities in other countries. The democratic process really does favor the patient.

Related posts

US Missing Opportunity to Recycle Vast Amounts of Energy
Its Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain’s Ideas on Climate Change
75% of Greens OK with Nuclear Power
EIA Predicts 50% Increase in World Energy Consumption by 2030
What Do You Do About the Waste? Recycle and Reuse.

Just another reason why uranium isn’t the way to go, it costs the taxpayer way too much money for what he receives.

Take the former Fernald Feed Materials Production Center at Fernald, Ohio, that’s about 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati.  The former uranium processing site opened in complete secrecy during the Cold War in 1951.  The plant fabricated uranium fuel cores for the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex until 1989, when it shut the doors.

Releases from the plant exposed residents of the small community of Fernald to radon, soluble and insoluble forms of uranium and various chemicals, both in groundwater and from blowing dust.  The health consequences to residents and former workers are still being evaluated.

Read more of this story »

My contention is that such a discovery has already been made, and that there is a growing recognition of the potential for that basis to expand the boundaries of our growth, creativity and development. The uranium oxide fuel pellet - that tiny black cylinder shown in the photo next to one of my favorite coffee mugs - is made of material with incredible potential compared to the fossil fuels that supply the heat that we use for the vast majority of our controllable power. I like to think of these tiny pellets as equivalent to early stage transistors at the time when most of the system controllers, radios, televisions, and computers in the world depended on magnetic amplifiers or vacuum tubes.

Read more of this story »

As promised in a podcast interview on February 11th,
Edward Sproat, manager of the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, filed a license application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Read more of this story »

Marshall Cohen, an official of the Nuclear Energy Institute told the Las Vegas Review Journal that the industry is looking to several communities that might welcome interim storage of its used fuel.

Two or three communities, according to Cohen, are showing interest in the proposition, but he declined to name them pending further negotiations. He did say, however, that some were among the 11 sites that once volunteered to host a government run nuclear waste reprocessing site. Those states were Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina and Washington..

The move is seen as a major shift from reliance on completion of the Yucca Mountain project that would send spent waste to reprocessing facilities. Presently waste is stored on above-ground pads and in steel and concrete casks. The Department of Energy has voiced its disapproval of such action, citing political, legal and technical challenges.

This wouldn’t rule out the anticipated completion of Yucca Mountain, but could answer the question of what to do with radioactive waste that’s piling up at nuclear facilities around the country. Should the new Congress decided to halt the Nevada project, as has been threatened, industry officials believe their proposal will offer some relief to local reactor sites until a permanent repository is completed.

The latest estimates are, that if Yucca Mountain isn’t finished until 2017, “we” will owe the utilities an estimated $7 billion in penalties, provided by law, because the repository isn’t finished. Bump completion time up another 3 years, and the bill goes up to about $11 billion.

Read more of this story »

This is the classic “Not in my back yard” battle, even more understandable since Nevada was the site of nuclear weapons testing beginning in 1951. There were 100 atmospheric tests until they went underground in 1962, when 828 devices were exploded. Testing ceased in 1992, although the Nevada Test Site is still an active research area.

It’s easy to see why Nevadans are tired of the word, “nuclear” and object to the storage of thousands of tons of highly radioactive materials just 100 miles from the state’s major tourist attraction, Las Vegas.

Here is Mr. Sproat with his answer to that question, and other observations about Yucca Mountain and the future.

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

You may recall my interview with Bob Loux about Yucca Mountain and the Nevada point of view. It is available in three parts, listed below.

Yucca Mountain: The Nevada Case Podcast, Part One

Yucca Mountain: The Nevada Case Podcast, Part Two

Yucca Mountain: The Nevada Case Podcast, Part Three

In our previous podcasts, Yucca Mountain: The Nevada Case Podcast, Part One, Mr. Loux talked about his agency, it’s mission and why the state is so critical of the DOE and it’s practices.

In the second presentation, Yucca Mountain: The Nevada Cast Podcast, Part Two, he talks about the regulatory process and unsuitability of the mountain as a long-term repository for high-level nuclear waste.

Read more of this story »

This is the second part of a podcast with Robert Loux, Executive Director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects in Nevada.

If you missed the first installment, it’s available at: Yucca Mountain: The Nevada Case Podcast, Part One .

In this segment, Loux discusses the Department of Energy’s regulatory process, falsehoods and other manipulation of reports. He also talks about Yucca Mountains unsuitability, even for a short term, as a nuclear repository. Loux mentions how air and water pass freely through the mountain, the earthquake faults beneath the storage area, and even the possible threat of young volcanoes in the future.

Our third portion will address transportation issues, and the faltering support for the project both in the government and in scientific circles. DOE officials recently annouced layoffs at the facility, citing budget cuts by Congress.

Now, here’s Bob Loux, stating again, how Nevada became the “poster child” for long-term nuclear waste disposal.

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

Here is a link to the State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.

Here is a link to the Government Accounting Office, dealing with information on the DOE and it’s handling of nuclear issues.