Skip to main content

Virginia Uranium Mining Study Delayed Until 2009

By
According to NewsAdvance, science lost to politics:
Virginia Uranium and its allies in the Assembly proposed a study, as a first step, to examine the question of whether mining could be done safely using today’s modern techniques.

...

That was the sole intent of SB 525, legislation introduced by Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach. As amended in the Senate, a blue-ribbon panel of experts and stakeholders, appointed by the governor and General Assembly, would be directed to contract with an organization along the lines of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct the safety and feasibility study.

In the Senate, Wagner accepted a number of changes to his original legislation proposed by environmentalists and Southside Concerned Citizens, an environmental group based in Halifax County. ... But apparently it still wasn’t enough for the folks opposed even to a study of mining.

Dels. Watkins Abbitt, I-Appomattox, and Clarke Hogan, R-Halifax, proposed amending Wagner’s bill to simply call for a study of whether to conduct a study at all. When Wagner objected, the House panel decided to hold the bill over until the 2009 session. Del. Lacey Putney, I-Bedford, joined Abbitt in voting to hold the bill over.

...

But apparently, fears based upon possibly outdated science and that old “Not in my backyard” syndrome have trumped science and concerns for America’s energy independence.

The question of whether to study mining’s safety is all but dead for this session of the Assembly, but it will come back in 2009.

Perhaps by then more rational heads will have prevailed.
Hopefully.
Labels:

Comments

Joffan said…
Ignorance is so much more comfortable than knowledge. You don't have to make decisions based on facts, you can just do whatever you feel like, and whether it's better or worse, who knows!

They probably spent almost as much as the proposed study cost just messing about in the legislature.
March 5, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said…
Dear Virginia legislature:

thank you for making us richer and yourselves poorer.

Signed,

the citizens of Australia and Canada.
March 6, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Joffan said…
In another interesting light on this, this article points out that the study was always going to be paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc. and carried out by an independent party. And now they'll probably do it anyway, but I guess the opponents can try to claim that it wasn't as independent, while losing the chance for the state to make sure the right questions are answered.
March 7, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more