Skip to main content

Some Monday Morning Nuclear Blog Clips to Read

The two big posts everyone was raving about over the weekend come from Depleted Cranium’s Steve Packard and Brave New Climate’s Barry Brook. Steve clearly spent a great deal of man-hours providing a number of reasons Why You Can’t Build a Bomb From Spent Fuel. As well, Barry Brook always gets a heavy conversation going, this time by asking if climate sceptics and anti-nukes matter.

There’s also been quite the discussion lately among many of the nuclear bloggers about natural gas. Depleted Cranium came out with another great piece that refreshes everyone's memories about gas prices by using a colorful graph. Rod Adams, as always, has something to say about gas – his latest on the gas industry’s advertisements and comparing tritium leaks to a methane leak were revealing. And Kirk Sorenson jabs at Climate Progress, the Sierra Club and a little bit at Greenpeace for their lack of acknowledgement of “a catastrophic explosion [two weeks ago] at a natural-gas-fired powerplant under construction in Connecticut.”

It is quite interesting (for lack of a better word) that many of those who are in favor of renewables to reduce emissions have become willing to accept natural gas to achieve that goal (even forgetting that gas still emits). Not only that, they cry foul over any miniscule event about nuclear yet have amnesia when something major happens to their favorite energies as Kirk points out. Well, the nuclear industry is clearly held to higher standards. But I guess that’s a good thing, though, since we definitely work with superior technology.

Hope you enjoy everyone’s posts!

Comments

Bill said…
Meanwhile, there's this: "Lawmakers mull nuclear power as renewable source" (Phoenix Business Journal)
"A bill introduced in the Arizona Legislature would establish nuclear power as a renewable or carbon-free energy source, angering solar advocates and sparking the ire of the Arizona Corporation Commission."
Anonymous said…
Best part of that article Bill posted:

“The short of it is, it’s disastrous for renewable energy and it would surely be the death knell for advancing solar energy in the state,” [Arizona Corporation Commission Chairwoman] Mayes said.

As in, if utilities aren't required to buy wind and solar, and instead can choose to rely on hydro or nuclear, that'll be the end for solar in Arizona. And I'd expect Arizona's solar energy resources to be about as good at it gets.
Sterling Archer said…
Solar is a great way to power your vacation cabin, if it's no where near the grid.
david lewis said…
The Marcellus Shale, where they are "fracking" natural gas, is uranium ore. A similar deposit was mined for uranium in Sweden from 1950 to the 1970s.

The waste water that comes up out of the gas wells couldn't meet EPA standards for radioactivity if anyone cared, if someone was going to inject it back underground, but they just dump it into public waterways because no one looks at the gas industry for radiation hazards.

"13 samples of wastewater brought to the surface... from drilling... contain levels of radium...267 times the limit safe to discharge into the environment and thousands of times the limit safe for people to drink"

http://www.propublica.org/feature/is-the-marcellus-shale-too-hot-to-handle-1109

Gas emits at least 22 times the amount of CO2 nuclear does, and just using regular average US gas to cook with causes 15 times the additional exposure to radiation than living right next to a nuke plant.

I haven't been able to find out how much additional radiation "fracked" gas taken out of a uranium ore formation would expose a typical cookstove user to because the environmental groups have all bought in to the line that gas is better than nukes.

Gas is great, the Sierra Club tells me. I'm so glad The Club is there to safeguard whatever they are safeguarding as the planet is killed. I feel so much better.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…