Nuclear is Our Future Pro-nuclear activist group

“Nuclear or Geothermal power plants? Neither.”

-’amazngdrx‘

Geothermal energy comes from the heat given off when radiation from natural radioactive materials inside the Earth is absorbed by nearby rock or other materials. So it is actually a kind of nuclear power.

It is more commonly grouped with wind and solar under the banner of “renewable energy,” but this quote goes to show that “renewable” actually means “unfeasible.” When they realize that geothermal energy might in fact work, it becomes scum, the enemy of the environment. Energy allows us to do things, so if the objective is to starve polluting processes so that they can’t operate (a perfectly reasonable and understandable tactic), any functional energy source must be opposed, existing ones must be made as expensive as possible, and the depletion of reserves must be sped up–with a ban on exploration for new supplies–until there is no alternative but to revert to the solar-powered 1600-vintage “happy peasant lifestyle.” A lifestyle, I might add, which would have killed me at birth.
Thus, I ain’t too happy about proposals like this. I can put two and two together, and I like my energy. To quote one of the store designs (itself a quote):

Filed under Alternatives, Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Energy, Sustainability, Their Actions

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Yep.

This is the first time that’s happened in the “nuclear renaissance,” and it won’t be the last time. Apparently a conservation program will be cheaper for the utility, since all the capital investments involved will be made by consumers.

They were originally going to submit a COL application later this year; this presumably pushes it back to 2009.

More from We Support Lee.

Filed under Alternatives, Economics, Industry Performance, New Build

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

“The sound waves penetrate the tank and the Helium Atoms are heated up and then they bounce into each other causing heat and get very hot by the agitation caused by the sound wave bombardment. This will make heat and with an interior of the tank coated with ceramic coating it will get really hot and stay hot, that heat can then be used to run a coil through the center filled with water which will be your basic steam generator on the exterior, which spins an electric motor. Therefore any power lost from the transmission line is recaptured and therefore there is no loss.

These little tanks can be placed on the ground, prevent that horrible noise that [expletive deleted] of [sic] people and hurts the wild life and disorients them from their normal and natural life cycles and daily patterns. The heat is used, the sound is used and we all win. If you have an idea, which is similar or based upon a similar concept, then maybe you should join a group of thinkers who do not close their minds, turn them off, think out side the box and would like to meet people like you.”

-Power Lines Should Never Be Wasted

Filed under Alternatives, Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Crackpots, Physics

Posted on May 29, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Their Prime Minister has conceded that it will probably not be possible.
Regardless, it should not be desirable. Nuclear power is concentrated, resource-light, and socially responsible.

A report is coming in June on whether the phaseout should be continued; be prepared.

Link.

Filed under Alternatives, International, Politics and Regulation

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

They’re proceeding with an 8% uprate to their four Soviet-era reactors, and are looking for up to six gigawatts of new capacity beyond that. Nuclear power is under consideration for at least some of that; the rest will probably be coal.

Will they burn lignite, walking the fine line between coal and combustible dirt? Perhaps.

Either way, coal kills. It is an ethical imperative to keep coal fumes out of our air, coal ash out of our water, and coal dust out of the lungs of miners. I hope they build six nice, big, new nukes.

Link.

Filed under Alternatives, Environment, Health, International, New Build

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

It is “being studied.”

This is in addition to and in cooperation with the Chinese project from a while back. It is also made significantly easier by the dirty brown coal burned in many places in Europe, which contains more uranium (as well as other radioactive material) that would otherwise end up in the environment.

Link.

Filed under Alternatives, Environment, Fuel Cycle

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

The USS Kitty Hawk–a conventional ship–is being prepared for decommissioning. It will be replaced by a nuclear-powered one.

How about a few more like this, to significantly reduce the Navy’s oil use?

Link.

Filed under Alternatives, Applications, Security and Terrorism

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

“Stop Hinkley is dedicated to the removal of nuclear reactors from the Bristol Channel and the Severn Estuary and is committed to the introduction of greener technologies more appropriate to the new millennium.”

-Stop Hinkley

Those “greener technologies” were our first energy sources and belong in the dustbin of history.

Filed under Alternatives, Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Decommissioning, Sustainability, Their Actions

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

WNN reports that labs in Africa (they have them?) are having problems keeping up with requests for chemical analysis of uranium ore samples.

This might be something to watch for problems; perhaps this type of problem is a contributing factor for Namibia’s moratorium on new uranium exploration. Maybe not, but it’s a potential showslower, if not a showstopper. That might raise the price of uranium, on the other hand, which might spur reprocessing–although it doesn’t really need to go up much more. I certainly don’t wish economic problems on any aspect of the fight against coal.

Filed under Alternatives, Economics, Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, New Build

Posted on May 20, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

John Kerry has introduced a bill to require all new coal burners to have state of the art pollution controls as determined by the head of the EPA.

I’ll never forgive him for what he did to the IFR, single-handedly spreading lies about the most successful reactor research and development program anywhere, ever, that was 40 years ahead of its time, but this is something to support.

NNadir is against it because he wants coal banned. Hey, I want coal banned, too; most of us do. Anything to make killing people with coal fumes more expensive is a good thing. If sequestration were required, utilities would run to nukes faster than the winds of a global-warming-enhanced hurricane. And when one of those carbon dioxide reservoirs goes Lake Nyos on an American city, the outrage will be more than the coal industry can smother away. We need every restriction possible on coal, oil, and gas, so that as few new ones are built as possible (given that they will probably be grandfathered into any CO2 regulations).

Now, there are places for combustion. If it’s a choice between venting methane (natural gas) to the atmosphere or burning it, burn it–the global warming impact of the combustion products is lower than the methane. And it has been known for 100 years how much energy density in batteries will be required to have a viable electric car; we aren’t there yet, so let’s get fossil fuels out of places where there are alternatives to them (electricity), make as many things electric as possible, and start developing electric cars (at first, plug-in hybrids). There are problems with plug-in hybrids–mainly political problems with seasonal gasoline blends that can be fixed with a national standard–but they would also benefit most from electricity that doesn’t need to be metered. That doesn’t mean nuclear electricity is free, but only that it can be paid for by a flat fee (long story short: nuclear power plants are just as expensive to keep shut down as they are to operate; thus, it makes no sense to pay for the amount of electricity that you use instead of for the guarantee of always having a certain amount on hand).

Link.

Filed under Activism, Alternatives, Economics, Environment

Posted on May 20, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »