This one is a set of maps showing how YOU WILL BE VICTIMIZED under GNEP, assuming a facility at the Savannah River Site. It’s apparently going to come out tomorrow; if we had a PR organization to speak of, maybe we could have done something about it.
Filed under Activism, Fuel Cycle, Their Actions, Transportation, Waste
Posted on May 20, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
The California freeway gasoline tanker fire from a while back may join the Baltimore Tunnel Fire in the anti-nuclear transportation arguments.
Interesting how an accident caused by fossil fuels becomes an argument for their continued use.
Link.
Filed under Transportation
Posted on May 18, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
“Nuclear energy is obtained from a lengthy fuel ‘life-cycle’ which includes more than merely electricity generation. The cycle of production includes mining, fuel production, transport, plant construction and decommissioning. All these processes release carbon dioxide.”
No, those processes use electricity which largely comes from power plants that emit carbon dioxide because they don’t use nuclear reactors, and transportation fuels which could be replaced by nuclear electricity. The emissions would not be there if nuclear power were more widely used; apparently the argument is that nuclear power isn’t nuclear enough.
Three points (#4).
Filed under Alternatives, Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Crackpots, Decommissioning, Environment, Fuel Cycle, Transportation
Posted on April 10, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
The Department of Energy has applied for a license to ship highly-enriched (but not bomb-grade) uranium to Canada for use in making medical isotopes.
Link to notice in the Federal Register.
Filed under NRCWatch, Politics and Regulation, Proliferation, Transportation
Posted on December 31, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
Apparently they need to figure out how to build a rail spur.
The amount of study over what everybody already knows is doable and safe is ridiculous. In engineering, it’s always been known as the “N” word–put “nuclear” in a project proposal and it’s guaranteed to get either cancelled or given the longest examination you’ve ever seen.
Link.
Filed under Industry Performance, Politics and Regulation, Transportation, Waste
Posted on December 30, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
Friends, this is what they are talking about when anti-nuclear activists say that transportation of nuclear waste will result in disasters (”Mobile Chernobyl” etc.).
A truck driver rolled a truck with three empty nuclear waste casks on it. They detached from the vehicle and rolled a substantial distance, but of course did not open. This tells us three things:
1. Even though they were empty, local authorities typically overreacted and tried to determine if any radiation had “leaked.” From what, and how? This is a great example of there being no rational basis for most regulatory decisionmaking.
2. The fact of an accident happening is not a safety problem. The effects of the accident matter. Anti-nuclear organizations continually look at the number of accidents instead of the effects of the accidents or the effects of SOP–the supposed “waste problem” of accounting errors in spent fuel pools gets much more attention than the 30,000 people who die every year inhaling coal’s waste problem.
3. Now they can never say that we don’t know the effects of a transportation accident. One has happened. Now we know what the math told us all along: transportation of nuclear waste is safe.
Filed under Physics, Safety, Transportation, Waste
Posted on December 28, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
This is most certainly good news. This article in Yahoo News doesn’t specify many details, but the plan looks hopeful.
Filed under International, Politics and Regulation, Transportation
Posted on December 26, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
“The Department of Energy’s plan to produce MOX fuel at the Savannah River Site near Aiken will add to the problems of storing and disposing of nuclear waste, encourage nuclear proliferation, and make transports of plutonium on South Carolina roads a common occurrence.”
-Carolina Peace Resource Center
It can’t add to the nuclear waste problem. E=mc^2. It literally has less mass than before it was run through the reactor. It’s either perfectly good nuclear fuel sitting around either doing nothing or in bombs, or a smaller amount of well-contained spent fuel that could be recycled if we wanted to.
How does diluting and using bomb materials encourage proliferation? Every pound of plutonium that is not in one of those fuel rods is in a bomb. Seems like a perfect way to get rid of it.
Plutonium is being transported, but diluted to about 4% concentration, and reactors using this fuel would only need fuel once every 18 months.
Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Plutonium, Proliferation, Transportation, Waste
Posted on December 25, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, that is.
They actually cite some facts. It’s amazing.
Link.
Filed under Perception, Their Actions, Transportation, Waste
Posted on December 11, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
(this is what I’m referring to in the title)
Anti-nuclear activists want to stop construction of a rail line to Private Fuel Storage in Utah. Ah, what are helicopters for? (There’s also the IFR).
Link.
Filed under Industry Performance, Lawsuits, Nitpicking, Their Actions, Transportation, Waste
Posted on December 7, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
| Nuclear Advocacy Webring Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
||||