Three days
later in the Nagasaki Peace Museum, I saw FAT MAN, the first
plutonium atomic bomb which was dropped on Nagasaki. There were
photos taken by a local photographer just hours after the bomb
destroyed the city. People were standing on a bridge absolutely
devastated, lying on the ground dying, patterns from their
kimonos burned into their skin. And then I saw THE photo: a
young mother standing with her kimono open, barebreasted, with a
vacant stare, while she nursed her dying baby. Sobbing
overwhelmed me once again, and it still brings tears to my eyes
when I think of that image, which is burned into my brain by
now. I am a mother, and in that moment I knew that mother could
have been me, with the life of my baby taken from me, or any
other mother around the world. Radiation respects no living
thing. That is when I made the decision to spend the rest of my
life doing research and educating the public about radiation. I
never knew that I could make a difference. Now I know that, as a
citizen scientist, empowering others is the best way of all.
I started by writing a Letter to the Editor, not expecting to
have it published, but it was. And then I started writing
articles about depleted uraniumwhich I had learned about from a
journalist, Akira Tashiro, whom I met in Hiroshima on that first
trip to Japan. In 2002 he asked me to write the Foreword to his
prize-winning book “Discounted Casualties: The Human Cost of
Depleted Uranium. Then I was asked to be an expert witness in
Japan for the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan in
2003. Marion Fulk, a Manhattan Project scientist and Livermore
nuclear weapons program researcher, prepared me with the best
science in the world for my testimony. The testimony resulted in
a very strong conviction on depleted uranium weapons, illegal
under all laws, war conventions, U.S. Federal Code, and U.S.
military law. In fact, during testimony, the exposure of the
original 1943 Manhattan Project plan to develop DU as a
radioactive poison gas weapon convinced the international panel
of Judges to make two additional charges: It was a crime against
the environment, and President George W. Bush was guilty of war
crimes by knowingly exposing his own troops to illegal
radioactive weaponry.
My motivation to expose the horrible truth about depleted
uranium resulted in very unexpected successes. One of the most
important actions was taking a bill, introduced and stuck in
limbo in the Connecticut legislature, to New Orleans on a
speaking tour in March 2005. I joined anti-war protestors and
veterans marching through the streets of New Orleans on March
19. We ended up standing on the white marble steps of the
antebellum Louisiana Supreme Court in the heart of the French
Quarter. While I stood in the hot sun describing the horrors of
depleted uranium weapons, a withered grinch of a security guard
glared out at me from behind the locked doors of the Courthouse,
while a police van across the street secretly videotaped our
speeches. Bob Smith, a Vietnam veteran, came up afterwards and
asked me for a copy of the Connecticut depleted uranium bill
originally written and introduced by Pat Dillon. Dillon is an
epidemiologist and was the Speaker of the House in Connecticut,
a position she lost shortly after her bill was introduced.
Much to my complete shock, Bob Smith and Ward Reilly, two
Vietnam era veterans, took it to the Louisiana legislature. They
told two legislators willing to introduce the bill to “white out
Connecticut and write in Louisiana.” It was quickly passed
unanimously by the legislature and signed into law by the
governor within a few months. What I didn’t know then was that
the bill would set states rights against federal rights, and
National Guardsmen against regular military personnel, busting
the depleted uranium issue open on a national scale. Because
state governments have legal jurisdiction over the National
Guard, the state bill requiring mandatory testing for depleted
uranium exposure did not cover regular military personnel. This
angered the regular soldiers who were frustrated and angry over
being “kicked to the curb” by the Pentagon and Veterans
Administration. The state is legally entitled to force the
Pentagon to pay the costs of implementing the bill, because the
Pentagon is in violation of its own mandates, directives and
orders, which require training, testing and treatment for
soldiers handling depleted uranium.
In May of 2005, Congressman Jim McDermott, M.D. (D-WA),
introduced a depleted uranium bill in Congress. Attached to the
bill as a supporting document was an entire issue of President
Bush’s hometown newspaper in Crawford, Texas, The Lone Star
Iconoclast, which Leon Smith, the editor, had dedicated to “What
is DU?.” On March 1, 2006, a second issue, “Have DU Will
Travel,” came out with extensive interviews with scientists.
After covering Cindy Sheehan and Camp Casey last summer, the
paper is now widely read in Washington, D.C. Recently, Leon Smith
published a book called “The Vigil: 26 Days in Crawford, Texas”
about Camp Casey.
Today, more than 15 states have introduced a depleted uranium
bill, and Louisiana and Connecticut have passed theirs. It has
created a nightmare for the federal government and put the
Pentagon in permanent PR counterspin as well as exposed 15 years
of official coverup under three Presidents and corruption in
Congress. Our children, our sons and daughters, have been sent
off to the battlefields of the Middle East and Central Asia to
become uranium meat. The cost of their care has been dumped on
the state medical facilities. Their families have been
destroyed, not to mention their lives. It is time for citizens
and state elected officials to pass depleted uranium bills which
will help all soldiers by putting pressure on the federal
government.
Each of us has a part to play by demonstrating at local
facilities like Alliant (manufacturer of depleted uranium
weapons), writing letters to local newspapers, contacting
elected officials, counter-recruiting in schools, or just
passing on the information so that others can become aware. Put
a song in their hearts by sending “Johnny Got A Gun” to your
local radio station or Indymedia site to play on the air.
Depleted uranium is Washington’s secret nuclear war. ||
FURTHER INFORMATION:
“THE QUEEN’S DEATH STAR” by Leuren Moret
Video presentation by Leuren Moret to Therapists for Social
Responsibility 9/11/05
“CONNECTING THE DOTS 9-11 Four Years Later: From the A-Bomb to
Depleted Uranium and Beyond”
“Have DU Will Travel” Lone Star Iconoclast 3/3/06:
Leuren Moret is an independent scientist and environmental
commissioner in the City of Berkeley. She is featured in
documentary films on depleted uranium: BEYOND TREASON (2005),
BLOWIN’ IN THE WIND (2005), BAGDAD RAP(2004). They can be
purchased by contacting her. She also does speaking events.
Copyright © Pulse of the Twin Cities and Hosting Ave LLC
*****************************************************************
19 Guardian: Flip-flopping on energy
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
Jeremy Leggett
Two top environmentalists changed their tunes on nuclear and gas
this week. Worrying.
Jeremy Leggett
About WebfeedsApril 26, 2006 12:13 PM
On Sunday, in the Independent, Zac Goldsmith concluded that it
isn't possible responsibly to condemn nuclear power out of hand.
On Tuesday, in the Guardian, George Monbiot confessed that he had
become a fossil fuel supporter. What is going on?
Zac, of course, is exercising a bit of political expediency. He
is part of David Cameron's impressive new trio of eco-gurus,
whose sage words will frame Conservative environmental policy in
the year ahead. His true feeling must be the reverse of what he
writes: that it isn't possible responsibly to support nuclear
power, given what we know. We must hope that he is teeing up a
straw man to nuke down the track, as it were. Either that or he
will have to be doing some very fancy rethinking on the
impossibly long time it will take to bring a new generation of
nuclear plants onstream, the amount of public money that will
need to be written off if the economics of nuclear are to
"work", the impact on global terror prospects if more nuclear
plants are built and run, the myriad problems over what we will
do with their waste products, the amount of carbon that will be
wasted in mining and milling their fuel supply, and so on.
George's conversion to gas is a bit more worrying. His end goal
is hydrogen, with which to heat homes. Hydrogen can't come from
the electrolysis of water by renewables, he concludes, because
renewable technologies are seriously constrained. It must
therefore be made from gas, reacted with steam making carbon
dioxide as a byproduct, which would then need to be pumped
underground to keep it out of the atmosphere. Right.
It seems incredible to me that someone as bright as George can't
imagine a Britain where we can get all our energy, including
heat, from renewables. We could do that many times over by
mixing and matching renewable technologies. George lists among
his "constraining factors" for renewables "our feeble sun". Our
feeble sun is capable of generating far more electricity than
the country uses, were we to deploy the current generation of
solar photovoltaic rooftiles on available roofspace. Just a few
square metres of solar thermal tiles can generate half a home's
hot water requirement. Then there are all the other members of
the renewables family to consider. On top of that, comes energy
efficiency, the massive improvement of which should come before
every other calculation we might make.
George grabs a convenient piece of traditionalist economics that
happens to fit the argument. The US National Academy of
Engineers has argued that of the three ways to make hydrogen,
the methods using coal and gas are far cheaper than electrolysis
from renewables or nuclear. They arrive at that conclusion by
assuming conventional energy prices don't rise too much, and by
projecting historical trends for price reduction off into the
future. But traditional energy prices will go through the roof,
and technical improvements will bring the cost of clean
technologies down dramatically.
As for the price of hydrogen from hydrolysis being precisely
$3.93 in the future, as the US National Academy of Engineers
professes, please watch the progress of ITM Power, a British
fuel cell company currently with a market capitalisation of over
ÂŁ100m. With companies like that around, and all the other
innovation that is going on in the green technology arena, we'll
see.
Read George Monbiot's reply here.
This entry was tagged with the following keywords: nuclear gas
hydrogen zacgoldsmith georgemonbiot Comments
Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be
registered and signed in for Guardian Unlimited blogs.
You can register here. MrPikeBishop
April 26, 2006 12:27 PM Cambridge/gbr
Jeremy, I wonder if you'd answer a point I've never been able to
get a "renewables" fan to address: do you think it is possible
for renewable energy sources to provide 100% of british power
needs, all day, every day? I stress, EVERY day? As you know,
producing electricity isn't that hard - anything from wind,
waves, flowing rivers and, of course, your favourite, the sun,
can produce electricity. But STORING electricity is bloody hard.
So, on the days when the sun isn't shining, the wind isn't
blowing, the tides are low, and the rivers are dry... do we just
accept that the Grid will switch off?
This is a genuine question - if we move to renewables, do we
have to accept that 24/7 power on tap may not be possible? OR...
do we keep "dirty" power stations on stream, ready to go? And if
so, how much additional capacity should we keep in hand?
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] crucifixkiss
April 26, 2006 12:42 PM London/gbr
100% renewable is probably an impossible target, but there's no
reason we can't aim for something significantly higher than the
current 10% target. Provided we have a distributed mix of
renewable sources (wind, wave, solar, etc spread around the
country/offshore) the chances of us us having supply problems
can be reduced to an acceptable level. Obviously the amount of
additional non-renewable capacity required depends on how great
a risk we are prepared to accept of having to temporarily ration
electricity. Even with conventional sources it's impossible to
be 100% certain of being able to meet demand, only 99.9(???)%
certain. We just need to decide what that level is, and if we do
have a shortage, do we simply impose blackouts or just reduce
supplies to major industry consumers (in the same way that gas
supplies would have been prioritised for domestic users if the
crisis a few months ago had worsened).
Even if we do build in extra non-renewable capacity, it won't be
operational 100% of the time which means we still achieve a
reduction in use of non-renewable energy sources.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] DrDavidLowry
April 26, 2006 12:48 PM Cambridge/gbr
Jeremy
I fear you have concentrated too much on the headline above Zac
Goldsmith's Independent on Sunday article rather than his actual
argument.Zac's excellent article claerly explained in detail why
nuclear power is not the answer to the environmental exigencies
presented by climate change. Perversly, this analysis was
published under the headline "Don't delete nukes from the menu."
This appears to be based on two short sentences in the final
paragraph of Zac's energy exigesis, which are, frankly, a
non-sequiter if you have followed the preceding article.
I wonder, did Zac really chose to finish his analysis with these
words, or were they added in by an IoS sub-editor to provoke
response? I also note the IOS leader in the same edition ("The
Green giant awakes") suggested Zac Goldsmith was travelling in
the pro-nuclear direction - away from the stance he has promoted
in his magazine, The Ecologist - while Mr Cameron is perceived
to be travelling in the opposite anti-nuclear direction.
This interpretation is manifestly at odds with what Zac
Goldsmith rightly argued.
Dr David Lowry
environmental policy consultant [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report
this comment.] MrPikeBishop
April 26, 2006 12:51 PM Cambridge/gbr
"the chances of us us having supply problems can be reduced to
an acceptable level."
Acceptable to who? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]
macles
April 26, 2006 01:08 PM Leipzig/deu
MrPB - storage is still a problem. I think the only solution
that fits the centralised energy production and distribution
system is to turn a lot of electricity into hydrogen by
electrolysis. That's not efficient in the sense that electrical
energy is best staying as electrical energy and delivering power
through motors etc. So, you raise the amount of generation
capacity above the current required levels to make up for this.
I've never seen a study comprehensively adressing the question,
how much extra generation would be needed, just to provide a
continuous supply, day and night from renewables. But, like most
things, it is doable.
No one here has yet mentioned the exotic schemes. Jeremy works
for a solar company today, so he is not without conflicts of
interest here. However, it is possible to get centralised power
from the sun "24/7", globally by collecting the energy on the
Moon and beaming it back to collectors on Earth - you can have
reflector stations to cope with day/night on the Earth etc. Such
a scheme is already proposed, and the design and cost estimates
are at an advanced stage. The engineering problems can be solved
with current technology - this is not fusion.
Costs are estimated at $500 billion to get the thing to a stage
of break even. Over a "life cycle" the electricity costs are
estimated at remarkably low levels (fractions of today's costs).
If $500 billion sounds a lot, it isn't when all the costs of the
alternative generation infrastructure are added up one by one.
For instance, 10000 new nuclear power stations globally? They
aren't cheap to build.
Here is a link.
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_pap
ers/18th_Congress/dsessions/ds2/ds2_17.asp
use "download full paper link" to get the pdf. It is very
informative.
The more I think about this scheme, the more I like it. No
solution is a panacaea, but this is near to it. Above all, it is
biosphere neutral, for the simple reason that all the disruption
takes place on an inert, lifeless chunk of rock with no
atmosphere that whizzes round the Earth. Eminently sensible.
Anyhow, enjoy the read. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this
comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 01:25 PM Leipzig/deu
Jeremy,
I have a beef with your profile. You were an Earth Scientist (so
am I). You claim to have won 2 major international awards for
research into "the history of oceans". Forgive me, but that is
woolly nonsense. The "history of oceans" may have been a theme
back in the days of Taylor and Wegener, but hardly appropriate
today.
I know and work with a few international award winners in the
Earth Sciences. I looked you up at the AGU (American Geophysical
Union) - no record of awards won there. Tried the GSA -
(Geological Society of America) - nope. So what did you win?
Please, tell me. And then state what it was in your profile.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] crucifixkiss
April 26, 2006 01:29 PM London/gbr
"the chances of us us having supply problems can be reduced to
an acceptable level." Acceptable to who?
Acceptable to the public, via (hopefully elected)
representatives. Almost every major decision involves a
compromise. Eg. Flood defences may be built to surive a
1-in-10000 year flood, but that's still not 100% protection.
We've seen that our gas supplies cannot be absolutely
guaranteed, and I'm sure everyone's experienced powercuts due to
workmen cutting a cable. So we need to decide what an acceptable
risk and severity of electricity supply disruption would be.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] fairwinds
April 26, 2006 01:40 PM
We have electrical potential storage already in our hydro-power
schemes. I suspect but don't know that if hydro-power was
reserved only for load levelling rather than full time
generation then it could represent a substantial reserve,
especially if we minimise our consumption. Halving our
consumption would double our reserve. Other large scale forms of
reserve can be biofuels, hydrogen and redox.
Malcolm [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]
crucifixkiss
April 26, 2006 01:40 PM London/gbr
If anyone wants to try and calculate how much extra
non-renewable capacity is required to backup renewable sources,
this study looking at the potential for wind energy might be a
starting point:
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/renewables/UKWind-Report.pdf[Offensive?
Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 01:46 PM Leipzig/deu
'We have electrical potential storage already in our hydro-power
schemes. I suspect but don't know that if hydro-power was
reserved only for load levelling rather than full time
generation then it could represent a substantial reserve,
especially if we minimise our consumption. Halving our
consumption would double our reserve. Other large scale forms of
reserve can be biofuels, hydrogen and redox.
Malcolm'
The developed countries aren't far off maxed-out as far as
pumped storage/hydro goes. We can only flood so many pretty
valleys anyway. Hydro's maximum potential share of global power
generation at current consumption levels is ~25%. I don't know
how nuch nighttime consumption falls either. It can't however be
that much since many industrial processes run continuously, we
have street lighting etc. etc. So, though in principal it's a
great way to store energy, it may just not be adequate if
continous supplies shut down overnight.
I still go for Lunar Solar Power. And what a blast we'd have
building it. It make even keep moronic politicians from arguing
with each other and trying to start global conflicts every other
week. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 01:57 PM Leipzig/deu
Jeremy, what two "major international awards for research into
the history of oceans" did you win, please? [Offensive?
Unsuitable? Report this comment.] fairwinds
April 26, 2006 02:08 PM
Hi macles, perhaps I didn't write very clearly. I was
speculating that if you maximised existing hydropower systems
for backup rather than anytime generation then they could form a
substantial reserve.
Malcolm [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 02:15 PM Leipzig/deu
'Hi macles, perhaps I didn't write very clearly. I was
speculating that if you maximised existing hydropower systems
for backup rather than anytime generation then they could form a
substantial reserve. Malcolm'
Hello fairwinds. Yes, that's a sensible point, but the peak
generation capacity of all hydro remains below demand (even
of-peak) today. Moreover, no matter what politicians say about
conservation, global warming mitigation etc., the fact is that
global energy use is rising at an accelerating rate, not
falling. It is forecast to triple by 2050. At that point, hydro
could manage ~10-15% of global demand. We could still build a
few more major dams, but only at the cost of flooding major
urban areas, though judging by Denis MacShane's unintentionally
hilarious blog the other day, a case could be made for
Rotherham. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] carl31
April 26, 2006 02:29 PM Fife/gbr
This is exactly the debate we need. MrPikeBishop - I'm a
renewables fan. I assume your question refers to electricity
supply. Yes its certainly possible to supply all of the UKs
power needs, all day, every day. This is not a guarantee, but as
another post says, nothing is guaranteed. This supply level
could be attained to at least within current parameters of
acceptable failure rates.
The next question is....how much would this cost?
That I dont know yet.
If we consider all energy needs, which would include
non-electric heating and transport, then the answer is still
yes, but with the rider that it would be very hard to persuade
us into lower performance vehicles, i.e. renewable/sustainable
needs can be met re transport but possibly not wants, as there
is no current substitute for the energy density provided by
fossil fuels.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] MrPikeBishop
April 26, 2006 02:32 PM Cambridge/gbr
Also, our hydro reserves are rather a long way from our peak
power users - you'd lose a lot of power along the line from
scotland to london.
BTW, I have a much better power generation system than coating
the moon in tinfoil. First, you coat a bit of the moon in
tinfoil... build a maglev track, quarry lunar rocks, stick em in
the maglev, throw them at the earth - watch them build up speed
and KI all the way down the gavity well - luvvverly free energy
- drop em into a purpose built or modified lake, surrounded by
wave generators, suck the KI out of the waves. One an hour ought
to keep the roads rolling... and what a tourist attraction!
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] MrPikeBishop
April 26, 2006 02:34 PM Cambridge/gbr
"This supply level could be attained to at least within current
parameters of acceptable failure rates."
Easy to say, hard to back up. What level of redundancy would you
build in to the system? How many hours of reserve would you plan
for? Would it all be hydro? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this
comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 02:51 PM Leipzig/deu
MrPB, comparing LSP to coating the moon in tinfoil is a bit
trite. Don't forget, the Moon is real estate with few potential
commercial uses. LSP is one of them. The peak capacity from LSP
is way above terrestrial schemes and way above current
consumption. It allows us to carry on living just as insanely as
we do today for at least another 200 years. As I see no evidence
people are prepared to stop living quite so insanely at the
moment, I think LSP has potential. Nevertheless, we can do
similar things on Earth too. There is plenty of spare,
sun-drenched land in the world's deserts. This could be used to
generate fuel too, which could be transported. It's expensive,
but renewable and feasible. However, schemes on this planet's
surface are subject to far more disruptions than ones on the
Moon due to the atmosphere causing mechanical and chemical
deterioration. You can also look at the thesis of someone like
Hermann Scheer (The Solar Economy) who makes the point we are
slaves to our insane lifestyle and trapped by the existing power
infrastructure to continue with centralised generation schemes
when these may not (certainly not) be logical or desirable. The
best way to use solar is on a local basis, but this means a
complete restructuring of the economies of the world to fit. As
our current crop of politicians are either unable to keep their
dick in their pants or prevent the release to society of large
numbers of prisoners in their custody even after being
repeatedly warned over many months that this was happening, what
chance they solve the world's energvy problems? [Offensive?
Unsuitable? Report this comment.] fairwinds
April 26, 2006 03:02 PM
Hi macles, I wasn't thinking about building more dams, though it
may be possible, but about increasing the power output as
short-term backup. This may be possible by installing more
turbines on existing dams.
What I've seen is that politicians don't want conservation,
they want GDP.
Malcolm [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] Scribe6
April 26, 2006 03:13 PM Cambridge/gbr
Whats going on? The enviromentally concerned left are in
tatters! Some advocate nuclear power, some go with gas, some
probably think finding more oil would be great! Its a sorry
state of affairs. Personally I think renewable, natural energy
sources are the way forward. We have rivers, a huge coastline,
the (feeble) sun, wind, all of these, if acted upon rather than
endlessly debated and ultimately ignored, could solve many of
our production problems. Of course im in a minority, and
probably considered quite naive, but at least I dont change tack
every 2 minutes. I read monbiot's article yesterday and he
neglected to state what exactly had happened to the renewable
energy sources he had advocated for the last decade to make them
so obsolete now.
The left really must come up with a unified, coherent position
on this. The issue of the severn barrage is a perfect example of
the disunity and infighting amongst enviromentalists. The
barrier would generate more electricity than 2 nuclear stations
yet everybody from friends of the earth to the RSPB is
condenming it for the 'massive disruption' it may cause.
Disuption like an inevitable incident with nuclear waste or
fissile material? Chernobyl? What about changes in sea and air
temperature caused by carbon emissions/global warming? Would
that not be as disruptive? FoE should welcome this plan, its not
perfect but its a huge improvement in a situation that was
bogged down with debate and decidedly free of action.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 03:15 PM Leipzig/deu
Hi fairwinds. You can only convert energy from one form to
another. So, with pumped storage schemes, energy is stored as
potential energy and there is a finite amount of this defined by
the volume of water in the reservoir and the height difference
between this and the turbines. So, no matter how many turbines
you install, you'll only get so much power out. The only way to
get "more" power out of the system would be more efficient
turbines for more efficient conversion back to electircal
energy, which is possible but likely future advances are
limited. Otherwise, more capacity with more dams is your only
way to increase the power output from hydro. As I stated, there
are finite limits to how far this can go, no matter how much the
local MP may be prepared to compromise on the future of
Rotherham. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] carl31
April 26, 2006 03:22 PM Fife/gbr
I would do it with a mixture of pumped hydro (hydro resource is
currently considerably underdeveloped in UK, especially Scotland
and Wales) and battery (both large centralised and small
embedded). I would also develop flywheel technology, compressed
air storage technology, and storage of hydrogen. Battery,
flywheel and hydrogen technologies would be good options to see
us through the problems that a transport network raises.
The current standards in the electricity industry for failure
rates are related to degree days/worst winters. Bad winters that
could cause pwer failure due to larger heating loads, are graded
by once every 25 yrs, once every 50 yrs and once every 100 yrs
etc, referring to the fact that the more severe a winter is, the
less often it will occur. The renewables supply system in
question would be on a par with the current expected failure
rates.
I should point out, again, that the success or failure of such
renewables supply plans are usually cost/benefit exercises. The
provision of such systems will definitely incur very significant
costs. Probably still far more expensive than the bill we
currently pay, even when we consider the environmental benefits,
resource security benefits or the benefits of decoupling fossil
fuel energy from growth. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this
comment.] MrPikeBishop
April 26, 2006 03:22 PM Cambridge/gbr
"Whats going on? The enviromentally concerned left are in
tatters!"
Same thing as is happening to the left in every other area - the
time for theorising has ended, the time for action cannt be put
off any longer, and when it comes to making things *work*, it
all falls apart.
That said, I of course would like to see a greater use of
cleaner energy, but i'm not sure if it's that obvious what
energies are really clean. For instance, PV cells - how "green"
are they to manufacture? Don't they contain cadmium? That isn't
nice stuff to extract or dispose of. [Offensive? Unsuitable?
Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 03:25 PM Leipzig/deu
fairwinds - I may have missed your point, in which case sorry.
You mean could we more or less empty the reservoirs each night
and fill them back up again in the day with excess renewable
power? Good question. I have no idea what the "peak" nightly
generation of all large dams is in the UK either, but it will be
physically limited by how fast the water can flow along all
paths made available to it. You may also lose efficiency of
conversion by trying to let the water flow too fast. However, I
am not an engineer and have never built a hydro scheme, so I am
the wrong person to ask. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this
comment.] carl31
April 26, 2006 03:32 PM Fife/gbr
macles,
You empty them during the day, when we need the electricity,
and then use the wind to pump the water back up at night when we
dont need the electricity. As hinted at/pointed out, the
problems are the limited resource, and the fact that the schemes
would be/are very site specific.
Also, there are 'round trip' efficiency losses of about 25% so
you only get back 75% of the energy used to pump up at night.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] carl31
April 26, 2006 03:36 PM Fife/gbr
Me again.
I should point out that the losses quoted last post refer to an
electrical pump system to pump the water uphill.
If you had a mechanical system to harness the wind and pump
water uphill the figures are considerably more favourable, but
this would be very site specific and more limited by the local
wind resource. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]
macles
April 26, 2006 03:38 PM Leipzig/deu
Carl, see my point above yours. There is still a finite, maximum
output even when completely emptying reservoirs (which you empty
at night in this case as we are trying now to store energy from
the sun to use when the sun isn't shining!!!). I never saw a
figure for how high a "peak" output you could squeeze from all
the hydroelectric schemes. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this
comment.] carl31
April 26, 2006 04:01 PM Fife/gbr
Sorry macles, I didnt realise you were referring to linking
pumped storage with the 'beam energy via the moon as microwaves'
scheme. Has this microwave beam from the moon paper been peer
reviewed? Have any critiques been published anywhere?
I was referring to utilising the wind at night to store energy
for daytime use, when its most needed. It should be noted that
we can meet nighttime loads from renewable technology currently
available, so we wouldn't really need to do any daytime storage
for nightime use, under the microwave moonbeam plan.
see
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/03-04/wind/content/s
torage%20available.html
for an indication of pumped hydro possibilities in Scotland
alone. Consider these principles expanded across the rest of the
UK/Europe. Consider that the largest exporter of electricity in
the world is Venezuela due to its hydro resource.
How does the microwave moonbeam plan tie in with our transport
needs?
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] fairwinds
April 26, 2006 04:09 PM
Hi macles, if you put more or larger turbines in the dam then
you can get the same overall energy out but in a shorter time,
in other words more power. That was all I was saying.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 04:12 PM Leipzig/deu
Carl31
David Criswell, the main proponent of LSP is a professor of
physics at the University of Houston (in fact head of Institute
for Space Systems Operations). Don't worry, he is serious. He
has a long publications list including many peer reviewed
articles on aspects of LSP. NASA have at some time approved
budget and phased development of the beginnings of the program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Criswell[Offensive?
Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 04:14 PM Leipzig/deu
I also bet David Criswell won a few "international awards" -
please Jeremy, what was this "research into the history of the
oceans"? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 04:15 PM Leipzig/deu
Yes fairwinds, I understood that belatedly, but there is still a
finite limit from the maximum discharge of the water leaving the
reservoir. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]
madscience
April 26, 2006 04:30 PM Leeds/gbr
"the impossibly long time it will take to bring a new generation
of nuclear plants onstream, the amount of public money that will
need to be written off if the economics of nuclear are to
"work", the impact on global terror prospects if more nuclear
plants are built and run, the myriad problems over what we will
do with their waste products, the amount of carbon that will be
wasted in mining and milling their fuel supply, and so on."
None of these things seem to be a problem for the French- they
can build a plant in a few years, have no problem with the
economics, and recycle the 'spent' fuel (actually 95% unburned).
As for terror, this is a political problem that can be solved by
not invading random oil-producing nations.
If you are talking about carbon release in the fuel cycle, you
might be interested to know that many mining operations are now
electrically powered. And to compare apples to apples, how about
the carbon released in the manufacture of a windfarm? How many
thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel would be needed to
replace a single reactor with wind turbines?
There is no free lunch, but these arguments against nuclear
power are grasping at straws, and the public increasingly
agrees. Even if the French have to show us the way. [Offensive?
Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 04:30 PM Leipzig/deu
Carl31.
First, what are our tranpsort needs? Can we actually say what
they will be at any time in the future? Very difficult. However,
if we wish to carry on moving more or less the same way we do
today, with a mixture of private vehicles and public transport,
we need a new fuel, because the old variety - petrol, diesel
etc. is going away (slowly). Biodiesel is a bad idea. Although
it is a form of solar conversion, it relies on photosynthesis,
which is a very poor mechanism (0.03% of solar energy is stored
in the plant). Much better then to grab 15-20% of the energy
arriving at the Earth's surface and convert it to hydrogen. With
LSP, the situation is much rosier. Incredibly cheap electricity
to produce as much hydrogen as you want.
What is lacking of course is an infrastructure for making fuel.
We have to either replace refiniries with plants to generate
hydrogen or put small plants in fuel filling stations to do the
job locally. The existing electricity grids would need improving
and capacity raising to cope. Finally, you decide if you want a
car with a fuel cell or an internal combusion engine modified to
burn hydrogen. Both are possible.
Aviation is more of a problem. The energy density of kerosene is
a property that allows jet planes to fly and hydrogen does not
share. I suppose with enough cheap electricity, it would be
possible to synthesize kerosene from its constituent components,
but this is terribly inefficient. I bet however that a newer
propulsion method is developed working with a fuel more
compatible with a hydrocarbon short world.
All this assumes we carry on wishing to live our insane
lifestyle of the future. We could rethink this and save
ourselves a lot of exertion instead. My opinion is we won't, and
we'll need all the extra. SO let's get building something.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 04:43 PM Leipzig/deu
madscience. The French breeder reactor has been stopped as I
understand it. I'll not argue, that if we can use breeder
technology, we can generate enough electricity to power society
for hundreds and hundreds of years. But, we have to deal with
nasty products like Plutonium, and the apparently ever present
risk of bomb making material being turned into a bomb by someone
undesirable. I am not sure I am persuaded by security concerns,
but that is one of the major arguments against breeder reactors.
Otherwise, there is still a lot of Uranium potentially left but
at continuously increasing costs of extraction. Uranium mines
are messy for the locals too. And we'd need lots of them if we
didn't use breeder reactors. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this
comment.] monkeythumbs
April 26, 2006 08:20 PM
Perhaps we just need to change the way we live. Where I was
working this morning, in an office, the heating was on. I asked
one of the care takers about this and he said there had been
complaints that it was cold so had to keep it going. Within an
hour I felt sick and was sweating. I get in early and many of
the computers had been left on all night and lights were on
everywhere. The waste bins were overflowing with half empty coke
cans, paper, partially eaten sandwiches and half empty plastic
water bottles; what is this idea that water in a plastic bottle
that has been shipped hundreds of miles to a corner shop is any
better than tap water?
I live in rented property with no double glazing and no loft
insulation. The landlord doesn’t have to pay the bills so he
doesn’t care but I keep my bills way down by only heating the
room I’m in and I never leave anything on standby. I’m happy to
wear long johns and a thermal vest when it gets really cold.
I don’t buy veg that as come from southern Spain; I try my best
to buy locally produced food. I ride a bicycle and walk most
places. (lucky I can do that). This summer I’m visiting friends
in Europe and spending an extra day and a few extra Łs that I’ve
saved on heating by going on the train.
It seems to me that so many people think their liberties are
being removed if they can’t sit around at home in there
underwear in the middle of winter or get a Ł20 flight to Spain
or eat food that hasn't been transported 3000 miles. Thoughtless
selfish behaviour. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]
macles
April 26, 2006 08:57 PM Leipzig/deu
monkeythumbs. Sensible stuff and sorry that you live in an
uninsulated pit. Try a cave maybe? Ground temperature doesn't
vary much through the year (~8-10C usually) so you' be okay in
winter and okay in a heatwave). But seriously, one thing.
Condemning planes. If the plane is full, what is the miles per
gallon per passenger? An EasyJet 737 doesn't use much once it's
in the air. I'm afraid your train may have been uncomfortably
close to the plane for energy use in the end.
German rented housing is usually very well-insulated. It costs a
fraction of what you pay in the UK too. Maybe voice your disgust
at it all by leaving? Better than a cave anyway. [Offensive?
Unsuitable? Report this comment.] hypocentre
April 26, 2006 09:20 PM London/gbr
Macles, Jeremey taught me stratigraphy at Imperial College,
London in the early 80s. I can't tell you the exact awards he
attained but he was at the forefront of using plate tectonics in
describing Earth history and in my opinion was a superb lecturer
and a great personal inspiration. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report
this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 10:11 PM Leipzig/deu
hypocentre, that's great to hear, but it's for Jeremy to
clarify. Dan Mckenzie won the Craafoord prize a few years back
as one of the co-founders of the "final" form of plate tectonics
(i.e. great circles on a sphere). Jason Morgan won some sort of
presidential medal in the US (big honour anyhow) for his, equal
(some say greater) contribution. Many other people contributed.
But I want to avoid ANY form of posing. I do not accept it. If
you won an award, then what exactly was it. I don't recognise
the name Jeremy Leggett in respect of plate tectonics yet I've
worked with a few folks who are pretty big in the field and
don't represent the interests of a solar energy company today to
earn their living whilst writing newspaper columns. Many of the
same thoughts (possibly magnified) apply to George Monbiot.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 10:27 PM Leipzig/deu
Incidentally hypocentre. Want a plate tectonics problem? Explain
the M7.7 earthquake near the Isthmus of Kamchatka the other day
in terms of current plate tectonic models.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2006/usltbt/
Or should we ask Jeremy? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this
comment.] hypocentre
April 26, 2006 11:17 PM London/gbr
well, the moment tensor makes it look like subduction related to
me [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] hypocentre
April 26, 2006 11:23 PM London/gbr
... and you could always click the "summary" tag on your link
for a fuller explanation [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this
comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 11:29 PM Leipzig/deu
subduction of what hypocentre? The Aleutian trench intervenes
some considerable distance south of the event, ruling out
Pacific-North American Plate interaction. Answer is the Bering
block (espcially when you look at other MT's further north and
in Alaska, but we were meant to ask Jeremy that. Where do you
work then? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 26, 2006 11:34 PM Leipzig/deu
It's also well within crustal depth ranges (could be subduction
depth too - but, there isn't a subduction zone there).
Interesting hey? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]
macles
April 26, 2006 11:38 PM Leipzig/deu
Must admit though, for an organisation that "banned"
publications by its own staff supporting plate tectonics (eg.
Warren Hamilton) for a long period in the 60's, they do a pretty
good job of keeping abreast of what's going on in a messy corner
of the world. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]
hypocentre
April 27, 2006 12:01 AM London/gbr
I said "subduction related" not "subduction zone". Also, the
earthquake depth is fixed by the location program, not as a
result of the data inversion and is therefore unreliable.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 27, 2006 12:07 AM Leipzig/deu
Subduction-related is kind of implying a subduction zone in the
vicinity isn;t it? I mean, if I'm reviewing a paper or a
proposal, I'd sort of assume it. Location program fixes depths?
To a point, but if it's way off, it's not going to work. You
can't set the thing at 500km and expect it to make sense.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 27, 2006 12:13 AM Leipzig/deu
Anyhow hypocentre, my beef isn't with you. I'm glad you had
great lectures from Jeremey, but he does something different
now, and I don't like the way he is presenting himself in his
new role. As scientists, we should endeavour to set the highest
standards of probity, amongst ourselves and in front of the
general public. We're mugs for doing it, get payed bugger all,
and then get trampled on by dilettantes like George Monbiot, but
whatever, we have to do things properly, because no one else is
going to. We have to maintain our own standards. Hence, Jeremy
(with your big fat wedge), what (as an Earth Scientist) exactly,
did you win? [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]
hypocentre
April 27, 2006 12:24 AM London/gbr
Crustal earthquakes say in the Chilean forearc are "subduction
related" rather than the "subduction zone". The shallow
earthquakes are still related to the subduction system. Here
there is a subduction system to the SE and tectonic stresses
will be transferred NW. The earthquake depth is the hardest
property to determine. Sure 500km may be unrealistic, but the
depth given is just the starting point for the inversion that
the data quality is unable to give a more reliable figure.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] hypocentre
April 27, 2006 12:29 AM London/gbr
Macles, you seemed to be challenging the geological credentials
of JL as if he had no standing whatsoever - sorry if I got the
wrong impression.
His awards would appear to be from the Geological Society
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.] macles
April 27, 2006 12:45 AM Leipzig/deu
Thanks for finding out what his awards are/were. If you're still
in touch with the bloke, suggest he puts these details in his
profile, please. Chilean forearc - subduction related, yes, but
the Chilean forearc overlies the subducting Nazca plate! This
region of Russia overlies no known chunk of subducting plate
today. Still, I understand your point, and have even reviewed
the odd paper/proposal on the Chilean forearc. I'm not that
severe really! Actually though, there is good evidence for
delimiting a block of crust (Bering Block) to explain a series
of widely distributed focal mechanisms near Kamchatka, in
Chukotka and also in Alaska. The northward stress transfer from
the Kamchatka subduction zone - okay - but so pure thrust? Once
you pass the limit of Pacific subduction (going north), wouldn't
you expect things to become more strike-slip? Anyhow, nice
talking to you. I can tell you some famous seismologists are
confused by this one still. [Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this
comment.]
Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be
registered and signed in for Guardian Unlimited blogs.
You can register here.
The latest from the blog
[The latest from the blogs]
Roy Hattersley
It's been a bad week for the government. But it should take a
deep breath and get on with governing.
Sidney Blumenthal
Tony Snow, Fox News star, begins as the new White House press
secretary on the day Karl Rove is called back to the federal
grand jury.
Clive Stafford Smith
The US has a problem: where is it going to release the
Guantanamo Bay prisoners to? Regimes where they could be
tortured and killed?
David Ramsbotham
Charles Clarke needs to call a halt to his endless initiatives
and changes and start concentrating on the basics. Comment is
free· Editors' blog· Dan Chung
About webfeeds Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
*****************************************************************
20 [NukeNet] Chernobyl Boss: "True Cause of Disaster Was Hidden"
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:50:33 -0700
 | ||||||
|
||||||
 | ||||||
| Wednesday, April 26, 2006 | ||||||
When Home is a Blighted Land: Tales from Chernobyl Olga Rudchenko was among 200,000 residents evacuated after an explosion ripped through the Chernobyl nuclear power station on April 26, 1986 in the world's worst nuclear accident. She and her husband, Andriy, defied a government ban and returned 12 years ago to live on contaminated land. Shrinking Alpine Glacier Points to Snowless Future for Swiss Mountain Resorts A 2005 study by the European Union's environment agency said Alpine glaciers lost about 10 percent of their ice during the summer of 2003, and predicted three-quarters of Switzerland's glaciers would disappear by 2050 if current trends continued unchanged. U.S. Audit Cites Agency Fights, Indecision for Everglades Delay A project to restore water flows for marshes and prairies in Everglades National Park has mushroomed in cost and suffered delays because of government indecision and inability to communicate, a new federal audit has concluded. Colorado Lawmakers Approve Unprecedented Water Charter Hoping to end Colorado's in-state battles over scarce water, a House committee has approved an unprecedented charter for compacts between users in different river basins meant to bring together groups ranging from fishermen to farmers. Eco-Friendly Belize Wary of Oil Fever Some worry that Belize's reputation as a pristine tourist haven -- with its barrier reef declared a world heritage site by the United Nations -- could be ruined by further oil exploration. Make Room for the River: Restoring the Danube Delta Swollen by heavy rain and melting snow, the Danube River — Europe’s second longest river behind the Volga — hit its highest level in Romania in 111 years in April, swamping ports and thousands of hectares of farmland. >>>More articles at ENN.com
Fish And Wildlife Service Declares Snowy Plover An Endangered Species Act Success By: the Center for Biological Diversity On April 21st, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the critically imperiled Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover, a diminutive shorebird native to Washington, Oregon, and California, has increased its population size by over 50 percent in less than 15 years and will likely recover if Endangered Species Act protections remain in place. California Climate Action Registry Announces Recipients of its Annual Climate Action Champion Awards By: California Climate Action Registry The California Climate Action Registry announced the recipients of its third annual Climate Action Champion Awards at the Registry's conference Connecting the Dots on Climate Change. The awards were presented to two organizations and one individual, all being recognized for demonstrating exemplary leadership in addressing climate change. >>>Read all Non-Profit News >>>Read all Company News
Latest Poll : Do you think that the Panama Canal should be expanded to accommodate new, huge cargo ships? Poll Results : "Do you agree with the hunting of cougars in Oregon where high densities threaten people and animals?" 35.61% - Yes 64.39% - No >>>Voice Your Opinion |
    |
|||||
 |
||||||
|
ENN is a Registered Trademark of the Environmental News Network, Inc. You are receiving this e-mail as part of the ENN/OnlineGardener/MyGardenGuide Daily Newsletter Mailing because you opted in to receive e-mail from us through www.mygardenguide.com or www.onlinegardener.com or www.enn.com. ENN adheres to a strict no-spam policy in accordance with the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Your e-mail address is never used for any reason other than for you to receive our Newsletters. We apologize if you received this e-mail in error. |
||||||
German Site ---------------- Home Politik Wirtschaft Panorama
Sport Kultur Netzwelt Wissenschaft UniSPIEGEL SchulSPIEGEL Reise
Auto English Site ---------------- Schlagzeilen Forum Wetter
SPIEGEL Digital Archiv Dossiers Länderlexikon E-Paper DER
SPIEGEL Newsletter Abo
| Today | Newsletter | SPIEGEL
Magazine | SPIEGEL Forums
[ width=]
English Site> SPIEGEL Magazine> Chernobyl - 20 Years Later
More Articles
[----]
April 26, 2006 Print| Send this article| Feedback
[----]
CHERNOBYL DISASTER
Accident or Catastrophe?
Journalists and politicians have resorted to different terms for
describing the reactor meltdown in Chernobyl. What was a
"catastrophe" for German media was an "accident" to Soviet
officials.
APWas it a catastrophe or merely an accident?
In the Soviet Union, the reactor meltdown in Chernobyl was
officially termed an "accident" -- in the West, it was a
"catastrophe." Were the Soviets propagandistically downplaying
the extent of an event so likely to inspire fear and terror? Was
"accident" a euphemism like "engagement" for war, "landfill" for
a nuclear waste site or "economically disadvantaged" for the
poor?
Clearly Soviet officials did have an interest in playing down
the event. The Russian term for "accident" normally refers to
the collision of two ships. The word derives from the Arabic
"awar" (flaw, damage) and entered Germanic languages early on,
becoming "Havarie" in German. In Grimm's Dictionary, the
etymological dictionary the Brothers Grimm began compiling in
1838, "Havarie" is hardly felt to be a foreign word any longer.
Another dictionary claims the word originally refered to damaged
cargo. These days, Germans apply the word "Havarie" to
catastrophes at sea and in the sky; the term can be applied to
ships as well as to airplanes.
According to the Duden, Germany's standard dictionary, a
"Havarie" is not quite a "Katastrophe" -- and the concept of
catastrophe seems to have been the one Soviet authorities were
particularly eager to avoid. But the Duden also gives "damage to
a nuclear plant" as one of the meanings of "Havarie," citing a
1964 edition of the East German daily Neues Deutschland as a
reference. Was the newspaper, the central organ of East
Germany's ruling SED party, already following Soviet guidelines
back then? In Russian, even a car crash can be an "accident" and
the word is sometimes used in this sense in Austria as well. In
German, a car accident would be neither a "Havarie" nor a
"Katastrophe."
NEWSLETTER
The literal meaning of "catastrophe" is simply "turning point"
or "reversal." A catastrophe is a "turn for the worse." The way
the word is used today, it suggests natural disasters rather
than the outcome of human action. In German mediaspeak, floods,
earthquakes and famines are regularly described as
"Katastrophen." Nor has today's rampant desire to dramatize
everything left this word unscathed. Germans can now be heard to
say things like "His haircut is a catastrophe" or "The
chancellor's speech was one big catastrophe."
In ancient tragedy, the concept of the "turn for the worse"
reflects a view of the world in which there is no escape from
ruin, and in which humans are doomed to move blindly through
life -- like Oedipus, who killed his father and married his
mother, or like the "technological progress" that has lost so
much of its appeal after Chernobyl, even if some insist that
what happened there was "only an accident."
SPIEGEL ONLINE SPECIAL
Chernobyl - 20 Years Later
MORE ARTICLES
Chernobyl Disaster: