by Moushumi Basu, Special to CorpWatch
October 7th, 2009
Creative Commons Licensed: Adapted by Ionia Kershaw for Truthout.org (via Flickr)
“I have had three miscarriages and lost five children within a week of their births,” says Hira Hansda, a miner’s wife. “Even after 20 years of marriage we have no children today.” Now in her late forties, she sits outside her mud hut in Jadugoda Township, site of one of the oldest uranium mines in India.
The Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) operates that mine, part of a cluster of four underground and one open cast mines and two processing plants, in East Singbhum district in the Eastern Indian state of Jharkhand. The deepest plunges almost one kilometer into the earth.
Incorporated as a public sector enterprise under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) in 1967, UCIL has sole responsibility for mining and processing all of India's uranium. And since the strength of the Jadugoda region's uraninite ore is extremely low, it takes many tons of earth as well as complex metallurgical processes to yield even a small amount of useable uranium ore—along with tons of radioactive waste, disposed of in unlined tailing dams.
UCIL processes the ore into yellowcake and sends it to the Nuclear Fuel Complex in Hyderabad, where it is officially designated for use in nuclear reactors. But it is an open secret that some of the nuclear material becomes the key ingredient in India's nuclear arsenal. (India is one of only three states—along with Israel and Pakistan—that are not signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. North Korea withdrew from the Treaty in 2003.)
Unhealthy Villages
Radiation and health experts across the world charge that toxic materials and radioactivity released by the mining and processing operations are causing widespread infertility, birth defects and cancers. A 2008 health survey by the Indian chapter of International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), found that “primary sterility was found to be more common in the people residing near uranium mining operations area.”
Jadugoda residents Kaderam Tudu and his wife, Munia, considered themselves fortunate when their infant was born alive, until, “I found that my baby son did not have his right ear and instead in its place was a blob of flesh,” says Tudu, a day worker in his late thirties. Their son, Shyam Tudu, now eight, has a severe hearing impairment.
Even children who appear healthy are impacted. "The youths from our villages have become victims of social ostracism," says Parvati Manjhi, and cannot find spouses. "And a number of our girls have been abandoned by their husbands, when they failed to give birth,” Now middle-aged, Parvati and her husband, Dhuwa Manjhi, who used to work for UCIL, are childless.
Harrowing tales fill the region around the mines, and add irony to the area's name, Jharkhand, which in the local tribal language means “forest endowed with nature’s bounties.” If the lush land was the indigenous population's boon for centuries, its rich mineral reserves have become their bane. Six decades of industrialization has depleted the forest cover, degraded the environment, displaced tribal peoples—who along with Dalit ("untouchables") form an oppressed underclass—and devastated a way of life deeply interwoven with nature.
Despite India's economic boom and proximity to one of the country's richest mineral reserves, the villages in Jharkhand are now among the poorest in the country, according to the Center For Science & Environment’s (New Delhi) 2008 report “Rich Lands Poor People.”
Uranium Corporation of India Limited in Jharkhand
UCIL’s underground mines in Jadugoda, Bhatin, Turamdhih, Narwapahar, and its open cast mine at Banduhurang extract 1,000 tons per day (TPD) of uranium ore. Two underground mines in the pipeline at Baghjata and Mahuldih will boost that amount. The ore is processed at the Jadugoda and Turamdih mills with a combined capacity of 5,000 TDP. The company earned $64 million in 2007-08, and made a $3 million profit.
The 20-year lease for UCIL's mines was up in 2007, and a new application is being processed. Under it, the company wants to add 6.37 hectares to tailing dam capacity and expand production, according to UCIL Chairman and Managing Director Ramendra Gupta. This move requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) drawn up by the Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research (CIMFR), along with a public hearing.
Addressing the affected community at the May public hearing in Jadugoda, the company represented the local plans as “a marginal expansion.” But the UCIL website promises “a quantum leap in UCIL’s activities” that includes plans to "deepen the existing mines, expand its processing facilities,” and “not only opening new mines, but also the development of the community around its operations.”
While the company has created local schools and provides jobs and social services, villagers who attended the hearing argued that these provisions do not compensate for the health effects and destruction of their way of life.
“Why are we being made to pay such a heavy price, for so many decades”? Asks Hira Hansda, speaking of her three miscarriages and birth to five infants that quickly died. Her husband Sonaram worked at the tailing dam as a casual employee between 1984-87, and like many villagers, he links the deterioration in local health conditions to the arrival of the uranium mines. The last three surveys conducted in the area found increased radiation levels.
Heavy Security at UCIL’s Public Hearing Keeps Villagers Out
The public hearing on UCIL's new application took place at the heavily fortified camp of the Central India Security Force (CISF) within the UCIL colony at Jadugoda. Conducted by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, the proceedings were marked by restrictions on personal liberties under sections of a law applying to situations with the potential to cause civil unrest.
Leaving little room for the public or protesters, the hall was packed with hundreds of UCIL workers and other company beneficiaries who held placards reading: “When compared to hunger, pollution is a small issue," and "Save UCIL.”
Those who had lost their lands and health to the mines were physically barred from the tent. Outside the proceedings, protesters shouted: “Do not destroy our land," “No uranium, no uranium waste, no weapons, care for the future." Many indigenous villagers waved the banner of the Jharkhandi Organization Against Radiation (JOAR), winner of the Germany-based Nuclear Free Future Award for its long crusade against the hazards of uranium mining in Jadugoda. The protesters denounced the hearing as "a farce" and demanded that it be immediately stopped.
Villager and JOAR president, Ghanashyam Biruli, issued the demands: no new uranium mines, bring the existing mine under international safety guidelines, return unused tribal land, provide livelihood and rehabilitation to displaced people, clean up the contamination, commission an independent study of environmental contamination and health effects, and monitor water bodies to ensure that the radionuclides do not seep into the aquifer that is the lifeline of more than 100,000 people. The activists also argued that since the country can buy uranium on the international market, there is no compelling need to expand UCIL's capacity.
The real compelling need, they asserted, was protecting health and the environment. The 2008 health survey by the Indian chapter of International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) provided clear evidence, finding that:
* Couples living near the mines were "1.58 times more vulnerable to primary sterility" with 9.6 percent of couples in study villages unable to conceive after three years of marriage, compared with 6.27 percent in a reference (control) group.
* Birth defects followed a similar pattern with 1.84 times higher incidence: “[B]abies from mothers, who lived near uranium mining operation area, suffered a significant increase in congenital deformities,” according to the report. While 4.49 percent of mothers living in the study villages reported bearing children with congenital deformities, only 2.49 percent of mothers in reference villages fell under this category." The national rate for people with disabilities (including congenital deformities) is 3 percent, according to official government statistics.
* Deformed babies near the mining operations are almost 6 times more likely to die, with 9.25 percent mothers in the study villages reporting congenital deformities as the cause of death of their children. In the reference village, mothers reported 1.70 percent of babies died of deformities.
* Cancer deaths were also higher: 2.87 percent of households in study villages attributed the cause of death to be cancer, compared to 1.89 percent in the reference village.
These factors contributed to a lowered life expectancy. In the study villages 68.33 percent of the population died before reaching the state's average life expectancy: 62 years old.
UCIL Denies Contamination
Despite such alarming reports, radiation data are not made public because they fall under the purview of the Atomic Energy Act of 1962. UCIL / DAE (Department of Atomic Energy) also cites security concerns for refusing to release data on health of the workers. But Buddha Weeps in Jadugoda, a 1999 award-winning film by Shri Prakash documented that, despite a law mandating regular monitoring, in the last five- to ten-year period few workers underwent blood and urine tests to assess the impact of radiation.
Independent scientists have confirmed the danger. Professor Hiroaki Koide, from the Research Reactor Institute, Kyoto University, Japan, sampled soil and air in the surrounding villages and documented that “The circumference of tailing ponds is impacted with uranium radiation. The strength of the radiation is of 10 to 100 times high in comparison to places without contamination. ...There are places where uranium concentration is high in the road or the riverside, and it is thought that tailings are used for construction material,” including on villagers' houses." Tailings are production waste material that, according to critics are unsafely stored, dumped, and used for landfills, roads and construction.
UCIL Technical Director D Acharya denied that the company was responsible for radiological contamination. “UCIL’s safety and pollution control measures are at par with the international standards, comparable at any point of time,” he said. The company is dealing with naturally occurring materials, he noted, the very low grade ore extracted is a minimal environmental hazard, and the company is not enriching the ore in Jadugoda.
But tacitly acknowledging the risks, UCIL head, Gupta, noted in the 2008 Annual Report that "External gamma radiation, Radon concentration, suspended particulate matters, airborne long lived Alpha activity and concentration of radio nuclides- uranium and Radium in surface and ground water, in soil and food items etc are monitored regularly."
Although he presented no evidence, UCIL Technical Director Acharya said that allegations of health problems are canards spread by anti-uranium lobbies, and that the physical fitness of the employees can be gauged the UCIL football team's success in winning the DAE tournaments for the past five years.
“From time to time we have also conducted structured health surveys and examinations, by independent sources," said Acharya. "One was done by the erstwhile Bihar Assembly, about ten years ago, but the findings are absolutely normal.” (The area was part of Bihar at the time.) "The effects of radiation are being constantly monitored by independent watchdogs, and there are health physics experts who are always with us, for round-the clock-vigil of the situation. Hence, there is really no cause of concern,” he added.
That is not the experience of many villagers, who link serious health problems to the mines. Like many of the women in the surrounding areas, Hansda's pregnancies were a time of terror. “It fills within us fear and apprehensions of the possible ordeal that may be in store. Who knows what would be the fate of the baby,” she said.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15450
Showing posts with label No Uranium Mining. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Uranium Mining. Show all posts
Friday, October 9, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
A Map of Stupid
Union of Concerned Scientists graphic“Twenty-eight states, plus Washington, D.C., have renewable energy portfolios that require each state to produce a minimum percentage of renewable energy. Only North Carolina in the Southeast has a renewable energy portfolio.”
Comment: Like this blog and we agree, Corporate Virginia is part of the Map of Stupid. Corporate Virginia blows up her mountains and ships it to China! Corporate Virginia is in Bed with the French Nukes and roll out the red carpet for the thugs! Corporate Virginia will blow up all the Piedmont for uranium mining for the French and Canadians! Corporate Virginia is Stupid!
San Francisco Treehugger Dan Kessler reports that, at the Southern Governors’ Association’s annual meeting near Williamsburg, VA, “outgoing chair Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia said his goal was to see how the South can increase its use of renewable energy technologies while increasing efficiency and reducing greenhouse gases.
” Nice words, in the spirit of the Bush Administration’s successful war on the environment, spoken to appreciative sponsors (and polluters), including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Dominion Resources Inc., and Exxon Mobil Corp.
I doubt whether many (and hopefully no AG readers) were fooled by the nice words.
When it comes to energy policy, this blog has harped on the disingenuous nature (read “coal zombie” stupidity) of the Southeast region of the United States here and here.
To get the most recalcitrant to put on their RES (Renewable Energy Sources) “thinking hats”, the current strategy is to play the national security card.
Retired military officials told the governors that climate change will have major impacts on their states. Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard Engel, who directs the Climate Change and State Stability program of the National Intelligence Council, told the governors that global warming will cause drought, floods, and storm damage.
Whereas I have great respect for the energy policy advocated by former CIA director Admiral James Woolsey, and believe it takes all sorts to get a true policy shift to occur, there would seem to be two significant risks to “throwing in” with the National Security crowd: 1) lack of transparency, which at present is endemic in this country — “I’m sorry Senator, you can’t talk about those coal ash impoundments, National Security, doncha kno; and 2) nuclear power, as in, “Hey I’ve got a boffo idea, let’s move from fossil fooled to nuke duped!”
It should be noted that the lack of renewable energy portfolios is other than unique to the Southeast, rather a map that shows states lacking in current or pending legislation shows where coal remains king, a.k.a., a Map of Stupid.
OTOH, the Southeast is unique in having fewer existing options for sustainable energy. Thus, a renewed emphasis upon the lack of carbon emissions from nuclear power plants, ignoring the other critical disadvantages to this particular fuel from Hell.
As this blog plaintively queried, “Why do almost all Senators and many members of the House of Representatives* choose to ignore their official responsibility to respond to degradation of the atmosphere brought about by anthropogenic emissions and the dangers of radioactive waste?”
The answer, of course, is that we live in dark times, when BAUAAAE (Business As Usual And Above All Else) prevails.
* Note: As the Map of Stupid shows, a fair share of state governments, also.
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=5540
* Note: As the Map of Stupid shows, a fair share of state governments, also.
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=5540
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Neils S. Nokkentved: Nuclear power isn't clean or cheap
July 14, 2009
READER'S VIEW NUCLEAR POWER
BY NIELS S. NOKKENTVED - Idaho Statesman
READER'S VIEW NUCLEAR POWER
An Eagle-based company wants to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant in Elmore County.
The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that proposes the nation build 100 new nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years.
Idaho Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson has embraced nuclear power, and like others, promotes it as cheap and clean. They argue also that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gases.
But it is unclear which part of the nuclear energy cycle they're referring to.
Nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean.
The two main reasons no new power plants have been built in the United States since the late 1970s are the high cost of construction and the uncertainty of the regulatory approval process.
Only federal subsidies make nuclear power "cheap."
The nuclear fuel cycle starts with mining, which relies on trains, trucks and heavy equipment that run on diesel fuel. Refining the ore and turning it into nuclear fuel creates large amounts of radioactive and toxic tailings and waste. Uranium, for example, gives off radioactive radon gas, the second leading cause of lung cancer in this country.
And operating a nuclear power plant requires an outside source of electric power. Reactors emit small amounts of radiation and heat in the form of steam or hot water, and they produce waste for which we have no disposal solution.
Uranium mining and milling have a sordid history in the West. In the Southwest, Navajo homes once were built of radioactive mine tailings, and their land is riddled with more than 1,000 abandoned mines. Mining companies hired local residents to work at low wages without telling them of the health risks. When the ore played out, some companies simply walked away.
In one example, Uranium Reduction Co. began processing ore from the Moab area's rich uranium ore deposits in the 1950s. In 1962, the company sold the mill to Atlas Minerals Corp., which ran it until declaring bankruptcy in 1998. The federal government took over the site in 2001.
Today a 94-foot tall pile of radioactive and toxic mill tailings covers 130 acres and holds 12 million tons of radioactive waste - about 750 feet from the third largest river in the West, three miles from Moab, less than a mile from Arches National Park and across the mouth of Moab Wash.
The unlined pile leaks an average of 57,000 gallons per day into the Colorado River upstream of Lake Mead, which supplies drinking and irrigation water to southern California, Las Vegas and parts of Arizona. Similar piles at 38 mill sites in the West - 22 of them abandoned - hold 140 million tons of radioactive tailings.
The story doesn't end with refining the ore. Producing reactor fuel involves a process that concentrates one form, or isotope, of uranium that can sustain a nuclear reaction. The leftovers, known as "depleted uranium," remain radioactive. About 750,000 tons of depleted uranium already awaits disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued warnings about disposing of large amounts of this material as "low level" waste - the current proposed practice.
Most industry supporters - who claim nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases - want to ship spent fuel from power plants, mainly in the eastern part of the country, by diesel-powered trains to a proposed waste disposal facility in Jackass Flats, Nev. - a site known as Yucca Mountain.
Niels S. Nokkentved has degrees in journalism and environmental studies and has worked as natural resource reporter for 20 years, including more than 12 years of covering nuclear waste issues at the Idaho National Laboratory.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/832976.html
READER'S VIEW NUCLEAR POWER
BY NIELS S. NOKKENTVED - Idaho Statesman
READER'S VIEW NUCLEAR POWER
An Eagle-based company wants to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant in Elmore County.
The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that proposes the nation build 100 new nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years.
Idaho Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson has embraced nuclear power, and like others, promotes it as cheap and clean. They argue also that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gases.
But it is unclear which part of the nuclear energy cycle they're referring to.
Nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean.
The two main reasons no new power plants have been built in the United States since the late 1970s are the high cost of construction and the uncertainty of the regulatory approval process.
Only federal subsidies make nuclear power "cheap."
The nuclear fuel cycle starts with mining, which relies on trains, trucks and heavy equipment that run on diesel fuel. Refining the ore and turning it into nuclear fuel creates large amounts of radioactive and toxic tailings and waste. Uranium, for example, gives off radioactive radon gas, the second leading cause of lung cancer in this country.
And operating a nuclear power plant requires an outside source of electric power. Reactors emit small amounts of radiation and heat in the form of steam or hot water, and they produce waste for which we have no disposal solution.
Uranium mining and milling have a sordid history in the West. In the Southwest, Navajo homes once were built of radioactive mine tailings, and their land is riddled with more than 1,000 abandoned mines. Mining companies hired local residents to work at low wages without telling them of the health risks. When the ore played out, some companies simply walked away.
In one example, Uranium Reduction Co. began processing ore from the Moab area's rich uranium ore deposits in the 1950s. In 1962, the company sold the mill to Atlas Minerals Corp., which ran it until declaring bankruptcy in 1998. The federal government took over the site in 2001.
Today a 94-foot tall pile of radioactive and toxic mill tailings covers 130 acres and holds 12 million tons of radioactive waste - about 750 feet from the third largest river in the West, three miles from Moab, less than a mile from Arches National Park and across the mouth of Moab Wash.
The unlined pile leaks an average of 57,000 gallons per day into the Colorado River upstream of Lake Mead, which supplies drinking and irrigation water to southern California, Las Vegas and parts of Arizona. Similar piles at 38 mill sites in the West - 22 of them abandoned - hold 140 million tons of radioactive tailings.
The story doesn't end with refining the ore. Producing reactor fuel involves a process that concentrates one form, or isotope, of uranium that can sustain a nuclear reaction. The leftovers, known as "depleted uranium," remain radioactive. About 750,000 tons of depleted uranium already awaits disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued warnings about disposing of large amounts of this material as "low level" waste - the current proposed practice.
Most industry supporters - who claim nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases - want to ship spent fuel from power plants, mainly in the eastern part of the country, by diesel-powered trains to a proposed waste disposal facility in Jackass Flats, Nev. - a site known as Yucca Mountain.
Niels S. Nokkentved has degrees in journalism and environmental studies and has worked as natural resource reporter for 20 years, including more than 12 years of covering nuclear waste issues at the Idaho National Laboratory.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/832976.html
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Kyl, McCain question Grand Canyon withdrawal bill in House
Comment: No uranium mining and milling anywhere!!Environment and Energy (DC)
By Eric Bontrager
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Arizona's two GOP senators are questioning whether a proposal from Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) to withdraw more than 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon from future uranium mining is necessary given similar legislation passed 25 years ago.
In a letter sent to the congressman earlier this week, Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl said they were concerned Grijalva's legislation may undermine existing and future energy development in the region by unraveling an agreement brokered in the early 1980s that has allowed "decades of balanced, responsible resource development and wilderness protection near Grand Canyon National Park."
Grijalva's legislation, H.R. 644, would prohibit new uranium leasing near 1.1 millions acres of land surrounding the park.
Mining activity on those lands, including areas in Kaibab National Forest and the House Rock Valley, are governed under the 1872 hardrock mining law, a law Grijalva claims provides neither adequate returns to the government for mined minerals nor mandates for any environmental protections.
But the senators said an agreement brokered between the mining industry and the environmental community by late House Interior Committee Chairman Morris Udall (D-Ariz.) that produced the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 was meant to achieve a balance between protection and development.
The legislation designated 290,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands and 834,000 acres of Forest Service lands near the park as wilderness, thereby protecting them from future mining operations.
The act, according to the letter, also provided for the release of 490,000 acres of BLM lands and 50,000 acres of Forest Service lands from wilderness study "with the full understanding and intention that this action would allow uranium mining on the Arizona Strop and the Kaibab National Forest."
They argued that while Grijalva's proposal would only apply to new mining claims, it would have a chilling effect on investment and financing for mining projects and could also make validation of existing mining claims in the area problematic.
But Mark Trautwein, who worked for Udall when he was chairman and was instrumental in the development of the 1984 bill, said the letter mischaracterizes the 1984 wilderness act and the work to get it passed.
He said that while there was some interest among wilderness opponents to include language in the bill that would have eased development on those lands released from wilderness designation, the late chairman resisted and the provisions were omitted.
Ultimately, the language in the bill -- and in most wilderness bills thereafter -- only released the tracts of land from wilderness study but did not exclude them from any other federal land management law, Trautwein said.
"To go back and now suggest that somehow that [Udall] or the wilderness act says he was party to this presumption that development would proceed, that future generations didn't have a right to debate what happens to those undesignated lands, is simply not correct," Trautwein said.
Roger Clark, air and energy program director for the Grand Canyon Trust, said comparing the Udall wilderness bill with Grijalva's proposal was irrelevant because while the 1984 legislation was a wilderness agreement, Grijalva's legislation is only focused on limiting new uranium development on certain public lands.
"The issue today doesn't have anything to do with wilderness, it has to deal with an exponential increase of [uranium] claims near the Grand Canyon," he said, noting that Grijalva's legislation would not prohibit other forms of minerals development. "It's apples and oranges."
More than 1,100 uranium mining claims have been filed for sites within 5 miles of the park in recent years as a result of high uranium prices, but Grijalva said in an interview that new mining near the Arizona icon could contaminate regional water systems in a way unforeseen when Udall moved the wilderness legislation.
"This was an understanding 25 years ago," Grijalva said. "The world has shifted, reality has shifted."
Grijalva said he plans to announce a markup for the bill before the end of the week but hopes the letter will not deter the Interior Department from completing a review the congressman requested of the lands proposed for withdrawal in the bill.
An Interior spokeswoman said the department is still reviewing the issue.
Kyl said yesterday that the ultimate goal of the letter was not to dissuade Grijalva from moving forward with his legislation, adding that he has not had conversations with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on the proposal.
"We're trying to find out what kind of reach [Grijalva] wants to impose here since there are areas far from the Grand Canyon that are being impacted by his proposal as we understand it," Kyle said. "Neither John McCain or I think that's appropriate."
Source URL (retrieved on 06/10/2009 - 10:42pm): http://www.leaveitwild.org/news/daily_clips/1814
http://www.leaveitwild.org/news/daily_clips/1814
In a letter sent to the congressman earlier this week, Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl said they were concerned Grijalva's legislation may undermine existing and future energy development in the region by unraveling an agreement brokered in the early 1980s that has allowed "decades of balanced, responsible resource development and wilderness protection near Grand Canyon National Park."
Grijalva's legislation, H.R. 644, would prohibit new uranium leasing near 1.1 millions acres of land surrounding the park.
Mining activity on those lands, including areas in Kaibab National Forest and the House Rock Valley, are governed under the 1872 hardrock mining law, a law Grijalva claims provides neither adequate returns to the government for mined minerals nor mandates for any environmental protections.
But the senators said an agreement brokered between the mining industry and the environmental community by late House Interior Committee Chairman Morris Udall (D-Ariz.) that produced the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 was meant to achieve a balance between protection and development.
The legislation designated 290,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands and 834,000 acres of Forest Service lands near the park as wilderness, thereby protecting them from future mining operations.
The act, according to the letter, also provided for the release of 490,000 acres of BLM lands and 50,000 acres of Forest Service lands from wilderness study "with the full understanding and intention that this action would allow uranium mining on the Arizona Strop and the Kaibab National Forest."
They argued that while Grijalva's proposal would only apply to new mining claims, it would have a chilling effect on investment and financing for mining projects and could also make validation of existing mining claims in the area problematic.
But Mark Trautwein, who worked for Udall when he was chairman and was instrumental in the development of the 1984 bill, said the letter mischaracterizes the 1984 wilderness act and the work to get it passed.
He said that while there was some interest among wilderness opponents to include language in the bill that would have eased development on those lands released from wilderness designation, the late chairman resisted and the provisions were omitted.
Ultimately, the language in the bill -- and in most wilderness bills thereafter -- only released the tracts of land from wilderness study but did not exclude them from any other federal land management law, Trautwein said.
"To go back and now suggest that somehow that [Udall] or the wilderness act says he was party to this presumption that development would proceed, that future generations didn't have a right to debate what happens to those undesignated lands, is simply not correct," Trautwein said.
Roger Clark, air and energy program director for the Grand Canyon Trust, said comparing the Udall wilderness bill with Grijalva's proposal was irrelevant because while the 1984 legislation was a wilderness agreement, Grijalva's legislation is only focused on limiting new uranium development on certain public lands.
"The issue today doesn't have anything to do with wilderness, it has to deal with an exponential increase of [uranium] claims near the Grand Canyon," he said, noting that Grijalva's legislation would not prohibit other forms of minerals development. "It's apples and oranges."
More than 1,100 uranium mining claims have been filed for sites within 5 miles of the park in recent years as a result of high uranium prices, but Grijalva said in an interview that new mining near the Arizona icon could contaminate regional water systems in a way unforeseen when Udall moved the wilderness legislation.
"This was an understanding 25 years ago," Grijalva said. "The world has shifted, reality has shifted."
Grijalva said he plans to announce a markup for the bill before the end of the week but hopes the letter will not deter the Interior Department from completing a review the congressman requested of the lands proposed for withdrawal in the bill.
An Interior spokeswoman said the department is still reviewing the issue.
Kyl said yesterday that the ultimate goal of the letter was not to dissuade Grijalva from moving forward with his legislation, adding that he has not had conversations with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on the proposal.
"We're trying to find out what kind of reach [Grijalva] wants to impose here since there are areas far from the Grand Canyon that are being impacted by his proposal as we understand it," Kyle said. "Neither John McCain or I think that's appropriate."
Source URL (retrieved on 06/10/2009 - 10:42pm): http://www.leaveitwild.org/news/daily_clips/1814
http://www.leaveitwild.org/news/daily_clips/1814
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Uranium exploration amendment on agenda
Comment: We have been following the group: TAC because they are fighting uranium mining too!!! Our battle of fighting uranium mining should include the west and maybe the whole east coast if most Va leaders have their way!!Publish Date: 6/1/2009
Panel to consider prohibiting mining
Debbie Bell
The Daily Record
Uranium exploration and mining again are on tap for the Fremont County Planning Commission.
Panel to consider prohibiting mining
Debbie Bell
The Daily Record
Uranium exploration and mining again are on tap for the Fremont County Planning Commission.
The panel will meet Tuesday evening in regular session with an agenda that includes a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Fremont County Master Plan that would prohibit mining in certain areas of the county.
The amendment, submitted by the Tallahassee Area Community group, would prohibit mining in the “Mountain District” of Fremont County. That area covers about 500 square miles in the northern part of the county and another 250 square miles in the south-central part of the county.
TAC formed last year to protest uranium exploration and possible future mining in the Tallahassee area northwest of Cañon City. Lee Alter, chairman of TAC’s government affairs committee, will represent the group in presenting the Master Plan amendment.
In addition to the three-page amendment submitted by TAC, the group also offered its rationale and justification why the amendment should be adopted.
The panel typically does not conduct formal public hearings, but because one of the panel’s charges is to help draft and update the Master Plan, the formal hearing was scheduled.
The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Commissioners Board Room, LL-3, at the County Administration Building, 615 Macon Ave.
http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=10746
The amendment, submitted by the Tallahassee Area Community group, would prohibit mining in the “Mountain District” of Fremont County. That area covers about 500 square miles in the northern part of the county and another 250 square miles in the south-central part of the county.
TAC formed last year to protest uranium exploration and possible future mining in the Tallahassee area northwest of Cañon City. Lee Alter, chairman of TAC’s government affairs committee, will represent the group in presenting the Master Plan amendment.
In addition to the three-page amendment submitted by TAC, the group also offered its rationale and justification why the amendment should be adopted.
The panel typically does not conduct formal public hearings, but because one of the panel’s charges is to help draft and update the Master Plan, the formal hearing was scheduled.
The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Commissioners Board Room, LL-3, at the County Administration Building, 615 Macon Ave.
http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=10746
Sunday, May 31, 2009
More on mining
By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: May 30, 2009
To the editor:
Denison Mines Corp., according its first-quarter report for 2009, showed a loss of $1.3 million and a loss of $80.6 million for the year according, to its 2008 annual report.
Why is that of interest to the residents of Danville and Pittsylvania County? Because Denison runs the only operating uranium milling plant in the United States. That mill, White Mesa, has been put on standby for the rest of 2009.
Denison Mines Corp., according to its corporate Web site, is also putting a number of its U.S. uranium mines on standby. The president and chief operating officer of Denison Mines Corp., Ron Hochstein, is quoted on various Web sites as stating the cost of processing conventional uranium ore is higher than the current spot price of uranium.
Hochstein is also chairman of the board of directors of Santoy Resources Ltd. which is the Canadian venture capital company currently in the process of merging with Virginia Uranium.
Some people have commented about the mining expertise the Canadian association would bring to the Coles Hill operation along with financing? A look at the financial reports on the Santoy site showed statements resembling those of Denison. Expertise does not necessarily bring financial rewards.
HILDRED SHELTON
Danville
http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/more_on_mining/11351/
Published: May 30, 2009
To the editor:
Denison Mines Corp., according its first-quarter report for 2009, showed a loss of $1.3 million and a loss of $80.6 million for the year according, to its 2008 annual report.
Why is that of interest to the residents of Danville and Pittsylvania County? Because Denison runs the only operating uranium milling plant in the United States. That mill, White Mesa, has been put on standby for the rest of 2009.
Denison Mines Corp., according to its corporate Web site, is also putting a number of its U.S. uranium mines on standby. The president and chief operating officer of Denison Mines Corp., Ron Hochstein, is quoted on various Web sites as stating the cost of processing conventional uranium ore is higher than the current spot price of uranium.
Hochstein is also chairman of the board of directors of Santoy Resources Ltd. which is the Canadian venture capital company currently in the process of merging with Virginia Uranium.
Some people have commented about the mining expertise the Canadian association would bring to the Coles Hill operation along with financing? A look at the financial reports on the Santoy site showed statements resembling those of Denison. Expertise does not necessarily bring financial rewards.
HILDRED SHELTON
Danville
http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/more_on_mining/11351/
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Uranium Study Set
Comment: The two articles are about the illegal uranium mining study in Virginia!
Uranium study set
The News & Record / May 25, 2009
More than a year after first being proposed, a scientific study of uranium mining in Virginia will soon get under way.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee on Thursday adopted a 11-point “Statement of Task” that set formal terms for a review of the environmental, economic and safety impacts of the proposed Coles Hill uranium mine near Chatham. The study, to be conducted by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, is expected to take two years.
The subcommittee vote broke a political logjam that had held up movement on a study, the first step in possibly overturning Virginia’s 25-year moratorium on uranium mining. After a study bill died in the General Assembly last year, legislators asked the Coal and Energy Commission to take over the task of setting the parameters for a review. Left unanswered after Thursday’s vote is who will pay for the study, expected to cost in excess of $1 million.
Advocates say the Coles Hill project will pump billions of dollars into the Southside economy and create hundreds of new jobs, but opponents warn that uranium mining will have devastating environmental and health impacts in the region and across Virginia.
About 100 people, mostly mining opponents, attended the subcommittee meeting in Richmond to express their concerns to legislators who make up the subcommittee. After listening to their input, the panel reordered the list of tasks to be presented to the National Research Council, asking that the group make public safety and health impacts the top priority of its study.
Previously, the lead topic on the subcommittee’s 11-point priority list was an analysis of global and national uranium market trends. But speakers implored members to make their first order of business determining whether mining can be done safely, without harm to Pittsylvania County and other parts of the Commonwealth.
“Your decisions will affect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the citizens of Virginia forever,” said Marshall Ecker, a Pittsylvania County supervisor who spoke at the meeting.
The subcommittee made a number of other changes defining the scope of the study, including adoption of a motion by Del. Watkins Abbitt (R-Appomattox) to review the public health and safety impacts of uranium mining operations similar to what is being proposed in Pittsylvania County.
However, the subcommittee rejected an Abbitt motion to study methods for storing uranium tailings, designed to keep mining wastes from leaking into nearby water sources.
Abbitt and Del. William Janis dissented in the 8-2 vote adopting the framework for the study. Janis opposed the motion after missing most of the debate due to a scheduling conflict. Abbitt said he could not vote for the study after his motion to analyze methods for tailings storage failed.
Reaction to the subcommittee’s decision was mixed. Patrick Wales, chief geologist for Virginia Uranium, Inc., which is seeking to mine the Coles Hill site, told subcommittee members Thursday that VUI is committed to mining uranium only if can be shown that it can be done safely.
In a follow-up interview with the Danville Register & Bee, Wales said VUI was “very gratified” after Thursday’s vote. “An independent study of uranium mining and milling has been the one thing we’ve been proposing since the inception of our company,” Wales told the newspaper.
Katie Whitehead, chair of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, issued a follow-up statement saying that “(t)he best news of the day was unanimous approval of Del. Abbitt’s amendment” to study uranium deposits elsewhere in the world similar to the Pittsylvania County site.
Whitehead also said it was “noteworthy” that “subcommittee members expressed concern about potential government ownership and financial liability after closure of a mining operation or in the event of a business failure,” although members did not include that concern in the written list of study topics.
An outspoken opponent of uranium mining, Karen Maute of Chatham, said she skipped the subcommittee meeting because “everything I’ve read ... says this just brings us a step closer to mining, and I believe that.
“I think it’s being used as a way to legitimize uranium mining in Virginia,” said Maute. “It’s stupid to even consider mining uranium in Virginia ... The facts are out there that this is not going to beneficial — it’s not been beneficial anywhere it’s been done,” she said.
Uranium study set
The News & Record / May 25, 2009
More than a year after first being proposed, a scientific study of uranium mining in Virginia will soon get under way.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee on Thursday adopted a 11-point “Statement of Task” that set formal terms for a review of the environmental, economic and safety impacts of the proposed Coles Hill uranium mine near Chatham. The study, to be conducted by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, is expected to take two years.
The subcommittee vote broke a political logjam that had held up movement on a study, the first step in possibly overturning Virginia’s 25-year moratorium on uranium mining. After a study bill died in the General Assembly last year, legislators asked the Coal and Energy Commission to take over the task of setting the parameters for a review. Left unanswered after Thursday’s vote is who will pay for the study, expected to cost in excess of $1 million.
Advocates say the Coles Hill project will pump billions of dollars into the Southside economy and create hundreds of new jobs, but opponents warn that uranium mining will have devastating environmental and health impacts in the region and across Virginia.
About 100 people, mostly mining opponents, attended the subcommittee meeting in Richmond to express their concerns to legislators who make up the subcommittee. After listening to their input, the panel reordered the list of tasks to be presented to the National Research Council, asking that the group make public safety and health impacts the top priority of its study.
Previously, the lead topic on the subcommittee’s 11-point priority list was an analysis of global and national uranium market trends. But speakers implored members to make their first order of business determining whether mining can be done safely, without harm to Pittsylvania County and other parts of the Commonwealth.
“Your decisions will affect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the citizens of Virginia forever,” said Marshall Ecker, a Pittsylvania County supervisor who spoke at the meeting.
The subcommittee made a number of other changes defining the scope of the study, including adoption of a motion by Del. Watkins Abbitt (R-Appomattox) to review the public health and safety impacts of uranium mining operations similar to what is being proposed in Pittsylvania County.
However, the subcommittee rejected an Abbitt motion to study methods for storing uranium tailings, designed to keep mining wastes from leaking into nearby water sources.
Abbitt and Del. William Janis dissented in the 8-2 vote adopting the framework for the study. Janis opposed the motion after missing most of the debate due to a scheduling conflict. Abbitt said he could not vote for the study after his motion to analyze methods for tailings storage failed.
Reaction to the subcommittee’s decision was mixed. Patrick Wales, chief geologist for Virginia Uranium, Inc., which is seeking to mine the Coles Hill site, told subcommittee members Thursday that VUI is committed to mining uranium only if can be shown that it can be done safely.
In a follow-up interview with the Danville Register & Bee, Wales said VUI was “very gratified” after Thursday’s vote. “An independent study of uranium mining and milling has been the one thing we’ve been proposing since the inception of our company,” Wales told the newspaper.
Katie Whitehead, chair of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, issued a follow-up statement saying that “(t)he best news of the day was unanimous approval of Del. Abbitt’s amendment” to study uranium deposits elsewhere in the world similar to the Pittsylvania County site.
Whitehead also said it was “noteworthy” that “subcommittee members expressed concern about potential government ownership and financial liability after closure of a mining operation or in the event of a business failure,” although members did not include that concern in the written list of study topics.
An outspoken opponent of uranium mining, Karen Maute of Chatham, said she skipped the subcommittee meeting because “everything I’ve read ... says this just brings us a step closer to mining, and I believe that.
“I think it’s being used as a way to legitimize uranium mining in Virginia,” said Maute. “It’s stupid to even consider mining uranium in Virginia ... The facts are out there that this is not going to beneficial — it’s not been beneficial anywhere it’s been done,” she said.
Virginia OKs uranium mining study
A proposal to mine uranium in south-central Virginia advanced this week when a key state body approved a study of the matter. The targeted site is in Virginia’s Pittsylvania County just north of the city of Danville and close to the border with North Carolina’s Rockingham and Caswell counties.
A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy OK’d the study yesterday after deciding on exactly what issues should be examined, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports:
Some opponents asked the panel to vote against the study, hoping that would kill the mining proposal.
But state Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, a member of the subcommittee, said approval of the study did not mean approval of mining in Pittsylvania.
“That decision is a long way down the road,” Watkins said.
The panel will look at mining’s effects on people’s health and ecosystems, identify pollution issues and review current mining regulations. But it denied a request by Del. Watkins M. Abbitt Jr. (I-Appomattox) to consider how water pollution specifically might be prevented. The subcommittee’s chair, Del. Lee R. Ware Jr. (R-Powhatan) argued that the study already included that issue.
The study, which will be conducted by the U.S. National Research Council, is expected to cost $1.5 million and last about 18 months. It remains unclear how the work will be funded, according to the paper.
As Facing South reported previously, Virginia has banned uranium mining for the past 25 years. Virginia Uranium—a privately-held company formed several years ago by the owners of the land where the uranium was found—has been pressing to get the ban lifted. To that end, Virginia Uranium contributed almost $30,000 to state lawmakers last year alone.
The Pittsylvania County site is believed to hold the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the United States and the seventh-largest in the world. It holds an estimated 60,000 tons—enough uranium to power all the commercial nuclear plants in the country for about two years. The company estimates its value at about $10 billion.
While the company has maintained that the uranium could be mined safety, uranium mining has a history of causing serious environmental health problems, having been linked to chromosome abnormalities, birth defects and cancer in communities from Texas to Germany.
Uranium mining also poses a serious threat to drinking water. In 1979, for example, a dam holding uranium mining waste at a New Mexico facility owned by the Virginia-based United Nuclear Corp. burst, sending more than 1,100 tons of toxic discards and 90 million gallons of contaminated water into the Rio Puerco. Once an important drinking water source for nearby Navajo communities, the river remains dangerously contaminated today.
Officials in Virginia Beach are among those opposing the uranium mining plans. They have noted that a tropical storm or hurricane could breach the mine’s waste impoundment and pollute downstream water bodies including Lake Gaston, the city’s drinking-water source.
(This story originally appeared at Facing South) http://www.grist.org/article/virginia-oks-uranium-mining-study/
A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy OK’d the study yesterday after deciding on exactly what issues should be examined, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports:
Some opponents asked the panel to vote against the study, hoping that would kill the mining proposal.
But state Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, a member of the subcommittee, said approval of the study did not mean approval of mining in Pittsylvania.
“That decision is a long way down the road,” Watkins said.
The panel will look at mining’s effects on people’s health and ecosystems, identify pollution issues and review current mining regulations. But it denied a request by Del. Watkins M. Abbitt Jr. (I-Appomattox) to consider how water pollution specifically might be prevented. The subcommittee’s chair, Del. Lee R. Ware Jr. (R-Powhatan) argued that the study already included that issue.
The study, which will be conducted by the U.S. National Research Council, is expected to cost $1.5 million and last about 18 months. It remains unclear how the work will be funded, according to the paper.
As Facing South reported previously, Virginia has banned uranium mining for the past 25 years. Virginia Uranium—a privately-held company formed several years ago by the owners of the land where the uranium was found—has been pressing to get the ban lifted. To that end, Virginia Uranium contributed almost $30,000 to state lawmakers last year alone.
The Pittsylvania County site is believed to hold the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the United States and the seventh-largest in the world. It holds an estimated 60,000 tons—enough uranium to power all the commercial nuclear plants in the country for about two years. The company estimates its value at about $10 billion.
While the company has maintained that the uranium could be mined safety, uranium mining has a history of causing serious environmental health problems, having been linked to chromosome abnormalities, birth defects and cancer in communities from Texas to Germany.
Uranium mining also poses a serious threat to drinking water. In 1979, for example, a dam holding uranium mining waste at a New Mexico facility owned by the Virginia-based United Nuclear Corp. burst, sending more than 1,100 tons of toxic discards and 90 million gallons of contaminated water into the Rio Puerco. Once an important drinking water source for nearby Navajo communities, the river remains dangerously contaminated today.
Officials in Virginia Beach are among those opposing the uranium mining plans. They have noted that a tropical storm or hurricane could breach the mine’s waste impoundment and pollute downstream water bodies including Lake Gaston, the city’s drinking-water source.
(This story originally appeared at Facing South) http://www.grist.org/article/virginia-oks-uranium-mining-study/
Ritter to receive letters of concern about mining operation
Staff reports,
Clean Water Action, a Colorado environmental group, on Wednesday will deliver 1,500 hand-written letters from Fort Collins residents to Gov. Bill Ritter in support of a strict rulemaking process for mining.
The residents are concerned about safety because they live near the site of a proposed uranium mining operation. The mine is proposed by Canadian company Powertech, which has been actively drilling test holes and plans to apply for a uranium mining permit in 2009.
Colorado’s rulemaking process on mining was enacted into law during the 2008 legislative session. The first “stakeholders meeting for the rulemaking process will be Wednesday afternoon in Denver.
“The governor needs to know that Fort Collins citizens are seriously threatened by this uranium mine,” Gary Wockner, of Clean Water Action, said in a statement. “He needs to see the letters and feel the concern of the people who wrote them.”
Residents are concerned about potential groundwater contamination, negative impacts to property, long-term impacts of nuclear energy and other issues related to the leach uranium mine.
http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090526/NEWS/905269981/1051&ParentProfile=1001&template=printart
Clean Water Action, a Colorado environmental group, on Wednesday will deliver 1,500 hand-written letters from Fort Collins residents to Gov. Bill Ritter in support of a strict rulemaking process for mining.
The residents are concerned about safety because they live near the site of a proposed uranium mining operation. The mine is proposed by Canadian company Powertech, which has been actively drilling test holes and plans to apply for a uranium mining permit in 2009.
Colorado’s rulemaking process on mining was enacted into law during the 2008 legislative session. The first “stakeholders meeting for the rulemaking process will be Wednesday afternoon in Denver.
“The governor needs to know that Fort Collins citizens are seriously threatened by this uranium mine,” Gary Wockner, of Clean Water Action, said in a statement. “He needs to see the letters and feel the concern of the people who wrote them.”
Residents are concerned about potential groundwater contamination, negative impacts to property, long-term impacts of nuclear energy and other issues related to the leach uranium mine.
http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090526/NEWS/905269981/1051&ParentProfile=1001&template=printart
Santoy Announces Virginia Uranium Plan of Arrangement Approved
Comment: No uranium mining & milling!!!Santoy Announces Virginia Uranium Plan of Arrangement Approved
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Santoy Resources Ltd. (TSX.V: SAN): is pleased to announce that shareholders have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a business combination by way of a statutory plan of arrangement involving the Company and Virginia Uranium Ltd. at the Company's Annual & Special Meeting on May 21st in Vancouver ((initial transaction announced in a news release dated Dec. 22, 2008). Virginia Uranium Ltd. owns an interest in the Coles Hill Uranium Deposit, located in southern Virginia. Coles Hill is considered to be one of the largest undeveloped uranium deposits in the United States. It has an estimated measured and indicated resource of 119 million pounds of U308 at a cut-off grade of 0.025 per cent U308 based on a National Instrument 43-101 technical report on the Coles Hill property prepared for Santoy by Behre Dolbear and Company Ltd., Marshall Miller and Associates Inc., and PAC Geological Consulting Inc., dated Feb. 2, 2009 and revised April 29, 2009. This report is available on SEDAR and on Santoy's website at www.santoy.ca
Virginia Uranium Ltd. shareholders have also simultaneously voted overwhelmingly in favour of the business combination with Santoy. The final closing of this transaction is expected mid-June, 2009.
At this same meeting, Santoy shareholders also voted in favour of management's proposed slate of directors, being Ron Hochstein, P. Eng. (chairman); Ron Netolitzky, M.Sc. (CEO); Pat Barry, CFP; Robert Ingram, CA; William James, B.Sc.; and Robert Matthews, CA. The ratification of the Company's "rolling" stock option plan, re-appointment of Smythe Radcliffe as auditors, a potential consolidation of the outstanding shares at the discretion of the Board of Directors and a continuance of the corporation from the Province of Alberta to the Province of British Columbia were also approved.
http://www.yournuclearnews.com/santoy+announces+virginia+uranium+plan+of+arrangement+approved_33176.html
Virginia Uranium Ltd. shareholders have also simultaneously voted overwhelmingly in favour of the business combination with Santoy. The final closing of this transaction is expected mid-June, 2009.
At this same meeting, Santoy shareholders also voted in favour of management's proposed slate of directors, being Ron Hochstein, P. Eng. (chairman); Ron Netolitzky, M.Sc. (CEO); Pat Barry, CFP; Robert Ingram, CA; William James, B.Sc.; and Robert Matthews, CA. The ratification of the Company's "rolling" stock option plan, re-appointment of Smythe Radcliffe as auditors, a potential consolidation of the outstanding shares at the discretion of the Board of Directors and a continuance of the corporation from the Province of Alberta to the Province of British Columbia were also approved.
http://www.yournuclearnews.com/santoy+announces+virginia+uranium+plan+of+arrangement+approved_33176.html
Monday, May 25, 2009
Renewable energy at home
Comment: People of Virginia, turn to True Green Power, Nuke Power is not green or an alternative energy, Uranium is not green or renewable!!! No Nuke Power, No Uranium Mining!
Radhika ReddyGo to Radhika's Home Page
Portland DIY Environmentalism Examiner
May 24, 2:57 PM
Earth wind and fire: the state of renewable energy and how to bring it home.
In case you haven’t heard, fossil fuels are dirty, dangerous, dwindling, and frankly, kind of uncool. Although the door to traditional carbon-based energy sources is far from closed, the door to green technologies has blown wide open in recent years. Seven percent of US power came from renewable sources in 2007—mainly biomass (biofuels) and hydroelectric. But solar, wind, geothermal, and wave energy are moving up and shaking up the business-as-usual mind set of the energy sector. Here’s a peeping tom’s glance at the power and potential of naked energy.
Here Comes the Sun…
Solar energy has been in use since before the first sea creature sprouted legs and walked on land. Plants use the sun to turn carbon dioxide into food. Your grandparents probably used it turn wet clothes into dry ones. But beyond its conventional function as a direct heat and light source, the potential for solar energy is enormous. One hour of sunlight hitting the earth is commonly estimated to contain enough energy to meet global demand for an entire year.
As interest in alternative energy grows, so do methods for harnessing and delivering it. Once thought too expensive to be practical, solar energy gets cheaper with each passing year of technology development. McKinsey & Company, an international management consulting firm dealing in energy, projects the unsubsidized cost of solar energy is a scant three to seven years away from “grid parity”—that is to rival the affordability of traditional energy sources.
Sunlight is energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Much like a beach can be broken down into individual particles of sand, the basic unit of electromagnetic radiation is the photon. A photovoltaic (PV) cell, or solar cell, is a sheet of light-absorbing material which converts photons into electricity through a process called the photovoltaic effect. When photons from sunlight are absorbed into a solar cell, they displace a stream of electrons and generate direct current (DC) electricity which can be stored or funneled into the power grid.
Although the first solar cell was created in the late 1800s from selenium and gold, it was the accidental discovery of silicon’s light absorbing properties in the 1950s which inspired solar power technology as we know it. Solar cell efficiency is determined by its ability to collect photons and by how much electricity can be harnessed from each of those photons. Science fictionesque inventions, ranging from solar cell balloons to grids of solar panels in space which beam energy back to earth in the form of microwaves, are promising but years away from making a practical contribution to the grid.
More immediate technologies, such as higher efficiency light absorbing materials, cells which adjust their position according to the changing angle of the sun, and sun concentrating cell designs, are bringing costs down. Despite these advancements, the US Department of Energy (DOE) reports that photovoltaic power plants made up less than one percent of renewable contributions to the total energy supply in 2007.
While its commercial impact has been modest, solar energy has great potential for a motivated consumer. Solar powered calculators or solar kits to charge cell phones, MP3 players, and other portable devices already enjoy widespread use. On a grander scale, hardwiring a new home with a 2.5 kilowatt solar power system would add $13,000 to $15,000 to the cost of a California home, according to online technology forum, cnet.com. This translates to $105 per month on a 30-year mortgage at 6.75 percent and would meet 30–60 percent of the average household’s energy needs. The increased housing payment would be offset by reduced utility payments.
Retrofitting an existing home with solar power is also possible. A three-part series on the PBS television program Nova documented the conversion of a 1960s southern California house into a zero energy home (excluding cooking gas). After incentive and tax rebates, the total cost of going solar was $43,000. The homeowners estimate that they will make their money back in seven years of saved energy bills and auto fuel. Furthermore, their unused energy is funneled back into the southern California power grid, earning the owners $200–$300 a year in credit.
Blowin’ in the Wind …
Man has been using wind as his workhorse for over a millennium. As early as the ninth century, vertical-axle windmills were used to grind grains and siphon water in Persia. Modern versions of these were seen in Europe toward the end of the twelfth century. The latest descendent of the windmill, the wind turbine, is popping up all over the world as a legitimate source of renewable energy.
Airplane-wing technology has made modern turbine propeller blades more efficient than their predecessors. Additionally, the turbines are mechanized to turn to face the wind, further improving energy collection. Current models are able to harness about 50 percent of the energy in wind, rapidly approaching the 59 percent theoretical limit. Most appealingly, wind farms require no fuel and have zero emissions. Wind’s major drawback, like solar, is its dependency on the weather. Power cannot be generated when wind is not blowing. In addition, stronger winds are generally found far from cities where it is needed the most.
To the average consumer this means a commercial turbine producing two megawatts (MW) costs $3.5 million. Its smaller 10 kilowatt (kW) cousin is strong enough to power an average household and will set you back $40,000 to $70,000. But even the residential variety turbine is not something an urban dweller could simply plant in their postage-stamp-sized backyard. The 10 kW model sold by the Oklahoma-based Bergey Windpower Company is 23 feet in diameter and installed on an 80–100 foot tower. Such a behemoth structure would be restricted by most urban zoning laws. Other cons include noise pollution and a questionable aesthetic. However if you have a lot of space and an agreeable neighborhood association, it’s an option worth considering. Over its estimated life span of 30 years, a residential turbine will save Mother Earth from 1.2 tons of air pollutants and 200 tons of greenhouse gases. To seriously consider this option, look into your local zoning regulations.
US wind use pales in comparison to that of Denmark and Spain, whose wind power respectively accounts for 20 percent and 10 percent of their energy consumption.
The American Wind Energy Association reports wind accounting for 1 percent of US energy in 2008, serving the equivalent of 4.5 million American households. The market hasn’t even skimmed the surface of its potential according to a recent Stanford University report claiming that wind contains enough energy to meet global demand 35 times over. And to these kinds of numbers governments are starting to listen. The European Union hopes wind power will meet 20 percent of its energy needs by 2020—a benchmark the US Department of Energy (DOE) wants to meet by 2030.
And it burns, burns, burns, burns…
The burning core of our planet is the root of geothermal power, which uses heat stored beneath the earth’s surface. The deeper you go, the hotter it gets, peaking at a scorching 9932° F at the core. Archeologists suspect that geothermal heat has been used by humans for a many as 10,000 years. Indigenous populations used North American hot springs for bathing and therapeutic purposes.
In 1904 a modern incarnation of this technology took the form of a generator built on a dry steam field by the Italian Prince Conti. Although his invention illuminated only four light bulbs, the concept evolved into the first industrial geothermal power plant. In 1922 American John Grant powered his famous Californian resort, The Geysers, with a geothermal plant. The plant became defunct but was later redeveloped and is now home to 21 geothermal plants. Although The Geysers pumps out 750 MW of energy, geothermal accounts for less than 1 percent of American energy. More impressive international success stories include the Philippines, whose government reports 27 percent of its energy coming from geothermal.
Geothermal plants are diverse in their specific technologies. The most common binary-cycle type uses hot geothermal water to vaporize a second fluid with a lower boiling point. The resulting steam drives an energy-harvesting turbine. Because water is depleted, this is not technically a renewable resource. However water loss can be managed with methods like reinjection into the ground. The Geysers uses treated sewage water from nearby Santa Rosa, simultaneously creating renewability and providing a solution for city waste. A 2007 Wall Street Journal article reports geothermal plants leave smaller footprints than even solar or wind plants. Carbon emissions weigh in around 10 percent of those produced by typical coal-burning plant, according to one EPA report. Perhaps most attractive, geothermal energy is available irrespective of weather the wind blows or the sun shines.
Given the offset of the water consumption by the other green features, the technology is included in the green category, getting favorable nods from environmental advocacy groups such as Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Like wind and solar, geothermal offers consumers a residential option in the form of heat pumps, specifically ground-source heat pumps (GHPs). They capitalize on the constant and moderate temperature of the Earth’s surface. Regardless of sweltering or frigid weather forecasts, the majority of the planet maintains a constant 50–60° F in its first three meters underground.
GHPs work via water-filled pipes running below the frost line which transfer the Earth’s heat to a pump. This pump extracts heat and delivers it to the home through air ducts. Some GHPs use this technology in reverse to cool in the summertime and still others can also provide residential hot water.
The efficiency of the system relative to air source systems comes first from the use of water, which gains and loses heat more efficiently than air. The second point of efficiency comes from the nature of ground water temperatures, which tend to be more moderate than air temperatures during the hot summer or cold winter.
In spite of the electricity required to operate the pump, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that GHPs can reduce energy consumption by up to 70 percent of traditional residential heating methods. The US DOE reports a typical GHP installation will pay for itself in five to ten years via energy-bill savings. Although GHPs can be installed in both new and existing houses, retrofitting may not be possible in homes whose ductwork is incompatible with the system. Tips for installation are available at the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy agency’s website:
Catch a Wave and You’re Sitting on Top of the World …
Lagging behind the renewable energy pack is wave power. Like geothermal, wind, and solar, the ocean’s waves have enough power to meet global energy demands and then some. Nonetheless, commercial wave farms didn’t appear until late 2007 off the coast of Portugal.
Steven Salter, a Scottish engineer, developed the first wave generator in the mid 1970s. The invention was a string of large canisters, called Salter’s Duck, tethered to the ocean floor. A generator and hydraulics extracted electricity from the wave-powered rocking motion of these canisters.
Though technological refinements made wave power price-competitive with nuclear power, by the early 1980s the British government shut down the project without ever testing the Salter’s Duck in the open ocean. Some believe this decision was influenced by nuclear industry lobbyists.
Building off Salter’s ideas, the current Portuguese installment makes use of wave-powered undulations with flexible horizontal pipe. The resulting displacement of hydraulic fluid at the pipes’ hinges drives an energy-collecting turbine. Another technology, called the AquabuOY, is in development off the coast of California. The AquabuOY is a vertical tube whose wave powered bouncing pressurizes water and drives a turbine.
Major obstacles in wave technology development include designing hardware that can withstand the physical assault of ocean storms, transporting equipment to the open sea, and transporting power from the wave farms back to the grid. Environmental concerns include possible hydraulic fluid leaks and disturbance of marine life—neither of which are insurmountable barriers. Wave power is a relatively young technology and like any child, its potential for growth is still untapped.
So whether it comes on a wave, from the ground, through the air, or from the sun, it’s clear that the benefits of getting naked (with energy that is) are many. A future with renewable, sustainable energy foretells an economy without dependence on foreign oil and with the potential to actually export energy. Add to the mix the creation of new and better quality jobs (maybe it’s time to hang up the dangerous coal miner hats?) and a cleaner, safer environment and the potential is as clear as the air that we might someday breathe.
http://www.examiner.com/x-8364-Portland-DIY-Environmentalism-Examiner~y2009m5d24-Renewable-energy-at-home
Portland DIY Environmentalism Examiner
May 24, 2:57 PM
Earth wind and fire: the state of renewable energy and how to bring it home.
In case you haven’t heard, fossil fuels are dirty, dangerous, dwindling, and frankly, kind of uncool. Although the door to traditional carbon-based energy sources is far from closed, the door to green technologies has blown wide open in recent years. Seven percent of US power came from renewable sources in 2007—mainly biomass (biofuels) and hydroelectric. But solar, wind, geothermal, and wave energy are moving up and shaking up the business-as-usual mind set of the energy sector. Here’s a peeping tom’s glance at the power and potential of naked energy.
Here Comes the Sun…
Solar energy has been in use since before the first sea creature sprouted legs and walked on land. Plants use the sun to turn carbon dioxide into food. Your grandparents probably used it turn wet clothes into dry ones. But beyond its conventional function as a direct heat and light source, the potential for solar energy is enormous. One hour of sunlight hitting the earth is commonly estimated to contain enough energy to meet global demand for an entire year.
As interest in alternative energy grows, so do methods for harnessing and delivering it. Once thought too expensive to be practical, solar energy gets cheaper with each passing year of technology development. McKinsey & Company, an international management consulting firm dealing in energy, projects the unsubsidized cost of solar energy is a scant three to seven years away from “grid parity”—that is to rival the affordability of traditional energy sources.
Sunlight is energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Much like a beach can be broken down into individual particles of sand, the basic unit of electromagnetic radiation is the photon. A photovoltaic (PV) cell, or solar cell, is a sheet of light-absorbing material which converts photons into electricity through a process called the photovoltaic effect. When photons from sunlight are absorbed into a solar cell, they displace a stream of electrons and generate direct current (DC) electricity which can be stored or funneled into the power grid.
Although the first solar cell was created in the late 1800s from selenium and gold, it was the accidental discovery of silicon’s light absorbing properties in the 1950s which inspired solar power technology as we know it. Solar cell efficiency is determined by its ability to collect photons and by how much electricity can be harnessed from each of those photons. Science fictionesque inventions, ranging from solar cell balloons to grids of solar panels in space which beam energy back to earth in the form of microwaves, are promising but years away from making a practical contribution to the grid.
More immediate technologies, such as higher efficiency light absorbing materials, cells which adjust their position according to the changing angle of the sun, and sun concentrating cell designs, are bringing costs down. Despite these advancements, the US Department of Energy (DOE) reports that photovoltaic power plants made up less than one percent of renewable contributions to the total energy supply in 2007.
While its commercial impact has been modest, solar energy has great potential for a motivated consumer. Solar powered calculators or solar kits to charge cell phones, MP3 players, and other portable devices already enjoy widespread use. On a grander scale, hardwiring a new home with a 2.5 kilowatt solar power system would add $13,000 to $15,000 to the cost of a California home, according to online technology forum, cnet.com. This translates to $105 per month on a 30-year mortgage at 6.75 percent and would meet 30–60 percent of the average household’s energy needs. The increased housing payment would be offset by reduced utility payments.
Retrofitting an existing home with solar power is also possible. A three-part series on the PBS television program Nova documented the conversion of a 1960s southern California house into a zero energy home (excluding cooking gas). After incentive and tax rebates, the total cost of going solar was $43,000. The homeowners estimate that they will make their money back in seven years of saved energy bills and auto fuel. Furthermore, their unused energy is funneled back into the southern California power grid, earning the owners $200–$300 a year in credit.
Blowin’ in the Wind …
Man has been using wind as his workhorse for over a millennium. As early as the ninth century, vertical-axle windmills were used to grind grains and siphon water in Persia. Modern versions of these were seen in Europe toward the end of the twelfth century. The latest descendent of the windmill, the wind turbine, is popping up all over the world as a legitimate source of renewable energy.
Airplane-wing technology has made modern turbine propeller blades more efficient than their predecessors. Additionally, the turbines are mechanized to turn to face the wind, further improving energy collection. Current models are able to harness about 50 percent of the energy in wind, rapidly approaching the 59 percent theoretical limit. Most appealingly, wind farms require no fuel and have zero emissions. Wind’s major drawback, like solar, is its dependency on the weather. Power cannot be generated when wind is not blowing. In addition, stronger winds are generally found far from cities where it is needed the most.
To the average consumer this means a commercial turbine producing two megawatts (MW) costs $3.5 million. Its smaller 10 kilowatt (kW) cousin is strong enough to power an average household and will set you back $40,000 to $70,000. But even the residential variety turbine is not something an urban dweller could simply plant in their postage-stamp-sized backyard. The 10 kW model sold by the Oklahoma-based Bergey Windpower Company is 23 feet in diameter and installed on an 80–100 foot tower. Such a behemoth structure would be restricted by most urban zoning laws. Other cons include noise pollution and a questionable aesthetic. However if you have a lot of space and an agreeable neighborhood association, it’s an option worth considering. Over its estimated life span of 30 years, a residential turbine will save Mother Earth from 1.2 tons of air pollutants and 200 tons of greenhouse gases. To seriously consider this option, look into your local zoning regulations.
US wind use pales in comparison to that of Denmark and Spain, whose wind power respectively accounts for 20 percent and 10 percent of their energy consumption.
The American Wind Energy Association reports wind accounting for 1 percent of US energy in 2008, serving the equivalent of 4.5 million American households. The market hasn’t even skimmed the surface of its potential according to a recent Stanford University report claiming that wind contains enough energy to meet global demand 35 times over. And to these kinds of numbers governments are starting to listen. The European Union hopes wind power will meet 20 percent of its energy needs by 2020—a benchmark the US Department of Energy (DOE) wants to meet by 2030.
And it burns, burns, burns, burns…
The burning core of our planet is the root of geothermal power, which uses heat stored beneath the earth’s surface. The deeper you go, the hotter it gets, peaking at a scorching 9932° F at the core. Archeologists suspect that geothermal heat has been used by humans for a many as 10,000 years. Indigenous populations used North American hot springs for bathing and therapeutic purposes.
In 1904 a modern incarnation of this technology took the form of a generator built on a dry steam field by the Italian Prince Conti. Although his invention illuminated only four light bulbs, the concept evolved into the first industrial geothermal power plant. In 1922 American John Grant powered his famous Californian resort, The Geysers, with a geothermal plant. The plant became defunct but was later redeveloped and is now home to 21 geothermal plants. Although The Geysers pumps out 750 MW of energy, geothermal accounts for less than 1 percent of American energy. More impressive international success stories include the Philippines, whose government reports 27 percent of its energy coming from geothermal.
Geothermal plants are diverse in their specific technologies. The most common binary-cycle type uses hot geothermal water to vaporize a second fluid with a lower boiling point. The resulting steam drives an energy-harvesting turbine. Because water is depleted, this is not technically a renewable resource. However water loss can be managed with methods like reinjection into the ground. The Geysers uses treated sewage water from nearby Santa Rosa, simultaneously creating renewability and providing a solution for city waste. A 2007 Wall Street Journal article reports geothermal plants leave smaller footprints than even solar or wind plants. Carbon emissions weigh in around 10 percent of those produced by typical coal-burning plant, according to one EPA report. Perhaps most attractive, geothermal energy is available irrespective of weather the wind blows or the sun shines.
Given the offset of the water consumption by the other green features, the technology is included in the green category, getting favorable nods from environmental advocacy groups such as Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Like wind and solar, geothermal offers consumers a residential option in the form of heat pumps, specifically ground-source heat pumps (GHPs). They capitalize on the constant and moderate temperature of the Earth’s surface. Regardless of sweltering or frigid weather forecasts, the majority of the planet maintains a constant 50–60° F in its first three meters underground.
GHPs work via water-filled pipes running below the frost line which transfer the Earth’s heat to a pump. This pump extracts heat and delivers it to the home through air ducts. Some GHPs use this technology in reverse to cool in the summertime and still others can also provide residential hot water.
The efficiency of the system relative to air source systems comes first from the use of water, which gains and loses heat more efficiently than air. The second point of efficiency comes from the nature of ground water temperatures, which tend to be more moderate than air temperatures during the hot summer or cold winter.
In spite of the electricity required to operate the pump, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that GHPs can reduce energy consumption by up to 70 percent of traditional residential heating methods. The US DOE reports a typical GHP installation will pay for itself in five to ten years via energy-bill savings. Although GHPs can be installed in both new and existing houses, retrofitting may not be possible in homes whose ductwork is incompatible with the system. Tips for installation are available at the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy agency’s website:
Catch a Wave and You’re Sitting on Top of the World …
Lagging behind the renewable energy pack is wave power. Like geothermal, wind, and solar, the ocean’s waves have enough power to meet global energy demands and then some. Nonetheless, commercial wave farms didn’t appear until late 2007 off the coast of Portugal.
Steven Salter, a Scottish engineer, developed the first wave generator in the mid 1970s. The invention was a string of large canisters, called Salter’s Duck, tethered to the ocean floor. A generator and hydraulics extracted electricity from the wave-powered rocking motion of these canisters.
Though technological refinements made wave power price-competitive with nuclear power, by the early 1980s the British government shut down the project without ever testing the Salter’s Duck in the open ocean. Some believe this decision was influenced by nuclear industry lobbyists.
Building off Salter’s ideas, the current Portuguese installment makes use of wave-powered undulations with flexible horizontal pipe. The resulting displacement of hydraulic fluid at the pipes’ hinges drives an energy-collecting turbine. Another technology, called the AquabuOY, is in development off the coast of California. The AquabuOY is a vertical tube whose wave powered bouncing pressurizes water and drives a turbine.
Major obstacles in wave technology development include designing hardware that can withstand the physical assault of ocean storms, transporting equipment to the open sea, and transporting power from the wave farms back to the grid. Environmental concerns include possible hydraulic fluid leaks and disturbance of marine life—neither of which are insurmountable barriers. Wave power is a relatively young technology and like any child, its potential for growth is still untapped.
So whether it comes on a wave, from the ground, through the air, or from the sun, it’s clear that the benefits of getting naked (with energy that is) are many. A future with renewable, sustainable energy foretells an economy without dependence on foreign oil and with the potential to actually export energy. Add to the mix the creation of new and better quality jobs (maybe it’s time to hang up the dangerous coal miner hats?) and a cleaner, safer environment and the potential is as clear as the air that we might someday breathe.
http://www.examiner.com/x-8364-Portland-DIY-Environmentalism-Examiner~y2009m5d24-Renewable-energy-at-home
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Public to weigh in on uranium mill permit
Comment: does the nuke people see things different than most folks, yes they only see money, greed and love to ruin people lives and land!!!!!
Public to weigh in on uranium mill permit
Montrose County to hold public hearing for Energy Fuels
Published: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:07 AM CDT
D. Dion
‘Speak now or forever hold your peace’ is the traditional line from a wedding ceremony, and as Montrose County braces for its possible marriage with a uranium mill that will affect the land for generations to come, it is time for citizens to speak their minds about the proposed project.
The public hearing on May 19, from 5-10 p.m., will be the first opportunity residents have to express their opinions about the mill to local officials. The meeting will start with a report by Montrose County planning director Steve White, followed by a presentation by Energy Fuels about the project, after which the public will be heard. This hearing in front of the planning commission is just an initial step in the process, before the commission makes a recommendation to the Montrose County Board of Commissioners. There will be another public hearing at which the commissioners will render a decision about the mill’s permit.
“This is the first of the public hearings,” says White. “It has to go to the county commissioners after the planning commission makes a recommendation.”
The West End Advisory Planning Committee is serving in an advisory role to the planning commission through the permit application process. The committee has members who live in the Paradox area where the mill is being proposed, and will help represent the western end of Montrose County.
There is a sharp division in local sentiment about the proposed mill. While some people are anxious for the creation of jobs and the economic boost promised by Energy Fuels, others are wary about the environmental effects. The project, located east of Bedrock and west of Naturita, is just a few miles from the old Uravan site. Uravan was a relic of the Manhattan Project, and the conditions at the mill in the middle part of the last century caused chronic and fatal illnesses in workers and left toxic waste that took decades to recover. There is a petition circulating among people who oppose the project, asking officials not to grant the permit.
White said that he is still working on his report, and that he has not decided whether or not he will recommend that the commission grant the special use permit. He said that whatever recommendation he makes, it will come with a list of conditions, the most important of which is that the mill meet all of the specifications set by the state regulators, the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment. White said that given all of the issues to be discussed, the meeting is likely to be continued to a second date before the commission’s conclusion.
“It’s a complicated enough area of issues that it probably will be continued,” said White. “But [the commission] does have the right to take action that night.”
http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2009/05/13/norwood_post/news/doc4a0aee51dbdda560089805.txt
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Song of Hope & Resistance from Michigan
Comment:I have been to UP (Michigan) and it is lovely, plus the side in Canada, look at all the proposed mining sites, on Lake Superior!! Lots of water besides the lakes, I saw Waterfalls, loved it!! No Uranium Mining!!!
So we just came through Michigan, and at our show in Grand Rapids someone asked us if we had heard about the proposed sulfide and uranium mining plans in the Upper Peninsula (UP).
Our interest was peaked, so we did some research and found this map.. a terrifying glimpse of the devastation planned in the region:
Our interest was peaked, so we did some research and found this map.. a terrifying glimpse of the devastation planned in the region:
http://www.savethewildup.org/blog/maps/
A day later, another friend asked if we had heard of May Erlewine and let us know that she would be playing a Mother’s Day show on our way through Kalamazoo…
They name sounded familiar, and as it turned out, she had written a song for the group fighting to protect the UP from the madness of proposed mining.
Check it out:
http://www.savethewildup.org/downstream/
Thanks to May and Seth for keeping the spirit of the wild alive and kicking through their music. Why dontch’all join us this summer at the Rendezvous!?
http://earthfirstroadshow.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/a-song-of-hope-resistance-from-michigan/
A day later, another friend asked if we had heard of May Erlewine and let us know that she would be playing a Mother’s Day show on our way through Kalamazoo…
They name sounded familiar, and as it turned out, she had written a song for the group fighting to protect the UP from the madness of proposed mining.
Check it out:
http://www.savethewildup.org/downstream/
Thanks to May and Seth for keeping the spirit of the wild alive and kicking through their music. Why dontch’all join us this summer at the Rendezvous!?
http://earthfirstroadshow.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/a-song-of-hope-resistance-from-michigan/
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Nuclear Energy Looking Bleak for the US
May 1st, 2009 ·
With this President, more than any other, we will see radical change in many policy areas. But perhaps none will have as significant an impact on the metals industry as energy policy.
We have dedicated so many posts to energy because it covers such a broad range of metals from uranium and lithium to nickel, indium, copper and steel among others.
And though we have spent much time offering up speculative analysis of where specific market segments such as nuclear may go in terms of forging investments, uranium mining, zirconium demand and the general global drive toward nuclear, only in the past ten days do we see a clearer picture of where nuclear will go in terms of the US market.
Yesterday, Senate Republicans asked the Obama administration to explain why it made the decision late last month to not proceed with the development of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, despite the $7.7b spent studying and researching the feasibility. Opposition, despite unanimous support from all of the National Labs came from one person, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Many believe that the storage issue remains the biggest stumbling block to the US expanding its nuclear capabilities.
Unfortunately, the science and research have little to do with why nuclear won’t grow in the US.
It all comes down to politics.
On the one hand, Obama appointed Steven Chu, a well-respected Nobel-Prize scientist who has consistently supported the development of nuclear energy. According to the NTI (Nuclear Threat Institute), “….as recently as August 2008, all ten National Lab directors, including Secretary Chu, signed a letter on the essential role of nuclear energy, which advocated continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain,” Chu has also said that he would help accelerate awards of federal loan guarantees for nuclear facility development.
And on the other hand, Obama appointed Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) who has gone on record as saying, “no new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States,” according to the New York Times.
According to the article, at a recent US Energy Association Forum he said that he felt renewables (including solar, wind and other biomass) meets minimum energy requirements. He puts a lot of stock into the new smart grid and claims the whole notion of base-load has become antiquated. In other words, with a smart grid in place, the minimum amount of power required for availability for a particular customer base no longer becomes the minimum standard to supply power.
What’s our take?
We suspect that Obama has known for quite some time (pre-election) that the issue of nuclear storage would never get resolved as long as Senator Harry Reid serves as the Senate Majority Leader. Yet the President didn’t want to put the whole kibosh on the nuclear industry before he stepped foot into the Oval Office.
So he appointed a team with competing points of view ….Chu as an extremely well respected scientist who publicly supports the nuclear industry and Jon Wellinghoff, an attorney with experience in, “client matters related to renewable energy, energy efficiency and distributed generation,” according to the FERC website.
Together, they will kill US nuclear industry prospects.(we can only dream, no nuke plants, no uranium mining, Corp Virginia, get with the green plan!!)
We look forward to hearing from Chu the scientific rationale to not move forward with the Yucca Mountain repository.
Maybe this analysis seems too negative but we’re not seeing these developments as positive for nuclear or those companies in the metals/mining industries supporting nuclear.
–Lisa Reisman
http://agmetalminer.com/2009/05/01/nuclear-energy-looking-bleak-for-the-us/
With this President, more than any other, we will see radical change in many policy areas. But perhaps none will have as significant an impact on the metals industry as energy policy.
We have dedicated so many posts to energy because it covers such a broad range of metals from uranium and lithium to nickel, indium, copper and steel among others.
And though we have spent much time offering up speculative analysis of where specific market segments such as nuclear may go in terms of forging investments, uranium mining, zirconium demand and the general global drive toward nuclear, only in the past ten days do we see a clearer picture of where nuclear will go in terms of the US market.
Yesterday, Senate Republicans asked the Obama administration to explain why it made the decision late last month to not proceed with the development of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, despite the $7.7b spent studying and researching the feasibility. Opposition, despite unanimous support from all of the National Labs came from one person, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Many believe that the storage issue remains the biggest stumbling block to the US expanding its nuclear capabilities.
Unfortunately, the science and research have little to do with why nuclear won’t grow in the US.
It all comes down to politics.
On the one hand, Obama appointed Steven Chu, a well-respected Nobel-Prize scientist who has consistently supported the development of nuclear energy. According to the NTI (Nuclear Threat Institute), “….as recently as August 2008, all ten National Lab directors, including Secretary Chu, signed a letter on the essential role of nuclear energy, which advocated continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain,” Chu has also said that he would help accelerate awards of federal loan guarantees for nuclear facility development.
And on the other hand, Obama appointed Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) who has gone on record as saying, “no new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States,” according to the New York Times.
According to the article, at a recent US Energy Association Forum he said that he felt renewables (including solar, wind and other biomass) meets minimum energy requirements. He puts a lot of stock into the new smart grid and claims the whole notion of base-load has become antiquated. In other words, with a smart grid in place, the minimum amount of power required for availability for a particular customer base no longer becomes the minimum standard to supply power.
What’s our take?
We suspect that Obama has known for quite some time (pre-election) that the issue of nuclear storage would never get resolved as long as Senator Harry Reid serves as the Senate Majority Leader. Yet the President didn’t want to put the whole kibosh on the nuclear industry before he stepped foot into the Oval Office.
So he appointed a team with competing points of view ….Chu as an extremely well respected scientist who publicly supports the nuclear industry and Jon Wellinghoff, an attorney with experience in, “client matters related to renewable energy, energy efficiency and distributed generation,” according to the FERC website.
Together, they will kill US nuclear industry prospects.(we can only dream, no nuke plants, no uranium mining, Corp Virginia, get with the green plan!!)
We look forward to hearing from Chu the scientific rationale to not move forward with the Yucca Mountain repository.
Maybe this analysis seems too negative but we’re not seeing these developments as positive for nuclear or those companies in the metals/mining industries supporting nuclear.
–Lisa Reisman
http://agmetalminer.com/2009/05/01/nuclear-energy-looking-bleak-for-the-us/
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Mt. Taylor among endangered places
Sacred site on list of most endangered places
The National Trust for Historic Preservation says Mount Taylor, a sacred site in New Mexico, is one of the nation's 11 most endangered places.
Acoma Pueblo, Laguna Pueblo, Zuni Pueblo, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe are seeking to protect Mount Taylor from uranium mining.
The tribes have run into opposition from officials and residents in Cibola County.
The New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee voted to place Mount Taylor on Register of Cultural Properties on a temporary basis.
The New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee voted to place Mount Taylor on Register of Cultural Properties on a temporary basis.
The designation protects the site from development but it will expire in June without further action.
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/04/mt-taylor-among-endangered-places.html
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/04/mt-taylor-among-endangered-places.html
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Civil society organizations call for a new mining law
Comment: only thing that makes money off uranium mining are the corporations, it happens all over the world, corps get the money, the local people for it with ruin water, air, land & their health! The corps in this story is from where, do you say where, our neighbors to the North!
GUATEMALA
4/23/2009
Current legislation deprives communities of benefits, allowing corporations to use up important resources.
Last November, more than 6,000 people from 49 predominantly Mayan Mam villages, made their way to the Santa Barbara town hall to vote on mining exploration licences, recently granted by the Guatemalan Ministry of Energy and Mining to Montana Exploradora, a subsidiary of Vancouver-based Canadian Goldcorp Inc.
The villagers were called to the plebiscite by their community leaders and were asked by Mayor Jesús Sales, whether or not they approved of four mining prospection licenses in their area, in the northern department of Huehuetenango.
The town hall was packed to the brim. Children held makeshift banners that read “No to Mining” and when asked by the mayor whether they wished for these projects to go ahead, the building was shaken by a resounding “No!” (these people remind of the meeting by the so called illegal Uranium Sub group and our behavior!!!)
Then, the people of Santa Barbara were asked to vote by a show of hands. Everyone later filed onto the stage to sign a community statement, a copy of which was sent to Congress, the Ministry for Energy and Mining (MEM) and the Presidential Social Communications Secretariat.
Water already scarce
Ensconced in the Sierra de los Cuchumatanes mountain range, Santa Barbara is prone to drought during the dry summer season, which runs from October to early May, and communities feared that mining projects in the area would make the problem worse.
Montana already runs two mining projects in San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipakapa, in the northern department of San Marcos and one of the most contentious issues in that region has been the fact that the corporation is allowed unlimited use of the area´s water resources.
In a press release issued by the municipality of Santa Barbara after the plebiscite took place, Mayor Jesús Sales, stated: “Our communities, through their municipal authorities and traditional indigenous leaders urge the Guatemalan State to respect the decisions of those who will be affected by metal mining and abide by ILO Convention 169. We urge the state to annul the licenses halt any further mining activity in our municipality.”
According to Carlos Guárquez, director of the Guatemalan Association of Indigenous Mayors and Authorities, to date, 31 municipalities across the country have held popular consultations or plebiscites, in which mining activity was rejected. Twenty-three of these plebiscites were held in Huehuetenango alone.
A New Mining Law
In 2008, the Center for Legal, Social and Environmental Action, or CALAS, successfully petitioned the Constitutional Court to strike down aspects of the Mining Law. The court found that the law was unconstitutional because it did not require sufficient consideration to be given to the environmental consequences of mining before a license was issued. The law allowed for mining to an unlimited depth and allowed contaminated water from mines to be discharged into rivers. (this is allowed in the North!)
A new version of the law is scheduled to be debated in Congress. However, human rights and environmental activists point out that the new bill proposed by the Congressional Commission on Energy and Mining is just as bad as the original version as favors the mining corporations to the extent that it fails to even distinguish between metal and non-metal mining. Not surprisingly, this bill has the full support of the Energy and Mining Ministry.
On March 19, indigenous and environmental organizations presented the commission with series of demands which they believe should be included in the new mining law such as higher royalties from the mining corporations and the retroactive payment of royalties for existing mining projects in which the corporation makes six figure annual profits but pays the state a pittance.
Royalties from mineral extraction are currently only 1 percent, shared between the state and the affected municipality, whereas a project the size of the Montana´s Marlin mine operating in Canada would be subject to a royalty fee of 13 percent of total production, under the current legislation.
But royalties are not the only point of contention. Indigenous and environmental organizations have also called for a new model of natural resource management that is more in tune with the needs of local communities.
Their main demand is that mining projects be subject to public scrutiny and debate, which means that popular consultations should be heeded and should determine whether a license is granted.
If these recommendations are included in the new mining law, Goldcorp´s subsidiaries Montana and Entremares could face prosecution for failing to consult local communities before beginning a project.
Undeterred, Goldcorp has pressed ahead with the new projects such as the Escobas gold mine in Mataquescuintla, Santa Rosa, and the Cerro Blanco project in Jutiapa, both in eastern Guatemala. The latter also contemplates the construction of a geothermal energy plant.
The government also appears to be little inclined to make any changes to its current energy policy, despite opposition from local communities and is covertly seeking foreign investment in uranium mining.
During the first week of March, a government delegation traveled to Russia seeking investment in infrastructure, oil and mining projects.
“Recent studies show that we have a huge potential to produce uranium but we need investment and technology in order to exploit these opportunities to the fullest,” said Alfredo Pokus, vice mining and energy minister during the scarcely publicized trip.
Energy and Mining Minister Carlos Meany has been more cautious.
“There is no certainty about the country´s uranium reserves,” he said, although three uranium prospection licenses have already been granted: two in Finca Sarroguacax, Cobán, in the northern department of Alta Verapaz, managed by landowner José Martín Montenegro Calderón and one in the eastern department of Chiquimula, operated by Guatemala Copper SA, a subsidiary of Canadian corporation Creso Resources Inc. —Latinamerica Press.
http://www.latinamericapress.org/articles.asp?art=5841
GUATEMALA
4/23/2009
Current legislation deprives communities of benefits, allowing corporations to use up important resources.
Last November, more than 6,000 people from 49 predominantly Mayan Mam villages, made their way to the Santa Barbara town hall to vote on mining exploration licences, recently granted by the Guatemalan Ministry of Energy and Mining to Montana Exploradora, a subsidiary of Vancouver-based Canadian Goldcorp Inc.
The villagers were called to the plebiscite by their community leaders and were asked by Mayor Jesús Sales, whether or not they approved of four mining prospection licenses in their area, in the northern department of Huehuetenango.
The town hall was packed to the brim. Children held makeshift banners that read “No to Mining” and when asked by the mayor whether they wished for these projects to go ahead, the building was shaken by a resounding “No!” (these people remind of the meeting by the so called illegal Uranium Sub group and our behavior!!!)
Then, the people of Santa Barbara were asked to vote by a show of hands. Everyone later filed onto the stage to sign a community statement, a copy of which was sent to Congress, the Ministry for Energy and Mining (MEM) and the Presidential Social Communications Secretariat.
Water already scarce
Ensconced in the Sierra de los Cuchumatanes mountain range, Santa Barbara is prone to drought during the dry summer season, which runs from October to early May, and communities feared that mining projects in the area would make the problem worse.
Montana already runs two mining projects in San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipakapa, in the northern department of San Marcos and one of the most contentious issues in that region has been the fact that the corporation is allowed unlimited use of the area´s water resources.
In a press release issued by the municipality of Santa Barbara after the plebiscite took place, Mayor Jesús Sales, stated: “Our communities, through their municipal authorities and traditional indigenous leaders urge the Guatemalan State to respect the decisions of those who will be affected by metal mining and abide by ILO Convention 169. We urge the state to annul the licenses halt any further mining activity in our municipality.”
According to Carlos Guárquez, director of the Guatemalan Association of Indigenous Mayors and Authorities, to date, 31 municipalities across the country have held popular consultations or plebiscites, in which mining activity was rejected. Twenty-three of these plebiscites were held in Huehuetenango alone.
A New Mining Law
In 2008, the Center for Legal, Social and Environmental Action, or CALAS, successfully petitioned the Constitutional Court to strike down aspects of the Mining Law. The court found that the law was unconstitutional because it did not require sufficient consideration to be given to the environmental consequences of mining before a license was issued. The law allowed for mining to an unlimited depth and allowed contaminated water from mines to be discharged into rivers. (this is allowed in the North!)
A new version of the law is scheduled to be debated in Congress. However, human rights and environmental activists point out that the new bill proposed by the Congressional Commission on Energy and Mining is just as bad as the original version as favors the mining corporations to the extent that it fails to even distinguish between metal and non-metal mining. Not surprisingly, this bill has the full support of the Energy and Mining Ministry.
On March 19, indigenous and environmental organizations presented the commission with series of demands which they believe should be included in the new mining law such as higher royalties from the mining corporations and the retroactive payment of royalties for existing mining projects in which the corporation makes six figure annual profits but pays the state a pittance.
Royalties from mineral extraction are currently only 1 percent, shared between the state and the affected municipality, whereas a project the size of the Montana´s Marlin mine operating in Canada would be subject to a royalty fee of 13 percent of total production, under the current legislation.
But royalties are not the only point of contention. Indigenous and environmental organizations have also called for a new model of natural resource management that is more in tune with the needs of local communities.
Their main demand is that mining projects be subject to public scrutiny and debate, which means that popular consultations should be heeded and should determine whether a license is granted.
If these recommendations are included in the new mining law, Goldcorp´s subsidiaries Montana and Entremares could face prosecution for failing to consult local communities before beginning a project.
Undeterred, Goldcorp has pressed ahead with the new projects such as the Escobas gold mine in Mataquescuintla, Santa Rosa, and the Cerro Blanco project in Jutiapa, both in eastern Guatemala. The latter also contemplates the construction of a geothermal energy plant.
The government also appears to be little inclined to make any changes to its current energy policy, despite opposition from local communities and is covertly seeking foreign investment in uranium mining.
During the first week of March, a government delegation traveled to Russia seeking investment in infrastructure, oil and mining projects.
“Recent studies show that we have a huge potential to produce uranium but we need investment and technology in order to exploit these opportunities to the fullest,” said Alfredo Pokus, vice mining and energy minister during the scarcely publicized trip.
Energy and Mining Minister Carlos Meany has been more cautious.
“There is no certainty about the country´s uranium reserves,” he said, although three uranium prospection licenses have already been granted: two in Finca Sarroguacax, Cobán, in the northern department of Alta Verapaz, managed by landowner José Martín Montenegro Calderón and one in the eastern department of Chiquimula, operated by Guatemala Copper SA, a subsidiary of Canadian corporation Creso Resources Inc. —Latinamerica Press.
http://www.latinamericapress.org/articles.asp?art=5841
To former governors: Think smarter and cleaner than nuclear
Comment: for some reasons some local leaders of different states(like VA) believe Nuke Power is great but most people under Nuke Power is not Green but of the CO2 produce from Uranium mining, milling and building $10-18 Billion Nuke plants paid for the taxpayers!
April 23, 2009
To former governors: Think smarter and cleaner than nuclear
In response to the April 21 column by former governors John Engler, James Blanchard and William Milliken ("Switch to nuclear power"): Nuclear power is neither clean, green nor cost effective.
Those who promote nuclear energy typically do not inform the public of the excessive cost: The average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no U.S. nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.
Partially used uranium is stored at old power plants in pools of water called "spent fuel pools." Lying near cities, on crucial river systems, in small rural towns, these pools are potentially a far greater risk than a reactor meltdown.
Asia's, Russia's and France's nuclear power plants are closely linked to nuclear weapons programs.
There will be no nuclear renaissance. Talk of such a renaissance helps keep people distracted, their minds off the real project of developing wind, solar, geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a green power grid.
Nancy Adadow Gray, Farmington Hills
Team up for alternatives
Three past Michigan governors could have done better than to use the fear-mongering of "hostile ... sources," "job losses" and the specious "clean energy" to argue for nuclear power. Or could they? From mining to the disposal of uranium, serious concerns remain.
Michigan is populated by many intelligent and well-meaning citizens who can come up with a valid course of action in a timely fashion. Let's have a wide-ranging debate, in a setting of calm and composure, with all the scientific and economic data on the table.
Matthew Evans
Southfield
Nuclear isn't so clean
It looks as if the three ex-governors signed on to the CASE (Clean and Safe Energy Coalition) fact sheet. This multimillion-dollar PR campaign is designed to sell nuclear energy at great expense to taxpayers and ratepayers because nuclear cannot compete without huge government subsidies. Our energy demand is not surging, but in steep decline. A package of bills recently passed by the Michigan Legislature calls for further energy efficiencies that will reduce demand.
While the operation of nuclear reactors is mostly carbon-free compared to coal, the process of mining, milling, enrichment and construction causes significant carbon emissions.
Will the swing to electric plug-in vehicles increase electrical demand? Not according the Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy, which says 1 million plug-ins will increase demand by only 0.01%.
As for jobs, studies indicate there will be more jobs available in wind, solar and efficiency than in the nuclear industry.
Ed McArdle
Southeast Michigan Sierra Club
Melvindale
http://www.freep.com/article/20090423/OPINION04/904230385/1072/opinion04/Think+smarter+and+cleaner+than+nuclear
April 23, 2009
To former governors: Think smarter and cleaner than nuclear
In response to the April 21 column by former governors John Engler, James Blanchard and William Milliken ("Switch to nuclear power"): Nuclear power is neither clean, green nor cost effective.
Those who promote nuclear energy typically do not inform the public of the excessive cost: The average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no U.S. nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.
Partially used uranium is stored at old power plants in pools of water called "spent fuel pools." Lying near cities, on crucial river systems, in small rural towns, these pools are potentially a far greater risk than a reactor meltdown.
Asia's, Russia's and France's nuclear power plants are closely linked to nuclear weapons programs.
There will be no nuclear renaissance. Talk of such a renaissance helps keep people distracted, their minds off the real project of developing wind, solar, geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a green power grid.
Nancy Adadow Gray, Farmington Hills
Team up for alternatives
Three past Michigan governors could have done better than to use the fear-mongering of "hostile ... sources," "job losses" and the specious "clean energy" to argue for nuclear power. Or could they? From mining to the disposal of uranium, serious concerns remain.
Michigan is populated by many intelligent and well-meaning citizens who can come up with a valid course of action in a timely fashion. Let's have a wide-ranging debate, in a setting of calm and composure, with all the scientific and economic data on the table.
Matthew Evans
Southfield
Nuclear isn't so clean
It looks as if the three ex-governors signed on to the CASE (Clean and Safe Energy Coalition) fact sheet. This multimillion-dollar PR campaign is designed to sell nuclear energy at great expense to taxpayers and ratepayers because nuclear cannot compete without huge government subsidies. Our energy demand is not surging, but in steep decline. A package of bills recently passed by the Michigan Legislature calls for further energy efficiencies that will reduce demand.
While the operation of nuclear reactors is mostly carbon-free compared to coal, the process of mining, milling, enrichment and construction causes significant carbon emissions.
Will the swing to electric plug-in vehicles increase electrical demand? Not according the Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy, which says 1 million plug-ins will increase demand by only 0.01%.
As for jobs, studies indicate there will be more jobs available in wind, solar and efficiency than in the nuclear industry.
Ed McArdle
Southeast Michigan Sierra Club
Melvindale
http://www.freep.com/article/20090423/OPINION04/904230385/1072/opinion04/Think+smarter+and+cleaner+than+nuclear
Navajo celebrates HRI ruling
Comment: See everyone is fighting the uranium mining companies, it is not strange to request an ordinance to ban uranium mining! They did ban uranium mining!
Company says they are still moving forward to mine uranium in Indian Country
Copyright © 2009
Gallup Independent
By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau
WINDOW ROCK — Ever since Johnny Livingston was a little boy, he remembers seeing Navajo families grazing their livestock on a portion of land within Churchrock Chapter known as Section 8, now owned by uranium mining company Hydro Resources Inc.
In 2006, as part of his declaration to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding jurisdictional issues over the land, the former Churchrock Chapter president identified Navajo families having Bureau of Indian Affairs grazing permits for the disputed area.
“Livestock owned by these and other Navajo families have grazed on Section 8 and its contiguous sections for as long as I can remember, including to this day,” he said.
“In fact, the people have a Navajo term for the canyon at the north end of Section 8; they call it ‘the cattle’s home in their canyon,’ or ‘Cattle Canyon.’ There is a trail that the old people said they used for cattle drives many years ago, and you can still see that trail going up the side of the mesa in Section 8.”
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on Friday upheld a 2007 EPA decision that HRI’s Section 8 mine site is located in “Indian Country,” meaning that HRI will have to obtain an underground injection control permit from EPA rather than the New Mexico Environment Department before it can move forward with plans for in-situ leach uranium mining in Section 8.
HRI challenged the decision last May before the Court of Appeals. Rick Van Horn, chief operating officer for Uranium Resources Inc., parent company of HRI, said Monday that the company has not yet decided what it will do regarding the court ruling.
“We have 45 days to petition the court for an en banc review.
We don’t know if we’re going to do that or not, or how we’re going to proceed. We’re looking at what the options are now,” he said, adding that they probably won’t make a decision for a couple more weeks.
“Because we own the land in fee, we felt that it was privately held land. The question was, even though it’s privately held land, if it’s within the chapter, is that Indian Country or not Indian Country? Who has the jurisdiction to issue the IUC? We thought that the state would have the primacy initially.
The court obviously didn’t agree.
“But we don’t see this as a setback,” he said. “We fully intend to continue pursuing this and then to be doing business in the state of New Mexico here pretty soon. When I say ‘doing business,’ I mean mining uranium.”
Margot Perez-Sullivan, EPA, Region 9, spokeswoman, said Tuesday, “The EPA is pleased with the court’s decision.” But federal EPA is not the only one.
Residents react
Larry King, who lives about 1,000 feet way from the proposed mine site, said he was thrilled that the 10th Circuit judges agreed that EPA made the right decision in determining that Section 8 is in “Indian Country.”
“But we’ve known all along that HRI’s property is dependent Indian Country. Many, many years ago the reservation boundary had gone farther south of Section 8, but it was rescinded and the land distributed to the railroad company and the state, various sections to the tribal trust, and various sections to the Indian allotment.
“That’s how it got into the hands of the railroad company, and the railroad company turned it over to the mining companies, and that’s how Section 8 came to be what it is now — tribal fee land — and HRI has got that corner section, 160 acres in the southeast corner of Section 8.”
King wants to see comprehensive health studies and cleanup of abandoned mines before they listen to any pitches of new uranium mining. “We cannot go another round with these companies promising that they will clean up, and then leaving the community and the Navajo Nation to deal with the contaminants again 10 to 20 years from now, and also leaving our water in shambles. In our area water is very sacred. We need to protect what’s there,” he said.
Stephen B. Etsitty, executive director of Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, also was pleased with the court decision. “It doesn’t necessarily say anything about stopping uranium mining, but it does put the permitting action on the shoulders of U.S. EPA.
“We’ve said all along that that’s our preference because the U.S. government has the trust responsibility toward the Navajo Nation and we’re confident in working with EPA on these issues,” he said. “We know that HRI is reviewing the decision and there may be some other steps that they can take. We’ll just wait for the other shoe to drop.”
ENDAUM
Eric Jantz of New Mexico Environmental Law Center, which represented Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining, or ENDAUM, said the decision is important “not only for our client, but for Indian tribes as a whole. This is a case that really does affirm the federal jurisdiction over this land.
“Since it is Indian Country, it’s not only federal jurisdiction for the purpose of the Safe Drinking Water Act, but it’s also tribal jurisdiction for other purposes,” he said, such as the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005 which banned uranium mining and milling throughout Navajo Indian Country.
“I think that the court’s decision was pretty common sensical. If that corner section of land isn’t Indian Country, I can’t imagine what would be,” Jantz said. “You’re looking at a place that’s within a community within boundaries of a chapter that’s 97 percent Navajo. It’s very clear that the subsistence economy and the culture in the area is Navajo.
To say there is anything other than a Navajo community is absurd.”
Mitchell Capitan, president of ENDAUM, who lives in Crownpoint where HRI has proposed another mine, said that after 15 years of legal battles, he and his wife Rita are “very glad the decision came up in our way.” Like Churchrock, Capitan said, “Here in the community of Crownpoint where their proposed mining site is, it’s almost the same. It’s all Indian Country, and I hope they respect that.
“There’s boundaries above ground. We have fence lines and all that and we say, ‘This is our land.’ But underneath the surface where the water flows, the water has no boundaries.
It will flow wherever it needs to flow. We have no control under there. If anything happens at that particular private area site, it will affect the surrounding areas. That’s what we’re trying to tell them.”
Tribal officials
Resources Committee Chairman George Arthur, who sponsored the uranium mining ban legislation, said more than 92 percent of the land in the chapter is held by the federal government for the exclusive use of Navajos.
“The ruling rejects the position of Hydro Resources Inc., which contended that its small island of fee land was, in essence, excluded from the community. That position would allow the fabric of Navajo communities to be destroyed from within anytime there is a small tract of non-Indian land within the community boundaries, for example, by setting up bars, or, in this case, endangering precious water supplies on those scattered tracts.”
Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., in his State of the Navajo Nation Address to Council on Monday, said, “To no one’s surprise here, the court found that the land is within the boundaries of the Churchrock Chapter and is part of the Navajo Nation.
“This ruling represents one more piece of protection in our resistance to renewed uranium mining on Navajoland in the spirit of our Natural Resources Protection Act.”
http://www.gallupindependent.com/2009/04April/042209navajocelebrates.html
Company says they are still moving forward to mine uranium in Indian Country
Copyright © 2009
Gallup Independent
By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau
WINDOW ROCK — Ever since Johnny Livingston was a little boy, he remembers seeing Navajo families grazing their livestock on a portion of land within Churchrock Chapter known as Section 8, now owned by uranium mining company Hydro Resources Inc.
In 2006, as part of his declaration to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding jurisdictional issues over the land, the former Churchrock Chapter president identified Navajo families having Bureau of Indian Affairs grazing permits for the disputed area.
“Livestock owned by these and other Navajo families have grazed on Section 8 and its contiguous sections for as long as I can remember, including to this day,” he said.
“In fact, the people have a Navajo term for the canyon at the north end of Section 8; they call it ‘the cattle’s home in their canyon,’ or ‘Cattle Canyon.’ There is a trail that the old people said they used for cattle drives many years ago, and you can still see that trail going up the side of the mesa in Section 8.”
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on Friday upheld a 2007 EPA decision that HRI’s Section 8 mine site is located in “Indian Country,” meaning that HRI will have to obtain an underground injection control permit from EPA rather than the New Mexico Environment Department before it can move forward with plans for in-situ leach uranium mining in Section 8.
HRI challenged the decision last May before the Court of Appeals. Rick Van Horn, chief operating officer for Uranium Resources Inc., parent company of HRI, said Monday that the company has not yet decided what it will do regarding the court ruling.
“We have 45 days to petition the court for an en banc review.
We don’t know if we’re going to do that or not, or how we’re going to proceed. We’re looking at what the options are now,” he said, adding that they probably won’t make a decision for a couple more weeks.
“Because we own the land in fee, we felt that it was privately held land. The question was, even though it’s privately held land, if it’s within the chapter, is that Indian Country or not Indian Country? Who has the jurisdiction to issue the IUC? We thought that the state would have the primacy initially.
The court obviously didn’t agree.
“But we don’t see this as a setback,” he said. “We fully intend to continue pursuing this and then to be doing business in the state of New Mexico here pretty soon. When I say ‘doing business,’ I mean mining uranium.”
Margot Perez-Sullivan, EPA, Region 9, spokeswoman, said Tuesday, “The EPA is pleased with the court’s decision.” But federal EPA is not the only one.
Residents react
Larry King, who lives about 1,000 feet way from the proposed mine site, said he was thrilled that the 10th Circuit judges agreed that EPA made the right decision in determining that Section 8 is in “Indian Country.”
“But we’ve known all along that HRI’s property is dependent Indian Country. Many, many years ago the reservation boundary had gone farther south of Section 8, but it was rescinded and the land distributed to the railroad company and the state, various sections to the tribal trust, and various sections to the Indian allotment.
“That’s how it got into the hands of the railroad company, and the railroad company turned it over to the mining companies, and that’s how Section 8 came to be what it is now — tribal fee land — and HRI has got that corner section, 160 acres in the southeast corner of Section 8.”
King wants to see comprehensive health studies and cleanup of abandoned mines before they listen to any pitches of new uranium mining. “We cannot go another round with these companies promising that they will clean up, and then leaving the community and the Navajo Nation to deal with the contaminants again 10 to 20 years from now, and also leaving our water in shambles. In our area water is very sacred. We need to protect what’s there,” he said.
Stephen B. Etsitty, executive director of Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, also was pleased with the court decision. “It doesn’t necessarily say anything about stopping uranium mining, but it does put the permitting action on the shoulders of U.S. EPA.
“We’ve said all along that that’s our preference because the U.S. government has the trust responsibility toward the Navajo Nation and we’re confident in working with EPA on these issues,” he said. “We know that HRI is reviewing the decision and there may be some other steps that they can take. We’ll just wait for the other shoe to drop.”
ENDAUM
Eric Jantz of New Mexico Environmental Law Center, which represented Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining, or ENDAUM, said the decision is important “not only for our client, but for Indian tribes as a whole. This is a case that really does affirm the federal jurisdiction over this land.
“Since it is Indian Country, it’s not only federal jurisdiction for the purpose of the Safe Drinking Water Act, but it’s also tribal jurisdiction for other purposes,” he said, such as the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005 which banned uranium mining and milling throughout Navajo Indian Country.
“I think that the court’s decision was pretty common sensical. If that corner section of land isn’t Indian Country, I can’t imagine what would be,” Jantz said. “You’re looking at a place that’s within a community within boundaries of a chapter that’s 97 percent Navajo. It’s very clear that the subsistence economy and the culture in the area is Navajo.
To say there is anything other than a Navajo community is absurd.”
Mitchell Capitan, president of ENDAUM, who lives in Crownpoint where HRI has proposed another mine, said that after 15 years of legal battles, he and his wife Rita are “very glad the decision came up in our way.” Like Churchrock, Capitan said, “Here in the community of Crownpoint where their proposed mining site is, it’s almost the same. It’s all Indian Country, and I hope they respect that.
“There’s boundaries above ground. We have fence lines and all that and we say, ‘This is our land.’ But underneath the surface where the water flows, the water has no boundaries.
It will flow wherever it needs to flow. We have no control under there. If anything happens at that particular private area site, it will affect the surrounding areas. That’s what we’re trying to tell them.”
Tribal officials
Resources Committee Chairman George Arthur, who sponsored the uranium mining ban legislation, said more than 92 percent of the land in the chapter is held by the federal government for the exclusive use of Navajos.
“The ruling rejects the position of Hydro Resources Inc., which contended that its small island of fee land was, in essence, excluded from the community. That position would allow the fabric of Navajo communities to be destroyed from within anytime there is a small tract of non-Indian land within the community boundaries, for example, by setting up bars, or, in this case, endangering precious water supplies on those scattered tracts.”
Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., in his State of the Navajo Nation Address to Council on Monday, said, “To no one’s surprise here, the court found that the land is within the boundaries of the Churchrock Chapter and is part of the Navajo Nation.
“This ruling represents one more piece of protection in our resistance to renewed uranium mining on Navajoland in the spirit of our Natural Resources Protection Act.”
http://www.gallupindependent.com/2009/04April/042209navajocelebrates.html
Energy Regulatory Chief Says New Coal, Nuclear Plants May Be Unnecessary
April 22, 2009
By NOELLE STRAUB AND PETER BEHR, Greenwire
No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said today.
"We may not need any, ever," Jon Wellinghoff told reporters at a U.S. Energy Association forum.
The FERC chairman's comments go beyond those of other Obama administration officials, who have strongly endorsed greater efficiency and renewables deployment but also say nuclear and fossil energies will continue playing a major role.
Wellinghoff's view also goes beyond the consensus outlook in the electric power industry about future sources of electricity. The industry has assumed that more baseload generation would provide part of an increasing demand for power, along with a rapid deployment of renewable generation, smart grid technologies and demand reduction strategies.
Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Electricity Industry Center, expressed skepticism about the feasibility of relying so heavily on renewable energy. "I don't think we're where Chairman Wellinghoff would like us to be," Apt said. "You need firm power to fill in when the wind doesn't blow. There is just no getting around that."
Some combination of more gas- or coal-fired generation, or nuclear power, will be needed, he said. "Demand response can provide a significant buffering of the power fluctuations coming from wind. Interacting widely scattered wind farms cannot provide smooth power."
Wellinghoff said renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands. Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive, he added.
"I think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism," he said. "Baseload capacity really used to only mean in an economic dispatch, which you dispatch first, what would be the cheapest thing to do. Well, ultimately wind's going to be the cheapest thing to do, so you'll dispatch that first."
He added, "People talk about, 'Oh, we need baseload.' It's like people saying we need more computing power, we need mainframes. We don't need mainframes, we have distributed computing."
The technology for renewable energies has come far enough to allow his vision to move forward, he said. For instance, there are systems now available for concentrated solar plants that can provide 15 hours of storage.
"What you have to do, is you have to be able to shape it," he added. "And if you can shape wind and you can effectively get capacity available for you for all your loads.
"So if you can shape your renewables, you don't need fossil fuel or nuclear plants to run all the time. And, in fact, most plants running all the time in your system are an impediment because they're very inflexible. You can't ramp up and ramp down a nuclear plant. And if you have instead the ability to ramp up and ramp down loads in ways that can shape the entire system, then the old concept of baseload becomes an anachronism."
'A lot that is still not understood'
Asked whether his ideas need detailed studies, given the complexity of the grid, Wellinghoff said the technology is already moving that way.
"I think it's being settled by the digital grid moving forward," he said. "We are going to have to go to a smart grid to get to this point I'm talking about. But if we don't go to that digital grid, we're not going to be able to move these renewables, anyway. So it's all going to be an integral part of operating that grid efficiently."
The North American Electric Reliability Corp. reported last week on challenges in integrating a twentyfold expansion of renewable power into the nation's electricity networks but did not specifically address whether additional baseload generation would be needed. A spokesperson for NERC did not have an immediate response to Wellinghoff's comments today.
Revis James, who directs energy technology assessment for the Electric Power Research Institute, said recently that it is not clear how fast renewable energy can be added without creating reliability issues. "No one knows what the magic number is," he said. "Are we moving too fast? On the policymakers' side, there's a lot that is not still understood about the implications of a large share of renewables."
Impact on nuclear power
Wellinghoff's statement -- if it reflects Obama administration policy -- would be a huge blow to the U.S. nuclear power industry, which has been hoping for a nuclear "renaissance" based on the capacity of nuclear reactors to generate power without greenhouse gas emissions.
Congress created significant financial incentives to encourage the construction of perhaps a half-dozen nuclear plants with innovative designs, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu has promised Congress to accelerate awards of federal loan guarantees for some of these proposals.
But a major expansion in U.S. nuclear energy would require a high effective tax on carbon emissions from coal plants, or an extended loan guarantee and tax incentive policy, according to the Congressional Research Service and outside consultants. The leading energy bills before Congress do not provide more loan guarantees.
"If expansion of nuclear plants is the nation's policy, then Congress has to recognize that the U.S. energy companies cannot afford to do this alone," said Paul Genoa, policy director for the Nuclear Energy Institute, in a recent interview.
"The president needs to show his cards on nuclear energy," said energy consultant Joseph Stanislaw, a Duke University professor. "He cannot keep this industry, which must make investments with a 50-year or longer horizon, in limbo for much longer."
"I think [new nuclear expansion] is kind of a theoretical question, because I don't see anybody building these things, I don't see anybody having one under construction," Wellinghoff said.
Building nuclear plants is cost-prohibitive, he said, adding that the last price he saw was more than $7,000 a kilowatt -- more expensive than solar energy. "Until costs get to some reasonable cost, I don't think anybody's going to [talk] that seriously," he said. "Coal plants are sort of in the same boat, they're not quite as expensive."
Can renewables meet demand?
There's enough renewable energy to meet energy demand, Wellinghoff said. "There's 500 to 700 gigawatts of developable wind throughout the Midwest, all the way to Texas. There's probably another 200 to 300 gigawatts in Montana and Wyoming that can go West."
He also cited tremendous solar power in the Southwest and hydrokinetic and biomass energy, and said the United States can reduce energy usage by 50 percent. "You combine all those things together ... I think we have great resources in this country, and we just need to start using them," he said.
Problems with unsteady power generation from wind will be overcome, he said.
"That's exactly what all the load response will do, the load response will provide that leveling ability, number one," he said. "Number two, if you have wide interconnections across the entire interconnect, you're going to have a lot of diversity with that wind. Not all the wind is going to stop at once. You'll have some of it stop, some of it start, and all of that diversity is going to help you, as well."
Push for grid modifications
But planning for modifying the grid to integrate renewables must take place in the next three to five years, he said.
"If we don't do that, then we miss the boat,"Wellinghoff said. "That planning has to take place so you don't strand a lot of assets, a lot of supply assets."
Unlike coal and nuclear, natural gas will continue to play a role in generating electricity, he said.
"Natural gas is going to be there for a while, because it's going to be there to get us through this transition that's going to take 30 or more years."
Chu reiterated before the House Energy and Commerce Committee today that he supports loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants and is working with the White House on the issue.
"I believe nuclear power has to be part of the energy mix in this century," Chu said.
Chu also noted today that nuclear technology, along with renewables, is an area where the United States has lost its lead. "We are trying to start the American nuclear industry again," he said. (just say No to Nuke Power)
Coal currently provides half of U.S. power, while nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent.
Senior reporter Ben Geman contributed.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/22/22greenwire-no-need-to-build-new-us-coal-or-nuclear-plants-10630.html
By NOELLE STRAUB AND PETER BEHR, Greenwire
No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said today.
"We may not need any, ever," Jon Wellinghoff told reporters at a U.S. Energy Association forum.
The FERC chairman's comments go beyond those of other Obama administration officials, who have strongly endorsed greater efficiency and renewables deployment but also say nuclear and fossil energies will continue playing a major role.
Wellinghoff's view also goes beyond the consensus outlook in the electric power industry about future sources of electricity. The industry has assumed that more baseload generation would provide part of an increasing demand for power, along with a rapid deployment of renewable generation, smart grid technologies and demand reduction strategies.
Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Electricity Industry Center, expressed skepticism about the feasibility of relying so heavily on renewable energy. "I don't think we're where Chairman Wellinghoff would like us to be," Apt said. "You need firm power to fill in when the wind doesn't blow. There is just no getting around that."
Some combination of more gas- or coal-fired generation, or nuclear power, will be needed, he said. "Demand response can provide a significant buffering of the power fluctuations coming from wind. Interacting widely scattered wind farms cannot provide smooth power."
Wellinghoff said renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands. Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive, he added.
"I think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism," he said. "Baseload capacity really used to only mean in an economic dispatch, which you dispatch first, what would be the cheapest thing to do. Well, ultimately wind's going to be the cheapest thing to do, so you'll dispatch that first."
He added, "People talk about, 'Oh, we need baseload.' It's like people saying we need more computing power, we need mainframes. We don't need mainframes, we have distributed computing."
The technology for renewable energies has come far enough to allow his vision to move forward, he said. For instance, there are systems now available for concentrated solar plants that can provide 15 hours of storage.
"What you have to do, is you have to be able to shape it," he added. "And if you can shape wind and you can effectively get capacity available for you for all your loads.
"So if you can shape your renewables, you don't need fossil fuel or nuclear plants to run all the time. And, in fact, most plants running all the time in your system are an impediment because they're very inflexible. You can't ramp up and ramp down a nuclear plant. And if you have instead the ability to ramp up and ramp down loads in ways that can shape the entire system, then the old concept of baseload becomes an anachronism."
'A lot that is still not understood'
Asked whether his ideas need detailed studies, given the complexity of the grid, Wellinghoff said the technology is already moving that way.
"I think it's being settled by the digital grid moving forward," he said. "We are going to have to go to a smart grid to get to this point I'm talking about. But if we don't go to that digital grid, we're not going to be able to move these renewables, anyway. So it's all going to be an integral part of operating that grid efficiently."
The North American Electric Reliability Corp. reported last week on challenges in integrating a twentyfold expansion of renewable power into the nation's electricity networks but did not specifically address whether additional baseload generation would be needed. A spokesperson for NERC did not have an immediate response to Wellinghoff's comments today.
Revis James, who directs energy technology assessment for the Electric Power Research Institute, said recently that it is not clear how fast renewable energy can be added without creating reliability issues. "No one knows what the magic number is," he said. "Are we moving too fast? On the policymakers' side, there's a lot that is not still understood about the implications of a large share of renewables."
Impact on nuclear power
Wellinghoff's statement -- if it reflects Obama administration policy -- would be a huge blow to the U.S. nuclear power industry, which has been hoping for a nuclear "renaissance" based on the capacity of nuclear reactors to generate power without greenhouse gas emissions.
Congress created significant financial incentives to encourage the construction of perhaps a half-dozen nuclear plants with innovative designs, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu has promised Congress to accelerate awards of federal loan guarantees for some of these proposals.
But a major expansion in U.S. nuclear energy would require a high effective tax on carbon emissions from coal plants, or an extended loan guarantee and tax incentive policy, according to the Congressional Research Service and outside consultants. The leading energy bills before Congress do not provide more loan guarantees.
"If expansion of nuclear plants is the nation's policy, then Congress has to recognize that the U.S. energy companies cannot afford to do this alone," said Paul Genoa, policy director for the Nuclear Energy Institute, in a recent interview.
"The president needs to show his cards on nuclear energy," said energy consultant Joseph Stanislaw, a Duke University professor. "He cannot keep this industry, which must make investments with a 50-year or longer horizon, in limbo for much longer."
"I think [new nuclear expansion] is kind of a theoretical question, because I don't see anybody building these things, I don't see anybody having one under construction," Wellinghoff said.
Building nuclear plants is cost-prohibitive, he said, adding that the last price he saw was more than $7,000 a kilowatt -- more expensive than solar energy. "Until costs get to some reasonable cost, I don't think anybody's going to [talk] that seriously," he said. "Coal plants are sort of in the same boat, they're not quite as expensive."
Can renewables meet demand?
There's enough renewable energy to meet energy demand, Wellinghoff said. "There's 500 to 700 gigawatts of developable wind throughout the Midwest, all the way to Texas. There's probably another 200 to 300 gigawatts in Montana and Wyoming that can go West."
He also cited tremendous solar power in the Southwest and hydrokinetic and biomass energy, and said the United States can reduce energy usage by 50 percent. "You combine all those things together ... I think we have great resources in this country, and we just need to start using them," he said.
Problems with unsteady power generation from wind will be overcome, he said.
"That's exactly what all the load response will do, the load response will provide that leveling ability, number one," he said. "Number two, if you have wide interconnections across the entire interconnect, you're going to have a lot of diversity with that wind. Not all the wind is going to stop at once. You'll have some of it stop, some of it start, and all of that diversity is going to help you, as well."
Push for grid modifications
But planning for modifying the grid to integrate renewables must take place in the next three to five years, he said.
"If we don't do that, then we miss the boat,"Wellinghoff said. "That planning has to take place so you don't strand a lot of assets, a lot of supply assets."
Unlike coal and nuclear, natural gas will continue to play a role in generating electricity, he said.
"Natural gas is going to be there for a while, because it's going to be there to get us through this transition that's going to take 30 or more years."
Chu reiterated before the House Energy and Commerce Committee today that he supports loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants and is working with the White House on the issue.
"I believe nuclear power has to be part of the energy mix in this century," Chu said.
Chu also noted today that nuclear technology, along with renewables, is an area where the United States has lost its lead. "We are trying to start the American nuclear industry again," he said. (just say No to Nuke Power)
Coal currently provides half of U.S. power, while nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent.
Senior reporter Ben Geman contributed.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/22/22greenwire-no-need-to-build-new-us-coal-or-nuclear-plants-10630.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
