Ask Pablo: Is Nuclear Power Really "Carbon Neutral?"

by Pablo Paster, San Francisco
on 09.28.09

Dear Pablo: Too often I hear politicians, lobbyists, and others advocating for nuclear power, but doesn't the processing of the fuel take a huge amount of energy? So how can they call it carbon neutral?

The short answer is that nuclear energy is not "carbon neutral." Wind and solar can also not be said to be entirely without greenhouse gas emissions. But with truly renewable energy sources such as solar and wind we are talking about a one-time "investment" of greenhouse gas emissions when the solar panels or windmills are built. The energy payback period for solar panels is less than two years according to some sources, and even less for wind.

Nuclear energy cannot be considered truly renewable because it relies on a fuel. One that is not only highly processed and refined, but also one that is not replenished by incoming solar energy or biological processes, like wind, solar, tidal, and biomass are.

Where Do Greenhouse Gas Emissions Come From In the Nuclear Power Lifecycle?
Construction

Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear power lifecycle begin with the construction of the nuclear power plant. Containment domes and redundant systems make the environmental impact of building a nuclear power plant much bigger than a conventional power plant. But because nuclear power plants have a significantly higher electricity output, the impact per kWh is lessened, but still significant at 2.22 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt-hour (GWh), compared to 0.95 tons per GWh for combined-cycle natural gas.

Milling, Mining, and Enrichment

Nuclear fuel, Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239, begin as ore in a giant pit mine (75%) or an underground mine (25%). The ore has a uranium concentration around 1.5%, which needs to be further refined. Processing that includes crushing, leaching, and acid baths produces a more concentrated U3O8 called yellowcake. The U3O8 is processed into UO3, and then into UO2, which is manufactured into fuel rods for nuclear power plants. From mine to power plant, the greenhouse gas emissions can add up to another 0.683 tons of greenhouse gas emissions for every GWh.

Heavy Water Production

An important component of many types of nuclear power plants is heavy water, which is a water with a higher than normal concentration of Deuterium Monoxide D2O, which is just like water in which the Hydrogen atom has been replaced by a Deuterium atom. I was surprised to learn that the production of this heavy water is actually on of the biggest contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear energy lifecycle. In fact it can result in up to 9.64 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per GWh.

So, What is the "Carbon Footprint" of nuclear power?

According to my sources the entire lifecycle emissions of nuclear power are as high as 15.42 tons per GWh. But how does that compare to other electricity sources? A typical nuclear power plant is around 1 GW. Assuming 100% uptime (nuclear power plants do go offline for maintenence), a 1 GW power plant, running 8760 hours per year, will produce 8760 gigawatt-hours, or 8.76 billion kilowatt-hours per year. The average US household uses 11,232 kWh per year, so the average nuclear power plant services 780,000 households. Now, 15.42 tons per GWh translates into 15.42 kg per megawatt-hour (MWh). For comparison, California's mixture of electricity sources, including nuclear, creates 328.4 kg of CO2 per MWh and Kansas tops out the nation at 889.5 kg per MWh. The lifecycle emissions of wind power are around 10 kg per MWh.

Sure, nuclear power has lower greenhouse gas emissions than any combustion-based fuel source but it still has many other problems. We all know about the dangers of nuclear accidents and the issues around nuclear waste. If politicians were technology agnostic, removed subsidies for the coal and nuclear industry, and set a price on carbon with a national cap and trade system, there would be no debate. The free market would choose the path to the most cost effective and cleanest sources of energy which would include wind, solar, small-scale hydro, geothermal, energy efficiency, tidal, and certainly not nuclear or "clean coal."

Additional Resources on Nuclear Power:
The Next Nuclear Renaissance is Already Underway
Green Nuclear Waste?
Life Cycle Analysis of Nuclear Power

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/is-nuclear-power-really-carbon-neutral.php?dcitc=th_rss

Nuclear Power is not CO2 Free.

Comment: Great Article about the nuke cycle is full of CO2! The Nuke people are either naive or full of greed. The latter is the truth! The nuke bunch love to go into communities, blow up their hills to get to the uranium and heck with the locals! Some locals have lived on their lands since 1700 in Virginia. However, the Nukes do not care if they ruin people lives, ruin our water, and destroy Mother Earth; all the state of Virginia and the nuke bunch want is money, money, money!

Written by Gavin at 22:11

There have been quite a few articles in the press from the nuclear lobby and the opposition party touting the climate change benefits of Nuclear Power. Besides the harmful nuclear waste that the process leaves behind, the claim that nuclear power generation is CO2 free is simply a myth. In my search to find proof, I stumbled upon this great post. I cannot claim the words in this post. They belong to Dave Kimble from www.peakoil.org.au and they are wise and well researched words as well.

________________________________________
Proponents of nuclear power always say that one of the big benefits of nuclear power is that it produces no Carbon dioxide (CO2).
This is completely untrue, as a moment's consideration will demonstrate that fossil fuels, especially oil in the form of gasoline and diesel, are essential to every stage of the nuclear cycle, and CO2 is given off whenever these are used.

Ranger Uranium Mine's Pit Number .

All of the material removed from this hole, over-burden and ore, was moved by truck.
These trucks run on diesel. It would be interesting to know how much diesel is used for how much ore in a year at Ranger.

If we are to increase the number of nuclear power stations, we also need to increase the number of these trucks (which obviously take a lot of fossil fuel energy to build), and the volume of diesel fuel. Currently Australia imports 26% of its diesel consumption, and this figure is rising as our oil production falls.

The tyres on these trucks are also particularly energy-intensive to make, and there is a world-wide short of these tyres.

The ore is taken to a mill, usually nearby to keep trucking costs down. The mill crushes the rock to powder. The powder is then treated with sulphuric acid to dissolve the uranium, leaving the rock (depleted ore) behind.

The depleted ore is washed and neutralised using lime, and the slurry is pumped to the tailings ponds.

Maintaining the tailings ponds, with more diesel powered machinery.

Hard rock ores, such as quartz conglomerates and granites, are approximately 3 to 4 times more energy-intensive than soft rock ores (limestones and shales) to crush.

The dissolved uranium solution, including other metals, is then treated with amines dissolved in kerosene to selectively separate the uranium, which is then precipitated out of solution using ammonia, forming Ammonium di-uranate, or "yellowcake".

All of these chemicals, sulphuric acid, lime, amines, kerosene and ammonia are energy-intensive
to make, and the energy required is in the form of fossil fuels, that produce CO2 when used.

In the final stage, the yellowcake is roasted at 800°C in an oil-fired furnace called a calciner. The Ammonium di-uranate is converted to 98% pure Uranium oxide (U3O8), which is a dark green powder that is packed into 44-gallon drums for shipment.

Drums of Uranium oxide are stacked by forklifts, while they await shipment, sometimes to the other side of the world.

The next stage involves dissolving the Uranium oxide in Hydrofluoric Acid and excess Fluorine gas to form Uranium hexafluoride gas : U3O8 + 16HF + F2 => 3UF6 + 8H2O

Hydrofluoric Acid is one of the most corrosive and poisonous compounds known to man.

The Uranium hexafluoride gas is then transported in cylinders to be enriched.

Naturally occurring Uranium consists of three isotopes: U-238 = 99.2745% ; U-235 = 0.7200% ; U-234 = 0.0055%

Despite its tiny proportion of the total by weight, U-234 produces ~49% of the radioactive emissions, due to its very short half-life.

The standard enrichment process for pressurised water reactor (PWR) fuel converts this mix to: fuel stream : U-238 = 96.4% ; U-235 = 3.6%
tailings stream : U-238 = 99.7% ; U-235 = 0.3%

The centrifuges are powered by electricity, so this stage can be powered by nuclear power.

However building the centrifuge cascades requires lots of fossil fuels.

Low-enriched (3.6%) Uranium hexafluoride gas is then transported to the fuel fabrication plant.

The UF6 gas is converted to Uranium dioxide (UO2) powder, pressed into pellets, and baked in an oil-fired furnace to form a ceramic material. These are then loaded into a tube made of a zirconium alloy. Several of these tubes form one fuel assembly.

Zirconium is a metallic element derived from zircon, an ore of Zirconium silicate (ZrSiO4), which is a by-product of rutile sand mining (another energy-intensive business). Naturally occurring

Zirconium is always found with Hafnium, which has to be removed (with difficulty) for nuclear uses.

For every tonne of Uranium in the fuel, up to 2 tonnes of Zirconium alloy are needed.

Fresh fuel is only mildly radioactive and can be handled without shielding. The fuel assemblies are then transported to the reactor by truck or train.

A 1000 MW(e) nuclear reactor contains about 100 - 130 tonnes of Uranium dioxide, and usually one third of that is replaced in rotation each year.

If you ignore the vehicles that the workers use to get to work, the reactor does not produce any CO2. But it does use electricity, as well as produce it, and to the extent that electricity is largely produced by fossil fuels, this needs to be counted in the energy balance.

It takes a lot of steel to build a nuclear power station, and steel is made by smelting iron ore with coking coal.

And a nuclear power station uses lots of concrete, which is made from cement. Cement is made by crushing limestone and roasting it, using fossil fuels, to drive off Carbon dioxide. So cement is particularly CO2-intensive.

Spent fuel rods 'normally' spend six months in cooling ponds located within the reactor building, so that short-lived radio-activity can decay, making the material easier to handle. In the US and many other places, these spent fuel rods stay at the reactor a lot longer than that, while politicians argue over what to do with it next.

Reactor waste moved by road and rail.

Spent fuel is kept under water until it is reprocessed. This keeps it cool and acts as a radiation shield. In the 'once through' process, the fuel rods are dissolved in acid, and the Plutonium is extracted, and the remainder including the Uranium becomes high-level waste. In the 'recycling' process, Uranium is also recovered.

Recovered Plutonium and Mixtures of Plutonium and Uranium oxides (MOX) are sent by road back to the fuel fabrication facility to be used in new fuel rods.

This is not really a waste repository, (it is the NORAD military bunker at Cheyenne Mountain) but this is what one might look like if one was ever to be built.

This is a security policeman, well , it does say POLICE on his bag. I do hope everything is alright.
Ah, that's more like it.

How many miles per gallon do you get out of one of those ?

Security surveillance is needed to prevent terrorists from getting access to radio-active materials.

And increasingly these days, one also has to defend ones nuclear facilities against attack by an increasingly sophisticated enemy. This is the Tor-M1 - a fully integrated combat vehicle with anti-missile/anti-aircraft missiles, that the Iranians are getting from Russia to protect themselves from the peace-makers.

As you can see, every step of the nuclear power cycle involves the expenditure of energy derived from fossil fuels, which nuclear electricity cannot replace. Thus it is untrue to say that nuclear energy is greenhouse friendly.

In the paper "Nuclear Power : the energy balance" by J.W. Storm and P. Smith (2005) download here, the authors calculate that with high quality ores, the CO2 produced by the full nuclear life cycle is about one half to one third of an equivalent sized gas-fired power station.

For low quality ores (less than 0.02% of U3O8 per tonne of ore), the CO2 produced by the full nuclear life cycle is EQUAL TO that produced by the equivalent gas-fired power station.

So the question is :

Given that the greenhouse claims for nuclear power are false, and if the only way the nuclear industry can operate is with massive amounts of cheap fossil fuels, especially diesel derived from oil, and with oil going to be very much scarcer in the future, is this a good time to be thinking of increasing the nuclear industry ?

I think not!

http://greeningofgavin.blogspot.com/2009/08/nuclear-power-is-not-co2-free.html

Protesters decry BHP expansion

Hundreds of black balloons symbolising carbon emissions have been displayed outside Parliament House in Adelaide by opponents of the proposed Olympic Dam uranium mine expansion.

Comment: The Nukes are always saying, "Nuclear Power is CO2 free"! Well, nuke power is not CO2 free, from uranium mining and milling, trucks, building nuke plants is full of CO2! No to Uranium mining and Nuke Power!

7/08/2009 4:28:00 PM

A mass of black balloons covered the steps of the South Australian parliament like a shroud today in protest at BHP Billiton's proposed expansion of the Olympic Dam uranium mine.

Greens Legislative Council member Mark Parnell helped organise the rally in the final hours open for comment on the environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed expansion.

He said the black balloons were a poignant symbol of a proposal that should be sent back to the drawing board.

"The EIS reflects what the company wants to do, some of the things they want to do are clearly unsustainable, so they clearly do have to go back to the drawing board," he told AAP.

"Most people are familiar with the government's black balloon advertising campaign to raise awareness of climate change.

"When you transfer that image to the Olympic Dam uranium mine expansion, what you find is that you would need 13 million black balloons to represent greenhouse gas emission from one hour's operations.

"This project is significant on so many levels: it is significant because it is a uranium mine and there is all the implications for nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear waste, which we still don't know how to dispose of after decades."

He said BHP Billiton was not proposing to power the current mine, nor the expanded site, with renewable energy.

"It is destined to be a greenhouse disaster," he said.

Young Greens, members of the public and Whyalla residents called out "kokatti", meaning "don't dig" in the local Aboriginal language, from the steps of parliament house.

Residents from Whyalla, in the state's mid north, travelled several hours to attend the protest in the hope of informing city dwellers of the potential consequences of the desalination proposal.

BHP Billiton is proposing to build a desalination plant to supply the mine with water.

"They have chosen the cheapest location to build the desal plant, which happens to be in the upper reaches of Spencer Gulf," Mr Parnell said.

"It's the worst possible place for a desalination plant - it's only a few hundred metres from the world's only site of breeding cuttlefish."

http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/protesters-decry-bhp-expansion/1590241.aspx

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/07/2649513.htm

BHPB tries to get free greenhouse emissions for its copper-uranium mine

Comment: So nuke plants is CO2 free! Not! Uranium mining is full of CO2 !

Emissions will rise under Olympic Dam plan: greens

Sydney Morning Herald Marian Wilkinson Environment Editor August 3, 2009

BHP-Billiton’s plan to dig the biggest open-cut uranium and copper mine in the world is under attack from environmental groups who claim it will send greenhouse gas emissions soaring in the home state of the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong.The battle over the massive expansion of the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia comes as mining companies are in talks with the Government over whether the copper industry will be granted free permits to cover greenhouse gas emissions because of export competition from countries such as Chile.If the talks are successful, BHP could be shielded from some of the high costs of greenhouse pollution associated with the mine’s expansion under the Government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme.

BHP estimates that the expanded Olympic Dam mine could produce up to 4.7 million tonnes (4.7 megatonnes) of greenhouse emissions every year at its peak, according to its environmental impact statement, which is on display. That figure is close to 1 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions today.

The Australian Conservation Foundation estimates that by 2020 the mine’s expansion will increase South Australia’s emissions by about 12.4 per cent a year.

A spokeswoman for Senator Wong told the Herald yesterday the copper industry ‘‘is working with the Department of Climate Change to assess copper’s eligibility’’ for free permits under the Government’s scheme and whether it qualifies.

Uranium mining is not considered eligible for free permits under the Government’s scheme but Olympic Dam’s main product will be its huge copper reserves.

Public submissions to the state and federal Labor governments on BHP’s environmental statement close this week.

http://nuclearnewsaustralia.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/bhpb-tries-to-get-free-greenhouse-emissions-for-its-copper-uranium-mine/

Why Nuclear Energy is Still a Really Bad Idea

Jonathan Cloud

After all the literature and public policy discussion and decision-making of the past 50+ years, it is hard to believe that there is still an industry – and a lobby – advocating for the expenditure of vast sums of money for the use of “controlled” nuclear reactions anywhere on this planet, let alone in the densely-populated Northeast.

But nuclear advocates have found new hope in the argument that nuclear power is “carbon-free.” New organizations have been formed to promote nuclear as “clean, affordable, and safe.”

As Environment NJ’s Matt Elliott has noted, “Recently, Exelon Corp. funded the creation of a group with the misleading name of Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy (ACRE) Coalition. The group is little more than a front for the nuclear industry.” (Philadelphia Inquirer – 2007-09-17)

And I was alarmed to hear the Deputy Speaker of the NJ Assembly say the other that a new unclear plant in New Jersey was “inevitable,” and could be approved as early as 2015. He based this in part on the delays in getting massive amounts of renewables in place – as called for in the state’s new Energy Master Plan – to meet the goals of the Renewable Portfolio Standard. In his view, and that of many others, the implementation of the state’s energy policy goals was hopelessly inadequate, and would fall so far short of these goals as to make nuclear inevitable.

For all these reasons, it’s important to state why nuclear energy is still a bad idea – for New Jersey, for America, and for the world:

To start with, it’s not renewable. Uranium is a fossil fuel, that has to be extracted through mining, and there is a limited amount of it that is accessible and likely to be recoverable on a cost-effective basis. The IAEA states, “Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand- also called the “Red Book” – estimates the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock, which can be mined for less than USD 130 per kg, to be about 4.7 million tonnes. Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand the amount is sufficient for 85 years, the study states.” (Global Uranium Resources to Meet Projected Demand, 2 June 2006.) While this may not be a limiting factor immediately, the way peak oil appears to be, the same arguments will ultimately apply: this is not a sustainable source of energy.

It is also not “clean.” While no greenhouse gases are emitted in the reaction cycle, nuclear power plants are massive construction projects, requiring huge quantities of cement and other materials; and the process of mining uranium is itself very energy-intensive and damaging to the environment.

As John Busby points out,
The claim for the carbon-free status of nuclear power proves to be false. Carbon dioxide is released in every component of the nuclear fuel cycle except the actual fission in the reactor. Fossil fuels are involved in the mining, milling, conversion and enrichment of the ore, in the handling of the mill tailings, in the fuel can preparation, in the construction of the station and in its de-commissioning and demolition, in the handling of the spent waste, in its processing and vitrification and in digging the hole in rock for its deposition.

The lower the ore grade, the more energy is consumed in the fuel processing, so that the amount of the carbon dioxide released in the overall fuel cycle depends on the ore grade. Only Canada and Australia have ores of a sufficiently high grade to avoid excessive carbon releases and to provide an adequate energy gain. At ore grades below 0.01% for ‘soft’ ores and 0.02% for ‘hard’ ores more CO2 than an equivalent gas-fired station is released and more energy is absorbed in the cycle that is gained in it…

The industry points to the presence of uranium in phosphates and seawater, but the concentrations are so low that the energy required to extract it would exceed many times the energy obtained from any nuclear power resulting and the resulting carbon emissions would be massive.

When the energy inputs, past, present and future are totalled up and set against the actual energy derived from the entire nuclear power programme and its waste handling, it may well be that the overall energy gain has been negative. This has been masked by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, but as that era passes it behoves energy professionals to make an honest assessment of the energy and monetary economics of proceeding further with a failed technology. (Why nuclear power is not a sustainable source of low carbon energy, 31 October 2005.)

Nuclear energy is not cheap. Massive subsidies to the nuclear industry are now widely understood as “hidden costs” that give the lie to the idea that nuclear electricity can be generated for as little as 3¢ a kilowatt hour. It is not even possible to fully account for the “externalities” involved in producing electricity, because the final costs of disposing of wastes, decommissioning power plants, cleaning up accidents, protecting plants from terrorist attacks, etc. cannot be known.

The storage problem remains unresolved. Despite technological advances that may allow for the re-processing of spent fuels (for something other than making nuclear weapons), the ultimate disposal problem remains.

Public opinion is now firmly against the development of more nuclear, and is likely to prevent siting of nuclear plants near dense population centers (where the energy is needed), leading to even higher costs or the need to site plants far enough away to require an even-more massive upgrading of the grid.

Nuclear power is more “centralized” energy production, rather than distributed generation.
A number of other arguments could also be made, but these should suffice to make the point that nuclear is not a solution to our present global climate and energy crises. Investing additional billions of dollars in nuclear will only divert resources from developing truly clean and renewable sources of energy, and delay the transition to a sustainable economy.

http://jc.atg-host.com/?p=104

Environmental groups back wind farm

Published: June 9, 2009

A coalition of environmental groups opposed to Dominion Resources Inc.'s coal-fired power plant in Wise County said they support the utility company's proposal for a wind farm in the county.

Richmond-based Dominion and BP Wind Energy are considering building wind energy projects in Wise and Tazewell counties in Southwest Virginia.

"We're often criticized as being opposed to everything," said Glen Besa with the Sierra Club's Virginia Chapter, "and we wanted to make it clear that we are in favor of clean energy projects."

Appalachian Voices, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Sierra Club, the Southern Environmental Law Center and The Clinch Coalition joined in backing the Mill Creek wind project in Wise.

Four of the groups -- Appalachian Voices, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and the Sierra Club-- are opposing Dominion's Virginia City coal plant in court.

Although the coal power plant is under construction, a challenge to the facility's air permit is set for trial in July.

"We appreciate the support we're receiving for our proposed wind-energy project in Wise County," said Dominion spokesman Ryan Frazier.

"The support has been broad, coming from the environmental community, the coal industry, and county citizens and elected officials," Frazier said. "BP Wind Energy and Dominion believe Mill Creek would be a great asset to the county and the region."

The environmental groups did not take a position on the Tazewell proposal. "We haven't had a chance to review it in as much detail," Besa said, noting that each such project is unique in its impacts.

Though Dominion has said the size of the projects has not been determined, the environmental coalition said the proposed Wise County wind plant could generate as much as 150 megawatts of electricity.

Contact Peter Bacqué at (804) 649-6813 or pbacque@timesdispatch.com.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/energy/article/B-WIND09_20090608-220002/272666/

US lawmakers reject nuclear in renewable power goal

US lawmakers reject nuclear in renewable power goal (well duh!!!!!Not CO2 free either, with uranium mining & milling, uses gas, coal, etc!!)

Wed May 20, 2009 4:30pm EDT

(Recasts lead, adds details on amendment on energy efficiency, details on EIA emissions report)

By Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON, May 20 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers pushing to include greater recognition for existing nuclear power in a national renewable energy standard failed to win new breaks for the industry when a U.S. congressional panel on Wednesday voted down an amendment to a controversial climate change bill.

The sweeping bill, which seeks to cap greenhouse gas emissions, includes a renewable energy mandate that would require utilities to generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar by 2020.

Under the legislation sponsored by Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, utilities' renewable mandate would be reduced in proportion to the portion of any electricity sales from new nuclear plants, but not existing nuclear plants.

Republican Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida, who offered the failed amendment, said the measure would have helped states meet the renewable electricity standard with a source that has no carbon emissions.

Waxman argued that the bill was not discriminating against nuclear power, but that nuclear was not renewable energy because it requires uranium, a limited resource. Also, he said the renewable standard was aimed at promoting new power sources and technology. (but Waxman did not mention the nasty uranium mining!!!)

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is in its third day of debate of a nearly 1,000-page climate change bill, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

The panel approved a measure that would require the State Department and U.S. Trade Representative to annually prepare and publicize a report on whether China and India have adopted greenhouse gas emission reduction programs as stringent as those found in the United States.

An amendment requiring the Energy Department to develop rules for enforcing any national energy efficiency building code established through this legislation was also approved.

Republicans have blasted the legislation, warning that it could drastically curb the United States' economic growth by making U.S. companies less competitive internationally with countries such as China and India that will likely not have strong climate change regulations.

"A cap and trade program will never be made to work in an economy as diverse and complex as the United States. It's just not possible. It's going to cost a lot of money and a lot of jobs," Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas told reporters on the sidelines of the hearing.

A poll conducted by Reuters found that Democrats have the votes to get the climate legislation passed by the committee. Of the 59 members on the House committee, 30 lawmakers, all of them Democrats would definitely vote "yes" or were likely to support the bill, according to the survey.

Barton predicted, however, that the Waxman-Markey bill would not make it into law.

"This cap and trade exercise that we're about to engage in, is an exercise in futility on their side. Even if they muscle it out of committee, it's not going anywhere."

The heart of the historic bill would set up a system limiting carbon dioxide and other pollutants by gradually reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that utilities, steelmakers, oil refineries and other companies can emit. Businesses would be required to acquire an ever-decreasing number carbon pollution permits.

A separate report from the Energy Information Administration on Wednesday said U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels fell by 2.8 percent in 2008, the largest drop since the agency began reporting greenhouse gases. The agency said high oil prices and the slowing economy were factors in the decline. [ID:nN20287598] (Additional reporting by Tom Doggett, Richard Cowan; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN20533760

Mining will bring asthma - GP claims

Comment: now they want to do mt top removal in pretty England countryside plus open pit uranium mining equipment will do the same thing - co2 & dust!

Thousands of Telford children could suffer from asthma due to a double danger of fallout from a proposed opencast coal mine, it was claimed today.

The exhaust fumes from heavy machinery and dust thrown up by excavations would get into the lungs of people living nearby according to Dr Dick van Steenis, a retired GP.

And most at risk would be residents living in a fallout zone around the site, including Wellington, Hadley, Ketley and Dawley, he said.

Dr van Steenis said he would be making the point at the public inquiry which started yesterday at Gray’s Hotel, in Telford town centre, and is set to last several weeks.

UK Coal is seeking the go-ahead to extract 900,000 tonnes of coal from fields and woodland at Huntington Lane, between New Works and Little Wenlock, over three years before restoring the site.

It says the scheme would create 90 jobs, boost the local economy and help to meet Britain’s energy needs.

Opposition is being led by Telford & Wrekin Council, which claims the noise, dust and vibration from blasting would cause disturbance in a quiet, rural area at the foot of The Wrekin.

Dr van Steenis, of Sarn, near Newtown, an international campaigner on clean air issues, will give evidence on May 19 for objectors’ group Friends of the Ercall.

Speaking after listening to yesterday afternoon’s session, he said he would challenge UK Coal’s evidence that the mine would not affect public health.

He added that schools in Telford already had problems with pupils suffering from asthma and that this would “only make things worse”.

The inquiry continues.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/04/29/mining-will-bring-asthma-gp-claims/