Hashima Island: Japan's Ghost Island (former coal mine)

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Someone sent me some lyrics to a song about an interesting island in Japan. At first, I dismissed it as not so interesting, but after about 10 minutes of snooping around, I thought it was pretty damn amazing!

Hashima Island; commonly called Gunkanjima (軍艦島; meaning "Battleship Island") is one among 505 uninhabited islands in the Nagasaki Prefecture about 15 kilometers from Nagasaki itself. The island was populated from 1887 to 1974 as a coal mining facility. The island's most notable features are the abandoned concrete buildings and the sea wall surrounding it. It has been administered as part of Nagasaki, Nagasaki since 2005.

"Battleship Island" is an English translation of the Japanese nickname for Hashima Island, Gunkanjima (gunkan meaning "battleship", jima being the rendaku form of shima, meaning "island"). The island's nickname came from its apparent resemblance to the Japanese battleship Tosa due to its high seawalls. It also is known as the Ghost Island. It is known for its coal mines and their operation during the industrialization of Japan. Mitsubishi bought the island in 1890 and began the project, the aim of which was retrieving coal from the bottom of the sea. They built Japan's first large concrete building, a block of apartments in 1916 to accommodate their burgeoning ranks of workers (many of whom were forcibly recruited labourers from other parts of Asia), and to protect against typhoon destruction. Wikipedia...

In 1959, its population density was 835 people per hectare (83,500 people/km2) for the whole island, or 1,391 per hectare (139,100 people/km2) for the residential district, the highest population density ever recorded worldwide. As petroleum replaced coal in Japan in the 1960s, coal mines began shutting down all over the country, and Hashima's mines were no exception. Mitsubishi officially announced the closing of the mine in 1974, and today it is empty and bare, which is why it's called the Ghost Island. Travel to Hashima was re-opened on April 22, 2009 after more than 20 years of closure.

Visiting the Island Today!

The island is increasingly gaining international attention not only as one of the modern international heritages in the region, but also as the housing complex remnants in the years from Taisho Era to Showa Era. Moreover, the island has become the frequent subject of a discussion among enthusiasts for ruins.
Since the abandoned island has not been maintained, several buildings have already collapsed. Other existing buildings are subject to breakage. In this regard, however, certain collapsed exterior walls have been restored with concrete. While the island was owned by Mitsubishi Material up until 2002, it was voluntarily transferred to Takashima town. Currently, Nagasaki City possesses the island. A small portion of the island was re-opened for tourism on April 22nd, 2009. A full reopening of the island would require an enormous amount of money to make the premises safe, due to the aging of the buildings.

Mingo(West VA) residents sue over mining, flooding

September 17, 2009
Mingo residents sue over mining, flooding
By Ken Ward Jr.
Staff writer
Advertiser

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Twenty Mingo County families have filed a lawsuit alleging that strip mining related to construction of the King Coal Highway caused flooding that damaged their homes.

Melissa Lester, her family and 19 other families in the Murphy Branch area of Pigeon Creek, near Rawl, sued four coal companies in Mingo Circuit Court. Named as defendants were Alpha Natural Resources, Nicewonder Contracting, White Flame Energy and Cobra Natural Resources.

The suits blame unpermitted mining that allegedly did not include construction of runoff control structures that would typically be required by regulators.

Mining in the area, the suits allege, has "exacerbated flooding because inadequate or non-existent stormwater control, failure to return the land to Approximate Original Contour and other deviations from accepted standards of care increased peak-load water flow and proximately caused flooding and flood-related damages."

Jason Hammond, a lawyer for the defendants, refused comment Thursday afternoon.

The King Coal Highway is intended to run roughly parallel to U.S. 52 from the outskirts of Huntington to near Bluefield. The new four-lane highway will tie into the new Interstate 73/74, which will extend from Michigan to Myrtle Beach.

Mining companies became involved to build part of the roadbed with waste rock and dirt from adjacent mountaintop removal coal mining sites.

State and federal regulators allowed at least some of this mining to proceed without strip-mining permits, because they concluded it fell under an exemption for mining that is "an incidental part" of highway construction.

But the new lawsuits allege that, "Rather, the King Coal Highway construction is incident to the primary purpose of mining coal at the Red Jacket Project site, without following regulations intended to protect the public from just the sort of catastrophe that occurred in the instant case."

The lawsuits cite two earlier flooding events in May 2008 that "should certainly have alerted" the mining companies "that their stormwater runoff control structures, if any were in place at all, were woefully inadequate along the Pigeon Creek watershed."

Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1702

http://wvgazette.com/News/200909170305

Federal study reveals widespread mercury contamination in fish from air pollution, mining

DINA CAPPIELLO

Associated Press Writer

9:18 PM PDT, August 19, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — No fish can escape mercury pollution.

That's the take-home message from a federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday that tested fish from nearly 300 streams across the country.

The toxic substance was found in every fish sampled, a finding that underscores how widespread mercury pollution has become.

But while all fish had traces of contamination, only about a quarter had mercury levels exceeding what the Environmental Protection Agency says is safe for people eating average amounts of fish.

The study by the U.S. Geological Survey is the most comprehensive look to date at mercury in the nation's streams. From 1998 to 2005, scientists collected and tested more than a thousand fish, including bass, trout and catfish, from 291 streams nationwide.

"This science sends a clear message that our country must continue to confront pollution, restore our nation's waterways, and protect the public from potential health dangers," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement.

Mercury consumed by eating fish can damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young children. The main source of mercury to most of the streams tested, according to the researchers, is emissions from coal-fired power plants. The mercury released from smokestacks here and abroad rains down into waterways, where natural processes convert it into methylmercury — a form that allows the toxin to wind its way up the food chain into fish.

Some of the highest levels in fish were detected in the remote blackwater streams along the coasts of the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana, where bacteria in surrounding forests and wetlands help in the conversion. The second-highest concentration of mercury was detected in largemouth bass from the North Fork of the Edisto River near Fairview Crossroads, S.C.

"Unfortunately, it's the case that almost any fish you test will have mercury now," said Andrew Rypel, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Mississippi who has studied mercury contamination in fish throughout the Southeast. He said other research has shown mercury in fish from isolated areas of Alaska and Canada, and species that live in the deep ocean.

Mercury was also found in high concentrations in western streams that drain areas mined for mercury and gold. The most contaminated sample came from smallmouth bass collected from the Carson River at Dayton, Nev., an area tainted with mercury from gold mining. At 58 other streams, mostly in the West, the acidic conditions created by mining could also be contributing to the mercury levels, the researchers said.

"Some ecosystems are more sensitive than others," said Barbara Scudder, the lead USGS scientist on the study.

All but two states — Alaska and Wyoming — have issued fish-consumption advisories because of mercury contamination. Some of the streams studied already had warnings.

"This is showing that the problem is much more widespread," said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst for the Environmental Working Group, which has pushed for stronger advisories on consumption of mercury-laden fish and controls on the sources of mercury pollution. "If you are living in an area that doesn't have a mercury advisory, you should use caution."

Earlier this year, the Obama administration said it would begin crafting a new regulations to control mercury emissions from power plants after a federal appeals court threw out plans drafted by the Bush administration and favored by industry. The Bush rule would have allowed power plants to buy and sell pollution credits, instead of requiring each plant to install equipment to reduce mercury pollution.

The EPA also has also proposed a new regulation to clamp down on emissions of mercury from cement plants.

___

On the Net:

U.S. Geological Survey: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/mercury/



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-mercury-contamination,0,6744946.story

Clean Coal : Dirty Joke

Comment: Why is the gov't using terms like, "Clean Coal" or Nuke Plants, "CO2 free? Just their way to allow corporations to make money and ruin our world! No to Mt. Top Removal and No to Nuke Power, therefore, No to Uranium Mining!

Seven reasons why “Clean” Coal is dirty, dangerous and wicked, but not funny in the slightest.

1. Coal mines are Toxic

http://blog.taragana.com/n/white-house-acts-to-reduce-environmental-damage-from-mountaintop-coal-mining-in-6-states-78955/

“White House acts to reduce environmental damage from mountaintop coal mining in 6 states : Dina Cappiello : June 11th, 2009 : Plan targets fallout from mountaintop mining…Nancy Sutley, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers will set clear standards, ensuring that communities in coal-mining regions have clean streams and drinking water. Mining waste dumped into waterways can diminish water quality for fish and other aquatic organisms, and taint sources of drinking water…”

http://www.sixdegrees.org.au/content/coal-mines-and-rivers-toxic-mix

“Coal mines and rivers: a toxic mix : 29th of Apr, 2009 : From Emerald in Queensland, to the Liverpool Plains of New South Wales, coal mines are having a huge impact on the quantity and quality of our river systems. An independent study of the impact of coal mines on Queensland’s Fitzroy River found that the discharge quality limits and operating conditions for mines in the Bowen Basin do not adequately protect the downstream values of the environment, impacting ecosystems and town drinking water supplies…The impetus for this study resulted from a flood event in central Queensland in January and February 2008…The Queensland EPA authorised the mine to discharge flood waters entrapped in this mine to the Nogoa River, which ultimately flows into the Fitzroy River. In August, water quality results for Bedford Weir downstream of Ensham Coal Mine, indicated that salinity was increasing in the waterways downstream of the Ensham discharge, and that drinking water supplies were being adversely affected…”

2. Thermal Coal Power Plants are Toxic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/27/estimate-of-coal-sludge-s_n_153683.html

“Estimate Of Coal Sludge Spill Size Doubled : KRISTIN M. HALL December 27, 2008 : NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Authorities need to more strongly warn residents that muck left from a major coal-ash spill in eastern Tennessee could pose health risks, a southern environmental group said Saturday. The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation said Friday that the mixture of coal fly ash and water coating a neighborhood near the Kingston Fossil Plant didn’t pose an immediate risk to residents unless they ingested it…”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-24-mercury-lede_x.htm

“Posted 8/24/2004 : Mercury in many lakes, rivers ; By Elizabeth Weise and Traci Watson, USA TODAY : One third of the nation’s lake waters and one-quarter of its riverways are contaminated with mercury and other pollutants that could cause health problems for children and pregnant women who eat too much fish, the Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday…Mercury is emitted primarily by incinerators and power plants that burn coal. The EPA plans to publish rules restricting mercury from power plants by mid-2005, although environmentalists say the preliminary draft of those rules does not go far enough…”

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x063m2p84t31p407/

“Beryllium pollution from slag and ashes from thermal power stations : Journal Water, Air, & Soil Pollution : Publisher Springer Netherlands : Issue : Volume 34, Number 4 / August, 1987 : Pages 363-367 : Beryllium pollution from slag and ashes from thermal power stations : Jana Kubizncaronáková : Institute of Landscape Ecology, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, 37005 Ccaroneské Budecaronjovice, Czechoslovakia : Received: 1 September 1986 Revised: 15 January 1987 : Abstract Beryllium enters the environment principally from coal combustion. Be contents in the ashes from a Czechoslovak power plant were determined…It was discovered that the acidic and the alkali aqueous extracts of these ashes contain various concentrations of Be (1 to 17% of total concentration). Wastewater has shown 3.15 and 3.4 mgrg Be L–1. Thus, secondary long-term Be pollution emerges from the slag and ash dumps…”

3. Carbon Capture and Storage will increase Heat Pollution

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a group of technology proposals to capture Carbon Dioxide emissions from burning coal in power plants, and then store safely underground or at the bottom of the sea. Each of the technologies proposed risks burning more Coal fuel in order to do the Carbon Capture and the Carbon Storage. Burning more Coal will create more heat which will be released into the local environment. Heat from thermal power plants is a form of pollution.

http://www.pollutionissues.com/Te-Un/Thermal-Pollution.html

“Environmental Effects : The primary effects of thermal pollution are direct thermal shock, changes in dissolved oxygen, and the redistribution of organisms in the local community. Because water can absorb thermal energy with only small changes in temperature, most aquatic organisms have developed enzyme systems that operate in only narrow ranges of temperature. These stenothermic organisms can be killed by sudden temperature changes that are beyond the tolerance limits of their metabolic systems. The cooling water discharges of power plants are designed to minimize heat effects on local fish communities. However, periodic heat treatments used to keep the cooling system clear of fouling organisms that clog the intake pipes can cause fish mortality. A heat treatment reverses the flow and increases the temperature of the discharge to kill the mussels and other fouling organisms in the intake pipes…”

http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/45/

“Heat and Thermal Pollution : by Rezwan on Jul 22, 2006 : What is heat pollution, what causes it and what are the dangers? How does Focus Fusion change the equation? As noted in Lenntech.com: “In most manufacturing processes a lot of heat originates that must be released into the environment, because it is waste heat. The cheapest way to do this is to withdraw nearby surface water, pass it through the plant, and return the heated water to the body of surface water. The heat that is released in the water has negative effects on all life in the receiving surface water. This is the kind of pollution that is commonly known as heat pollution or thermal pollution.” The warmer water decreases the solubility of oxygen in the water and it also causes water organisms to breathe faster. Many water organisms will then die from oxygen shortages, or they become more susceptible to diseases…”

4. Carbon Capture and Storage will reduce Efficiency

Extra work means extra Energy used : Carbon Capture and Storage will require extra Energy to be used to separate the Carbon Dioxide from the Coal burning or gasification used in the processing, and extra Energy to pump the Carbon Dioxide to its Storage.

Coal burning is inefficient enough already :-

http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/08/11/there-oughta-be-a-law/

“There Oughta Be a Law : By Bill Hewitt : Tuesday, August 11 : You will notice in this diagram from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) depicting the total electricity flow in the US for 2008 that “conversion losses” account for 63% of the energy generated. Got that?! Nearly two thirds of the energy used to make electricity, 51% of that from coal, 21% from nuclear, and 17% from natural gas, is lost as heat. (Another 3% or so is lost in transmission and distribution.) What do coal, nuclear and gas have in common? They are all deployed in central power plants. You know those great honking monolithic hyperbolic cement monstrosities that dot the landscape all over the world blowing steam?…”

5. Carbon Capture and Storage is not a reality yet

The methods for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) involves elements that we know are doable, and some CCS is being done already, but a general use of the methods still needs to be proven in a variety of cases, at the large scale. One of the problems is that CCS of all kinds could turn out to be very expensive, deterring its development. We shouldn’t build new coal-fired electrical power generation plants if we don’t know if we can get CCS to work. Also, there is talk of only capturing a small portion of Carbon Dioxide from existing Coal plants fitted with CCS equipment. All of this doubt makes it a bad decision.

6. Coal Power uses increasingly scarce Water supplies

In some parts of the world, freshwater is the water used to cool Coal-fired power plants. And in those same countries, freshwater is stressed, by drought, and increasing take from supplies from agriculture and urban use. In some places it’s so bad that the aquifers are draining – that “fossil” water that is stored underground in rock formations that came from rain from centuries ago. If Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is chosen as the way to stop Carbon Dioxide emissions to air, more Coal fuel will need to be burned to do the CCS bit, and so more water will be needed. Not all of that water will get back to the groundwater systems, as it will be evaporated away as steam.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/cleancoal-technologies-may-imperil-water-supply-20090807-eciy.html

“Clean-coal technologies may imperil water supply : Peter Ker and Adam Morton : August 7, 2009 : CONTROVERSIAL “clean coal” technologies could dramatically increase the amount of water used to produce electricity in Australia. Amid dire water shortages across southern Australia and plans for significant cuts in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, a report by the National Water Commission has warned that water consumption would soar further if carbon capture and storage methods were built into coal-fired power stations. “Coal-fired power plants incorporating carbon capture and storage (CCS) could be one-quarter to one-third more water intensive,” the report said. “It is unlikely that past arrangements for supplying water to generators will be appropriate for the future in all circumstances.” Power stations consume large amounts of fresh water, with the equivalent of more than a quarter of Melbourne’s annual water consumption used to operate the five Latrobe Valley power stations. Environment Victoria director Mark Wakeham said the coal industry’s water consumption remained an “elephant in the room” for those working towards energy reform. But Peter Cook from the Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Technologies said it was unlikely that future coal-fired power stations would continue to use water in a similar way to the existing coal generators. The generators would be replaced once carbon capture and storage was fully operational. Source: The Age”

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090809/punjab.htm

“Environment Pollution : Will not 2 thermal plants, oil refinery add to woes of Bathinda? Sarbjit Dhaliwal : Tribune News Service : Jalandhar, August 8 : Will Bathinda region, which has two thermal plants and an oil refinery that will come up in a few years, have an environmental catastrophe? This question assumes significance as Bathinda region, having two coal-based thermal plants, has been facing threat to environment from the burning of coal and use of pesticides to protect crops. Work on coal-based 1980 MW thermal plant at Vanawala village, 45 km from Bathinda, has started. Another coal-based thermal plant of 2,640 MW has been proposed at Gidderbaha, 50 km from Bathinda. The case for coal linkage of Gidderbaha thermal plant is with the Union government. One coal-based 400 MW thermal plant has been generating power in Bathinda city since the 1970s. Another coal-based thermal plant of 920 MW is at Lehra Mohabbat, 25 km from Bathinda. Besides it, an oil refinery is coming up at Phulo Khari village, 30 km from Bathinda. There is also a fertiliser plant in the city. The thermal plants and the oil refinery projects cause damage to the environment and are known to harm health. So many projects in a radius of a few miles of Bathinda is a matter of concern and needs pondering. With the setting up of two thermal plants, the daily consumption of coal in all four thermal plants in Bathinda region will touch 85,000 tonne mark. Also there will be many cooling towers in these thermal plants and every cooling tower will release 110 tonnes of steam in the air. There can be a sort of acid rain owing to this factor because sulphur-dioxide plus water turn into sulphuric acid and oxide of nitrogen with water turn into nitric acid. As running water will not be available to these plants, cooling towers will have to be built up for using water in the plant…”

7. A projected Peak in Coal production by 2019

Some scientists and engineers are now saying that there could be a Peak in global Coal production. Some say by 2019. If we choose Coal as our feedstock, we risk having to build new power plants again after that if Coal supplies are stressed or become too expensive as everybody is competing for the same Coal fuel.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5662

“Richard Heinberg’s “Blackout – Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis” : Posted by Heading Out on August 12, 2009 : When Richard Heinberg’s new book was about to be published, the editors at The Oil Drum were offered a review copy, and I was offered the chance to provide that review. Yet in a way providing that review gives me a bit of a puzzle, because the underlying premise on which the book is based is that, as David Rutledge has propounded, the world will run out of realistic coal reserves much faster than most folk anticipate. It is a point of view that I don’t completely accept, and I have posted on my disagreements with Dr. Rutledge over some of his assumptions and conclusions in the past. So I could fill this review with another regurgitation of my points of disagreement, but were I to do so I don’t think it would be a fair review…”

http://rutledge.caltech.edu/

“Hubbert’s Peak, The Coal Question, and Climate Change : by Professor David Rutledge : Division of Engineering and Applied Science : California Institute of Technology : An accurate estimate of the ultimate production of oil, gas, and coal would be helpful for the ongoing policy discussion on alternatives to fossil fuels and climate change. By ultimate production, we mean total production, past and future. It takes a long time to develop energy infrastructure, and this means it matters whether we have burned 20% of our oil, gas, and coal, or 40%. In modeling climate change, the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the most important factor. The time frame for the climate response is much longer than the time frame for burning fossil fuels, and this means that the total amount burned is more important than the burn rate. Oil, gas, and coal ultimates are traditionally estimated by government geological surveys from measurements of oil and gas reservoirs and coal seams, together with an allowance for future discoveries of oil and gas. We will see that where these estimates can be tested, they tend to be too high, and that more accurate estimates can be made by curve fits to the production history. : Power-Point Slides (4MB, updated June 2009) : Excel Workbook (11MB, updated June 2009) : Video from the Watson Lecture at Caltech, October 2007 (1 hour) : Abstract for invited presentation at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union, December 2008″

Some Energy companies are claiming that, even without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), new “supercritical” Coal power plants will be more clean-burning than older plants. Unfortunately, some of the claims of “super efficiency” could mislead you :-

http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/mainstream-media/cleaner-coal-china-india-hoodwink-greens/

“‘Cleaner Coal’: How China, India and the U.S. Will Hoodwink the Greens : Tuesday, May 12, 2009 : By Keith Johnson : If clean coal is still out of reach, will cleaner coal do the trick? Put another way, does Kansas offer a glimpse of America’s energy future? The newest generation of coal-fired power plants-which pulverize the coal into a powder before burning it-is a lot more efficient than older coal plants. Countries such as China that are building a lot of new coal plants are rolling out the “supercritical” coal technology-the same as what’s planned for the controversial Holcomb coal plant in Kansas. Make no mistake-cleaner is not clean. But clean coal-taken to mean coal plants that capture and store carbon emissions-is still embryonic. Only a handful of demonstration projects exist in the U.S., Europe, China, and Australia; there are no commercial plants in operation, and the financial and logistical hurdles to wide-scale carbon capture and storage are daunting. Meanwhile, cleaner coal technology is ready to roll. Siemens AG has built four big ultra-supercritical coal plants in China. Other companies offer gear for supercritical plants, such as General Electric. Since coal isn’t going anywhere-in the U.S. or in China-are cleaner plants the answer? The efficiency gains from supercritical plants seem modest-from about 39% or so for a good, older coal plant to as high 46% for a new supercritical plant. But that improvement translates into a 14% to 21% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions. The next generation-so-called ultra-supercritical plants-offer potentially even bigger benefits, but only a handful have been built, and none in the U.S. Of course, the real question is: Are modest improvements in coal plants enough to make a difference to greenhouse-gas emissions when so many plants are being built? China alone plans to have as much coal power in 2020 as the entire U.S. electricity system today.”

What the EPA say about Coal Power :-
http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-and-you/affect/coal.html

James Hansen says we shall look stupid in the UK if we dig Coal, as it will make a mockery of our Climate Change Act and our purported Climate Change Ambition :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/14/coal-energy

“Opencast coalmine surge ‘weakens UK’s authority at climate change talks’ : Britain will be a joke at Copenhagen, warns Nasa scientist James Hansen, as government authorises more mines : Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent : guardian.co.uk, Friday 14 August 2009 : Coal production in Britain has increased sharply after a surge in new opencast coal mines, undermining the government’s claim to be a world leader on combating climate change. Dozens of opencast coal mines have been authorised by ministers and local councils across the UK, reversing a decade-long decline in coal production in Britain and often against intense local opposition. As a result, mining companies are now sitting on 71m tonnes of coal in licensed opencast mines, compared with 55m tonnes in 2007. And over the next few months, the industry is likely to win permission to mine another 15m tonnes from across the UK. The rise prompted condemnation from leading Nasa climate scientist Prof James Hansen. He said boosting coal production would undermine the UK’s position on climate change. “[The] UK will be a joke. It is moral turpitude, depravity, to build more coal-fired power plants or open coal mines, knowing what we know now,” he said. “It was one thing to dig coal when we didn’t know the consequences, but quite another thing today.” “The UK would not be in a position to ask anybody else to do anything,” he added…”

Just how stupid is Carbon Capture ?

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/carbon-capture.pdf

““Carbon Capture and Burial – a Stupid Answer to a Silly Question.” : A statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition. : 7th May 2009 : The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on the Australian Federal Parliament to stop playing Global Warming politics and focus instead on the irresponsible damage being contemplated by the Cap-N-Tax promises. In testimony this week to the New Zealand Parliamentary Enquiry into the ETS, the Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that it was impossible to achieve the gigantic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions suggested by various western governments without a crash program of Carbon Capture and Burial (CCB). He expanded on those comments today: “There is no evidence that CCB would provide any climate or environmental benefits whatsoever – just a huge misuse of investment capital and a massive increase in the cost of living for any society silly enough to tread this path.””

And we haven’t even started talking about the extra costs involved in Carbon Capture and Storage…

http://www.joabbess.com/2009/08/14/clean-coal-dirty-joke/

Nuclear Power – It’s the Dirty Little Secret in the Clean Energy Bills.

Comment: Thanks Ms. Winograd, the truth about the so call Clean Energy Bills, our country needs true green energy not the same old, same old, nuke cycle and coal!! Demand our leaders to stop this madness, the nuke cycle has just kill people all over the world, from uranium mining to bombs!!!

By Marcy Winograd

The Clean Energy bills navigating their way through the Senate and House sound good at first glance. Consider the sales pitch:

* Create clean energy jobs.
* Achieve energy independence.
* Reduce global warming.

Who can argue with such lofty goals? Not you, not me – not unless we look at the fine print on Jeff Bingaman's 21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act (S. 949), and the Markey/Waxman American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454).

Here’s the dirty little secret.

These not-so-clean energy bills would also provide financing for a new generation of commercial nuclear power plants.

Please follow me below the jump to take a closer look.

marcy winograd's diary :: ::

According to the Maryland Public Interest Research Group:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has identified 30 possible new nuclear reactor units, as of February 2009.

As many as six may be built in Texas alone. Florida and South Carolina could get four each, with the remaining sixteen new nuclear reactors being planned for Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Missouri, Maryland, New York, Michigan, Mississippi, Virginia, Lousiana and Tennessee.

Both S. 949 and H.R. 2454 establish a new Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) to "promote access to affordable financing for accelerated and widespread deployment" of clean energy, energy infrastructure, energy efficiency, and manufacturing technologies. It's bad news.

The bills make dangerous concessions to the coal, nuclear, gas and oil lobbies: Two polluting industries - nuclear power and coal - are now poised to receive public financing and divert scarce dollars from solar, wind and other benign and truly clean energy development.

After reviewing five recent license applications in May 2008, Moody’s Investor Service estimated that the capital cost of a new reactor, including finance costs, could reach $7,500 per kW.103 At that price, the 20 potential new nuclear power plants would require a $300 billion investment over the coming decade.

— Maryland Public Interest Research Group
March 2009

For the past five decades, tax payers and rate payers have been underwriting and subsidizing our nuclear power industry to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, not even factoring in the hidden costs related to radioactive waste and environmental contamination. And how do we even begin to calculate the high price borne by those who suffer adverse health effects caused by exposure to ionizing radiation?

Let's tell the truth: the U.S. nuclear power industry has proven to be a colossal business failure, which would not have survived without public investment and subsidy. We bailed out these industries long before Wall Street crumbled.

"The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.

The utility industry has already invested $125 billion in nuclear power, with an additional $140 billion to come before the decade is out, and only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible."


— "Nuclear Follies," a February 11, 1985 cover story in Forbes Magazine
(h/t MD PIRG)

No new commercial nuclear reactor has been constructed in the U.S. during the past two decades, but over twenty companies are now planning to build as many as 30 to 34 new nuclear reactors in coming years.

An enormous new uranium enrichment plant already under construction in a remote southeastern corner of New Mexico is slated to commence operation this year.

In recent months, multi-national Urenco and its American subsidiary LES, trumpeted the aptly named National Enrichment Facility’s potential to provide 50% of uranium fuel for U.S. commercial nuclear reactors. They failed to mention the annual waste stream of thousands of tons of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) - commonly referred to as "depleted uranium." A great deal of depleted uranium (DU) waste has been recycled into munitions by weapons manufacturers for battlefield use in Iraq and Afghanistan, but close to a billion pounds of DU waste piled up at closed uranium enrichment plants in Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio remain in inventory.

On May 20th, to the great relief of most Nevadans, the Obama administration cut funding for Yucca Mountain, but the nuclear power industry and it’s supporters in Congress are still clamoring for the repository to open.

The costly construction of the intended dump at Yucca Mountain was initially funded by Congress without adequate proof that, once placed in the repository, high level radioactive waste could be isolated from the accessible environment for the 10,000 years during which the waste is most harmful. Among other troubling factors, the intended final resting place for the waste, located just 80 miles north of Las Vegas, Nevada, lies along a line of old volcanoes – and according to some scientists, an eruption, although highly unlikely, is possible.

Readers may recall that while working at a Urenco run commercial uranium enrichment facility in Europe, none other than AQ Kahn gained the knowledge that he would later use to spearhead Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program and go on to share with Syria, Iran and North Korea. Do we need a better cautionary reminder of the intrinsic connection between commercial nuclear power and nuclear weapons?

Starting with exposure to radiation suffered by America’s indigenous uranium miners, and unsecured mounds of uranium mill tailing left behind to be scattered by the wind, the horrors of the nuclear chain are legion. And that’s just the beginning. For decades, growing inventories of unstable, gamma ray emitting, highly radioactive, but euphemistically named "spent" fuel assemblies remain as challenges for which no viable, lasting solution has been found.

There's still more: following the meltdown at Chernobyl, Italians voted to decommission their commercial nuclear reactors. Decades later they are still dealing with an enormous inventory of radioactive waste. Some of the rad waste has been shipped off to France, and on May 16th a federal judge gave the green light to U.S. based "Energy Solutions, Inc." to import up to 20,000 tons of Italy’s so-called "low level" radioactive waste for reprocessing in Tennessee and ultimate dumping in Utah.

If you don’t want to see the promise of a new clean energy initiative subverted by the powerful nuclear energy lobby, contact Congress right away and make your voice heard.

Demand that benefits to nuclear power be excised from "clean energy" legislation.

Nuclear Power – It’s the Dirty Little Secret in the Clean Energy Bills.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/6/739366/-Clean-the-Dirty-Energy-Bills

State Officials to West Virginians: “Mercury is A-OK!”

Comment: Is the future of the Bannister River and Roanoke/Dan River Basin, uranium mining releases all kinds of nasty minerals, toxins. ETC!! Per
Dr. Gordon EdwardsAs it travels low to the ground (it is much heavier than air) it deposits its "daughters" -- solid radioactive fallout -- on the vegetation, soil and water below; the resulting radioactive materials enter the food chain, ending up in fruits and berries, the flesh of fish and animals, and ultimately, in the bodies of human beings.

Written by Cate Nelson
Published on May 20th, 2009

West Virginians eat less fish than them thar other parts of the country, so it’s just fine that that state’s mercury allowance is almost twice that of the federal level.

Wait…what?!

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP, though the thinking here clearly wasn’t) said that the state standard of 0.5 micrograms per gram of fish tissue is fine as compared to that of the Clean Water Act (0.3 micrograms per gram).

In a puzzling quote with West Virginia Public Broadcasting, a DEP environmental resources analyst, Mike Arcuri, said this on the policy:

The more fish people consume in a given area, the lower that number has to be in order to keep the public safe, if that makes any sense.

If he’s having trouble making sense of his own quote, might his department want to rethink their policy on the neurotoxin?

Get Eat. Drink. Better.
As you probably know, mercury has neurotoxic effects. That’s why we don’t want it in our vaccines! Not to mention our high fructose corn syrup, for those who actually consume the stuff.

According to the EPA:

The primary health effect of methylmercury is impaired neurological development. Methylmercury exposure in the womb, which can result from a mother’s consumption of fish and shellfish that contain methylmercury, can adversely affect a baby’s growing brain and nervous system. Impacts on cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb.

Or, as Janice Nease, of the Coal River Mountain Watch put it,

The fact that West Virginia is eating a lot less fish; doesn’t that seem to tell him that we are afraid to eat the fish?

Good call. Enviros in WV say that coal mining has a whole lot to do with the amount of mercury in the rivers.

Coal is supposed to stay in the earth. Once you disturb it, there’s all kinds of ugly things that come out of it and we end up consuming. It’s a shame that we can’t take our children and our grandchildren down to the river, teach them how to fish and then also teach them that if you catch that fish what you do is you consume it, you eat it.

But don’t tell the WV coal companies that. There, the roads are shadowed with billboards that declare, “Coal: It Keeps the Lights On!”

It also keeps the residents from living happily near waterways, practicing the time-honored tradition of eating what they catch. And to think, I’ve been pondering a move to my neighbor state, snagging a plot of land next to a river, and working toward self-sufficiency. Hmm…might have to rethink the big plans.

As a side note, the WVPB mentioned that there is already a statewide fish consumption advisory in effect. Tell me again why West Virginians avoid the fish?

Image: kevindooley on Flickr under a Creative Commons License.

http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/05/20/state-officials-to-west-virginians-mercury-is-a-ok/

WVa judge seeks to resolve coal pollution cases

Associated Press - April 30, 2009 11:05 AM ET

WILLIAMSON, W.Va. (AP) - A Mingo County judge is shuttling hundreds of plaintiffs through his courtroom in an attempt to resolve coal slurry water pollution lawsuits against a subsidiary of Virginia-based Massey Energy.

Circuit Judge Michael Thornsbury divided the plaintiffs into groups of 100 Thursday morning. He told them each would have just minutes to decide whether to accept or reject individual offers to settle their cases with Rawl Sales and Processing.

Residents claim Rawl Sales contaminated their well water after dumping more than a billion gallons of coal slurry into former underground mines between 1978 and 1987. The company has denied the allegations.

Thornsbury told the plaintiffs that it was their last chance to settle before a trial that is set to begin in Mingo County on May 12.

http://www.nbc12.com/Global/story.asp?S=10279284