How Dangerous is Uranium Mining? - And To Whom?

Comment: Great piece about clean power and problems with nuclear power and uranium mining! The major problems are corporations and their ties to the federal government! Both have little regards to people lives, they just want the money, pure and simple! People of American, we need demand no more uranium mining and nuclear power, I mean DEMAND OR OUR GOVERNMENT WILL RUIN OUR WORLD AND OUR LIVES FOR MONEY!

nhpeacenik

08:12 am July 14th, 2009

I think it is important for us, as citizens, to understand exactly how risky the process of mining and processing uranium is, before we decide to resume it on a massive scale and build new nuclear plants.

I find it surprisingly hard to determine what the facts are.

Anecdotal evidence of cancers and neonatal deformities among people living in communities where uranium is mined are everywhere.

Low-income indigenous people seem to bear a large burden of these effects worldwide. This article sums up the way indigenous people are banding together to share their stories and call for an end to uranium mining. The Navaho Tribe has banned any further uranium mining on its land, but if the US government concludes that new nuclear electric generation facilities are needed, I suspect the Navahos will be forced to rescind the ban.

Looking at the results of a search of Google Scholar, I found more than 5000 scholarly articles on the subject of the level of increased risk for cancer from uranium mining.

Most of the studies blame radon and its "daughter" decay products for any increased cancer levels, and most find at least a slight inrease in risk, but surprisingly, there are some that find the level of cancer deaths in uranium miners to be less than the expected number in control populations. Review-of-the-literature studies come to extremely wishy-washy conclusions by averaging out the results of studies that find five times the expected rate with those that find no increase at all.

I have to assume that most scientists who study this issue are strongly committed to the scientific method and objectivity, but I also suspect that there is corruption in the way articles are placed in many journals, and I am aware that many of the studies are funded by industry-based groups that have as a goal to prove that uranium mining is safe, so they can go on doing it.

If we can agree, as I am convinced we must, that global warming threatens the continued existence the human race and all the other living things on the planet, we also have to agree that extraordinary measures to reduce CO2 emissions are necessary.

If building and fueling new nuclear plants is the best way to reduce these emissions, we need to answer the questions about whether it can be made safe, and if not, whether the injuries it causes can be spread fairly among rich and poor humans (i.e. can there be environmental justice in a neo-nuclear economy).

I made the statement in an earlier posting that urainium mining is arguably more lethal than coal mining; this was based on advocacy writing and not scientific studies, and I find it hard to get a good comparison from the executive summaries of the scientific studies I have look at so far.

Coal is emphatically bad for the planet and should be phased out as an energy source as fast as possible.

I spent some time Saturday at Solarfest in Vermont, talking with people I have trusted for years, about whether solar and wind power can be brought on lline quickly enough to replace coal without building nuclear plants.

I came home with a lot of literature that I have yet to digest and evaluate. At Solarfest, one could see alternaive energy powering a small community of thousands for a weekend, and it took little imagination to extrapolate that scene to the communities where we live permanently... a few acres of solar panels, maybe a solar-thermal plant on a few acres or a line of wind turbines on a ridgetop could replace all the coal-generated power our town now uses.

Couldn't this infrastructure be built everywhere? If so, why add the permanent poisons and threats of uranium mining and nuclear waste storage to our children's children's children's future?

Nuclear is a politically feasable solution. As a costly subsidized, centralized energy solution, nuclear fits right in with the status quo, so that from a corporate point of view it's the only way to keep the profits high and still address global warming.

Corporations don't get cancer and don't die, but they seek profit the way a vampire seeks blood.

The congress and the executive are paid for and lobbied by corporations that thrive on the energy status quo.

That's why the global warming bill just passed by congress allows coal mining and burning to go on for another two decades without serious obstacles and allocates a pittance to solar and wind development, why it favors large centralized power plants and includes nuclear as an option, why it doesn't charge corporations for the "right to pollute" for years to come.

A Friend asked me last week why I thought that political feasability meant that the moneyed interests had to be bribed an exorbitant amount to allow any beneficial programs at all; I didn't have an answer, but if the current global warming bill is the best we can do in a time of crisis under the best administration we've had in years, what more can we expect.

Now is the time to bone up on the truth, both the heart-truth and the intellectual truth, of the climate and energy situation and come to our own conclusions.

Then, with luck, we can agree on some basic points and go "out in the streets" to demand that congress take sensible action without asking permission of its corporate masters.

http://nhpeacenik.livejournal.com/30171.html

Should renewable energy include nuclear?

Greenpeace activists painted a skull surrounded by the symbol of radioactivity on the reactor dome of Unterweser nuclear power plant near Nordenham, Germany on June 22. The protest was aimed to draw attention to the lack of security at the plant in case of a plane crash or an airborne terrorist attack. The banner reads: "Nuclear power damages Germany."
Fred Dott/Greenpeace/Reuters

Comment: Nuke Bunch, nuke power are not renewable,not CO2 free, uranium mining, mills and transportation is full of CO2! Nuclear power is dependent on finite uranium resources!

from the June 29, 2009 edition

The US, China, and dozens of other countries are meeting today in Egypt to chart the course of a new international agency aimed at promoting renewable energy.
By Lily Riahi and Lisa Desai Contributors

Berlin

A new global effort that aims to make renewable energy more accessible to every country in the world will launch on July 1st.

Governments are lining up to join the first agency that will advise them on how to make a renewable energy transition. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has attracted 108 countries, including the United States and China, which are both expected to announce their membership this week, in a move that experts say could boost the agency's credibility, since both countries are leaders in renewable energy.

But supporters worry that IRENA could be undermined by countries that are trying to promote nuclear power as a solution to climate change and dwindling oil reserves. Today, members will meet in Sharm El Sheik, Egypt to vote on a director general for the group and decide which country will host the agency's headquarters.

Currently, a leading alliance between France and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is forming. French ministerial official Helene Pelosse is a nominee for IRENA'S director general and the UAE is lobbying to host its headquarters in Abu Dhabi. IRENA advocates say if the alliance succeeds, the agency would become "nuclear tainted."

France pushes nuclear as 'low-carbon technology'

France generates nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. It's also one of the world's largest providers of nuclear technology and expertise. Since 2008, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has signed multibillion-dollar nuclear deals with the UAE, Qatar, Algeria, Libya, and Morocco.

At the same time, France is promoting nuclear as a form of renewable power because it emits low levels of carbon dioxide. When the European Union defined its long-term target for renewable energy production last year, it tried to include nuclear power in the definition of renewable energy, a move that was rejected by EU members.

France is also advocating to power the Mediterranean region using "low-carbon technology."

IRENA supporters worry that under French leadership, the agency will support both renewables and nuclear options together.

Most discussions separate the two because renewable energy is defined as naturally replenishing resources, like solar or wind, which don't produce waste.

Nuclear power is dependent on finite uranium resources, and produces radioactive waste that has to be isolated and stored for thousands of years.

"Advocates of nuclear try to avoid these essential differences by linking these two forms of energy under the umbrella term 'low-carbon technology,'" says Dr. Doerte Fouquet, Director of the European Renewable Energy Federation. "People forget that emitting zero CO2 is only one of the characteristics that defines a renewable source of energy."

Renewables tied to oil

The US, Japan, Britain, and France are actively signing nuclear power cooperation agreements with the UAE and they're expected to back Abu Dhabi's bid to headquarter the agency, analysts say.

"Their support for Abu Dhabi as IRENA's headquarters is linked to these agreements and a secure supply of oil," says IIda Tetsunari, advisor to Japan's Minister of Environment and executive director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies.

IRENA supporters say that would contradict its founding purpose to set the foundations for a renewable energy economy.

"Are the original goals of IRENA being co-opted so that renewables get pushed aside by a nuclear agenda – 'sprinkling some renewables on top of our nuclear power'?" asks Dr. Eric Martinot, an international expert on renewable energy markets and former World Bank energy officer.

The UAE has a 7 percent future target for renewable energy and is planning to build Masdar, a city powered only by renewable resources. The Emirates claim that their vast solar potential is not enough to power the rest of the UAE and are looking to nuclear power to fill the gap.

"Since the 1970s, scientists have shown that renewable energy can satisfy the energy needs of the entire world, but these studies get systematically ignored. IRENA will change this," says Hermann Scheer, a member of the German Parliament, and pioneer of the agency.

The case for Germany

Many supporters say the better picks to host and lead the agency are Bonn, Germany, where the concept of IRENA was born, says Hans Jurgen Koch, member of Denmark's climate and energy ministry.

In both countries building new nuclear plants is illegal.

Instead, they've focused on introducing new policies to encourage renewable energy generation.

Germans can access interest-free loans to buy solar panels and get paid to feed renewable energy to the grid.

The country has 300,000 green jobs, and is hoping to double its share of renewable energy power to 30 percent by 2020, four times more the UAE's target.

Dr. Scheer, who has been fighting to establish the agency since the 1990s, says the founding of IRENA took off when the German government sought support of like-minded countries.

"This was the only way to avoid the veto power of countries with strong nuclear or fossil interests, who have stopped IRENA in the past," he says. "IRENA could be designed as a lame duck or it could promote renewable energy acceleration everywhere. This is the case for decision."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0629/p06s10-woeu.html

Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Nuclear Power

MONDAY 22 JUNE, 2009

Nuclear power has been increasingly hailed by lobbyists as a source of clean, cheap and safe power; but cost blowouts in the construction and maintenance of new nuclear plants, along with their need for massive amounts of water and continuing radioactive waste storage issues, is again making renewable energy look to be the only really viable option to power our future.

According to a recent study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, the cost of electricity generated by new nuclear reactors would be (USD) 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour, whereas increased energy efficiency and renewable energy sourced power would cost around 6 cents per kilowatt hour.

This translates to USD $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors.
Projected construction and maintenance costs for nuclear plants have quadrupled since the start of the nuclear renaissance in 2000. The required massive subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers would not change the real cost of nuclear reactors, they would just shift the risks to the public, according to the report.

According to Dr. Cooper: "We are literally seeing nuclear reactor history repeat itself. The "Great Bandwagon Market" that ended so badly for consumers in the 1970s and 1980s was driven by advocates who confused hope and hype with reality." This latest version of the "Great Bandwagon Market" will see reactors cost seven times as much as the cost projection for the first reactors of the Great Bandwagon Market.

Cost has always been one of the the major issues haunting the solar power and wind energy industry, but the public have been generally unaware of the massive tax payer funded subsidises fossil fuels and current nuclear reactors receive. It's only been in very recent times that renewable energy is starting to see levels of funding to help put it on equal footing with non-renewable power generation technology.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=481

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