The environment thread

[Balta1701]

How about when I start it with "25% of the U.S.'s current nuclear plants are leaking tritium"?

[Cknolls]

If you think I talk out of both sides of my mouth here, that's fine, but there's still an easy answer. Pass a bill putting a substantial and increasing-with-time price on carbon emissions and let the markets sort it out. (oh, and end the coal and oil subsidies too).

 

 

Let the mkts sort it out. OMG! The apocalypse is upon us. Mkt forces will work it out? Nice!!!!

[Y2HH]

How about when I start it with "25% of the U.S.'s current nuclear plants are leaking tritium"?

 

How about when I finish it with "nuclear fission creates the byproduct tritium at a rate of 0.01%"?

[Balta1701]

How about when I finish it with "nuclear fission creates the byproduct tritium at a rate of 0.01%"?

That's a useless number if you don't have a scale to compare it to. 0.01% could be a lot if it only takes 0.000001% to kill you. I can attach a scale.

 

For example, the Vermont Yankee power plant I cited a few pages ago shows tritium concentrations near the plant of 70,500 picocuries per liter, 3.5 times the EPA's current allowable standard. A 2005 NSF study concluded "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial."

[bmags]

I'm pretty excited that a French model is all the sudden so exciting to conservatives. (Especially one completely gov´t started)

[Y2HH]

That's a useless number if you don't have a scale to compare it to. 0.01% could be a lot if it only takes 0.000001% to kill you. I can attach a scale.

 

For example, the Vermont Yankee power plant I cited a few pages ago shows tritium concentrations near the plant of 70,500 picocuries per liter, 3.5 times the EPA's current allowable standard. A 2005 NSF study concluded "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial."

 

I was pointing out the same thing. You gave a 25% leaking statistic, but never said how much Tritium that they're actually leaking, nor what harm it can do, if any.

 

The fact that regulatory limits on Tritum in drinking water exist show that small amounts, in fact, cannot kill a person...otherwise the limit would be 0.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

The fact that regulatory limits on Tritum in drinking water exist show that small amounts, in fact, cannot kill a person...otherwise the limit would be 0.

Or, that the decision making process has been politicized and affected by the demands of industry and is not 100% based on the best science.

[Cknolls]

Or, that the decision making process has been politicized and affected by the demands of industry and is not 100% based on the best science.

 

 

But science is never politicized .

[StrangeSox]

How about when I start it with "25% of the U.S.'s current nuclear plants are leaking tritium"?

 

I would say "that's better than what coal plants put out, and wind and solar remain non-baseline power sources"

 

Also, that existing plants are beyond designed life span and should be replaced or repaired.

 

Another tidbit: nuclear power uses the least amount of land per MW produced of any power source. Drastically less than wind.

Edited February 18, 2010 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

But science is never politicized .

 

EPA guidelines are politicized, not the science that should guide those decisions.

 

These leaks are a serious concern and they need to be solved. For future plants, they need to be mitigated as much as possible.

 

edit: NRC site on tritium: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti...diation-fs.html

Edited February 18, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

[BigSqwert]

A very exciting breakthrough in solar technology.

 

Some snippets:

 

The silicon-wire arrays absorb up to 96 percent of incident sunlight at a single wavelength and 85 percent of total collectible sunlight.

 

The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons—in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency. "High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell," says Atwater. "It's an important advance."

 

The key to the success of these solar cells is their silicon wires, each of which, says Atwater, "is independently a high-efficiency, high-quality solar cell." When brought together in an array, however, they're even more effective, because they interact to increase the cell's ability to absorb light.

 

"Light comes into each wire, and a portion is absorbed and another portion scatters. The collective scattering interactions between the wires make the array very absorbing," he says.

 

...while these arrays have the thickness of a conventional crystalline solar cell, their volume is equivalent to that of a two-micron-thick film.

 

Since the silicon material is an expensive component of a conventional solar cell, a cell that requires just one-fiftieth of the amount of this semiconductor will be much cheaper to produce.

 

The composite nature of these solar cells, Atwater adds, means that they are also flexible. "Having these be complete flexible sheets of material ends up being important," he says, "because flexible thin films can be manufactured in a roll-to-roll process, an inherently lower-cost process than one that involves brittle wafers, like those used to make conventional solar cells."

 

[NorthSideSox72]

A very exciting breakthrough in solar technology.

 

Some snippets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Awesome!

 

[Balta1701]

I wonder what's going up faster. The estimated cost of a new nuclear plant, or the estimated cost of the LA/SF rail project.

Despite a new $2.25-billion infusion of federal economic stimulus funding, there are intensifying concerns -- even among some high-speed rail supporters -- that California's proposed bullet train may not deliver on the financial and ridership promises made to win voter backing in 2008.

 

Estimates of ticket prices between Los Angeles and San Francisco have nearly doubled in the project's latest business plan, pushing ridership projections down sharply and prompting new skepticism about data underpinning the entire project.

 

"This just smells funny," said state Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), a supporter of high-speed rail and chairman of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.

 

New inflation-adjusted construction figures show that outlays needed to build the first 520-mile phase of the system have climbed more than 25%, from $33.6 billion to $42.6 billion.

[Balta1701]

This is not a commentary on anything.

WHILE the Top End and Central Australia have been battered by torrential rains, a Territory town has had fish falling from the sky.

 

The freak phenomena happened not once, but twice, on Thursday and Friday afternoon about 6pm at Lajamanu, about 550km southwest of Katherine.

 

NEWSBREAKER Christine Balmer, who took these photos of the fish on the ground and in a bucket, had to pinch herself when she was told ``hundreds and hundreds" of small white fish had fallen from the sky.

 

"It rained fish in Lajamanu on Thursday and Friday night," she said, "They fell from the sky everywhere.

 

"Locals were picking them up off the footy oval and on the ground everywhere.

[bmags]

like magnolia!

[Balta1701]

There's a serious paper coming out on methane hydrate destabilization in tomorrow's Science. Here's the NSF press release version.

[NorthSideSox72]

There's a serious paper coming out on methane hydrate destabilization in tomorrow's Science. Here's the NSF press release version.

Read the press release version. That sounds kinda bad.

 

[Balta1701]

This is behind something of a subscription wall but another blog i read is hosting the text.

The world might be spending as much as $500 billion annually to subsidize fossil fuels, researchers working at the direction of President Obama and other leaders have found.

 

But a draft report of the study, obtained by E&E, shows a heavy emphasis on the financial assistance that developing countries give to make energy more affordable to poor consumers. Meanwhile, researchers were unable to come up with harder numbers for the more controversial tax breaks, research and development support, and other measures by which wealthy countries subsidize the production of fossil fuel energy.

 

Analysts familiar with the report said the next version is expected in April and a final report is due before the Group of 20 world leaders meets in Toronto in June. There, the G-20 leaders are expected to further a pledge from last year to phase out what they described as “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption,” and to help reduce carbon emissions.

 

“Energy pricing, including subsidies, is at the heart of the sustainable development agenda,” researchers from the World Bank, International Energy Association, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries wrote in the draft.

 

A ‘challenging agenda’ ahead

 

“Removal of energy subsidies could generate large budgetary and off budgetary savings, which could in turn be invested in more desirable uses, notably targeting the poor and increas[ing] access to energy services and better serving the climate change objectives,” the authors wrote.

 

Environmental groups widely laud those goals and have long pressed governments to redirect money that makes dirtier fuels artificially cheaper toward the development of renewable energy. But many also criticize what they see as an emphasis on consumer subsidies.

 

According to the G-20 draft, the most recent calculation of how much money industrialized countries spend to prop up fossil fuel production comes from a 1998 report. That $19 billion to $24 billion annual estimate has grown at least fourfold, analysts say.

 

The authors indicated that they intend to come up with new figures. But they also pointed out that the variety of tax breaks and other policies industrialized countries impose are harder to calculate than the relatively simple consumer subsidies. At the same time, experts noted, oil and gas lobbies also fight hard to keep the definitions of subsidies narrow, increasing the difficulties.

 

In a nod to the political firestorm that is likely to erupt when economists truly start to delve into producer subsidies, the authors wrote, “a challenging agenda ahead emerges including the agreement on a common methodology, as well as improved transparency and reporting.”

 

Opposition likely from oil companies and the poor

 

U.S. oil industry officials oppose the G-20 plan and argue that eliminating assistance to oil and gas threatens the ability of companies to invest in finding new sources of energy. Experts with the American Petroleum Institute argue that modifying taxes for oil and gas singles out those industries for harsher treatment than other sectors.

 

Meanwhile, the study points out that reducing consumer subsidies also won’t be easy. Enacted in many countries because of the escalating costs of energy, the assistance should be phased out over a period of time and in terms specific to each country, researchers recommended. Many nations also will need simultaneous new assistance, including cash transfers, to protect the poor.

 

The report also warns that removing fossil fuel subsidies in developing countries could lead to rising emissions in rich ones. That runs counter to a recent separate study from the International Monetary Fund that showed reducing assistance could cut global emissions 15 percent by 2050.

 

In selling the idea of cutting subsidies to the public, researchers advocated an early and sustained public relations campaign.

 

“Early publicity may prevent some groups from hiding their self-interest by making wild claims,” they argued. But, they added, “communication alone is unlikely to be sufficient, especially for the poor, for whom compensation packages can serve to protect them from hardship. … Amongst richer households, compensations can both buy support and deflect accusations that reforms are unjust.”

[NorthSideSox72]

Not sure where else to put this...

 

Detroit is falling apart, as everyone knows. And they are now looking into a dramatic idea to help fix the problem (one which I think New Orleans should have done): shrinking. The idea is to turn a quarter of the city - the run-down, hopeless neighborhoods - into green or agricultural space. Thus, they could focus what meager funds they have on fewer neighborhoods, to help them do better.

 

I like it.

 

[BigSqwert]

Not sure where else to put this...

 

Detroit is falling apart, as everyone knows. And they are now looking into a dramatic idea to help fix the problem (one which I think New Orleans should have done): shrinking. The idea is to turn a quarter of the city - the run-down, hopeless neighborhoods - into green or agricultural space. Thus, they could focus what meager funds they have on fewer neighborhoods, to help them do better.

 

I like it.

 

My wife is originally from the suburbs of Detroit and she keeps me updated on developments like these. It completely makes sense.

[Y2HH]

My wife is originally from the suburbs of Detroit and she keeps me updated on developments like these. It completely makes sense.

 

They could just knock those buildings down and evacuate the area -- in 20 years the Earth will have done the job for us, for free.

 

Look at Chernobyl.

[Balta1701]

From the "random, unexpected costs of a changing climate that we're already enduring" file...an extra billion or two for foundation repair.

“We’ve seen a tremendous influx of pretty severe cases due to either drought or too much rain,” said Dan Jaggers, vice president of technical services at Olshan Foundation Repair, which has offices in the South, Midwest and Great Plains. “People call panicked because they’ve got gaping cracks in their walls, tile breaking, grout popping and they don’t know what to do.” Other telltale signs of foundation failure include doors and windows that will not close, chimneys or porches separating from the house and bowing basement walls.

 

After a particularly dry summer followed by deluges in the fall, Psonya Wilson, a lawyer in Brandon, Miss., noticed light streaming in where the wall had separated from the baseboard in the bedroom of her 5-year-old son. “I could stick my finger through it,” she said. “I couldn’t believe it. The whole back part of the house had sunk about six inches.” To stop further collapse, not to mention to control the draft, she is having several stabilization piers installed to shore up the foundation of her two-story garden style house; it will cost more than $5,000.

 

Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association indicates that since the 1990s there has been an accelerating trend nationwide toward more extended dry periods followed by downpours. Whether due to random climate patterns or global warming, the swings between hot and dry weather and severe rain or snow have profoundly affected soil underneath buildings.

 

Clay soils, like those beneath the houses of Mr. Derse and Ms. Wilson, shrink during droughts and swell during floods, causing structures to bob. And because sandier soil loses its adhesive properties in dry conditions, it pulls away from foundations. Heavy rains cause it to shift or just collapse beneath structures. With both kinds of soil, such sinking, called subsidence, usually happens gradually, said Randall Orndorff, a geologist with the United States Geologic Survey. But, he said, “swinging from very wet to extremely dry weather like we’ve been seeing lately in many parts of the country may be accelerating the effect.”

 

Experts estimate the cost to homeowners to stabilize or shore up foundations is around $4 billion annually, up from $3 billion 10 years ago, although more houses have also been built in that time period. Subsidence is not covered by most homeowners’ insurance policies in the United States, unlike in Britain, where the increasing number of homeowners’ claims due to foundation failure prompted the Charter Insurance Institute, an industry trade group, to issue a dire warning about the financial drain in its 2009 report, “Coping with Climate Change: Risks and Opportunities for Insurers.”

[iamshack]

They could just knock those buildings down and evacuate the area -- in 20 years the Earth will have done the job for us, for free.

 

Look at Chernobyl.

They use Chernobyl for the show "Life After People" on the History Channel a few times. You're absolutely correct, it wouldn't take long.

 

You are even seeing nature starting to take some of the abandoned areas of New Orleans back after just a few years...

[southsider2k5]

They use Chernobyl for the show "Life After People" on the History Channel a few times. You're absolutely correct, it wouldn't take long.

 

You are even seeing nature starting to take some of the abandoned areas of New Orleans back after just a few years...

 

I am totally addicted to that show.