Sierra Club hits home

[Shotout]

I heard an interesting item on the news this morning. The Sierra Club is coming to my home town to protest a proposed coal fired power plant being built. They have apparently secured a permit to stage a protest march through the downtown area. As part of their prepared statement to the local media they have stated that the power plant must not be built, it is a criminal act, leads to global warming etc. I did a little looking around earlier today and found out the proposed emissions control will actually emit cleaner air than the area average in pollution content. I also found out the company wanting to build the plant plans to make the area into a wildlife sanctuary and will have a lot of work to do to clean up the proposed site, it has been used as an illegal dumping site for years. What really gripes me is:
1 the proposed site is over seventy miles away from here
2 it is two counties away and not governed by our local board or planning commission
3 they are going to prevent access to the local courthouse, which also houses the Sheriff's office for no reason
4 that the people that ultimately can sway the decision are in DC and Atlanta
5 They all had to fly here then have to drive to the protest march, hotels, restaurants etc
6 I'm stuck at work so I can't heckle them with water balloons filled with green dye
7 It just seems to being meaningless flaunting for publicity.

It just strikes me as another clueless, well intentioned but not thought out meaningless protest and they are preaching to the wrong choir to boot. It just seems to epitomize the environmental movement as a whole.

[fizzissist]

A founder of Greenpeace makes some interesting comments about why he left the group in the Great Global Warming Swindle.

As we're seeing more and more, the global warming gadflys are as much the problem....hypocrisy, hysteria, hype.

Instead of trying to block a coal powerplant, why aren't they trying to get a nuke power plant built? The same amount of effort could be a whole lot more productive. But that's not the way the conservation groups make their living.

The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and all the others make their money from alarmism. Not that everything they do is bad, but isn't it interesting that wildlife conservation comes more from hunters than it does from the WWF???

[Shotout]

Originally Posted by fizzissist Instead of trying to block a coal powerplant, why aren't they trying to get a nuke power plant built? The same amount of effort could be a whole lot more productive. But that's not the way the conservation groups make their living. The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and all the others make their money from alarmism. Not that everything they do is bad, but isn't it interesting that wildlife conservation comes more from hunters than it does from the WWF???

Nuke: I'm for nuclear power, but I really want them to come up with a more workable plan to dispose of spent fuel rods.

Your last point is pretty on target. We have a large concentration of plantations here. It is some of best wildlife habitat you'll find in the US. Unlike the state and national parks these places are set up to encourage wildlife. I use to be a farrier (horseshoer for the uninformed) and retired due to a pretty severe injury. I use to count some of the largest plantations among my clients and a buddy of mine did almost all the rest. I apprenticed under him and would still go with him to help him finish one up in a hurry. Fact is if the envronmental concerns of these people where on target then I promise you that these issues would be quashed. The people that own these places tend to be the very wealthiest of our citizens and they have clout, and I promise you they use it when they need to protect their investments.

[sdantonio]

Originally Posted by fizzissist wildlife conservation comes more from hunters than it does from the WWF???

Ah yes, the "worldwide wrestling federation" and conservation . No wonders the hunters do a better job.

I'm also a big fan of nuke power. Much cleaner. The waste issue needs to be dealt with. But as long as it's dealt with scientifically rather than NIMBY (not in my back yard) then it can be solved.

As a side note, and anti nuke folks all talk about reactor accidents and safety (China syndrome and jane fonda back whan she was young and good looking... she was really at her best in Barbarella though... physically and intellectually well matched for the roll). There has not been a new nuke plant built in the US or commersial use in over 30 years and those that were buildt back then were made from designs already 10 years old (by the time they had passed all the safety reviews). We have come a long way in safety since then.

[Shotout]

They have managed to badger the local commissioners into meeting with them today. Even the local news media, which is a pretty tow the line group, is asking why. Our commissioners have absolutely nothing to do with nor influence on the commissioners two counties away. Anyone that reads this that is part of the Sierra Club, call up and ask them why they are throwing away your donation dollars in a fashion guaranteed to get no results.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by sdantonio ....There has not been a new nuke plant built in the US or commersial use in over 30 years and those that were buildt back then were made from designs already 10 years old (by the time they had passed all the safety reviews). We have come a long way in safety since then.

Maybe a long way in safety, maybe not. How can you come a long way in safety if no new nuke plants have been built in 30 years?

Not that it makes a damned bit of difference: Three Mile Island, Browns Ferry and Chernobyl were all triggered by sheer stupidity and a failure to follow correct procedures.

I think stupidity is something that has remained more or less constant.

[sdantonio]

Originally Posted by Geof Maybe a long way in safety, maybe not. How can you come a long way in safety if no new nuke plants have been built in 30 years?

By looking at some of the newer designes the Israelis, French and others have come up with and judging their safety. Additionally there have been a lot of new, experimental, non-comercial reactors. Brookhaven National Labs, etc, MIT in cambridge Massachusetts actually has their own tiny reactor. I should probably have qualified that by saying no new plants in the US. I also doesn't mean that academics haven't been researching plant safety and new designes.

And, yes, stupidty of the operators is a very large issue in all the accidents you mentioned (and all to date to my knowlege).

[Geof]

Originally Posted by sdantonio By looking at some of the newer designes the Israelis, French and others have come up with and judging their safety....

The US would permit a "Foreign Designed Reactor"?????? Horrors.

On a pragmatic level (I am serious sometimes ) the biggest problem to building new reactors anywhere in Canada or the US could be finding the skilled labor. I think it was an article in The Economist pointing this out; because no construction has been done for longer than a human generation people who were young and who could have been entering the field 20 years ago didn't.

Realistically if we want to carry on with our energy intensive society there is little choice, the only longish term solution is nuclear fission. Fusion might work but given the track record to date I think it is still 'ten years away' and this will be true for the next 50 years.

I think the problem is that it will take one or two decades to get a significant number of nuclear plants built so the short term answer has to be coal; which is not a bad answer if the correct technology is used coal can be quite clean. This does bump the cost up but that maybe is not a bad thing because real economy of use only occurs due to price pressure.

But even new coal plants are still the better part of a decade away so unfortunately natural gas will continue to be wasted for generating electricity.

And none of this does anything about reducing CO2 emissions in the short term and considering the IPCC is adamant we will reach a tipping point for the end of the world in ten years if we don't do something I guess we are all doomed.

[Shotout]

Originally Posted by Geof Maybe a long way in safety, maybe not. How can you come a long way in safety if no new nuke plants have been built in 30 years? Not that it makes a damned bit of difference: Three Mile Island, Browns Ferry and Chernobyl were all triggered by sheer stupidity and a failure to follow correct procedures. I think stupidity is something that has remained more or less constant.

Was is so much stupidity or was it a situational awareness deficit? It was my understanding that operators in at least two of those situations could have averted disaster if they would have had real time info to get in front of the problem rather than trying to chase it. IF that was the case modern electronics would certianly be the answer for that. Also let us not forget the US Navy has an impecable record in designing and running reactors, their training program and designs are top notch. Certianly that know how could be brought to bear on the problem of new reactors. With all the RIFed nuke sailors out their on the job market I wouldn't see there being a shortage of experianced, dedicated and qualified personel to staff these theoretical plants.

[sdantonio]

Geof,

Your right about coal in the short term. No I didn't mean to imply the US would use a foreign reactor design. But realistically, I my small cut throat world of detector design in Mass spectrometry I know pretty much what my competition is doing the day it hits the street, often before. I assume the top nuclear engineering schools in the US know exactly what the french designers have been doing over the last few years. In fact if the world on nuke reactors is anything like the rest of the physics and engineering world we probably colaborated with them somewhere down the line.

[sdantonio]

Originally Posted by Shotout Also let us not forget the US Navy has an impecable record in designing and running reactors, their training program and designs are top notch. Certianly that know how could be brought to bear on the problem of new reactors. With all the RIFed nuke sailors out their on the job market I wouldn't see there being a shortage of experianced, dedicated and qualified personel to staff these theoretical plants.

Should have read this before I even bothered to use up the bandwith with me post

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Shotout ...With all the RIFed nuke sailors out their on the job market I wouldn't see there being a shortage of experianced, dedicated and qualified personel to staff these theoretical plants.

This is a good point. The question is how many are there 15 to 20 years from being released from the Navy. Because this really is when they will be needed, actually the earliest they will be needed, because the Greenies will delay things until the absolute last minute which could mean years.

And if I give the impression I am being too critical that is unfortunate. I guess it is the way I approach things; I always look for reasons why something might not work or for the difficulties in making it work rather than going on optimistically why everything is such a wonderful idea.

As I mentioned earlier I think the only solution long term is nuclear; unless we want our descendants to go back to horse and buggy. But you probably have read Skullworks thread about the State of the Machinist Trade...; particularly his comments about how businesses take such a short term view of things these days. Right now I don't think there are any companies with the combination of capabilities and long term vision to start embarking on nuclear. How many investors are going to put money into something with the image nuclear has; investments that will not pay off for decades.

Which leaves the image of government doing it? Remember the US Navy Nuclear program was run by a very competent and dedicated guy who steamrollered over everyone to gets things done his way...which was the correct way. He was also a man dedicated to serving his country and public and political support was behind a strong armed forces back then so money was no object.

The public and political situation is different these days. I don't think senior career armed forces personnel have changed but the politicians who can make their life difficult or impossible certainly have.

I am pessimistic I don't see the kind of sensible, forward thinking attitude that is needed as existing these days.