A Green New Deal?

[ruby sparks]

1) Coal and oil fired plants need just about as much water.

2) You don't need 15,000 locations. It's common to site several reactors in close proximity.

3) The enrichment plant and ore processing aren't located with the plant anyway. They don't need the water and exclusion zone.



Yeah, the metal breaks down in time. You don't need to replace everything, though, just the reactor itself. Just build a new one on the site of the old one.

Nuclear waste: Although nuclear technology has been around for 60 years, there is still no universally agreed mode of disposal. It’s uncertain whether burying the spent fuel and the spent reactor vessels (which are also highly radioactive) may cause radioactive leakage into groundwater or the environment via geological movement.

1) We need to pull our heads out of our ass and reprocess the spent fuel. What's left after that will decay to ambient in 10,000 years. We have plenty of disposal schemes that would be quite adequate to safely contain it for this long.

2) Coal generates far more hazardous material (the fly ash.) It's not a threat due to radioactivity so it never decays to safety. Consider the storage needed to handle one year's worth of fly ash. For the same amount of power that volume can handle the nuke waste for all eternity (because after 10,000 years you can pull the stuff back out.)

Accident rate: To date, there have been 11 nuclear accidents at the level of a full or partial core-melt. These accidents are not the minor accidents that can be avoided with improved safety technology; they are rare events that are not even possible to model in a system as complex as a nuclear station, and arise from unforeseen pathways and unpredictable circumstances (such as the Fukushima accident). Considering that these 11 accidents occurred during a cumulated total of 14,000 reactor-years of nuclear operations, scaling up to 15,000 reactors would mean we would have a major accident somewhere in the world every month.

Look at the death toll. All power sources kill people, nuke as the lowest fatality rate for the amount of power generated.

Proliferation: The more nuclear power stations, the greater the likelihood that materials and expertise for making nuclear weapons may proliferate. Although reactors have proliferation resistance measures, maintaining accountability for 15,000 reactor sites worldwide would be nearly impossible.

1) Thorium reactors pose no proliferation threat at all.

2) Normally operated power reactors are not a meaningful threat. The fuel rods stay in too long. The desired reaction is U-238 + n -> U-239. U-239 undergoes beta decay to Np-239 which undergoes beta decay to Pu-239. However, there is also the reaction Pu-239 + n -> Pu-240. The longer you leave the fuel rods in the more of the Pu-239 gets converted to Pu-240. Too much Pu-240 will poison your bomb, causing it to detonate while it's still imploding. This robs the bomb of most of it's power.

Uranium abundance: At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years. (Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.)

That's U-235 abundance. That doesn't count breeder reactors, nor does it count thorium reactors.

Exotic metals: The nuclear containment vessel is made of a variety of exotic rare metals that control and contain the nuclear reaction: hafnium as a neutron absorber, beryllium as a neutron reflector, zirconium for cladding, and niobium to alloy steel and make it last 40-60 years against neutron embrittlement. Extracting these metals raises issues involving cost, sustainability, and environmental impact. In addition, these metals have many competing industrial uses; for example, hafnium is used in microchips and beryllium by the semiconductor industry. If a nuclear reactor is built every day, the global supply of these exotic metals needed to build nuclear containment vessels would quickly run down and create a mineral resource crisis. This is a new argument that Abbott puts on the table, which places resource limits on all future-generation nuclear reactors, whether they are fueled by thorium or uranium.[/I]

And you can't recover them from the worn out reactor??

Fiar points.

Though I would just say that you seem to be comparing nuclear against fossil fuels, not against other alternatives.

 

[dismal]

Hmmm, maybe someone should inform them human breathing emits CO2 before they get too carried away.

You're smarter than this.

CO2 emission by humans and animals is of no concern because the CO2 that we emit came from the food we ate--which took the CO2 out of the atmosphere in the first place. It's like the filter pumps of a swimming pool will not change it's level no matter how much water they pump into the pool, but a lowly garden hose will despite sending much less water.

Still, I'm pretty sure "carbon free" makes it difficult for there to be human life.

 

[bilby]

Hmmm, maybe someone should inform them human breathing emits CO2 before they get too carried away.

You're smarter than this.

CO2 emission by humans and animals is of no concern because the CO2 that we emit came from the food we ate--which took the CO2 out of the atmosphere in the first place. It's like the filter pumps of a swimming pool will not change it's level no matter how much water they pump into the pool, but a lowly garden hose will despite sending much less water.

Still, I'm pretty sure "carbon free" makes it difficult for there to be human life.

At least it's not "nuclear free" - that would render almost all ordinary matter impossible, leaving a massively negatively charged universe full of dark matter and free electrons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fiar points.

Though I would just say that you seem to be comparing nuclear against fossil fuels, not against other alternatives.

Yes, because fossil fuels are the only other viable option at present. I'm interested in what we can actually do now, not pie-in-the-sky.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmm, maybe someone should inform them human breathing emits CO2 before they get too carried away.

You're smarter than this.

CO2 emission by humans and animals is of no concern because the CO2 that we emit came from the food we ate--which took the CO2 out of the atmosphere in the first place. It's like the filter pumps of a swimming pool will not change it's level no matter how much water they pump into the pool, but a lowly garden hose will despite sending much less water.

Still, I'm pretty sure "carbon free" makes it difficult for there to be human life.

It should be obvious that "carbon free" means no net CO2 release.

- - - Updated - - -

Still, I'm pretty sure "carbon free" makes it difficult for there to be human life.

At least it's not "nuclear free" - that would render almost all ordinary matter impossible, leaving a massively negatively charged universe full of dark matter and free electrons.

Talk about a big bang!

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Overjoyed to say we have now organized twenty-two members in support of our Select Committee on a Green New Deal. Here they are:… https://t.co/brkMw7HoHJ"

Then a picture showing and identifying those 22 Congresspeople, stating that they "reject campaign donations from fossil fuel companies." It has these URL's:

jdems.us/GND - FINAL Select Committee for a Green New Deal - Google Docs -- has a Frequently Asked Questions sections, including:

• Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program? Why can’t we just rely on regulations and taxes alone, such as a carbon tax or an eventual ban on fossil fuels?
• Why should the government have a big role in driving and making any required investments? Why not just incentivize the private sector to invest through, for e.g., tax subsidies and such?
• How will the government pay for these investments?
• Why do we need a select committee? We already have committees with jurisdiction over the subject matter e.g. Energy and Commerce, Natural Resources and Science, Space and Technology. Just creating another committee seems unnecessary.
• Why should we not be satisfied with the same approach the previous select committee used (i.e. the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming)? Why do we need a new approach?
• Why does this new select committee need to prepare draft legislation? Isn’t investigation, hearings, briefings and reporting enough?
• What’s an example of a select committee with abilities to prepare legislation? Does the new Select Committee For A Green New Deal seem to fit on that list?
• Doesn’t this select committee take away jurisdictional power from the other (standing i.e. permanent) committees that have jurisdiction over at least part of the issue?
• But a select committee only exists for the congressional session that created it! So even if this select committee prepares legislation, it likely won’t get passed in this session by a Republican-held Senate and White House, so why does having a select committee now even matter?
• What’s wrong with the other proposed legislation on climate change? Can’t we just pass one of the other climate bills that have been introduced in the past? Why prepare a whole new one?

Justice Democrats with a picture of AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar:

• Medicare For All
• Free College
• Green New Deal
• Justice Reform
• Immigrant Rights
• Reject Corporate PAC Money

Sunrise Movement -- "Join us in DC on Dec. 10 to make sure Congress pushes forward a Green New Deal."

 

[lpetrich]

Those Congresspeople: Jared Huffman, CA-02, Jackie Speier, CA-14, Ro Khanna, CA-17, Ted Lieu, CA-33, Like Levin, CA-49, Joe Neguse, CO-02, John Lewis, GA-05, Tulsi Gabbard, HI-02, Chellie Pingree, ME-01, Jamie Raskin, MD-08, Ayanna Pressley, MA-07, Rashida Tlaib, MI-13, Ilhan Omar, MN-05, Deb Haaland, NM-01, Nydia Velazquez, NY-07, Carolyn Maloney, NY-12, Adriano Espaillat, NY-13, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY-14, José E. Serrano, NY-15, Earl Blumenauer, OR-03, Gerry Connolly, VA-11, Derek Kilmer, WA-06.

Including AOC's new friends, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar.

 

[Narapoia]

We are blaming him because he's trying to increase emissions rather than trying to do something about them.

And how has that been going?

What energy use trends have meaningfully changed under Trump?

This year saw the highest ever levels of CO2 emissions, after a number of years without an increase. It's a meaningful change.

 

[Harry Bosch]

We are blaming him because he's trying to increase emissions rather than trying to do something about them.

And how has that been going?

What energy use trends have meaningfully changed under Trump?

How about pushing coal at an international conference on how to fight climate change:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...motes-fossil-fuels/ar-BBQMoGx?ocid=spartanntp

Sorry to be rude, but your party is a laughingstock.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are blaming him because he's trying to increase emissions rather than trying to do something about them.

And how has that been going?

What energy use trends have meaningfully changed under Trump?

How about pushing coal at an international conference on how to fight climate change:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...motes-fossil-fuels/ar-BBQMoGx?ocid=spartanntp

Sorry to be rude, but your party is a laughingstock.

Quit insulting laughingstocks.

 

[lpetrich]

Gearing Up for a Green New Deal | The Indypendent -- has a cute painting of AOC dressed like FDR.

 

[lpetrich]

Democrats Just Blocked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Push For A Green New Deal Committee | HuffPost "Instead, Democrats are sticking to their original plan, and channeled Exxon Mobil in an announcement refusing to bar members who take fossil fuel money."

Democratic leaders on Thursday tapped Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to head a revived U.S. House panel on climate change, all but ending a dramatic monthlong effort to establish a select committee on a Green New Deal.

Castor’s appointment came as a surprise to proponents of a Green New Deal. The move also kicked off a controversy as the six-term congresswoman dismissed calls to bar members who accept money from fossil fuel companies from serving on the committee, arguing it would violate free speech rights.

 

[J842P]

Democrats Just Blocked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Push For A Green New Deal Committee | HuffPost "Instead, Democrats are sticking to their original plan, and channeled Exxon Mobil in an announcement refusing to bar members who take fossil fuel money."

Democratic leaders on Thursday tapped Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to head a revived U.S. House panel on climate change, all but ending a dramatic monthlong effort to establish a select committee on a Green New Deal.

Castor’s appointment came as a surprise to proponents of a Green New Deal. The move also kicked off a controversy as the six-term congresswoman dismissed calls to bar members who accept money from fossil fuel companies from serving on the committee, arguing it would violate free speech rights.

Are you surprised?

 

[poster]

Democrats Just Blocked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Push For A Green New Deal Committee | HuffPost "Instead, Democrats are sticking to their original plan, and channeled Exxon Mobil in an announcement refusing to bar members who take fossil fuel money."

Democratic leaders on Thursday tapped Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to head a revived U.S. House panel on climate change, all but ending a dramatic monthlong effort to establish a select committee on a Green New Deal.

Castor’s appointment came as a surprise to proponents of a Green New Deal. The move also kicked off a controversy as the six-term congresswoman dismissed calls to bar members who accept money from fossil fuel companies from serving on the committee, arguing it would violate free speech rights.

It didn't take long to expose Nance and Steny's (who names their kid "Steny" anyway) propensity to sell out, did it. I told you she would. All it took was one committed person willing to be transparent about what goes on in government. If you insist on a big money bundler for speaker because "that's just how it goes in politics" you're going to have to tolerate sabotoging the environment (and a lot of other things).

I see Politico has begun the process of marginalizing AOC by accusing her of attacking other Democrats. What a shit-rag Politico is.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/18/ocasio-cortez-hakeem-jeffries-2020-primary-1067107

 

[RVonse]

Democrats Just Blocked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Push For A Green New Deal Committee | HuffPost "Instead, Democrats are sticking to their original plan, and channeled Exxon Mobil in an announcement refusing to bar members who take fossil fuel money."

Democratic leaders on Thursday tapped Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to head a revived U.S. House panel on climate change, all but ending a dramatic monthlong effort to establish a select committee on a Green New Deal.

Castor’s appointment came as a surprise to proponents of a Green New Deal. The move also kicked off a controversy as the six-term congresswoman dismissed calls to bar members who accept money from fossil fuel companies from serving on the committee, arguing it would violate free speech rights.

Are you surprised?

No. The Democrats are incredibly corrupt beyond belief. Even if you leave out the Clintons.

 

[J842P]

Are you surprised?

No. The Democrats are incredibly corrupt beyond belief. Even if you leave out the Clintons.

Corruption is a feature of the American political system. It is a handful of people on either sides who are not corrupt.

 

[Copernicus]

Personally, I don't care whether there is a committee in Congress that is called the "Green New Deal", but it was bad optics for the Democratic leadership to kill it. I suspect that part of what was going on was revenge by the party establishment for Ocasio-Cortez's threat to primary Democrats that she doesn't consider liberal enough, not to mention the sting that they still feel from her New York victory over one of their favorites. What I don't see is any real policy change. The progressives and moderates within the new House majority are basically arguing over tactics and strategies for achieving the same policy goals. If they can't figure out how to work together, they won't get much done.

A major stumbling block to green energy is not just the technology, but the engineering and logistics. There is no way that all of those gasoline-powered cars are going to get replaced by electrical vehicles in just a few short decades. Power, no matter how it is generated, has to be transmitted to homes and businesses across transmission lines that become less and less efficient over long distances. Factories have to be retooled, workforces retrained, and government budgets restructured to subsidize green energy sources. It isn't going to happen necessarily with lots of new slogans and committees in Congress. Unfortunately, about the only thing that will get action is a real natural disaster that kills a lot of people and scares the bejeebers out of the survivors. At that point, people will stop arguing about how much it costs and actually start doing something.

 

[DoubleDutchy]

I wonder if she's considering fusion in all this. Its just around the corner, I hear.

It has been so for fifty years now.

 

[DoubleDutchy]

She sounds like an eco-warrior crank. Totally unrealistic, pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Really ? This is not so different from the energy-program that was proposed by the Swiss government, approved by both parliament chambers and confirmed by a national referendum (and as yet is running fine). The only significant difference is, that a reassesment is point defined for the year 2035. By then a go/nogo decision should be made for 4th generation nuclear energy. Not entirely vain hopes exist that a 4th generation Thorium reactor not only would produce energy but also convert long living nuclear waste to short living; so relieving us from major pain in the ass.

 

[Derec]

Really ? This is not so different from the energy-program that was proposed by the Swiss government, approved by both parliament chambers and confirmed by a national referendum (and as yet is running fine).

Do you have a link to the program itself? In any case, even if the programs were identical, Switzerland and US are very different. Switzerland is small country of some eight and a half million people and very mountainous. That means a lot of hydro power. Fossil fuels are already a tiny portion of Swiss electricity mix.

The only significant difference is, that a reassesment is point defined for the year 2035. By then a go/nogo decision should be made for 4th generation nuclear energy. Not entirely vain hopes exist that a 4th generation Thorium reactor not only would produce energy but also convert long living nuclear waste to short living; so relieving us from major pain in the ass.

Yes, I think Thorium nuclear is a very good idea.

 

[Derec]

Gearing Up for a Green New Deal | The Indypendent

From the article:

She’d witness streets virtually devoid of vehicles save for schools of buses, gobbling up passengers like cephalopods and subway cars gliding without a hitch, graceful as eels over bridges.

So does AOC's "Green New Deal" really envision a future without cars or is that Peter Rugh's innovation?

-- has a cute painting of AOC dressed like FDR.

She is definitely no FDR.