[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

Tue Dec 8 15:29:09 CST 2009

Interesting piece of paper. I choose not to comment it because it is as predictable as a Greenpeace paper...

Regarding nuclear power, one thing need to be explained, it was denied by Kyoto protocol as a mean to mitigate CO2 levels and THAT may be the turning point for nuclear power. Why was it denied you may ask ?  

Rad waste. 

The long lived isotopes are deemed "unfair" for future generations thus this solution does not stick with sustainable development schemes and the principle of equity with generations that was part of the Kyoto protocol. The fact that nuclear does not produce greenhouse gas is a good selling argument for nuclear power plants, but it will not stick for all sustainable development advocates. I, for once, would like to see more nuclear plants, to close the coal plants at least, and work progressively on improving the radwaste, spent fuel aspect. But can anyone here tell me that we have improved the radwaste aspect in 20 years ? Please say so. That is in my opinion, relevant radsafe discussion.

Now, I am only puzzled by one thing: Only North Americans are complaining about having to find new ways of producing clean energy and reducing CO2 levels. We find it normal to consume fossil resources like we do...because we produce more, someone said....More what ? 

In the mean time, the Europeans, with their cap and trade policies are exchanging billions of dollars in emission rights in the Carbon market. We are trying here with RGGI and the very shy Chicago exchange, but without cap, there is no serious trading. Many companies, like Biothermica here in Canada, are getting richer with the new economy. But we are simply watching the train pass, complain and count on good old fossil fuel. And this discussion trend confirms that we are used with the good old, unsustainable, American way of life and can't see innovation in this CO2 opportunity. 

My opinion only.

Stéphane Jean-François
_____________________________________________________________________________
Stéphane Jean-François, Eng., M. Env., CHP. | Manager, Environment and Health Physics
Safety and Environment | Canada Site Functions
Merck Frosst Canada, Ltd. | 16711 TransCanada Hwy. | Kirkland, QC, Canada H9H 3L1
Office: #9-2-448 | P: 514-428-8695 | f:  514-428-8670 |
stephane_jeanfrancois at merck.com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Earley, Jack N
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:47 PM
To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming

This showed up in the site media highlights today. It's similar to what some say about nuclear power: Don't promote it-when they're sitting in their cold, dark houses, they'll beg for it.

A radical plan to save the Earth
BY MORGAN LIDDICK

Let's assume for a moment, despite the recently revealed book-cooking and data-dumping, that the anthropogenic global-warming crowd is on to something. If we're really going to cook within 20 years, we better do more than commit economic suicide at the upcoming 'Copenhagen speechfest.

Instead, let's use the threat of imminent roastage to institute a full-throttle, all-hands-on-deck, no-holds-barred campaign to develop new sources of energy. ''The equivalent of war," to borrow a phrase from a former president. And let's see how many of those currently finger-wagging over our production of greenhouse gasses are willing to go along. The following are a few of the steps which will be required -if we're serious.

Treble the federal tax on petroleum-based motor fuels to 55 cents a gallon, and mandate that all states do the same. Yes, that will immediately raise the price of just about everything any American buys since transportation is a significant cost element, and yes, "the poor" are going to be shellacked by these increases, but sacrifices are necessary -we have a planet to save. Right? Oh, and no subsidies for anyone. All this money -potentially, more than $170 billion annually -is going to build "smart" transportation infrastructure.

Impose an additional 1 0 percent Federal Excise Tax on electricity not produced by wind, solar, hydropower or nuclear plants. Use the tens of billions of dollars generated to fund research into alternative and renewable energy sources. Eliminate all subsidies and tax breaks for "green" building or retrofitting, also applying the money saved to research and development. That's going to increase the real cost of installing energy-efficient appliances, but if "Earth is in the balance," it's high time people stepped up and did the right thing without being bribed. We'll bludgeon them instead. And I'm certain the National Renewable Energy Laboratory would be happy to expand many times as a result.

Streamline the process for licensing new nuclear power plants, and establish a program within the Department of Energy to bring them online fast. That means, among other things, exemptions from nuisance lawsuits. Nuclear plants produce large amounts of base load electricity -necessary in a Brave New World of wind and solar, which are by their nature intermittent -and they do it without producing carbon dioxide. So if that gas is really the villain of the piece, we've got to use every tool in the shed to do away with it, right?

And yes, part of the above will be opening the national Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. If it really is a choice between the desertification of North America and a few people having to conquer their quasi-religious fear of spent nuclear fuel, well ... out of the way, Harry Reid. You can't be a roadblock to saving the Earth.

Speaking of roadblocks: if we are serious about developing wind and solar as alternate energy sources, major portions of our environmental laws are going to have to be rewritten, particularly pertaining to protected species. Right now, a lawsuit over the presence of two -count 'em, two -Mojave Flat-Tailed Lizards has halted construction of a 10-square-mile solar power facility in California's Mojave Desert. If our situation is as dire as it has been portrayed, sorry -lizards have even less right than Senator Reid to impede efforts to stave off the climatological apocalypse. Besides, I hear that properly cooked, they taste like chicken ...

Similar adjustments are necessary for wind turbine farms -too bad for all those small Eastern-plains towns who don't particularly care to morph into Dr. Frankenstein's v1ersion of Holland, but ... you know the drill. Oh, and we're going to have to repeal most of the laws on "view impingement," since many more high-tension transmission lines are going to have to be built. No use building solar or wind farms if you can't get the power to market. !

So undertaken, a program that dedicates our national focus and treasure (sorry, no national health. Gotta save the planet first ...) might create more than it destroys, True, many Americans would be impoverished and unemployed -at least until they got the proper j6b skills. And the national economy would go through a major downturn, until it adjusted to far more e*pensive energy. But Westinghouse, or General Electric, or a company no one's heard of yet may come Jp with new technologies that once again make our country an economic powerhouse, saving the Earth and enriching its stockholders beyond the dreams of avarice.

All it takes is for those who wail about our profligate ways to agree that we need not concede our economic future to India and China, but to begin a concerted effort, now. And to stand fast when the howling from their allies of convenience on the Left gets loud, as a succession of oxen are gored.

I feel cooler already.

Summit County resident Morgan Liddick pens a Tuesday column. E-mail him at mcliddick at hotmail.com. Also, comment on this column at www.summitdaily.com.

Jack Earley
Environmental Integration
Radioactive Air Emissions, Radioactive Waste Management, & Quality Assurance
509.376.3667  Fax 509.376.2816

DON'T SAY IT - Write It!
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential, and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction, or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
Notice:  This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates Direct contact information for affiliates is available at http://www.merck.com/contact/contacts.html) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system.