Re: FW: Sequestration / nuclear option

[Alan Watts <wattsa@ohio.edu>]

older smoke detectors are easily detected (~ 15 uCi Am-241)



--On Tuesday, December 09, 2003 4:53 PM +1100 Keith.Millington@csiro.au 

wrote:



>

> Hi,

>

> What are your thoughts on the similarity between underground sequestration

> of CO2 from fossil fuel power stations vs storage of nuclear waste ? Has

> anyone calculated the volume of CO2 storage required per 1000MW, say,

> compared with fission , and also the costs involved in pumping the CO2

> underground ?

>

> The attached is some dialogue I have had with a proponent of this

> approach.

>

> Regards, Keith Millington

>

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Millington, Keith (TFT, Geelong)

>

> Ian,

>

> Sadly I suspect that nuclear power is not being suggested here as a viable

> option for eliminating greenhouse emissions, but as a threat.

>

> Whilst I think there is considerable merit in more research funding for

> renewables, unless there is a significant breakthrough, fission remains

> the only viable option for maintaining current and projected levels of

> electricity demand for the future. At any rate if we're serious about

> addressing global warming.

>

> Underground sequestration of CO2 and storage of high-level nuclear waste

> are very similar strategies - except for the vastly different volumes

> involved, and of course the media beat-up whenever the word nuclear is

> mentioned.

>

>

>

>

> Yes. A wonderful Hatchet job, something the press can be good at.

>

> There is a saying that the closer the subject the press is reporting on

> the less you believe what it says because you know about the subject,

> beware of just believing the reporter, they control what parts of an

> interview are shown, i.e. questions and answers and have in the past been

> caught out putting answers against different questions.

>

> All the people critising Robin had a major conflict of interest in that

> they wanted the money going to research in sequestration to go to their

> research, I much stronger conflict of interest than Robin's.  I didn't

> notice much criticism of their views of where the money should be spent

> on grounds of potential "conflict of interest".  Consider the question of

> where money on greenhouse could most effectively be spent.  Halving the

> carbon emissions via sequestration or reducing dependence on coal by a

> small fraction with the alternate energies, or maybe just go nuclear?

>

>

>

> Regards

>

>

> Ian

>

> HI Richard,

>   Yes, I saw that last night.  The 7:30 report were trying to corner him

> on a conflict of interest between his 5 digit salary as chief scientist

> and his 6 digit salary as a director of Rio Tinto.  The issue was on

> carbon sequestration.  An idea supported by both the chief scientist and

> Rio Tinto. Robin more or less argued that he has a split personality and

> the person doing the Chief Scientist job is oblivious to the person doing

> the directory job.  The interview appeared biased against Robin, but the

> potential for conflict of interest is obvious.

>

> Gavin

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

> unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

> text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

> with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

>