Comments on: Coal stocks hit as reality of climate and EPA ruling finally sets in http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:22:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Asteroid Miner http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22400 Asteroid Miner Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:23:44 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22400 A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Laboratory wrote to me: "The reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-of-date (1st generation) design that has to be precisely controlled to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water carries away heat and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused Chernobyl to blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly going to high pressure steam and erupting into a steam explosion. Since the building top was simply resting by its weight on the walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently igniting a carbon fire." The United States and other Western countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or operate ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we allow containment buildings to have easily removable tops. Containment buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to be pressure vessels. The Chernobyl accident released less than 200 tons of radioactive material, as much as a coal-fired power plant would release in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl accident had a shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The radioactive material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why the Chernobyl accident had impact. The Three Mile Island incident did NOT release a noticeable amount of radiation into its neighborhood because it had a good containment building and because it was a more modern design. The reason is that the Soviet Union didn't spend money on R&D for nuclear safety. The US did. Over 60 years, American reactors have become so safe it is ridiculous. We have way overspent on nuclear reactor safety, driving up the cost of electricity. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, coal fired electric power plants kill 24,000 people per year in the US according to Discover magazine. Reactors built in the US in 2008 are nothing like the very first reactor ever, built in the US in 1944. Soviet built reactors were just copies of the 1944 reactor. The book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby has more truthful information on this if you are interested. Don't believe the urban legends that were started by coal companies. Order the book from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm See: http://www.ecolo.org for more information on the book. Most books on the subject in most libraries may be there because of coal industry pressure. See also: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens is a former anti-nuclear activist. "Power to Save the World" says on page 90: At Chernobyl, only 13 to 30% of the reactor's 190 metric tons of fuel evaporated. .13X190=24.7 tons. .3X190=57 tons. [Much lower than the previous estimate of 200 tons, and trivial compared to what coal fired power plants give you.] I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is paying me to post this. I have never worked for the nuclear power industry. A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Laboratory wrote to me: “The reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-of-date (1st generation) design that has to be precisely controlled to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water carries away heat and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused Chernobyl to blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly going to high pressure steam and erupting into a steam explosion. Since the building top was simply resting by its weight on the walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently igniting a carbon fire.” The United States and other Western countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or operate ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we allow containment buildings to have easily removable tops. Containment buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released less than 200 tons of radioactive material, as much as a coal-fired power plant would release in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl accident had a shorter “stack” than coal-fired power plants. The radioactive material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why the Chernobyl accident had impact. The Three Mile Island incident did NOT release a noticeable amount of radiation into its neighborhood because it had a good containment building and because it was a more modern design.
The reason is that the Soviet Union didn’t spend money on R&D for nuclear safety. The US did. Over 60 years, American reactors have become so safe it is ridiculous. We have way overspent on nuclear reactor safety, driving up the cost of electricity. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, coal fired electric power plants kill 24,000 people per year in the US according to Discover magazine. Reactors built in the US in 2008 are nothing like the very first reactor ever, built in the US in 1944. Soviet built reactors were just copies of the 1944 reactor.
The book: “Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy”, by B. Comby has more truthful information on this if you are interested. Don’t believe the urban legends that were started by coal companies. Order the book from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
See: http://www.ecolo.org for more information on the book. Most books on the subject in most libraries may be there because of coal industry pressure.
See also: “Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy” by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens is a former anti-nuclear activist.
“Power to Save the World” says on page 90: At Chernobyl, only 13 to 30% of the reactor’s 190 metric tons of fuel evaporated. .13X190=24.7 tons. .3X190=57 tons. [Much lower than the previous estimate of 200 tons, and trivial compared to what coal fired power plants give you.]

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is paying me to post this. I have never worked for the nuclear power industry.

]]> By: Asteroid Miner http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22399 Asteroid Miner Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:11:00 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22399 Reference: "Google and the myth of universal knowledge" by Jean-Noel Jeanneney 2007 Page 32: 62% of internet users questioned make no distinction whatever between advertising and other information, and only 18% proved capable of telling which data were paid for by companies for their promotion and which were not." "92% of users of search engines have full confidence in the results of their search, and 71% (users for less than five years) consider that information from this source [Google] is never biased in any way." Jean-Noel Jeanneney goes on to say that the NON-SPONSORED links ARE LISTED IN THE ORDER OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER to lowest bidder. Companies pay dollars to Google to get web sites other than their own that lie in favor of the paying company to be at the top of the "non-sponsored" list. Google search results in your getting nothing but corporate propaganda. Suggestion: Get a degree in science so that you can figure it out for yourself. While you are working on the degree, use only Google Advanced or Google Scholar. On Google Advanced, specify either the .gov domain or the .edu domain. George W. Bush messed up as many government web sites as he could get away with, but your chances are still clearly better than going to the richest propagandist .com or .org. Reference: “Google and the myth of universal knowledge” by Jean-Noel Jeanneney 2007

Page 32: 62% of internet users questioned make no distinction whatever between advertising and other information, and only 18% proved capable of telling which data were paid for by companies for their promotion and which were not.”
“92% of users of search engines have full confidence in the results of their search, and 71% (users for less than five years) consider that information from this source [Google] is never biased in any way.”

Jean-Noel Jeanneney goes on to say that the NON-SPONSORED links ARE LISTED IN THE ORDER OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER to lowest bidder. Companies pay dollars to Google to get web sites other than their own that lie in favor of the paying company to be at the top of the “non-sponsored” list. Google search results in your getting nothing but corporate propaganda.

Suggestion: Get a degree in science so that you can figure it out for yourself. While you are working on the degree, use only Google Advanced or Google Scholar. On Google Advanced, specify either the .gov domain or the .edu domain. George W. Bush messed up as many government web sites as he could get away with, but your chances are still clearly better than going to the richest propagandist .com or .org.

]]> By: Asteroid Miner http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22398 Asteroid Miner Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:59:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22398 Nuclear power is the safest kind, bar none, for everybody. Deaths per terrawatt year [twy] for energy industries, including Chernobyl. terra=mega mega [There are zero sources of energy that cause zero deaths, but not having the electricity causes the most deaths.] fuel......... ........fatalities... .....who......... .......deaths per twy coal......... .........6400...... ......workers........... .........342 natural gas..... ..1200...... .....workers and public... ...85 hydro........ .......4000..... .......public............ ............883 nuclear........ .........31...... ......workers............ .............8 Nuclear power is proven to be the safest. Source: "The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock page 102. As you can see, psychological problems are preventing the wider use of nuclear power. I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. I have never had any connection with the nuclear power industry. I am not being paid by anyone to post on Alternet. My sole motive is to avoid death in the collapse of civilization and to avoid extinction due to global warming. Nuclear power is the safest kind, bar none, for everybody.

Deaths per terrawatt year [twy] for energy industries, including
Chernobyl. terra=mega mega [There are zero sources of energy
that cause zero deaths, but not having the electricity causes the
most deaths.]

fuel……… ……..fatalities… …..who……… …….deaths per twy
coal……… ………6400…… ……workers……….. ………342
natural gas….. ..1200…… …..workers and public… …85
hydro…….. …….4000….. …….public………… …………883
nuclear…….. ………31…… ……workers………… ………….8

Nuclear power is proven to be the safest. Source: “The Revenge
of Gaia” by James Lovelock page 102. As you can see,
psychological problems are preventing the wider use of nuclear
power.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. I have
never had any connection with the nuclear power industry. I am
not being paid by anyone to post on Alternet. My sole motive is
to avoid death in the collapse of civilization and to avoid
extinction due to global warming.

]]> By: Asteroid Miner http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22397 Asteroid Miner Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:26:16 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22397 It is easy to shut down coal fired power plants. Just make them follow the same rules that nuclear power plants have to obey. Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal includes every element in the periodic table. The major impurities are, depending on where you found it: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements. Chinese industrial grade coal contains much more arsenic than American coal. Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out of the ground. What would you expect of a rock? Reference: OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE: THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE by Alex Gabbard Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN Selections from the 19th Annual Conference SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY March 14,15,16, 1996 Nashville, Tennessee Published by the SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY 1996 Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D. Conference Director The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock. The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4 million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the cinders. Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant. Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million = 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a briefcase. The full fuel load and the years between fueling varies from reactor to reactor, but one truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load. See also: <a href="http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html" rel="nofollow">Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review</a> The Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Power It is easy to shut down coal fired power plants. Just make them follow the same rules that nuclear power plants have to obey.

Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal includes every element in the periodic table. The major impurities are, depending on where you found it: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements. Chinese industrial grade coal contains much more arsenic than American coal. Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out of the ground. What would you expect of a rock?
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock. The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4 million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million = 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a briefcase. The full fuel load and the years between fueling varies from reactor to reactor, but one truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load.
See also: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review

The Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Power

]]> By: Michael Hoexter http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22270 Michael Hoexter Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:27:02 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22270 This is great news. Fantastic! This is great news. Fantastic!

]]> By: Mark Shapiro http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22265 Mark Shapiro Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:20:12 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22265 JCH: "Is there a way to meet rising demand for electricity in the next few years without coal (assuming there will be rising demand in Bush’s final gift - our Neocon economy)?" Yes. See Joe's postings under the category "Solutions" in the right hand column of the blog. Solution summary: efficiency, renewable sources, and conservation. JCH: “Is there a way to meet rising demand for electricity in the next few years without coal (assuming there will be rising demand in Bush’s final gift – our Neocon economy)?”

Yes. See Joe’s postings under the category “Solutions” in the right hand column of the blog.

Solution summary: efficiency, renewable sources, and conservation.

]]> By: JCH http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22262 JCH Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:27:44 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22262 Is there a way to meet rising demand for electricity in the next few years without coal (assuming there will be rising demand in Bush's final gift - our Neocon economy)? T. Boone is rumored to have lost so much money in natural gas that he is postponing his wind farm. The local news is full of stories about the Barnett Shale shutting down. We are having a 1980s moment. Everybody in the oil patch has a perfect memory of it as it was a devastating time. "Drill baby, drill" is about to become, "yankee, you wanna a hole, drill it yourself." Is there a way to meet rising demand for electricity in the next few years without coal (assuming there will be rising demand in Bush’s final gift – our Neocon economy)? T. Boone is rumored to have lost so much money in natural gas that he is postponing his wind farm. The local news is full of stories about the Barnett Shale shutting down.

We are having a 1980s moment. Everybody in the oil patch has a perfect memory of it as it was a devastating time. “Drill baby, drill” is about to become, “yankee, you wanna a hole, drill it yourself.”

]]> By: simp http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22257 simp Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:23:31 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22257 This ruling and the election of Obama (I hope) are the best things that happened since ages! I have this feeling: well maybe avoiding catastrophe isn'T that impossible anymore. I agree, Climate Progress is superb - it's the one website I check everytime I turn on my PC This ruling and the election of Obama (I hope) are the best things that happened since ages! I have this feeling: well maybe avoiding catastrophe isn’T that impossible anymore.

I agree, Climate Progress is superb – it’s the one website I check everytime I turn on my PC

]]> By: AAI http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22254 AAI Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:47:28 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22254 www.ClimateProgress.org remains the best blog on the entire web. http://www.ClimateProgress.org remains the best blog on the entire web.

]]> By: Kathy N. http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22253 Kathy N. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 04:38:48 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/#comment-22253 Starting a last, I just hope it isn't to little to late. It really is nice to have even a little hope after the desert of dispair of the last 10 yrs. Starting a last, I just hope it isn’t to little to late. It really is nice to have even a little hope after the desert of dispair of the last 10 yrs.

]]>