Wisconsin utility files suit against Union Pacific

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

QUOTE:

QUOTE: I don't see how CP Rail delivering coal would alleviate the problems since the problem seems to be in the PRB which is only served by two railroads. If CP Rail was receiving coal from a different source to deliver to the power plants, this would make sense. They are plugging the gaps in the PRB coal by receiving coal from a different area of the country. However, this would be questionable because coal furnaces in power plants are set up to receive a specific type of coal because they burn it a specific way.

Well, if they could barge it in, why can't they rail it in? Where was the barge coal coming from?

My point was that CP Rail would be receiving the coal from the UP. The same UP that was having trouble delivering coal in the first place. What point would it have made for the utility to take coal from CP Rail, since they would most likely be getting it from the UP and still subject to the same supply interruptions. In that scenario, a barge makes perfect sense, if the type of coal that the power plant needs CAN be loaded onto a barge. I am assuming several things. 1.) The barge is loaded with coal from the south eastern United States and 2.) The power plant's furnaces can accept a coal with higher sulfur content. I seem to think that the coal from SE US is of a higher sulfur content and therefore not compatible with power plants that burn low sulfur coal. Otherwise why the interruption? Pleasant Prairie could just buy coal from Appalachia and ship it on the NS.

The CP and UP share yard trackage down at Jones Island. I wonder why the coal that was brought in by ship (from where I do not know) was not loaded into rail cars there. Either railroad could then deliver it. I would think a rail move would be cheaper than a truck move, as each truck can carry only 25 tons max. The only exception is if any of the coal was destined for the Oak Creek power plant, then UP has the rail monopoly there.


On a slightly different subject: I see quite a few loaded coal trains going north towards Appleton on the CN in Wisconsin, most of them using UP power. Does anybody know the origin and/or final destination of these loads?

[wallyworld]

It will be interesting to see how the DM&E extension into the coal fields eventually plays out when you mix in states over-riding the clean air act with more stringent restrictions, the cost of retrofitting air scrubbers, the when and if of UP can solving their fluidity problems and moving that bulk coal through interchange to the end point user. I dont think the jury is in yet as to whether it will be a viable investment considering the enormous capital costs. My son worked for a time as an attorney for the EPA and the Department of Justice and told me there are more suits against the ultilies than the public is aware of, due to a reluctance to install scrubbers and resulting legal battle is certainly an expense for the utilities whether you consider it justified or not. If you take the example of upstart smaller passenger carriers in the airline industry entering the market with bargain airfares, the larger airlines take a loss leader and undercut their pricing. Will this be the case with the larger UP and upstart DM&E? China entered our market in several areas very successfully by product dumping or selling their goods at a loss to gain entry. It will be intersting to see how all this plays out. Another outside possibility is a crash nuclear program being undertaken if the oil crisis worsens. Granted it wont happen overnight but the DM&E extension is a long term investment.

[Anonymous]

wallyworld,

The oil "crisis", such as it is, has nothing to do with domestic electricity production. Oil prices only affect transportation and a certain segment of the home heating market for the most part, with other petroleum using production having more discreet problems.

Now, if the railroads' inability to deliver coal in a timely and price friendly manner ends up forcing utilities to rethink "new coal" for energy production, they may very well return to a preference for natural gas and nuclear. Most natural gas we use is from the continent, so no real political influence in the price of natural gas have yet arisen. But if we end up having to import LNG from overseas to meet demand, then we might start to see the same geopolitical price manipulations over our electric bills that we currently see with our transportation fuel bills.

Coal is the key to our energy independence for the next couple of hundred years, not only for electricity but also coal liquification for transportation fuels. Can we afford to let OUR railroads screw THAT up for us?

[METRO]

Probably a stupid question but, does the CP have an interchange with the BNSF at La Crosse that could be used to bring in PRB coal to eastern Wisconsin?

Also, I saw on the news yesterday that one of the nuke plants that powers the Milwaukee area had to be shut down yesterday, is that going to increase the load needed on the regional coal plants?

Cheers!
~METRO

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

wallyworld,

The oil "crisis", such as it is, has nothing to do with domestic electricity production. Oil prices only affect transportation and a certain segment of the home heating market for the most part, with other petroleum using production having more discreet problems.

Now, if the railroads' inability to deliver coal in a timely and price friendly manner ends up forcing utilities to rethink "new coal" for energy production, they may very well return to a preference for natural gas and nuclear. Most natural gas we use is from the continent, so no real political influence in the price of natural gas have yet arisen. But if we end up having to import LNG from overseas to meet demand, then we might start to see the same geopolitical price manipulations over our electric bills that we currently see with our transportation fuel bills.

Coal is the key to our energy independence for the next couple of hundred years, not only for electricity but also coal liquification for transportation fuels. Can we afford to let OUR railroads screw THAT up for us?

Ah but there are dangers at every corner. Nuclear - Every enviro-wingbat will have a fit if we start to look at nuclear power as an option. Every new plant would be labeled a Chernobyl in the making or Three Mile Island. I doubt wether any politician would have the gumption to even look at that as an issue. Natural Gas - This was a hot topic in the nineties. It burns very clean. It WAS somewhat plentiful. Coal burning plants could be retro-fitted to burn LNG. One little oversight - when everyone starts to use natural gas then suddenly it isn't as plentiful, and the price goes up. Today the natural gas markets are highly volatile. (Kinda like oil) Not only that, the enviro-wingbats have a problem with companies installing big underground gas pipelines. Coal - This is the most economical option. It has the highest BTU per mass. But, the enviro-wingbats don't like the sulfur dioxide emissions. (Here they may actually have a good point). It will cause acid rain and it is harmful to the enviroment. If the power plants install very expensive scrubbers (also a maintenance headache) this seems to alleviate the problem. Or they could burn low sulfur PRB coal. Coal is going to be the best option for energy in the future. That is why I think the DME is going to be a roaring success.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

wallyworld,

The oil "crisis", such as it is, has nothing to do with domestic electricity production. Oil prices only affect transportation and a certain segment of the home heating market for the most part, with other petroleum using production having more discreet problems.

Now, if the railroads' inability to deliver coal in a timely and price friendly manner ends up forcing utilities to rethink "new coal" for energy production, they may very well return to a preference for natural gas and nuclear. Most natural gas we use is from the continent, so no real political influence in the price of natural gas have yet arisen. But if we end up having to import LNG from overseas to meet demand, then we might start to see the same geopolitical price manipulations over our electric bills that we currently see with our transportation fuel bills.

Coal is the key to our energy independence for the next couple of hundred years, not only for electricity but also coal liquification for transportation fuels. Can we afford to let OUR railroads screw THAT up for us?

Ah but there are dangers at every corner. Nuclear - Every enviro-wingbat will have a fit if we start to look at nuclear power as an option. Every new plant would be labeled a Chernobyl in the making or Three Mile Island. I doubt wether any politician would have the gumption to even look at that as an issue. Natural Gas - This was a hot topic in the nineties. It burns very clean. It WAS somewhat plentiful. Coal burning plants could be retro-fitted to burn LNG. One little oversight - when everyone starts to use natural gas then suddenly it isn't as plentiful, and the price goes up. Today the natural gas markets are highly volatile. (Kinda like oil) Not only that, the enviro-wingbats have a problem with companies installing big underground gas pipelines. Coal - This is the most economical option. It has the highest BTU per mass. But, the enviro-wingbats don't like the sulfur dioxide emissions. (Here they may actually have a good point). It will cause acid rain and it is harmful to the enviroment. If the power plants install very expensive scrubbers (also a maintenance headache) this seems to alleviate the problem. Or they could burn low sulfur PRB coal. Coal is going to be the best option for energy in the future. That is why I think the DME is going to be a roaring success.

Call me a enviro-wingbat if you want, but nuclear is absolutely NOT the way to go. There are already so many spent fuel rods in on-site storage awaiting a proper disposal site (or theft by terrorists), that it would be insane to create more of a problem we have yet to solve.

In addition, if we used the short-term solution of nuclear, there would likely be almost no one motivated sufficiently to consider alternate energy strategies. The utilities do not want solar or wind power to become economically feasable, at least until they can find a way to charge us for using them.


An interesting side-note; it appears that the Pleasant Prairie power plant has recently installed some sort of scrubber system. Whether this is in anticipation of burnig coal from other sources or just to clean up what it is already belching out, I do not know.

[solzrules]

No I agree with you. Until they find a way to SAFELY get rid of the spent rods, then the nuclear option only creates more problems then it solves. I know they were talking about Yucca mountain as a possible deep tunnel storage area, but I haven't heard more about it. Personally, I think they should just launch it all into the sun an let it get disintegrated. The sun is one big nuclear reaction anyway, right? As for the meltdown fears - this should always be a concern with nukes. It is an unfortunate risk that comes with working with such an animal. I am tempted to say we don't build reactors like the Russians (i.e. Chernobyl) but when we start relying on technology to save the day is usually the day when everything goes to hell.

[beaulieu]

To add to this discussion, where the coal came from is no mystery, it came from MERC, the Detroit Edison subsidiary in Superior, WI. Approximately 3/4 of the coal shipped from MERC comes from mines in the NPRB (ie. Montana) and about 95 percent of all coal shipped through MERC is delivered by BNSF. CP can and does receive PRB coal in the Twin Cities from both BNSF and UP, for powerplants in Wisconsin. One more point not all Crowsnest Pass coal is Metalurgical quality coal, some is sold for steam generation. The Crowsnest Pass mines are currently shipping much less coal than normal as they have been badly hit by the shortage of tires for mining equipment. CP has sent quite a few sets of coal gons back to the leasing companies since January, and is rumored to be about to return the CEFX SD9043MACs and the first batch of CEFX AC4400CWs back to the leasing company because of the lack of coal trains.

[wallyworld]

I agree that coal, for the forseeable future ( whatever that means) outside of coal gasification or the production of synthetic oil, is the fuel of choice, for utilities. However there is linkage bewtween its continued use and global warming which aslo relates to particulate pollution arising from primarily trucks and then the private automobile. I have no horse in this race or a agenda or that that matter some solution to all this, that I am stuck on.The stakes are very real to Class !'s in that coal represents 44% of their tonnage and 21% of revenue. However, climatoligists can only roughly predict how quickly things will go south. Increased droughts in africa and in our West with decreased snowmelt cover,However, increasingly extreme weather patterns and hurricanes with another season upon us, as we all know have a financial cost. The political side is equally unpredictable. You have to ask yourself how bad will it get and how soon. If you have certain medical symptoms you dont wait until for a diagnosis until its terminal. That is the choice here which will become increasingly uncomfortable economically. Will coal remain king? Short term yes- twenty years from now-I doubt it. You dont have to be psychic to know how things will turn out further down this path unless it changes relatively soon. To think other wise is certainly self comforting to me, but we as a nation, also seem to excel at cross purposes these days. This isnt your fathers coal industry.

[solzrules]

Yeah, but until they perfect an alternate fuel source, we are kind of SOL. Nuclear fuel was looked upon at one time as a solution to all of this, but after a string of really bad b-rated movies from hollywood about radiation poisoning and some major nuclear disasters, people are gun shy about new reactors. We need to find a solution that is enviromentally friendly. We need to find a fuel that will not become really expensive when everyone starts to use it. We also need a fuel that doesn't threaten to kill 300,000 people if there is a problem (chernobyl). Hydrogen fuel cells? The companies that would potentially use them (auto makers) have a vested interest in NOT using them. Re-tooling all of their factories would cost billions. Wind farms? Everyone hates the propellers and some enviros claim they kill billions of birds every year. (You'd think the carcasses would be piled high at that rate). Solar? Sucks if the sun doesn't come out. Nuclear fusion? Best solution - no radioactive waste, plentiful fuel source, but it is such a powerful reaction no one can contain it yet. No substance on earth can withstand the heat. I think 20 years from now we will be using coal. Until an alternate source is found, we will continue to use the source that is readily available. Coal.

[wallyworld]

I would agree that this is a horserace with none of the contenders without their own drawbacks even if should one pull ahead. While pulverized coal was a washout in UP's coal fired turbines 80-80b, it is the future of coal utilities with advances that may yet win the race. Experiments with ammonia chilled scrubbers, gasification and storage of CO2 underground are being developed along with co-fired fuels mixed with coal. the only rub in this for the western roads in the future is that eastern coal is being looked at seriously as a preferred coal of the future. Its anyones guess where all this will end but railroads all have a high stake in the outcome.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_3721829

[Anonymous]

Regarding spent nuclear fuel rods, I saw an interview where a nuclear scientist said they only have to be stored for 35 years, then they can be something like 95% recycled into new fuel rods. What's left over is far less hazardous than the spent fuel rods themselves. Can anyone confirm on deny this? Another interesting quote was that a lot more people die in coal mines every year than have ever died as a result of nuclear plants.

I'd like to see a standardized reactor vessel designed by a group of knowledgeable engineers and scientists and built under conditions similar to the Navy's Sub Safe program. It would have no 'user servicable parts' inside for the utilities to play with and would be replaced as a unit. That might make nuclear politically easier to site.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829
Another interesting quote was that a lot more people die in coal mines every year than have ever died as a result of nuclear plants.

As long as you discount the thousands of civilian deaths from Chernobyl.

Anyone still in favor of nuclear power, but has an open mind and is willing to consider other options, should check this out: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/index.html


Solzrules: the launching of radioactive waste into the sun is a great idea EXCEPT for the dangers inherent in rocket launching. Perhaps a linear accelerator might be safer, if a site could be found.

[zardoz]

I apologize in advance for the length of the article; unfortunately most of the piece can only be accessed by subscribers. However, the following link points toward the parts that are available to anyone: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9082-china-struggling-to-catch-its-breath.


China struggling to catch its breath
12:00 30 April 2006
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Matt Walker

ONE item was conspicuously low on the agenda when China's President Hu Jintao paid a visit to the US last week. While trade, Taiwan and human rights were discussed, the environment barely merited a mention.

Yet China is second only to the US in the league of the world's most polluting nations, and is catching up fast. While Hu was in Washington, his country was suffering its worst atmospheric pollution for years. Dust storms had just blanketed one-eighth of the nation, according to the China Central Meteorological Station, covering people, houses, cars and streets in brown dust. The state media reported last week that two workers in the western province of Gansu had died in ferocious dust storms lifting from the plains of Inner Mongolia and north-western China.

The storms were no aberration. By 19 April, the capital, Beijing, had recorded just 56 days of clear blue sky in 2006, 16 fewer than at the same time last year, while the World Bank says that 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cities are now in China.
This perfect storm of pollution has been brewing for decades, ever since China began its long march to becoming an economic superpower. Now a new analysis by Chinese environmental scientists led by Honghong Yi at Tsinghua University in Beijing, shows just how bad it is (Energy Policy, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.01.019). China has done much to improve the quality of its air in recent years, but these efforts are being swamped by the pace of economic development and the pollution its burgeoning industries produce. China emits more sulphur dioxide (SO2) than any other nation in the world, and as a result acid rain falls on more than a third of the country. Other pollutants, in particular emissions of fine particles known as PM10s, are rapidly increasing.

China's pollution problem has the makings of a social disaster as well as an environmental one. Many Chinese have yet to benefit from the economic boom, but nevertheless suffer poor health from breathing in thick, acrid air laced with SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOx), suspended fine particulates such as PM10s, and volatile organic compounds. If nothing is done, the total cost to the nation's health will rise to astronomical levels within just 15 years.

The picture is unlikely to improve over the coming decades. According to the National Bureau of Statistics of China, the country has tripled its energy use since 1980, and is now responsible for 10 per cent of the world's energy consumption. China has plenty of coal to fuel its economic growth, but little petroleum and natural gas. The country burnt around 1.3 billion tonnes of coal in 2000, and if current economic trends continue it will need to burn over 2 billion tonnes in 2020. Coal burning by power plants and industry is the main source of SO2 and particulate pollutants in the atmosphere.

In an effort to control its emissions of SO2, China has closed many small coal-fired power plants and is burning low sulphur coal rather than coal with high sulphur content. Many plants are also cleaning their coal before burning to remove sulphur, or scrubbing it out from gas flue emissions. But there is little more that can be done to further reduce sulphur levels in coal. Yi's team estimates that even if power plants reduce their sulphur emissions from each tonne of coal burnt by 10 per cent every year, it would have little impact on the formation of acid rain in the near future. The acid rain that falls in China is more acidic than in North America or northern Europe, as it is predominantly sulphuric acid. With ever more vehicles taking to Chinese roads and emitting significant amounts of NOx gases, the acid rain will contain nitric acid as well as sulphuric acid. That is why measures to clean up SO2 emissions alone will not be enough, say the researchers.

In their forthcoming paper, Yi's team predicts that even with the continued implementation of more stringent controls, emissions of SO2 and NOx gases in China will continue to rise until 2010 at the earliest, while the quantity of suspended particulates in the air will not level out until at least 2020. Little attention has been paid to the growing amounts of PM10 particulates that extra vehicles and industry are putting into the air.

The dust storms that envelop China every year are a consequence of the environmental degradation that has turned huge areas of grassland in the north of the country into a vast dustbowl. The government is attempting to combat this by planting a "green great wall" of trees across more than 35 million hectares of land by 2050. The idea is that the trees will act as a windbreak that will slow the winds enough for them to drop their load of dust, and will also help to bind the dust into the soil. Not everyone thinks this will work, however: the idea has been criticised as a waste of effort that could even exacerbate the problem by removing precious water reserves from the soil (New Scientist, 4 June 2005, p 38).

Meanwhile, more and more people in China are suffering, and dying, from respiratory diseases caused by air pollution. Levels of persistent organic pollutants and volatile organic compounds such as benzene and toluene are much higher than in most developed countries. Half the cases of respiratory disease in the country are now caused by air pollution, while in China's 11 largest cities at least 50,000 people die each year from the soot and fine particles produced by coal burning, with another 400,000 people suffering from chronic bronchitis, Yi's team says. In areas blighted by serious air pollution, five to eight times as many people die from lung cancer as in non-polluted areas.

On present trends, the World Bank estimates that by 2020 China will be paying $390 billion to treat diseases indirectly caused by burning coal, and that this would account for an astounding 13 per cent of its predicted GDP at that time. That suggests that something has to give.

Yi's team calls for improved monitoring and evaluation systems for air pollution in Chinese cities. Political, legislative and economic decisions are needed to deal with the problems, while government departments need to do more to integrate and extend research to mitigate air pollution and find technical solutions, the researchers say.

The Chinese government realises that action is needed, even if this did not prominently figure in President Hu's statements in the US. The prime minister Wen Jiabao told an environmental meeting in China last week that the recent dust storms were a reminder of the severity of the country's environmental problems, and that it needs to intensify efforts to rein in pollution. Last year, China's SO2 emissions were 27 per cent higher than in 2000, he said, despite the government having set a goal of reducing them by 10 per cent over that period.

Despite the US's track record as a global polluter, China could do worse than compare notes with its economic rival. In a study to be published next month in Atmospheric Environment (vol 40, p 2607) researchers from the US and China, led by Xuexi Tie of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Physics, showed from satellite observations that the densities of fine aerosols such as sulphates and black carbon are twice as high in the industrial regions of eastern China as in corresponding industrial areas of the eastern US. This appears to be a result of China's reliance on burning coal and biomass for fuel. Levels of coarse particulates, mainly desert dust, are also much higher in China.

Emissions of non-methane hydrocarbons such as ethane and propane, however, are lower in China than in the US - again a consequence of China's reliance on coal, while emissions of natural hydrocarbons such as isoprene produced by trees are also lower. When oxidised by sunlight, such hydrocarbons create ozone, which means that in summertime less ozone is produced at ground level in China than in the US. But there is a sting in the tail.

If China burns more oil in the future, as the government intends, it will both emit progressively more hydrocarbons, and reduce aerosol concentrations in eastern China. "That will improve visibility, and at the same time enhance ozone production," warns Tie. "China will have to take drastic measures to reduce the emissions of primary pollutants in order to avoid ozone pollution events."

[solzrules]

Here is the neat part. In China (hereafter referred to as the People's Communist Republic of China or PCRC) there will be no problem with the enviroment. Why? Simple. The central committee of the PCRC will say it isn't a problem. Problem solved! Isn't communism great???

[solzrules]

As for Chernobyl, Zardoz, they estimate the number of deaths to be in the hundreds of thousands. The effects of the radiation has not been completely felt yet. Cancer and lukemia caused by the accident will be killing people for decades yet. Keep in mind that communism has again saved the day by placing the offical death toll at 51. SO really, only 51 people died, right?

[narig01]

On Chernobyl: The Soviets had a graphite block for to run the control rods thru(They were using this design to also get more material out of it for weapons).
US heavy water designs use water for this. I think that the graphite burned in the Chernobyl reactor contributing to the problem. In the Three Mile Island disaster the heavy water kept thing from getting too hot.
Also the Soviet reactor did not have a containment structure like U.S. reactors(that big concrete structure you see around most Western built reactors).
The start of both disasters was roughly the same. People misreading gauges & some gauges not working properly.
The end results were very different. Chernobyl melted completely with a massive release of radioactive material, Three Mile Island Melted partially with a small release of gas.
Both were very bad, and people learned a lot.
Chernobyl people learned they needed to change the government. Three Mile Island people learned how to read when gauges weren’t telling them the truth.
Boy isn’t truth interesting?
Rgds IGN

[solzrules]

Very interesting.....

[narig01]

On Powder River Coal, one of the reasons utilities use PRB coal is the low sulphur content. This means they don’t have to use scrubbers.(I think).
There is a big fight right now about scrubbers.
Of course this still begs the question on some of this why couldn’t Wisconsin Power use rail from the docks in Milwaukee to their plant? Instead of having to truck it from the dock to plant.
I’m also seeing a lot of coal being moved in Illinois by truck. The only time you truck something like coal is when you are very desperate. The cost is very high these days like $2.00+ a mile for 25-30 tonnes of coal.
Rgds IGN

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

As for Chernobyl, Zardoz, they estimate the number of deaths to be in the hundreds of thousands. The effects of the radiation has not been completely felt yet. Cancer and lukemia caused by the accident will be killing people for decades yet. Keep in mind that communism has again saved the day by placing the offical death toll at 51. SO really, only 51 people died, right?

Wow! I had no idea the total was that high. Kinda puts even more of a damper on the fire for more nukes. eh?

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

As for Chernobyl, Zardoz, they estimate the number of deaths to be in the hundreds of thousands. The effects of the radiation has not been completely felt yet. Cancer and lukemia caused by the accident will be killing people for decades yet. Keep in mind that communism has again saved the day by placing the offical death toll at 51. SO really, only 51 people died, right?

Wow! I had no idea the total was that high. Kinda puts even more of a damper on the fire for more nukes. eh?

Yeah, as long as you don't build reactors like the Soviets. Keep in mind we had a similar meltdown in Three Mile Island, but because of better reactor design and safety precautions the whole thing didn't blow up. See Narig01's post. I think the technology can be improved upon and used safely, but I don't know of any politicos that would go along with it. There is just too much of an ugly side to nuclear.

[Anonymous]

Also the coal mines in China are some of the most dangerous in the world. IMHO nuclear may not be the ultimate answer but the risk can be managed provided the public can be convinced that zero risk for any technology is unrealistic and unattainable. Global warming is a risk as well. Biofuels may trade one economic problem for another - much higher food prices. I've also been told that the stale beer smell coming out the back of alcohol fueled Indy cars and dragsters is formaldahyde. What are the long term health effects of breathing that in a rush hour traffic jam? Solar should be excellent for peak cooling loads since those generally occur when the sun is out, but I've yet to hear any of the new science guys say how they can come even close to generating the 24/7/365 base electrical load for the U.S. anytime soon. And if they do have the answers, why have China develop into another hydrocarbon-based economy like the U.S.?

I remember quite well the late 50s & 60s when fishing or hunting meant a trip to the northwoods of Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Canada. Today one can catch largemouth bass in the Chicago River under the Michigan Ave bridge. The Great Lakes, which were virtual dead seas, now support reproducing species of numerous game fish and the area has more ducks and geese than people know what to do with. I'm not saying the large number of nukes we have in northern Illinois are soley responsible, but they have been a safe reliable source of clean power we've lived with for years. If spent fuel rods can be 95% recycled, that would go a long way towards solving one of nuclear's toughest issues.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

Also the coal mines in China are some of the most dangerous in the world. IMHO nuclear may not be the ultimate answer but the risk can be managed provided the public can be convinced that zero risk for any technology is unrealistic and unattainable. Global warming is a risk as well. Biofuels may trade one economic problem for another - much higher food prices. I've also been told that the stale beer smell coming out the back of alcohol fueled Indy cars and dragsters is formaldahyde. What are the long term health effects of breathing that in a rush hour traffic jam? Solar should be excellent for peak cooling loads since those generally occur when the sun is out, but I've yet to hear any of the new science guys say how they can come even close to generating the 24/7/365 base electrical load for the U.S. anytime soon. And if they do have the answers, why have China develop into another hydrocarbon-based economy like the U.S.?

I remember quite well the late 50s & 60s when fishing or hunting meant a trip to the northwoods of Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Canada. Today one can catch largemouth bass in the Chicago River under the Michigan Ave bridge. The Great Lakes, which were virtual dead seas, now support reproducing species of numerous game fish and the area has more ducks and geese than people know what to do with. I'm not saying the large number of nukes we have in northern Illinois are soley responsible, but they have been a safe reliable source of clean power we've lived with for years. If spent fuel rods can be 95% recycled, that would go a long way towards solving one of nuclear's toughest issues.

Oh I would agree. If that tidbit about the rods being 95% percent recyclable is true then maybe nuclear could be viable option. The problem is, people like greenpeace and the sierra club equate nuclear with massive death and destruction. Facts are not really applicable in a situation like that. People are basing their opinion on feelings rather than fact. Yes, nuclear reactors have failed, and violently at that. But here is one for all of you envirmentalists out there - how many more people have died from coal related complications? I think if you line the 2 methods of energy production up side by side there is probably not that big of a difference. Do we fill the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide or do we fill it with radiation? Either way we are screwed right?