Clamshell Reunion

[John Edward Mercier]

So does he need municipal government or not?

[Pat McCotter]

I would suppose not. They just came to mind because they are the biggest customers of trash to energy plants. The private haulers don't get much mention but they could really benefit from this. Waste Management should get in negotitation with the company. Then again, maybe they are.

[John Edward Mercier]

So this could work out pretty well. A small private company could maybe get an additional revenue stream, while further decreasing costs associated with landfill.

[Pat McCotter]

Now, if they would just license the technology. But then I guess they would want to prove it before they did that. The uncertain waste stream from garbage wreaks havoc on the process, I understand.

[KBCraig]

I would suppose not. They just came to mind because they are the biggest customers of trash to energy plants. The private haulers don't get much mention but they could really benefit from this. Waste Management should get in negotitation with the company. Then again, maybe they are.

Dunno about that operation, but WM is involved with generating electricity from landfill methane.

http://www.wastemanagement.com/wm/features/dell.asp

Austin landfill lights up Dell

AUSTIN, Texas – Waste Management has just taken another step forward in its goal to expand production of landfill gas. On April 3, WM and Dell announced that the computer manufacturer would power its corporate operations using electricity generated at WM's Austin Community Landfill.

Waste Management will supply 40 percent of the power needed to run Dell's headquarters in Round Rock, Texas. This is one more project launched by WM that will help the company reach its goal of increasing its landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE) production, according to CEO David Steiner. "In the past we've been seen as a garbage company," Steiner said. "Now we see ourselves as a company that provides renewable resources from the waste streams that we manage."


http://www.thinkgreen.com/waste-as-a-resource

[Pat McCotter]

Landfill methane is good and one of the reasons I thought of WM in relatio to this - as well as them being one of the largest waste haulers, landfill operators.

TDP, the technology, is supposed to be able to break down any organic material to hydrocarbons and other constituent, often reusable, minerals. Using this in a waste stream should drastically reduce the size of our landfills.

[William]

Now, if they would just license the technology. But then I guess they would want to prove it before they did that. The uncertain waste stream from garbage wreaks havoc on the process, I understand.

Yes, it's important that the content (moisture and otherwise) be consistent. The process can be tweaked but constant tweaking is inefficient. That's why he is currently only using turkey offal and still must be sure to maintain a consistent ratio of feathers to guts.

[jaqeboy]

I couldn't find a link to the article, so here's the whole interesting artle.
=========================================

Beyond Nuclear Bulletin
September 4, 2008

Top Stories
Help Us Block Latest $166 Billion Money Grab by Nuclear Power Industry [Free market, eh?]

Background: Congress will soon return from summer recess, and is likely to immediately consider energy legislation. These bills, which would allow offshore oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf as a supposed response to high gasoline prices, also contain massive taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear power industry.

Introduced a month ago, the "New Energy Reform Act of 2008" has not yet been put in legislative form and still lacks a bill number. The plan is sponsored by such bipartisan pro-nuclear Senators as Republicans Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as well as Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

The subsidies – ranging between $87 billion and $166 billion would pay for: increasing the number of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff to expedite new reactor licensing; authorizing "risk insurance" for nuclear utilities if the startup of their new reactors is delayed for any reason; training nuclear workers; supporting the re-establishment of a U.S. industrial infrastructure for manufacturing large nuclear components such as reactor pressure vessels; and building a demonstration radioactive waste reprocessing facility. An expansion of federal loan guarantees for new reactors would leave taxpayers on the hook for up to $160 billion if nuclear utilities default on loan repayments.

A companion bill led by Republicans in the House, the "Americans for American Energy Act of 2008" (HR 6384), would: subsidize radioactive waste reprocessing; fast-track the opening of a reprocessing facility; remove congressional oversight on Yucca Mountain dumpsite spending;  block consideration of radioactive waste from new reactor license proceedings; grant tax breaks to nuclear component manufacturers; fund nuclear engineering scholarships; support nuclear workforce expansion; and award cash prizes for new ideas on how to store radioactive wastes. This bill could give $120 billion of taxpayer money to the nuclear industry.

Our View: It's ironic that massive subsidies for nuclear energy – which claims a place among climate change solutions – have been slipped into a bill promoting off-shore oil drilling. It is clear that the nuclear power industry – the most subsidized in the energy sector over the past 50 years – is less interested in climate change than in using that real crisis to carve out for itself another giant slice of the federal funding pie. This money is wasted on nuclear energy when micro-power and nega-watts are dramatically outcompeting nuclear power in the marketplace according to the Rocky Mountain Institute analysis, "The Nuclear Illusion."

What You Can Do: Call your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative right away: call (202) 224-3121 to be patched through to your Congress Members. Urge them to block any legislation that would further subsidize the nuclear power industry, and to support renewable and efficiency solutions to our energy and climate crises. Organize your friends, families and co-workers. We must light up the Capitol switchboard.

From the Campaign Trail

Beyond Nuclear now has a copy of Barack Obama's official position on nuclear energy. For your information, here is it verbatim. (No updates or further details as yet on nuclear policy from the McCain campaign.)

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R – IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there.

Of Note
The French Nuclear Medusa: Santa Claus threatened with Radioactive Exposure. Areva has applied to mine for uranium in Lapland, the home of Santa Claus, according to traditional Finnish beliefs. Areva is already mired in Finland's costly and heavily delayed new reactor construction at the Olkiluoto site. But now the company wants to exploit the land of the reindeer. Uranium has not been mined in Finland since 1961 and the impact on tourism and the environment are key arguments made by Finnish opponents of uranium mining in Lapland.

Nuclearizing the Middle East. On the heels of French president Nicolas Sarkozy's state visit to Jordan last week, comes the announcement that French state-owned nuclear corporation, Areva, has signed an agreement with Jordan to mine uranium there and to provide the country with uranium enrichment facilities and a civilian reactor. Canada and China also have uranium mining interests in Jordan.

Beyond Nuclear on the Road

Paul Gunter will participate in a debate on nuclear energy and energy alternatives at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Temple Hills, MD on September 13.

Kevin Kamps will speak on a nuclear power panel with Mycle Schneider, Paris-based independent nuclear consultant, and in a workshop on the radioactive waste crisis at the Sept. 10-14 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability conference in Oak Ridge, TN.

Kevin Kamps will participate in the "Know Nuclear in the Tennessee Valley" conference high-level waste policy panel on September 27 in Murfreesboro, TN.

Kevin Kamps will address students at Bowling Green State University-Firelands College, in Huron (OH) on October 2, on renewable and efficiency alternatives to nuclear power and fossil fuels.

Kevin Kamps will participate in the "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free by 2050: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy" book tour with Dr. Arjun Makhijani and Jennifer Nordstrom of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Kalamazoo, and Monroe, Michigan,  October 3-4.

Please donate to Beyond Nuclear. Won't you please consider becoming a monthly recurring donor? You can set up your profile and monthly giving here. All gifts are tax-deductible. Or you can mail a check to: Beyond Nuclear at NPRI, 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Thank you!

[John Edward Mercier]

So this group opposes all subsidies and restrictions on energy production?

[jaqeboy]

I don't know all the groups' positions, or the positions of individual members.

Here's the type of thing I see, which answers the "free market" discussion about the nuclear industy:

Our View: It's ironic that massive subsidies for nuclear energy – which claims a place among climate change solutions – have been slipped into a bill promoting off-shore oil drilling. It is clear that the nuclear power industry – the most subsidized in the energy sector over the past 50 years – is less interested in climate change than in using that real crisis to carve out for itself another giant slice of the federal funding pie.

IE, they'll use any tactic to get free money from the feds so they can grow when a free market might not entertain their growth.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

IE, they'll use any tactic to get free money from the feds so they can grow when a free market might not entertain their growth.

Whether a free market would entertain their growth as an industry is immaterial because we don't have one. They are behaving like any other industry that is heavily subsidized/otherwise intwined with government, like other electricity producing industry, the railroads, trucking you name it.

[Pat McCotter]

Is there any industry (not individual business) not regulated in some way by government?

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Is there any industry (not individual business) not regulated in some way by government?

Some are moreso than others. The nuclear power industry being one of those under the "more" category.

[John Edward Mercier]

The part I like is where they describe the subsidies.

The subsidies – ranging between $87 billion and $166 billion would pay for: increasing the number of Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff to expedite new reactor licensing; authorizing "risk insurance" for nuclear utilities if the startup of their new reactors is delayed for any reason; training nuclear workers; supporting the re-establishment of a U.S. industrial infrastructure for manufacturing large nuclear components such as reactor pressure vessels; and building a demonstration radioactive waste reprocessing facility.

I can't imagine the nuclear industry cares one way or another about any of this.

More likely... get rid of the NRC, get rid of any outside control over our property, get rid of any non-industry training or licensing requirements... we'll buy components from whomever produces the best product at the best price, and reprocess the 'waste' so we can make a better ROI.

Imagine if you had to go through all this to put solar panels on your roof, or a windmill in your yard.