Comments for Tomgram: Chip Ward, Uranium Frenzy in the West at http://atlanticfreepress.com , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://atlanticfreepress.com Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:11:15 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/4136-tomgram-chip-ward-uranium-frenzy-in-the-west.html#comment-9756 For most of us, this is a stealth story, but those living in the arid lands of the West are experiencing a killer-case of déjà vu. [url=http://www.wildlifeworld360.com/arches-national-park.html]Arches National Park[/url] After all, 50 years ago, the uranium boom that provided the raw material for America's nuclear arsenal, and its first generation of nuclear power plants, left sickness, death, and environmental destruction in its wake. Back then, "the peaceful atom" was being plugged as a miracle answer to any problem. Energy "too cheap to meter"? You bet. Harbors constructed by detonating atomic bombs? Sure thing. That was, of course, before nuclear power, possibly the most subsidized and capital-intensive energy source on Earth, gave us an intractable radioactive waste problem and filled us with fears of meltdowns and cancer. - Nancy Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:17:19 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/4136-tomgram-chip-ward-uranium-frenzy-in-the-west.html#comment-5731 (note - apparently my insertion of a link caused a problem, so here is the rest of my thought without the included links related to Navajo interests in coal mining and coal power production.) . . .Even the Navajo Nation has a strong financial motive for fighting uranium - they receive hundreds of millions of dollars each year from royalty payments for coal mining and coal fired power plants operating on their land. There are some coal, oil and gas companies with a tiny amount of their capital tied up in nuclear related investments, but those investments are more along the lines of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." The very idea of cheap, abundant, reliable energy scares the heck out of fossil fuel CFOs and marketing types. - Rod Adams Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:10:11 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/4136-tomgram-chip-ward-uranium-frenzy-in-the-west.html#comment-5729 People who deeply care about their environment and the future of human inhabitants of that environment should engage in a little critical thinking. Energy issues are terribly important and involve a lot of emotion and sums of money almost too vast to imagine. As a former nuclear submarine engineer officer and long time public servant, I want to share a bit of what I have learned. When I went to sea on a 9,000 ton ship, we carried a small mass of fuel that could physically fit under my office desk. The active part of that volume weighed a bit more than I do. That fuel produced heat to convert water into steam and turn turbines that drove the ship and others that produced electricity. We had power to move rapidly, to produce fresh water, air conditioning, fresh air, lighting and refrigeration. We were operating in a completely sealed environment under the water for weeks at a time. That small mass of fuel, using 1970s vintage technology lasted for 15 years. Today's technology has provided us with cores that last 33 years. About 30 members of the crew were well trained technicians and all of the officers on board had technical educations with additional nuclear power training. Now I roger up that some of the promises of nuclear power have not yet arrived. The plants still cost more than they should. They have, however, made a measurable difference in the cost and availability of electricity. The average total operating cost of a US nuclear power plant (not including capital) is 1.76 cents per kilowatt hour. That is roughly equivalent to purchasing gasoline (which contains about 45 kilowatt-hours of energy per gallon) for 80 cents per gallon. In fact, it is better than that since electricity is a far more refined and useful fuel. There is a lot of that cheap electricity on the grid - more than 800 terawatt-hours each year. It is one of the reasons why electric vehicles charged overnight look kind of attractive from a cost of fuel basis. One final thought to leave with you - coal, oil and gas interests DO NOT like the idea of having to compete with a fuel source that is 2 million times as concentrated and that does not produce any greenhouse gases. They spend a ton of money spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) about their competitor. Even the Navajo Nation has a strong financial motive for fighting uranium - they receive hundreds of millions of dollars each year from - Rod Adams Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:05:42 +0100