On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:56:28 -0800 (PST), " email@example.com"
1. China embraces the atom
By Frederick W Stakelbeck Jr
March 04, 2006
With domestic energy demand expected to increase steadily over the
next several decades and with a precipitous decline in domestic
production from existing oil and natural-gas fields, China finds
itself at an unavoidable "energy crossroads" that will define its
growth, influence and prosperity for years to come.
Recognizing the potential consequences associated with any protracted
energy shortage, Beijing has embraced nuclear power as a solution.
According to the China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC), the government
body responsible for much of the country's nuclear-power program,
China plans to invest US$48 billion to build 30 nuclear reactors by
2020. Currently, the country has nine reactors in operation with
another two under construction at a combined cost of $3.2 billion.
2. Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom
Explosive growth has made the People's Republic of China the most
power-hungry nation on earth. Get ready for the mass-produced,
meltdown-proof future of nuclear energy.
By Spencer Reiss
3. . China may halt production of liquefied coal: official
June 10, 2007
China, which is rich in coal but poor in petroleum and gas, may put an
end to projects which are designed to produce petroleum by liquefying
coal, an official with the country's top economic planning agency has
The consideration came after evaluation of the nation's limited energy
resources and its econological environment, a deputy director of the
industry department of the National Development and Reform Commission
(NDRC) told a seminar on China's fuel ethanol development, held in
Beijing on Saturday.
"Liquefied coal projects consume a lot of energy, though the
successful industrialization of liquefied coal could help reduce the
country's dependence on petroleum," said the official who declined to
The Chinese government said earlier it would invest more in developing
alternative energy resources including biomass fuel and liquefied coal
to substitute petroleum during the 11th Five-Year Program (2006-2010)
period, amid concerns over the country's growing dependence on
(more) ..... elsewhere I recall China's official abandonment of this
technology as it requires enormous amounts of water. Already scarce
water is more precious for human consumption and for agriculture.
4. Ban on use of corn for ethanol lauded
By Le Tian (China Daily)
Updated: 2007-06-22 06:47
China's policy not to use basic food crops, especially corn, to make
biofuel as a substitute for petroleum is a "sound decision", a Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official said yesterday.
"Such a decision by such an important world player as China is likely
to accelerate the second-generation technology for production of
ethanol fuel from non-food crops - through conversion of biomass,"
Abdolreza Abbassian, Commodity Analyst and Secretary of FAO's
Intergovernmental Group for Grains, told China Daily.
The UN food body official's remarks came shortly after China imposed a
moratorium on projects making ethanol fuel from corn and other basic
food crops. The importance of corn in China's food economy has
prompted the government to ask companies to switch to non-basic food
products such as cassava, sweet potato and cellulose to make ethanol
"Food-based ethanol fuel will not be the direction for China," said Xu
Dingming, vice-director of the Office of the National Energy Leading
Group, at a seminar on China's ethanol fuel development in Beijing on
5. It goes without saying that China is charging ahead on all fronts
to develop hydroelectric power, wind farms, coal bed methane, solar
power and more I can't remember for the moment.
Name ONE lie. One. I won't even ask for a reference.
The [too cheap to meter] claim was NOT a lie. It might have happened had it
not been for the concerted efforts of a single-minded, anti-nuke campaign.
Yeah, and it passed over numerous, other land masses before it got here.
Look, Ma! No fallout!
I disagree. The [no nukes] crowd was typically hysterical while those with
information and a capability for reasoned, rational thought were mostly
Agreed. Those prayers paid off and the irradiated cloud caused no trouble -
The biggest disaster was The Soviet Union's INTENTIONAL withholding of
information for DAYS following the accident. Countless thousands of humans
received the equivalent of an extra day in the sun unnecessarily.
Everything in moderation. It works EVERY time it's tried.
well you can claim the radiation cloud caused no troubles but sadly
the hot material settled all over the world and is reportedly still
causing cancer today.
thus it wasnt a non event............
coal is plentiful, 100% american and well understood.
the nuke power industry is going to have a horrible time getting any
new plants licensed in our country..........
Actually,new licenses have already been granted for new nuke
construction,with more on the way.
The application process has been streamlined to speed up nuke construction.
I think you have an irrational fear of "radiation".
There have to the best of my knowledge only been two applications
_filed_--certainly no construction licenses have yet been granted that
I'm aware of.
Since the applications were only filed in July and October of last year,
that would indeed be a sped-up process.
If you know something different, I'd surely like to know what.
well the final waste product of nuclear plants will kill you for
thousands of years....... or so yucca mountain is supposed to store
knowing people in nuclear power plant building, note i live in
pittsburgh no new plants have been licensed in the US although some
are coming close, then the public will express their opinion:)
the pebble idea sounds great, and i hope its safe.
but remember we were told the existing plants were perfectly safe, and
would produce power so cheap meters would be unnecessary. ultimately
neither were true, TMI came way too close to poisioning a populated
bring on the nukes, watch the public howl, and build them in china. I
predict licenses wouldnt be approved here because public opinion will
demand no nukes
Possibly so, but not provable one way nor the other.
I'll simply note US NRC regulations and licensing policy stops at the US
border. Russia (and China coincidentally to the other sidethread) are
very authoritarian societies so that they could and did make policy and
design choices that would not be acceptable in the US.
Don't know. We should have pretty good data on where the cloud went
with the winds and all. Also should be able to model dispersal. The
first is just meteorology 101, the second should be floating around from
the days of above-ground testing of the nuke weapons. After that it
would be simple epidemeology to match up the above with (or lack
thereof) clusters of nuclear fallout-related cancers.
But if anything, the Japanese and French are even more anal
retentive about such things than even the US, yet they have long (and
safe) histories of nuclear energy.
Sure -- but that's not exactly what I said. Studies have been made
although I've not looked at what conclusions they may have drawn.
It is, however, a statistical correlation at best and my guess is that
except for the near downstream track it will be impossible to detect any
increase owing specifically to Chernobyl.
From a purely epidemiological standpoint, it really shouldn't be all
that difficult to find clusters of excess cancers, and there are forms
of cancer that are more highly correlated with exposure to nuclear
materials. It would be correlational, but then much of public health
That should be even easier, then. Any related cancers suddenly
spike after Chernobyl world wide? Any upswings over time, since
radiation-induced cancers are very dose dependent. There either was an
important change in cancers after Chernobyl or there wasn't. If there
are no clusters and no spike, then it would be hard to argue (at least
from an epi standpoint) that Chernobyl had any impact.
Precisely, and imo, if any studies had shown even a hint, haller and his
ilk would be on them like a hen on a June bug, even if they weren't
statstically significant but only showed a point estimate possibility.
Of course, the "suddenly" is a problem w/ low-dosage events and that
makes the correlation of causation even more tenuous.
That they're not implies to me w/o even looking that all work (of which
I'm sure there's a lot because plans were in effect to begin such
follow-on studies while I was still in Oak Ridge participating in
engineering solutions studies/analyses for the site within the year
after the incident).
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.