Skip to main content

Environmental Guardian

Some really interesting stories in The Guardian recently, some of which I've already posted below. However, while my partner is engrossed in the television drama Silk I find myself with the perfect opportunity to hop onto her Macbook and examine the news.

First up, no real surprise to read that the Japanese may very well have lost the race to save the Fukushima nuclear plant. Apparently, the radioactive core in one of the reactors may have already melted down through the bottom of its containment vessel. A meltdown in other words. This information follows readings taken from outside Reactor 2 and analysed by a US nuclear expert. Richard Lahey, who was head of safety research for boiling water reactors when General Electric installed the units at Fukushima commented that "At least part of the molten core, which includes melted fuel rods and zirconium alloy cladding, seem to have sunk through the steel lower head of the pressure vessel around Reactor 2". The major concern is that the melted fuel reacts with the concrete at the bottom of the vessel, but at Fukushima this was flooded with seawater, cooling the fuel and this may reduce the amount of radioactive gas that is released. This is still bad news for the environment, but it seems, luckily, that comparisons with Chernobyl are likely to be far from realistic.

Meanwhile, Sir David King writes that nuclear is still the safest form of energy despite what has happened at Fukushima. That may or may not be so, however, I still am not convinced, primarily because, so I have read so far, it takes about ten to fifteen years to build a nuclear plant, such plants are usually built near to the coast and also because currently nuclear only supplies about 3.6% of the UK's electricity demand. I read somewhere in the scientific literature that some scientists consider that we may only have ten to fifteen years left before climate change becomes irreversible, which means that relying on nuclear to save us from such a fate is clearly unrealistic, and thats without the dangers from rising sea levels. I'm also sure that any passing would-be terrorists would consider nuclear plants as a number one target, especially with all those spent fuel rods stored outside.

Google is currently investing in CoolPlanetBiofuels attempts to produce biofuels from grass and woodchips in non food producing areas. Normally I find myself opposed to biofuels because of the competition for space with agricultural land. This however looks quite inviting, so a note to myself to check this out in greater details over the next few days.

According to Andrew Simms, Shell has recently confessed that 'We're entering a zone of uncertainty over oil supplies'. In other words, Simms says, they haven't a clue whats going to happen. Start praying everyone....

Source: The Guardian environment pages, March 2011


Popular posts from this blog

The Battle of the Blogs? Whitlock goes to War...

Good day folks, you're all in for a bit of a treat as it happens, so I hope you're sitting comfortably. Before I go any further, I should issue a 'long read' warning. This blog piece is going to be fairly long, quite involved in its detail, but hopefully very enjoyable if you despise and detest climate change denial, as I do. But first, an explanation of the circumstances.

The other day, on Twitter, I indulged in a bit of regular fun-poking at James Delingpole, as I often do because, quite simply, the man just invites it. For those not in the know, Delingpole is a pretty nasty character really. He writes regular blog pieces and op-eds for Breitbart and The Spectator, usually on climate change, but also on other subjects as well. He is usually, and seemingly, unashamedly vicious, as will become apparent in my coverage of him and his behaviour in this piece. Given his behaviour, I am not afraid, occasionally to indulge in a bit of 'ad-hominem' warfare myself, ind…

Array Technologies leads US market in solar tracker shipments

5 Companies and Their Efforts to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Manufacturing

By Rana Tarakji
The Industrial Revolution has undoubtedly affected the environment. From pollution to global warming, the environment has taken on a lot of the burden for many of the advancements that humans have enjoyed.
Unfortunately, the manufacturing industry is one of the biggest contributors to the significant damages and hazards on the environment. Manufacturing companies are among the biggest producers of solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes that lead to huge levels of pollution.
Although many manufacturing companies still do not have policies and practices in place to reduce their negative impact on the environment, there are many who are taking the lead to a more sustainable and environment-friendly approach.
Coca Cola When it comes to beverage manufacturers, Coca Cola is among the biggest around the world. They have started taking on a more responsible environmental commitment by making water preservation, sustainable packaging, and energy and climate protection among their goals.…