nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry

climate-changeGeo-engineering no Cure-all for Global Climate Change Sourceable 12 Mar 14 A new study by scientists in Germany has concluded that geo-engineering is unlikely to have anything more than a minor impact on global climate change. Research conducted by scientists from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany, has concluded that even the most ambitious and large-scale forms of geo-engineering are unlikely to have much of a diminishing impact on global warming.

The study was led by oceanographer Dr. David Keller and published in the scientific journal Nature Communications. It looked at five forms of geo-engineering which have the potential to reduce the effects of global climate change, modelling the outcome of their deployment.

According to Keller, the study is one of the most thorough and comprehensive ever undertaken with respect to the real world impact of climate engineering……..The methods examined included the mass forestation of arid desert areas in North Africa and Australia, and the reduction of solar radiation levels via measures such as the sowing of aerosols in the atmosphere to produce artificial cloud cover.

Three of the methods entail tinkering with the earth’s seas to raise their carbon dioxide uptake by means including the pumping of cold water rich in nutrients from the lower strata of the ocean; the sowing of iron to raise the fecundity of phytoplankton and thus foster the proliferation of plant life; and the dissemination of lime to increase CO2 absorption.

Despite the imaginative and ambitious nature of these geo-engineering methods, the study concluded that none of them are potent enough to significantly reduce levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Even if they were deployed as early as the end of this decade, they would fail to make much of a difference given projected increases in the volume of greenhouse gases entering  the atmosphere.

Modelling performed by the scientists concluded that the outcome for the earth’s atmosphere remains the same irrespective of whether or not geo-engineering measures are implemented…..

The methods would also have extreme ramifications for local ecosystems, given the radical nature and immense scale of any measures intended to influence the climate of the planet as a whole…….http://sourceable.net/geo-engineering-no-cure-all-for-global-climate-change/

About these ads

March 13, 2014 - Posted by | climate change

3 Comments »

  1. 20% shade cloth makes a difference in a greenhouse. I suspect a 20% reduction in radiation is significant anywhere.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

    Comment by kmcloren | March 13, 2014 | Reply

  2. DECC instructed the SMC to cover the Fukushima tragdy
    Specifically ….

    Report from Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA)– David M
    acKay
    Geoengineering update –
    The CSA noted the recent problems with the SPICE
    1
    geoengineering field trial, and
    has involved the Science Media Centre in providing
    publicity for the project. As chair of the cross-Whitehall
    Geoengineering group, the CSA asked for the SAG’s opinion on the importance of reaching a joint government view on geoengineering. The Chair advised not to rush into decisions on government support
    or otherwise for specific technologies. It would be preferable to wait for lessons learnt from other expert bodies e.g. SPICE project, and current Royal Society work on geoengineering governance (SRMGI).

    Measuring radioactivity levels –
    The CSA is interested in defining a scale for presenting
    radioactivity/radiation dose levels for use in the
    event of an accidental release, and a plan on what level of intervention to take at each level. Defra’s air pollution scale was referenced as a good example to follow.
    1
    SPICE = Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (sponsored by UK Research Councils)

    From this source

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48323/4909-science-advisory-group-meetin-gminutes-october-20.pdf

    i was wondering on how they got so bloody big all of a sudden
    if they are a charity, where is the benefit to the community? to keep us all happy maybe?

    In 2011 mr mackay “involved” the smc
    the 2010 revenue was approx 450,000 bu the 2011 was 750,000
    edf amongst others funds the smc that year and they now have 250,00 clear in reserve as a “war chest” for the future USA expansion perhaps?.
    the money dropped again in 2012 to 2013 to the 500,000 mark with no single payments greater than 22,000 approx (5 percent of the total excpected income.).

    In 2010 they dealt with wifi issues and the Wi-Fi alliance, vodaphone etc funded them

    the climate denying telegraph also funded the smc :)
    i wont go there!! except to refer you to the “so called conspiracy topic” Geoenginneering post above.. ? looks like its not so conspiracy after all?

    The radiation waste rules have changed in 2011 so that companies have to do less remidiation work..

    The testing of welsh and scottish lamb has been stopped in early 2012

    and this 2011 report shows us there is changes happening to the acceptable levels etc by tying it into normal pollution monitoring and risk assessment..

    there have recently been calls to stop the monitoring of normal pollution in parliament (not sure how that one is going though)

    I have documented numerous pollution incidence and obvious cover ups in the last 2 years.. Eurdep switched off to hide nuclear power plant releases and accidents etc,,

    so the government brings the smc into action.. the mental health manager from the uk is dispatched to australia to support and help organise the japanese smc website and gets pro nuke austraian scientist and cancer experts (one with the same surname?) to comment on it to reassure the world and the financiers.

    Also, WPP PR corporation personally helped the japanese government and tepco to smooth it over like they did the bp gulf oil spill (dont mention corexit!! but the norwegian report i saw mentioned corexit as something that might not be best to use..) . WPP and the legal corporations a s well as the finacial and insurance industries all had something to lose.. especially the military industrial complex and space tech that needs those isotopes..
    and dont get me started on the health industry.. busy covering up this i suspect..

    http://nuclear-news.net/2013/09/29/fukushima-100-babies-with-polydactyly-are-on-the-waiting-list-for-operation-%E7%A6%8F%E5%B3%B6%E5%9C%A8%E4%BD%8F%E3%81%AE%E5%A4%AB%E5%A9%A6%E3%80%81%E9%9C%87%E7%81%BD%E4%BB%A5%E9%99%8D%E3%80%8C/

    i digress ,, again :)
    the government “guides” the smc and the smc gets half it queries from the bbc (smc annual report)
    reuters were the smallest proportion as it actually posted some great info concerning fukushima (if one looked hard)
    The telegraph uses the service as well (I bet f fox will change the climate debate if the opprtunity arises.. ie nuclear industry collapse) and move to a pro oil and fracking agenda.. like australia has (the government and most of the media.. the other media that is against it is up to their neck in legal challenges by the likes of Ashurst plc (currently hastling the owner of nuclear-news.net )
    but the australian press is fighting back.. ;) ???? hehe

    The bottom line is that the bbc has likely sold horizon etc to bbc worldwide service Ltd and will be shown in china as fact.. but i have no firm evidence of that yet.. but it mat be the case that the trustees can claim no fault as they can blame the smc or in the case of old programming, not be responsible for it as it is sold to a private organisation.. blimey! what a web we weave !!
    message stops
    regards
    dont sue me please :)

    And to be fair to DECC they have to deal with some arrogant shitheads.. heres some recent plutonium MOX filled talk here (think of Fukushima Daichi conflagiration (arnold gundersen should have found a shorter and easier term for this.. maybe a plutonium and nuke waste mini nuke)

    Freedom of Information Act request for copies of
    correspondence
    / reports between NDA and DECC
    regarding NDA
    ’s recent
    work on
    management of UK
    plutonium :(
    .
    Original Request
    Dear Sir/Madam
    Under the FoI Act, I would like to request copies of the correspondence/reports
    between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the Department for Energy and
    Climate
    Change regarding the conclusions of the work the NDA has recently
    undertaken into the management of the UK’s separated plutonium stocks. Details of
    this work and conclusions have been briefly mentioned on the NDA website:

    http://www.nda.gov.uk/news/pu-stocks.cfm

    I look forward hearing from you in the near future.
    Regards
    Response
    REQUEST UNDER THE
    FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
    /
    ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004
    I am writing in response to your request
    of 22 August
    for “
    copies of the
    correspondence/reports between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the
    Department for Energy and Climate Change regarding the conclu
    sions of the work
    the NDA has recently undertaken into the management of the UK’s separated
    plutonium
    stocks

    “…However there is a very high public interest for
    withholding this information. If the
    information were released it is less likely that that the individual companies
    concerned and others would provide the NDA or this Department with commercially
    sensitive information in the future. This would impede the N
    DA’s ability in carrying
    out its role effectively to consider properly the commercial viability of the technical
    options. Further as procurement is a likely part of securing a future plutonium
    disposition route, release of this information could threaten t
    he NDA’s ability to
    secure value for money for UK taxpayers. This would be highly contrary to the public
    interest….”

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244093/13_1157.pdf

    i bet the british media were warned away from that p

    Comment by arclight2011part2 | March 13, 2014 | Reply

  3. while i am on a role.. the corporations that refuse to co-operate with stakeholder groups and DECC in my above comment (at the end) has been brought into law.. non transparency is now the name of the game.. here is some information concerning the UK`s secrecy laws relevant to nuclear but also relevant to all the sciences (like geo engineering and biased science from Science Media Centre UK). I have added some other links for you all to browse .. A deep rabbit hole there :)

    The UK follows Japan in determining extent of nuclear “Transparency” by extending secrecy and protecting corruption!

    OFFICIAL

    OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE

    SECRET

    TOP-SECRET

    Screenshot from 2014-01-16 01:57:46

    http://www.sellafieldsites.com/2014/03/new-government-security-classifications/

    New Government Security Classifications

    7 March 2014

    In 2012 Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, announced the intention to fundamentally overhaul and replace the existing information classification and marking scheme as part of the government’s Civil Service Reform programme.

    Sellafield Ltd’s security regulator, ONR (Office for Nuclear Regulation), have instructed Sellafield Ltd and the wider civil nuclear industry to adopt the new GSC protective marking scheme known as Government Security Classifications (GSC).
    Government Security Classifications

    The new three tier system has three classifications: OFFICIAL, SECRET and TOP-SECRET.

    Additionally ONR have mandated the use of an additional classification: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE for Sensitive Nuclear Information which is classified below SECRET.

    Implementing GSC

    In line with the rest of UK government, the new GSC scheme is coming into operation on April 2nd 2014. All documents (including commercial correspondence, drawings, specifications, data sheets etc) created by Sellafield Ltd after this date for issue to suppliers will carry the new markings. Documents created prior to this date will continue to carry their existing markings until such time as they are amended in the normal course of work when the new markings will be applied at the same time.

    You can find more information about GSC and implementing GSC by following this

    Link to Core Briefing for 3rd Party Suppliers

    More here;
    UK nuclear submarine fleet increases its costs with an undecided future after “high fuel burn up” test of prototype reactor at Dounreay – UK stakeholders ignored again!

    …The big nuclear companies threatened DECC from withdrawing all co-operation concerning nuclear matters if they insisted on asking for information that was needed for the stakeholders to argue their points. So, DECC (And NDA) was actually blackmailed (By the “individual and other companies”)….

    http://nuclear-news.net/2014/03/06/uk-nuclear-submarine-fleet-increases-its-costs-with-an-undecided-future-after-high-fuel-burn-up-test-of-prototype-reactor-at-dounreay-uk-stakeholders-ignored-again/

    I am writing in response to your request
    of 22 August for “
    copies of the correspondence/reports between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the
    Department for Energy and Climate Change regarding the conclusions of the work the NDA has recently undertaken into the management of the UK’s separated plutonium stocks

    “…However there is a very high public interest for withholding this information. If the information were released it is less likely that that the individual companies concerned and others would provide the NDA or this Department with commercially sensitive information in the future. This would impede the NDA’s ability in carrying out its role effectively to consider properly the commercial viability of the technical options. Further as procurement is a likely part of securing a future plutonium disposition route, release of this information could threaten the NDA’s ability to secure value for money for UK taxpayers. This would be highly contrary to the public interest….”

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244093/13_1157.pdf

    More new news here including USA enrichment hopes in Mexico
    07.03.2014_No10 / World Nuclear Review
    Urenco Remains Bullish, Despite Fall In Earnings

    Uranium & Fuel

    http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2014/03/07/urenco-remains-bullish-despite-fall-in-earnings

    7 Mar (NucNet): Nuclear fuel enrichment company Urenco, jointly owned by the German, British and Dutch governments, has reported a four percent drop in full-year core earnings because customer demand has slowed.

    The UK-based company, which its owners are looking to partly sell, saw 2013 earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) fall to 968 million euros (EUR) (1.3 billion US dollars) from EUR 1.01 billion the previous year.

    Revenue fell to EUR 1.52 billion from a record EUR 1.60 billion in 2012, the company said.

    Urenco group chief executive officer Helmut Engelbrecht said 2013 remained “challenging” in some of the company’s traditional markets. Reduced demand led to a slowdown of the market and increased worldwide inventories valued at EUR 353.2 million.

    But Mr Engelbrecht said Urenco retained its 31 percent share of the world market for uranium enrichment services, underlining its position as a market leader. “Following our record year in 2012, we met our revenue expectations in 2013,” he said.

    The company said its enrichment facility in the US enables it to provide a domestic enrichment service to North American customers. The New Mexico facility is now the only commercial operational enrichment facility in the US.

    More links here

    http://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/27/japan-u-s-move-to-expand-nuclear-power-programs-despite-contamination-at-fukushima-new-mexico/

    http://nuclear-news.net/2014/01/16/the-new-japanese-secrecy-law-takes-effect-concerning-radiation-health-effects/

    http://nuclear-news.net/2013/11/28/womens-and-community-groups-angered-at-japans-new-secrecy-law/

    http://nuclear-news.net/2014/02/08/is-the-uks-nuclear-backed-pension-bubble-about-to-burst-new-scientific-research-may-be-the-pin-that-pricks/

    Comment by arclight2011part2 | March 13, 2014 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 860 other followers

%d bloggers like this: