Monday, January 14, 2013

Which Famous American Building Is More Radioactive Than A Nuclear Power Plant? / FLEX: Nuclear Industry Disaster Plan Created To Meet NRC Rules / D.C.’s clean-energy conundrum / Big New York install marks new era for renewable energy firm





Which Famous American Building Is More Radioactive Than A Nuclear Power Plant?

: The Capitol Building
The United States Capitol Building is a massive and iconic piece of American architectural history. The main building and surrounding outbuildings and structures are built almost entirely of marble and granite quarried in nearby Virginia.
It is the enormous volume of marble and granite found on the premises that give the Capitol Building a dubious and unseen claim to fame, as both stone types are naturally radioactive thanks to trace amounts of uranium. The radiation levels in the building are 55 times higher than the permissible levels of radiation exposure allowed by the EPA at the outer-most perimeters of nuclear power plants. Essentially, if the Capitol building were a nuclear facility, it would fail a safety examination.
Now, before you incorporate a lead vest into your next trip to the the Capitol, rest assured the EPA guidelines for containment and exposure levels at nuclear plants are purposefully extremely low (which should reassure you of the safety of nuclear facilities) and that the levels of radiation in the Capitol Building, while high compared to non-granite/marble buildings, are still well within safe limits for visitors and staff.

http://www.howtogeek.com/trivia/which-famous-american-building-is-more-radioactive-than-a-nuclear-power-plant/





FLEX: Nuclear Industry Disaster Plan Created To Meet NRC Rules
AP | By By RAY HENRY Posted: | Updated: 12/09/2012 2:39 pm EST
ATLANTA (AP) — If disaster strikes a nuclear power plant in the U.S., the utility industry wants the ability to fly in heavy-duty equipment that could avert a meltdown.
That capability is part of a larger industry plan being developed to meet new rules that emerged since a 2011 tsunami struck the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in Japan, flooding its emergency equipment and causing nuclear meltdowns that sent radiation leaking into the environment. The tsunami exceeded the worst-case scenario the plant was designed to withstand, and it showed how a widespread disaster that damages a nuclear plant can complicate emergency plans.
The effort, called FLEX, is the nuclear industry's method for meeting new U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules that will force 65 plants in the U.S. to get extra emergency equipment on site and store it protectively. As a backup, the industry is developing regional hubs in Memphis, Tenn., and Phoenix that could truck or even fly in more equipment to stricken reactors. Industry leaders say the effort will add another layer of defense in case a Fukushima-style disaster destroys a nuclear plant's multiple backup systems.
"It became very clear in Japan that utilities became quickly overwhelmed," said Joe Pollock, vice president for nuclear operations at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry lobbying group that is spearheading the effort.
Nuclear industry watchdogs are concerned that by moving first, the utility industry is attempting to head-off more costly and far-reaching requirements that might otherwise be set by the NRC, which oversees commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S. Plants started buying the new equipment even before NRC regulators approved the concept. Industry officials say they are not certain yet how the equipment would be moved in a crisis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/09/flex-nuclear-industry-nrc_n_2267235.html



 

D.C.’s clean-energy conundrum


By Paul Dickerson and Thomas Burton
December 10, 2012
 
Few issues are now as politically polarizing as the role of government in supporting clean-energy technologies. It pits those concerned about global warming against climate science skeptics; those who see government playing a role in shaping a new industry against those who support a free-market approach; and clean-technology funders and technologists against incumbent energy interests.
These debates only heated up during the presidential campaign, as promises of new clean-technology jobs faced off against reports of failed green technology companies. For some, “clean energy” is synonymous with “government overreach.”
Yet the need is great for domestic energy production that is reliable, safe and affordable. The United States needs innovative solutions that help Americans use energy more wisely.
The first critical step, particularly in today’s political climate, is to recognize that previous efforts, no matter how well intentioned, need to be updated. There are smarter ways to support important innovations without pushing us over the “fiscal cliff.” Clean technologies are likely to be the next great industry and economic success story. Whether that happens in the United States or not is up to us.
The question now is how to do this in a financially prudent way. There are no more blank checks, and no more patience for promises of green jobs. The Jan. 1 fiscal cliff deadline is just the first in a series of bracing negotiations over government spending and tax policies. Given this environment, there is little doubt that clean-technology funding and support will be put to the test.
Yet there is a clear role for government to play at this critical stage of the industry’s development – even while recognizing new budgetary realities. Democratic and Republican leaders should be able to get behind three basic principles that will help provide sensible, targeted support for this growing sector of the economy.
First, government should adopt performance standards –covering fuel economy, electricity reliability and building efficiency, for example – rather than focusing on subsidies and direct investments. Performance standards spur demand and encourage flexibility in the development of technological solutions.
Corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards demonstrate how government mandates can drive technological improvements in a free-market structure. By setting goals for fuel economy in carmakers’ fleets, CAFE standards allow automakers to find their own path to meeting the mandate through their choice of technology, materials or vehicle size. They can also use economic strategies to achieve compliance – for example, by subsidizing the purchase price of a vehicle model that exceeds the mandate, thereby making room for vehicle sales that miss it.
Second, we need smarter subsidy programs and tax policies that encourage private investment to bring clean technologies to market.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/12/09/d-c-s-clean-energy-conundrum/

Big New York install marks new era for renewable energy firm

Half Moon cuts ribbon big New York rooftop solar projectWhile one of the largest rooftop solar installations in New York marks a shift in the state’s energy policy, it’s an even bigger milestone for the company that installed it.
The 1-megawatt solar installation that covers a rooftop the size of two football fields in Yonkers, New York, is Half Moon Ventures first solar installation ever.
The Illinois company decided a couple years ago to shift its course completely. It had been focused on utility-scale wind energy projects. “We decided strategically that it was time to exit that business,” said Half Moon CEO Michael Hastings.
Since then, the company has focused on developing smaller renewable energy projects for municipalities and corporations that are used to paying high rates for power. “The onsite generation market is markedly better than the utility-scale market,” Hastings said.
Shifting from giant utility-scale projects that took years to get off the ground to quicker and more nimble commercial projects was just the beginning. About 18 months ago, Half Moon’s joint venture partners asked the company to consider solar as well as wind.
 http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/big-new-york-install-marks-new-era-120912