You are browsing the archives of 2009 June.

Credit: Gralo

The dangers of Poneman-style closed-door meetings on nuclear energy policy are clear: People are still nervous about this stuff.

The latest evidence is a new poll from Sacred Heart University that shows the public is very divided on nukes, are yet to be convinced on nuclear waste dangers and link the growth of nuclear energy to the growth of nuclear weapons.

The SHU poll found a nearly even split between those suggesting nuclear energy was very or somewhat safe (46.1%) and those who said somewhat dangerous or very dangerous (44.7%).

“The two dangers that concern a majority of Americans are the problems with radioactive waste storage, a top criticism of nuclear power, and possible plant meltdowns,” says Josh Klein, assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Sacred Heart University.

According to the poll, the public is convinced something must be done about global warming. SHU says 77% of all survey respondents strongly or somewhat supported the EPA’s decision to regulate carbon emissions.

For nuclear power proponents, the good news is that while 53.6% are concerned about the danger of future nuclear energy plant meltdowns, 54.2% think that nuclear power plants “will be safer in the future because of newer technologies making plants meltdown-proof.”

But a majority of Americans (58.4%), however, think that nuclear energy’s radioactive waste is a danger that humans will face for thousands of years to come.

And, in one more split decision, more than one-third expect that the number of worldwide nuclear weapons will increase if there are more nuclear power plants, and another third see no such link.

Ceramic, glass and other material scientists have made great strides in both reprocessing and containing nuclear waste. Unfortunately, few in the public arena are aware of these advances. The Ponemans of the world would be better off talking to the public about these developments rather than holding close-door meetings with the Villagers.

Share

Global Industry Analysts has a new report on the high-performance ceramic coatings market. Revenues in North America are projected to reach $1.8 billion by the year 2012, driven by advantages such as high resistance against corrosion and chemicals, high reflectivity, preventing diffusion of hydrogen and electrical resistance. The report - High Performance Ceramic Coatings - A North American Market Report - contains a review of market trends, drivers, product profile, players, competition, recent developments, mergers, acquisitions and other strategic industry activities.

GIA says there is a heightened interest in these coatings. Their use spans the automotive, medicine, defense, aerospace, fiber-optic communications and environmental protection sectors. Besides these applications, the ceramic coatings field is presently exploring the possibility of extending the scope and functionality to other varied applications. Increasing applications of advanced ceramics for a variety of uses is likely to drive the ceramics market and maintain the growth of the market.

GIA takes note of several high-performance ceramic coatings companies, including Accuwright Industries Inc., American Roller Company, APS Materials Inc., Aremco Products Inc., Cetek Ltd., Cincinnati Thermal Spray Inc., Flame Spray Coating Company Inc., Honeywell International Inc., Heany Industries Inc., High Performance Coatings Inc., Materials and Electrochemical Research Corp., Praxair Surface Technologies Inc., Precision Coating Inc. and Sermatech International Inc.

Share

Credit: Institute of Nautical Archeology

A few weeks ago, Ceramic Tech Weekly carried a story about new techniques for dating ceramic artifacts.

Along these same lines, there is a fascinating-sounding meeting, “Chemistry and Materials Research at the Interface between Science and Art,” scheduled for July 6 - July 7 at the Hilton Hotel in Arlington, Va.

Sponsored by the NSF and The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the workshop is bringing together over 40 scientists from various constituencies to discuss areas where new research in basic science can provide information on cultural heritage. In particular, the goal of the workshop is to improve the field’s ability to understand the way art and artifacts were created and how best to preserve them.

Workshop participants will consider three areas of grand challenges:

• Development of analytical techniques.
• Investigation of processes of deterioration.
• Development of new conservation methods and materials.

Participants, together with NSF program officers, conservation experts and representative of cultural heritage institutions, will hear keynote presentations at the opening session on July 6 at the Freer Gallery of Art. Presentations will explore the theme of scientific discovery and cultural heritage.

On July 7, participants will divide into small groups and spend an hour on each of the grand challenges to:

• Specify related research topics.
• Define and refine possible approaches and their advantages.
• Identify expectations for what will be learned from the suggested approaches.

Check it out.

Share

Back in April I posted about concerns I had about the Obama administration appointment of Daniel B. Poneman as deputy secretary for the DOE. Just to recap, Poneman isn’t a scientist but does have expertise in the areas of arms control, nuclear proliferation and export controls. He is also an “insider” with the inside-the-beltway think-tankers, and I noted then that when high-level positions are populated by those who have been annointed as an expert by other beltwayers, in recent years they’ve tended to be more of the “problem” than the “solution.”

The problem is that major new investments in nuclear energy understandably cause some anxieties among the public. This is a legacy of the ham-handed way government officials and utility companies have handled several well-known major episodes in this nation’s history of nuclear power.

So, when there are substantial and significant arguments that investments in nukes is a necessity, at least in the next century to deal with global environmental problems, it sure doesn’t help when Poneman pulls crap like this.

Seriously, Poneman is bad news and needs to be watched . . . because we probably need nuclear power, and if that is going to happen, it won’t be by shoving it down the public’s throat.

h/t to Richard Van Noorden at Nature’s Great Beyond blog.

Share

UPDATE: Funds are rolling in daily under the ARRA Act. For the most recent facts and figures, check out the DOE’s website.

The Obama administration has recently awarded over $400 $800 million for state energy programs in 16 23 states. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, among other things, supports energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

The 16 23 states are: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, Washington and West Virgina.

Under the Department of Energy’s State Energy Program, these states have proposed plans that prioritize energy savings, create or retain jobs, increase the use of renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “This funding will provide an important boost for state economies, help to put Americans back to work and move us toward energy independence,” said DOE Secretary Steven Chu. “It reflects our commitment to support innovative state and local strategies to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy while insisting that taxpayer dollars be spent responsibly.”

Under the ARRA, DOE expanded the types of activities eligible for State Energy Program funding, which include energy audits, building retrofits, education and training efforts, transportation programs to increase the use of alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles, and new financing mechanisms to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy investments.

The ARRA set aside $3.1 billion for SEP, giving priority to “achieving national goals of energy independence while helping to stimulate local economies.” The monies are targeted for immediate use at local and state levels for rapid economic impact, but states must demonstrate that their own funding systems will be transparent and accountable.

This new funding is actually just part of what the states should ultimately get for these projects. DOE already provided 10 percent of the states’ request, and these funds were to be used to jumpstart their planning. The funds released today represent another 40 percent of their total request. The final 50 percent is supposed to be released once the states meet certain reporting, oversight and accountability requirements.

Share