| Chinese Company Considers a Future With Nuclear Cargo Shipping - Your Thoughts? | |
|
China has certainly made some startlingly bold and draconian moves into a sustainable new future. You might say that their One Child policy did more to slow future climate change than anything that any other nation has tried. That’s one example of their outside-the-box thinking about the future. Then they switched to one giant national grid in under two weeks, making renewable energy a nationwide possibility. Now they are investing $9 billion a month on renewable infrastructure. Last week they opened up the grid to any producer at all of solar or wind power, passing a law that every utility must buy all the renewable power put on the grid, effectively creating the Al Gore “electranet” idea - the giant unfettered sellers market for anyone who builds wind or solar power. Now comes a real shocker. Mr Wei, the CEO of Chinese shipping giant Cosco is looking into the feasibility of running a cargo shipping fleet using nuclear power. The New York Times James Kantor is reporting that Mr Wei told the British maritime newspaper Lloyd’s List that his company was consulting with Chinese nuclear companies to see if the idea was practicable. Shipping emissions are already coming under regulatory control by ports concerned with the health effects of particulate pollution. California CARB rules are being appealed in court by the shipping industry but generally these rules wind up being upheld. Shipping emissions contribute about 5% of global greenhouse gases, but already sulfur from diesel fuel is under increasing regulation because of local health issues in ports. CARB wants the shipping industry to switch to low sulfur diesel 40 miles from port. Though this will be fought in courts, the writing is on the wall for the shipping industry. Mr Wei wanted to put out this idea to see whether the idea would be acceptable to society. Personally I wouldn’t want nuclear powered vessels anywhere near my port, but maybe a nuclear-hybrid would be OK with me. Nuclear just on the high seas, and switch to a safer fuel for the last 500 miles to port. International cargo shipping must make a change to be sustainable. What would you tell Mr Wei? Source - GO Media - Written by Susan Kraemer - Image: Wikimedia Comments
(3)
 written by Muna , January 19, 2010
Which part of "no nuclear is safe nor cheap nor a solution to climate change" did we not get over the last 60 odd years? ALL nuclear is heavily subsidised by government (no provate funding EVER goes into nuclear) and if you take your head out of the sand, and look at the LIFE CYCLE of nuclear, it is extremely energy intensive (carbon intensive); causes massive damage through mining; and remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years... stupid idea, Mr. Wei....
Votes: +2
report abuse
vote down
vote up
We may not agree with their hunman rights record but at this point they are certainly puttting in a lot of effort with regards helping our planet.
Votes: -3
A nuclear-hybrid as you mention is probably the best way to go, for everybody, but ships do sink and so we would need to ensure that any nuclear units would need to be encased in a pressure/fire/waterproofsystem that can be retrieved in the case of a sinking/accident. report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
Remember that Chernobyl happened while they were trying to shut the reactor down. And what's more, where does the belief come from that a nuclear accident/meltdown 40 miles offshore will not be a problem??