Green Options

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

Robert Bryce, the managing editor of Energy Tribune is one of my favorite energy thinkers. He is a throwback journalist with an inquiring mind who asks hard questions and really thinks through the answers. He has recently written a book titled Gusher of Lies.

I have not yet had a chance to read the book, but I recently listened to a Tavis Smiley show interview with Robert where he talked a little about one of the topics discussed in the book - the use of natural gas as a vehicle fuel.

This topic caught my interest as my energy obsessed brain began weaving several threads into a new pattern. One thread is the growing disconnect between the cost per unit energy of natural gas compared to diesel fuel in the United States. Another thread is a story that has been playing on my drive time radio station about the challenges that local school districts are facing as they prepare their student transportation budgets in the face of rapid increases in the cost of diesel fuel. The final thread is my continuing belief that new nuclear power plants have a role to play in alleviating our current energy crisis.

On June 22, 2008, Gordon Brown, the UK Prime Minister, spoke to a crowd that included the representatives of 27 oil producing countries. His primary message was that the current price of oil was not sustainable since it was high enough to cause economic hardships and a move to alternative energy sources. He was careful to point out that the alternatives to oil included nuclear power and that his country was making preparations to enable a large scale nuclear development program.

He also mentioned that at least 15 of his fellow European Union states were considering new nuclear power developments.

“Our commitment to the biggest expansion of nuclear power in Europe is now clear and definitive,” Brown said in his speech. “Fifteen of 27 European countries are now engaged in nuclear power.”

Oil ministers have a longer and deeper memory of energy related history than most casual observers; it is in their professional interest. During the 1970s, a number of nations, including France, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea made a strategic decision to replace oil burning power plants with nuclear fission reactors.

It has been darned hot on the East Coast, and the electric companies have been asking their customers to conserve power whenever possible, especially in the heat of the day. Each day this week one of the topics of conversation in my carpool has been the oppressive heat and poor air quality.

The power conservation warnings and the “Code Red” air quality alerts made me think about last week’s announcement by Unistar Nuclear, a partnership between Constellation Energy, Areva, Bechtel, and EDF, that they had successfully filed their combined Construction and Operating License (COL) application for a third unit at Calvert Cliffs.

The plant is not exactly in my backyard, but it is only about an hour’s drive south of my home. Though watching and waiting for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue a new nuclear plant license to allow the beginning of construction can be a bit like watching grass grow, the decision to “docket” the application indicates that real progress continues.

If you want to read an article that provides an indication of how the idea of the plant plays to local politicians I recommend a visit to a Washington Post article titled Coalition Formed to Advocate For New Power Plants, Lines.

During the past 5 years, Americans have done a lot of talking about our oil addiction. In that same time period, oil suppliers (aka pushers) have had an amazing run of economic success. There are now major efforts underway by the suppliers to tell us not to worry our little heads about how much money is flowing out of our pockets and into theirs. They are also spending a lot of advertising dollars on a campaign to tell us how hard they are working to provide us with the products to which we are addicted.

The spectacle that has really gotten me concerned is watching our leading addicts - the people who spend a lot of time flying around in jets, helicopters, and armored convoys - consuming vast quantities of oil jetting over to the turf where the key suppliers live to convince them to pump enough new product so that we can go back to being contented, satisfied junkies with slightly lower monthly costs of supporting our habit.

Of course, you have heard some good advice from many people about how to reduce your own dependence and you might have even read some decent advice about how the whole country can work to reduce its habit to more manageable levels. What you have not heard much about, however, is a prescription that has the potential for completely fracturing the power of the pushers and stopping the unbalanced flow of money that has distorted the world’s system of production and rewards.

My preferred solution is the one offered by President Eisenhower, a man who knew a bit about the benefits of negotiating from a position of strength.

No matter what new energy proposal someone makes, it’s bound to attract an outcry of NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard). (My recent post about the U.S. generating all the energy it needed via a 100-mile-by-100-mile solar installation in the Mojave Desert, for example, evoked some protest.)

So I thought it might help to pose the future-of-our-energy question in another way: What do I WIMBY? (As in, Want In My Backyard?)

OK, here we go: Following are photos illustrating several clean and/or renewable energy options that could help us curb greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Which ones would you be willing to view from your backyard as a tradeoff for a cleaner, brighter future? Be honest now: I’m asking literally if you would say OK if one of these was what you saw when looking out of the window of your home.

April 26 marks the 22nd anniversary of the 1986 nuclear accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Slavutych, Ukraine. That one incident resulted in hundreds and possibly thousands of deaths, lingering health issues, radioactive contamination of a wide swath of land, property losses and on-going clean-up costs totaling billions of dollars.The Ukranian-American Environmental Association sent out a release reminding everyon of the risks of nuclear power.

I spoke with Kenneth Bossong, co-director of [...]

Over in the TalkClimateChange section of the new Green Options Discussion Forums, my colleague Mark Seall recently wrapped-up a “Live Debate” on the merits of nuclear power. In addition to the excellent and informed discussion with nuclear experts and environmentalists, there was also a reader poll that concluded with some rather unexpected results. Nearly 75 percent of the respondents believe that nuclear power is good because it is a source of “abundant carbon free energy.”

Yes, this is a reader poll, and it is not a statistical representation of the public attitude of any country in particular. But it is striking that the 133 readers who did vote, were all doing so from a blog network called Green Options. Get it? Simply put, the public attitude towards nuclear power has undergone a seismic shift in recent years. This evidence indicates that this is not the same environmental movement that emerged in the early 1970’s.

But as consumed as I am with energy issues and the politics that surround them, I remain somewhat agnostic about nuclear power. Why is that? There’s no simple answer. Part of it is not wanting to reconcile the tensions between nuclear power as a low-carbon alternative with the ecological dangers of mining uranium and the big issue of transporting and storing nuclear waste. [If you want to know more about the specific dangers and problems facing nuclear power, Judith Lewis has written an excellent article in the most recent issue of Mother Jones addressing these issues in great depth.]

I would also argue that the reason I (and many other greens my age) are not particularly averse to nuclear power is because the pressing environmental issues that were building blocks to my own environmentalism were generally not related to nukes.

Nuclear power – an abundant source of carbon free energy, or a dangerous and expensive power source with huge risks to our health and environment?

Britain may not have much choice in this matter as its government seems determined to take the nuclear route in an effort to bring Co2 emissions in line with its reduction pledges and mitigate its dwindling North Sea oil and gas supplies.

Announcing plans to enter into a technology partnership with France, the UK government proposes replacing its 24 aging reactors - which currently provide 20% of the nation’s electricity - with a new set of nuclear power plants which will double Britain’s nuclear power generating capacity. In doing so, Britain hopes to become a “world leader in nuclear technology”, according to Energy Secretary John Hutton.

Those steel tanks you see are some of the 177 that contain 53 million gallons of heavy metals, acids and solvents. They also contain plutonium, cesium, strontium and uranium. All are buried underground.

Of those 177, sixty-seven are confirmed leakers, meaning their contents are leaching into the soil and headed toward the Columbia River. Most have exceeded their anticipated 50 year life span, creating fear of a catastrophic tank failure.

Thousands of tons of radioactive and hazardous waste has been buried in unlined landfills and 450 billion gallons of liquid waste has been poured into ponds, ditches and drainfields at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the state of Washington.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to hold two public hearings next week on a request to extend the operating license for reactor 1 at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.

The afternoon and evening hearings are set for Tuesday, March 4, in Middletown, Pennsylvania.

I was reading some recent headlines about Yucca Mountain, claiming the federal government will face heavy penalties and judgments if the project isn’t finished. Read beyond the headlines my friends, “we” fund the government, the money comes from our pockets, and it isn’t chicken feed.

The latest estimates are, that if Yucca Mountain isn’t finished until 2017, “we” will owe the utilities an estimated $7 billion in penalties, provided by law, because the repository isn’t finished. Bump completion time up another 3 years, and the bill goes up to about $11 billion.