Green Options

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

Wisconsin’s Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming has recommended that the state achieve 2005 levels by 2014; reduce emissions by 22% from 2005 levels by 2022 (someone one day will have to explain to me the fascination with number alliteration); and finally, it calls for 75% reductions from 2005 levels by 2050.

The task force has also recommended a two-pronged approach, adopting state level support for either a federal or state-level cap and trade program, as well as a series of policy recommendations for several important state industry sectors:

1. Energy Sector
2. Transportation Sector
3. Agriculture and Forestry Sectors
4. Industry Sector
5. Waste Sector

For renewable energy to be competitive with coal, natural gas, nuclear, and oil, it needs to be cost effective and reliable. Energy storage is key to achieving this.

Here’s why:

Lower Cost of Renewable Energy

High prices are one of the largest barriers facing renewables. Storage can help overcome this because not all watts are created equal. During peak demand on the electric grid, electric companies will pay more for electricity. Often the additional power needs at this time are supplied by natural gas or oil, which have higher fuel costs, yet can produce electricity at a moment’s notice. The opposite is true during times of low demand, when electricity costs are lower. Solar energy tends to correspond with these price fluctuations by generating large amounts of electricity during times of peak demand.

This is because air conditioning loads are largely responsible for increased electric demand. People tend to crank up the a.c. when the sun it out. Wind energy and other renewable energy sources however don’t necessarily correspond as closely. Storage will allow these energy sources to be fed to the grid during the most lucrative times.

One of the more important things to understand about Georgia - the small country that recently engaged in a deadly struggle with Russia - is that it is one of the hosts of a relatively new, 1 million barrel per day capacity oil pipeline called Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC). That pipeline was constructed with the active encouragement of the EU and the US starting in the late 1990s despite strenuous objections from Russia.

If you take a look at a map of the [...]

Hyperion Power Generation issued a press release on August 12, 2008 announcing that their first customer had signed a letter of intent (LOI) to purchase 6 Hyperion Power Modules^TM (HPM), which the company describes as “a small, compact, transportable, nuclear power reactor”.

Each HPM will be priced at approximately $25 million. The company did not disclose an expected shipping date for the first HPM, but the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission currently lists their scheduled manufacturing license review as starting in 2012 with an projected completion sometime in 2015. (Ref - Periodic Briefing on New Reactor Issues dated February 20, 2008 - PDF.)

Despite the fact that a plurality (less than half) of Americans favor a pro-nuclear-energy candidate, more say they would rebuff a candidate who wants to build nuclear power plants than say this about any of nine other possible energy reforms, according to a new Gallup Poll.

Yucca Mountain, “Yes”; transport waste through my state?, “No”; what Grand Canyon?

It’s hard to tell if Senator McCain’s age is catching up with his memory, or if he’s just trying to ride a lot of fences when it comes to nuclear power.

The Sierra Club sent out a release today, pointing out the Senator’s love affair with nuclear power, revealed a YouTube clip of McCain saying he would not approve of shipping 77,000 tons of dangerous nuclear waste through his home state of Arizona, but felt it would be ok to move it through 44 other states.

With this in mind, let’s examine his stand on drilling for uranium in the national parks surrounding the Grand Canyon.

From Senator McCain blaming Barack Obama for high gas prices, to the House GOP’s recent (and ongoing) faux-libuster demanding an up-or-down vote on increasing domestic oil drilling, there’s no doubt that the Republican Party is pulling out all the stops to make oil the wedge issue in the upcoming election. But the Obama camp has begun a coordinated push-back and revealed the “New Energy Plan For America,” which Obama said would create 5 million new jobs and eliminate our need [...]

The folks in Idaho, according to a release by the Environment News Service, are apparently tickled pink that the French Company, AREVA, is planning construction of a $2 billion uranium enrichment plant near Idaho Falls, Idaho.  It’s AREVA’s first such facility in the U.S. and it plans to serve the nuclear power industry.

There are no nuclear power stations in Idaho, but it does host the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls.  According to its website, the INL is an applied engineering national laboratory, “dedicated to supporting the U.S. Department of Energy’s missions in nuclear and energy research, science, and national defense.”

Idaho’s Governor, C.L. “Butch” Otter, is quoted as saying, “It’s a great match that will result in secure jobs and a stronger economy.”  The state actively courted AREVA with tax incentives, and was picked over three other possible locations.

It has been a big week for energy plans. All of the plans envision a need for more abundant and reliable electrical power, but all of the plans marginalize the potential for growth in nuclear fission power.

If you are of my generation, you remember Schoolhouse Rock’s Saturday morning cartoons.  To this day, I only know what a conjunction is from “Conjunction Junction, what’s your function?”, and I clearly remember how a bill becomes a law by that little rolled up bill sitting on the congressional steps.  “The Energy Blues” is 30 years old this year, and we are still singing these blues:

One of the frequently repeated canons in the anti-nuclear catechism is that nuclear fission is irrelevant to any discussion about oil supplies or oil prices. The offered reasons for that dismissal is that nuclear fission is generally thought to be limited to large scale electrical power production, and oil is generally used as vehicle fuel. The problem with that notion is that it misses a huge, historical trend, and it also ignores the market reality in several remaining locations.

The US Energy Information Agency does a fine job of keeping statistical records of energy sources - though its predictive arm has had some real miscues over the years. The graph associated with this article provides a picture illustrates that the use of oil for electricity in the US may be small now, but that is because it was replaced by nuclear fission during the growth years in the 1970s and 1980s.