VW’s Solar Installation Largest Of Its Kind Among U.S. Auto Factories - HybridCars.com:
Mostly my common sense postings are about things that are not as they should be. Occasionally, though, something comes along that makes outstandingly good common sense and this is one such. Common Sense wonders what would happen if more firms followed VW's example and generated some fraction of their own power needs?
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Friday, January 25, 2013
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
What are they thinking - Washington state $100 surtax on EVs
General Motors earlier this week sent a letter to Washington Gov. Chris Gregorie asking that a proposed $100 EV surtax be removed from the state’s transportation bill (Senate Bill 6455, ESSB 6455) on the grounds that it will create a disincentive toward the purchase of an EV. The proposal currently excludes vehicles such as the Chevrolet Volt, which can run part of the time on gasoline.
Proponents of the surtax argue the fee is needed to offset losses in state gas tax revenues since EV owners don’t need to buy gas. GM believes this proposal is misguided and will hurt sales and market adoption of EVs. The small number of pure EVs on the road at this point have a negligible impact on state revenues, GM argues.
In the special category of what are they thinking Washington State has proposed a $100 surtax on pure EVs, those that never run on gasoline. It is of course true that gasoline taxes help pay for roads and that pure EVs don't use gasoline but do use roads. It is also, however, true that burning gasoline is a significant contributor to global warming. The obvious question is what matters most paying for roads or leaving a habitable environment to the future. Common Sense suggest that the environment trumps roads. What are they thinking?
Related articles
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
In Japan Reactor Failings, Danger Signs for the U.S. - NYTimes.com
In Japan Reactor Failings, Danger Signs for the U.S. - NYTimes.com
"In Japan Reactor Failings, Danger Signs for the U.S.
By HIROKO TABUCHI, KEITH BRADSHER and MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: May 17, 2011
TOKYO — Emergency vents that American officials have said would prevent devastating hydrogen explosions at nuclear plants in the United States were put to the test in Japan — and failed to work, according to experts and officials with the company that operates the crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant."...American officials had said early on that reactors in the United States would be safe from such disasters because they were equipped with new, stronger venting systems. But Tokyo Electric Power Company, which runs the plant, now says that Fukushima Daiichi had installed the same vents years ago.
Which makes Common Sense wonder about this recent news item:
US power plants would be 'kept safe' after 'extreme' events: NRCCommon Sense has commented previously about nuclear power and safety. Here we have those with a vested interest in nuclear power saying "don't worry be happy" we're safer and those that have just experienced a level 5 nuclear disaster, the most serious kind, noting "hey guys we made those changes and they didn't work." So who do you think common sense suggest we believe, the people who have studied the problem or the people trying to clean up after the problem occurred? Common Sense thinks that the reality of experience trumps paper every day.Washington (Platts)--16May2011/413 pm EDT/2013 GMT
US nuclear power plants "would be kept safe" even in the event of "extreme events" like those that struck Japan's Fukushima 1 nuclear plant, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said based on the findings of recent inspections.
The agency Friday said it is in the process of releasing reports documenting its inspections of the plants' "abilities to deal with power losses or damage to large areas of a reactor site following extreme events."
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Energy policy - NOT
In a groundbreaking decision that some say will usher in a new era of clean energy, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today he was approving the nation's first offshore wind farm, the controversial Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod.
"This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast," Salazar said at a joint State House news conference with Governor Deval Patrick. The decision comes after nine years of battles over the proposal. "America needs offshore wind power and with this project, Massachusetts will lead the nation," Patrick said.
The decision had been delayed for almost a year because of two Wampanoag Indian tribes' complaints that the 130 turbines, which would stand more than 400 feet above the ocean surface, would disturb spiritual sun greetings and possibly ancestral artifacts and burial grounds on the seabed, which was once exposed land before the sea level rose thousands of years ago.
Salazar said he had ordered modifications to "minimize and mitigate" the impact of the project that would "help protect the historical, cultural, and environmental resources of Nantucket Sound." He said his approval would require Cape Wind to conduct additional marine archaeological surveys and take other steps to reduce the project's visual impact.
…
US Senator Scott Brown criticized Salazar's decision, saying it was "misguided."Lets see ... Big Oil, the most profitable corporations in world history, gets $4 billion per year in tax breaks. Gasoline prices are hovering around $4 per gallon with oil prices around $100 per barrel. Coal country wingnut wants government to require inclusion of coal derived fuel in gasoline. US has next to no renewable energy policy.
"With unemployment hovering near ten percent in Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project will jeopardize industries that are vital to the Cape's economy, such as tourism and fishing, and will also impact aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes in the area. I am also skeptical about the cost-savings and job number predictions we have heard from proponents of the project," Brown said in a statement.
Green Car Congress: Bill requiring use of coal-derived fuels introduced in US House: "Bill requiring use of coal-derived fuels introduced in US House
14 May 2011
US Congressman Mark S. Critz (PA-12) announced that the “Clean Coal-Derived Fuels for Energy Security Act of 2011” was introduced in the House of Representatives; Critz is a an original co-sponsor of the legislation. The legislation was introduced by Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV). This bill would require that certain fuels in the nation’s fuel mix contain a minimum volume of clean coal-derived fuel."
...From comments:Follow the money people, Congressman Mark S. Critz is from Coal Country.
In april 2010 he was endorsed by the United Mine Workers of America, a labor union best known for representing coal miners and coal technicians.
One month later he wins the special election.
Clearly NOT common sense. Rather more likely just the usual wingnut politics of energy politics driven by big money and its purchase of Congress.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Gas prices spark partisan debate in Congress – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Gas prices spark partisan debate in Congress – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs:
"The GOP bill, which passed 266-149, is named the 'Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act' and directs the Obama administration to move forward with leases for drilling in areas in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Virginia that were already approved but were suspended after the BP oil disaster last year. 'Let's send a signal to the international markets that America is serious about becoming less dependent on foreign oil,' said Washington Rep. Doc Hastings, who sponsored the bill."
Crude Oil Falls Below $100 a Barrel - NYTimes.com:
"After four months of surging higher, oil prices plummeted by almost 9 percent as traders worried that American drivers were beginning to balk at paying nearly $4 a gallon of gasoline."
OK, lets try some common sense.
New leases and gas prices - How long does it take between signing of a new lease and oil production? Common Sense does not know. That said, it's not days or weeks but rather months or years. A new lease will have no effect on gas prices.
New leases as a signal - Someone needs to explain how increasing oil availability and thus consumption signals less dependence. Consider that the US consumes roughly 18 to 19 million barrels of oil per year. The US produces roughly 9 million barrels of oil per year. About half of consumption. Production has varied between 7 and 9 million barrels per year for the last 10 years. Over that same time US oil consumption has varied between 18 and 21 million barrels per year. The US consistently produces between 1/3 and 1/2 of consumption. The common sense point is that it's consistent. It doesn't much impact imports.
If the goal is to signal less dependence on foreign oil, perhaps reducing oil consumption and increasing renewal energy is worth a common sense thought!
Think not. Note that oil prices went down as oil consumption went down. Isn't there this common sense thing about supply and demand?
Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:
- Expensive Petrol Is a Good Thing
- More U.S. Oil Drilling Won't Lower Gas Prices, Experts Say
- Gasoline demand drops as price rises
- Steven Kopits on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve [Casaubon's Book]
- Drivers Cut Back as Gas Prices Climb
- Capitol Hill in the MarketFor Gas Price Solutions
- Plenty of blame for costly gas
- $4 Gas: Get Used To It
Monday, April 18, 2011
Solar Taxi - There are energy alternatives
YouTube - Swiss Solar Taxi Cruises to GW on Final City Stop of International Tour: ""
Interesting bit of fun. Gives Common Sense pause about renewable energy.
Interesting bit of fun. Gives Common Sense pause about renewable energy.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Nuclear power and safety
The ongoing events in Japan have once again raised concerns about the safety of nuclear power. But safety and nuclear power turns out to be a rather more subtle and complex question than most people realize; certainly rather more subtle and complex than what is generally written.
Consider first the issue of safety. What exactly do we mean when we think about safety? When is something safe? In what ways can something be safe?
Many people frequently drive a car. Generally they regard it as safe. Of course when asked about driving and safety most people realize at least intellectually that cars are really not all that safe, at least insofar as they cause somewhat more than 44% of all accidental deaths. Indeed statistically driving a car is by far the most dangerous activity that most people engage in. Yet people happily drive with little thought to the underlying danger. Why? When negative consequences are distributed in the population as a whole, when the underlying activity is commonly part of life, and when the likelihood of death is disconnected from everyday experience then it's easy to delude oneself into viewing an activity as if not safe as not that dangerous.
The notion of safety is tied up with how likely an accident is, the scope of the harm caused by accidents, the duration of the harm, the benefits of the underlying activity, the availability of alternatives to the underlying activity, and a host of other factors. Thus asking about nuclear power safety isn't a particularly useful question unless you delve into the question of safe in what ways.
When it comes to nuclear power and safety it's helpful to break the question down into several parts. One useful way is to consider the questions of fuel acquisition, plant construction, plant operation, plant decommissioning, and disposal of waste products.
Concerning the question of fuel acquisition and safety the answers are generally encouraging in much the same way that coal, oil, and other large scale industrial extraction operations are safe. Just as one can safely mine coal without undue environmental harm and reasonably restore the mine environment after extraction of the coal one can mine uranium and refine it into nuclear fuel. Whether or not that actually occurs safely is a question of practices, regulation and such much as it is with coal and other similar processed. Sadly, the record of major extraction efforts is rather mixed. One need only look at strip mining to realize that there is a considerable difference between something being possible and actually being done, particularly when it comes to mining. But for all of that, it is in fact possible to safely mine uranium ore. The safety question then is one of what more should be done to insure that what is possible actually occurs.
Once nuclear material is mined it must be processed into fuel suitable for use in a nuclear power plant. Here things get a bit more difficult. The techniques for enriching nuclear fuel are now well and widely understood. The underlying process is similar to other extraction and enrichment processes. But, and it's a potentially serious but, nuclear fuel is inherently radioactive. Some of it is also highly toxic. This creates several serious safety issues that are not present to the same degree and in the same way as other industrial extraction processes. Simply put, processing nuclear fuel is simply not as safe as other industrial processes. The risk of radiation must be added.
Enriched nuclear materials are such that they need to be carefully monitored and controlled. While this control is not inordinately difficult technically the record concerning monitoring and control is on balance no better than poor given the underlying danger of the material. Indeed, the record of known illegal trafficking of nuclear materials is exceptionally poor according to the IAEA. As a practical matter then, monitoring and control efforts are not effective consistent with the underlying danger of the nuclear materials involved.
Are we safely mining nuclear ore? Are our refining practices safe? Are we safely controlling radioactive materials? These are the central issues we should consider regarding nuclear fuel acquisition.
Concerning the construction of nuclear power plants safety issues are, likewise, much like the construction of any large power plant. The problem of plant construction is really one of design and siting.
Where can one safely place a nuclear power plant? While the NRC has guidelines about plant siting and construction that are in fact technically reasonable as a matter of practice in the US today there is one nuclear power plant built on top of an earthquake fault that was unknown at the time the plant was built. Likewise there are many plants built on or within 10s of miles of coast that are known to be subject to both major earthquakes and tsunamis. Such plants are clearly subject to the same events that are occurring in Japan. Indeed the recent events in Japan are a dramatic cautionary tale and proof point about siting and construction. On balance then when the issue of siting is considered it's fair to say that while it is very probably possible to safely site much more is needed to ensure that plants are in fact safely sited.
Are there inherently safe nuclear power plant designs? The short answer here is that yes there are. Unfortunately, the economics of such plants are rather poor. Conversely there are plant designs with good economics. Unfortunately, these are much less inherently safe. This conflict between economics and safety is in many ways the central issue in nuclear power plant design. Given the potential risk with nuclear energy one should err on the side of safety. But nuclear power generation is a business and businesses operate to create profit. Profit can be maximized by focusing on efficiency, in this case design efficiency. While regulation can and indeed in recent years has helped to achieve a more appropriate balance between safety and efficiency in nuclear power plant design, the design of current plants are simply not inherently safe. Given the underlying risk associated with nuclear energy much more needs to be done to ensure that plant designs are inherently safe.
Are nuclear power plants safely sited? Are the plant designs inherently safe? These are the questions we need to ask when considering nuclear power plant construction.
The next issue is operation. This question turns out to be rather more subtle than many acknowledge. Nuclear power plants are intended to generate and sell electrical energy at a profit. Profit is driven by, among other things, the cost of operation. By issues such as maintenance, staffing, training, and such. While it is, in fact possible, to operate a nuclear power plant safely there is ample evidence that nuclear operators have not done so. It is this disconnect between what is possible and what actually happens that is one of the central safety problems with nuclear power generation.
It is also necessary to consider what happens when a nuclear accident occurs at a nuclear power plant. Nuclear accidents are qualitatively different than the accidents at a conventional power plant. In a conventional plant accident a few lives might be lost and electrical service interrupted but that's about the extent of the harm. On the other hand a nuclear plant can result not simply in those negative consequences but also significant radiation release that can make large areas near the plant uninhabitable, affect food supplies over entire countries, and lead to long term radiation related medical problems. It is these qualitative differences that make the issue of operation of nuclear plants a much much more serious matter. So safety metrics that might make sense in conventional plants simply aren't enough in a nuclear plant.
That being said it is in fact true that the number of serious nuclear accidents in the history of nuclear power generation is, in fact, very small. It is in fact three. Nuclear power generation dates back to 1954. In the intervening 50 plus years there have been serious accidents at Three Mile Island in the US, Chernobyl in the USSR, and now Japan. In addition there have been another half dozen or so serious accidents that lead to significant nuclear plant shutdowns. There have also been a rather large number of nuclear incidents that were dealt with before serious harm occurred.
Is this accident rate acceptable given the potential serious and long term consequences? Is it acceptable if a large numbers of new plants are added? Can nuclear power plant operation be regulated and monitored to ensure it is safe? These are the sorts of questions that should be at the heart of discussions about nuclear power operation. They go to the heart of the issue of safe operation.
Just as conventional power plants have waste products, so do nuclear power plants. In the case of fossil fuel plants it's mostly waste gas, a serious problem on a global scale and a significant source of global warming gases. Nuclear power plants don't emit waste gas. That's a big benefit. However, they do have spent nuclear fuel. That spent fuel and associated nuclear waste is arguably the most serious safety issue with nuclear power. The material is radioactive and will be so for thousands of years. It frequently contains radioactive elements that are also highly toxic. For a nuclear energy to be safe this material has to be safely disposed of.
To quote the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group:
Currently, used nuclear fuel is stored at the nation's nuclear power plants in steel-lined, concrete pools or basins filled with water or in massive, airtight steel or concrete-and-steel canisters.
The plan, such as it is, is that the government will process spent fuel and store the associated waste in stable deep geologic repositories. Until recently the primary candidate was Yucca Mountain on Federal land in Nevada. Evaluation of this site began in 1978, some 30 plus years ago. It is still not in use! As of today there is in fact no plan for long term storage and management of nuclear waste! Moreover, considering the nature of the material, radioactive risk, and need to manage storage for tens of centuries it is entirely reasonable to doubt that it can be managed.
While there are many safety problems in storing nuclear waste perhaps the most difficult is time. Nuclear waste remain highly dangerous for centuries and moderately dangerous for tens of centuries. Consequently, storage safety for a few hundreds of years is an essential requirement.
Considering that the entire history of the United States is only a few hundred years and the longest stable society in history lasted only a bit more than a thousand years it is not reasonable to think that the society that places nuclear waste into storage will be around to manage it throughout the time it is dangerous! Nuclear waste created today will have to be managed by societies yet to be created.
Consider that nuclear waste remains dangerous for geological times, for thousands of years. Over such timescales events that are extremely unlikely such as major earthquakes along undiscovered faults, volcanic eruptions that have not occurred for hundreds or thousands of years, or meteor strikes will surely occur. If such events occur near nuclear waste storage sites the consequences could be extreme.
Can nuclear waste be safely disposed of? The short answer today is no. Moreover, it is very unlikely that we will have either the technical or societal mechanisms to store these materials in the future. Absent safe waste disposal, nuclear power is simply not safe.
Large electrical generation systems don't just involve the generation of electricity. At some point the plant will be worn out or obsolete. It will need to be decommissioned, taken apart and made safe. The NRC has a formal process for decommissioning. As of today there are somewhat more than 20 nuclear power plants in some state of decommissioning and there have been four completed decommissions. Nuclear power plants can clearly be successfully decommissioned. However, it should be noted that the process is long, typically 60 years for large plants. Given that the plants life is a few tens of years, typically somewhere around 30 or so, decommissioning time is something around twice the plants operating lifetime! None the less, it is clearly possible.
As a general rule the more widespread and long lasting the consequences of failure are the more safety is required. In many ways the central problem with nuclear power operation is that the negative consequences of nuclear accidents are both widespread and long lasting, potentially as has been seen in Chernobyl, very widespread and very long lasting. The history of nuclear power is rather mixed. Given the dangers and the complete lack of a viable waste disposal plan it can not be regarded as safe today.
However, that's not the end of the safety question. It's appropriate to ask are there safe alternative sources of electrical power? There are several that have good potential. However, given the rather distorted economics of power generation these alternatives are not generally economically practical. The problem here is not so much technical as it is one of fully costing established competitors. If coal, natural gas, and oil electrical power were priced to reflect the cost of pollution then alternatives with better pollution characteristics might well be economically viable.
Consider first the issue of safety. What exactly do we mean when we think about safety? When is something safe? In what ways can something be safe?
Many people frequently drive a car. Generally they regard it as safe. Of course when asked about driving and safety most people realize at least intellectually that cars are really not all that safe, at least insofar as they cause somewhat more than 44% of all accidental deaths. Indeed statistically driving a car is by far the most dangerous activity that most people engage in. Yet people happily drive with little thought to the underlying danger. Why? When negative consequences are distributed in the population as a whole, when the underlying activity is commonly part of life, and when the likelihood of death is disconnected from everyday experience then it's easy to delude oneself into viewing an activity as if not safe as not that dangerous.
The notion of safety is tied up with how likely an accident is, the scope of the harm caused by accidents, the duration of the harm, the benefits of the underlying activity, the availability of alternatives to the underlying activity, and a host of other factors. Thus asking about nuclear power safety isn't a particularly useful question unless you delve into the question of safe in what ways.
When it comes to nuclear power and safety it's helpful to break the question down into several parts. One useful way is to consider the questions of fuel acquisition, plant construction, plant operation, plant decommissioning, and disposal of waste products.
Concerning the question of fuel acquisition and safety the answers are generally encouraging in much the same way that coal, oil, and other large scale industrial extraction operations are safe. Just as one can safely mine coal without undue environmental harm and reasonably restore the mine environment after extraction of the coal one can mine uranium and refine it into nuclear fuel. Whether or not that actually occurs safely is a question of practices, regulation and such much as it is with coal and other similar processed. Sadly, the record of major extraction efforts is rather mixed. One need only look at strip mining to realize that there is a considerable difference between something being possible and actually being done, particularly when it comes to mining. But for all of that, it is in fact possible to safely mine uranium ore. The safety question then is one of what more should be done to insure that what is possible actually occurs.
Once nuclear material is mined it must be processed into fuel suitable for use in a nuclear power plant. Here things get a bit more difficult. The techniques for enriching nuclear fuel are now well and widely understood. The underlying process is similar to other extraction and enrichment processes. But, and it's a potentially serious but, nuclear fuel is inherently radioactive. Some of it is also highly toxic. This creates several serious safety issues that are not present to the same degree and in the same way as other industrial extraction processes. Simply put, processing nuclear fuel is simply not as safe as other industrial processes. The risk of radiation must be added.
Enriched nuclear materials are such that they need to be carefully monitored and controlled. While this control is not inordinately difficult technically the record concerning monitoring and control is on balance no better than poor given the underlying danger of the material. Indeed, the record of known illegal trafficking of nuclear materials is exceptionally poor according to the IAEA. As a practical matter then, monitoring and control efforts are not effective consistent with the underlying danger of the nuclear materials involved.
Are we safely mining nuclear ore? Are our refining practices safe? Are we safely controlling radioactive materials? These are the central issues we should consider regarding nuclear fuel acquisition.
Concerning the construction of nuclear power plants safety issues are, likewise, much like the construction of any large power plant. The problem of plant construction is really one of design and siting.
Where can one safely place a nuclear power plant? While the NRC has guidelines about plant siting and construction that are in fact technically reasonable as a matter of practice in the US today there is one nuclear power plant built on top of an earthquake fault that was unknown at the time the plant was built. Likewise there are many plants built on or within 10s of miles of coast that are known to be subject to both major earthquakes and tsunamis. Such plants are clearly subject to the same events that are occurring in Japan. Indeed the recent events in Japan are a dramatic cautionary tale and proof point about siting and construction. On balance then when the issue of siting is considered it's fair to say that while it is very probably possible to safely site much more is needed to ensure that plants are in fact safely sited.
Are there inherently safe nuclear power plant designs? The short answer here is that yes there are. Unfortunately, the economics of such plants are rather poor. Conversely there are plant designs with good economics. Unfortunately, these are much less inherently safe. This conflict between economics and safety is in many ways the central issue in nuclear power plant design. Given the potential risk with nuclear energy one should err on the side of safety. But nuclear power generation is a business and businesses operate to create profit. Profit can be maximized by focusing on efficiency, in this case design efficiency. While regulation can and indeed in recent years has helped to achieve a more appropriate balance between safety and efficiency in nuclear power plant design, the design of current plants are simply not inherently safe. Given the underlying risk associated with nuclear energy much more needs to be done to ensure that plant designs are inherently safe.
Are nuclear power plants safely sited? Are the plant designs inherently safe? These are the questions we need to ask when considering nuclear power plant construction.
The next issue is operation. This question turns out to be rather more subtle than many acknowledge. Nuclear power plants are intended to generate and sell electrical energy at a profit. Profit is driven by, among other things, the cost of operation. By issues such as maintenance, staffing, training, and such. While it is, in fact possible, to operate a nuclear power plant safely there is ample evidence that nuclear operators have not done so. It is this disconnect between what is possible and what actually happens that is one of the central safety problems with nuclear power generation.
It is also necessary to consider what happens when a nuclear accident occurs at a nuclear power plant. Nuclear accidents are qualitatively different than the accidents at a conventional power plant. In a conventional plant accident a few lives might be lost and electrical service interrupted but that's about the extent of the harm. On the other hand a nuclear plant can result not simply in those negative consequences but also significant radiation release that can make large areas near the plant uninhabitable, affect food supplies over entire countries, and lead to long term radiation related medical problems. It is these qualitative differences that make the issue of operation of nuclear plants a much much more serious matter. So safety metrics that might make sense in conventional plants simply aren't enough in a nuclear plant.
That being said it is in fact true that the number of serious nuclear accidents in the history of nuclear power generation is, in fact, very small. It is in fact three. Nuclear power generation dates back to 1954. In the intervening 50 plus years there have been serious accidents at Three Mile Island in the US, Chernobyl in the USSR, and now Japan. In addition there have been another half dozen or so serious accidents that lead to significant nuclear plant shutdowns. There have also been a rather large number of nuclear incidents that were dealt with before serious harm occurred.
Is this accident rate acceptable given the potential serious and long term consequences? Is it acceptable if a large numbers of new plants are added? Can nuclear power plant operation be regulated and monitored to ensure it is safe? These are the sorts of questions that should be at the heart of discussions about nuclear power operation. They go to the heart of the issue of safe operation.
Just as conventional power plants have waste products, so do nuclear power plants. In the case of fossil fuel plants it's mostly waste gas, a serious problem on a global scale and a significant source of global warming gases. Nuclear power plants don't emit waste gas. That's a big benefit. However, they do have spent nuclear fuel. That spent fuel and associated nuclear waste is arguably the most serious safety issue with nuclear power. The material is radioactive and will be so for thousands of years. It frequently contains radioactive elements that are also highly toxic. For a nuclear energy to be safe this material has to be safely disposed of.
To quote the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group:
Currently, used nuclear fuel is stored at the nation's nuclear power plants in steel-lined, concrete pools or basins filled with water or in massive, airtight steel or concrete-and-steel canisters.
The plan, such as it is, is that the government will process spent fuel and store the associated waste in stable deep geologic repositories. Until recently the primary candidate was Yucca Mountain on Federal land in Nevada. Evaluation of this site began in 1978, some 30 plus years ago. It is still not in use! As of today there is in fact no plan for long term storage and management of nuclear waste! Moreover, considering the nature of the material, radioactive risk, and need to manage storage for tens of centuries it is entirely reasonable to doubt that it can be managed.
While there are many safety problems in storing nuclear waste perhaps the most difficult is time. Nuclear waste remain highly dangerous for centuries and moderately dangerous for tens of centuries. Consequently, storage safety for a few hundreds of years is an essential requirement.
Considering that the entire history of the United States is only a few hundred years and the longest stable society in history lasted only a bit more than a thousand years it is not reasonable to think that the society that places nuclear waste into storage will be around to manage it throughout the time it is dangerous! Nuclear waste created today will have to be managed by societies yet to be created.
Consider that nuclear waste remains dangerous for geological times, for thousands of years. Over such timescales events that are extremely unlikely such as major earthquakes along undiscovered faults, volcanic eruptions that have not occurred for hundreds or thousands of years, or meteor strikes will surely occur. If such events occur near nuclear waste storage sites the consequences could be extreme.
Can nuclear waste be safely disposed of? The short answer today is no. Moreover, it is very unlikely that we will have either the technical or societal mechanisms to store these materials in the future. Absent safe waste disposal, nuclear power is simply not safe.
Large electrical generation systems don't just involve the generation of electricity. At some point the plant will be worn out or obsolete. It will need to be decommissioned, taken apart and made safe. The NRC has a formal process for decommissioning. As of today there are somewhat more than 20 nuclear power plants in some state of decommissioning and there have been four completed decommissions. Nuclear power plants can clearly be successfully decommissioned. However, it should be noted that the process is long, typically 60 years for large plants. Given that the plants life is a few tens of years, typically somewhere around 30 or so, decommissioning time is something around twice the plants operating lifetime! None the less, it is clearly possible.
As a general rule the more widespread and long lasting the consequences of failure are the more safety is required. In many ways the central problem with nuclear power operation is that the negative consequences of nuclear accidents are both widespread and long lasting, potentially as has been seen in Chernobyl, very widespread and very long lasting. The history of nuclear power is rather mixed. Given the dangers and the complete lack of a viable waste disposal plan it can not be regarded as safe today.
However, that's not the end of the safety question. It's appropriate to ask are there safe alternative sources of electrical power? There are several that have good potential. However, given the rather distorted economics of power generation these alternatives are not generally economically practical. The problem here is not so much technical as it is one of fully costing established competitors. If coal, natural gas, and oil electrical power were priced to reflect the cost of pollution then alternatives with better pollution characteristics might well be economically viable.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Common Sense Energy, Oil, and Wind
April 20, Transocean's Deepwater Horizon located about 40 miles southeast of the mouth of the Mississippi River explodes and catches fire. It sinks two days latter. It has not been possible to activate the blowout preventer and now some 210,000 barrels of oil are spewing into the Gulf of Mexico and will hit the shore sometime in the next few days. A considerable effort is being made to control the spill but given the amount it is unlikely that serious damage to the biologically rich coast and surrounding waters can be avoided.
Mr Obama, who has recently moved to allow expanded offshore drilling, has said that BP is ultimately responsible for the cost of cleanup. I find this troubling on several levels.
First, drilling in deep water is inherently difficult and risky as evidenced by similar incidents over the years. After each incident we are assured again that the industry has learned from this regrettable event, corrected things, and it won't happen again. Yet, of course, it does happen again. This is certainly a troubling common sense reality given Mr Obama's proposals.
Second, beyond the issue of inherent safety, Mr Obama seems to regard this disaster as an issue of financial responsibility. While it's nice to have someone to send the bill to for whatever cleanup is possible cleanup is not a cure as evidence by the continuing aftermath of the Exxon Valdeze where the long term effects are still being felt 20 plus years after the event and many years after an economic settlement. Common sense and history shows that money will not make the Gulf whole, will not restore biologically critical coastal wetlands, and will not restore the Gulf fishery.
Third, though certainly not Mr Obama's doing, this occurs in the context of environmental, local (not in my backyard), and bizarre native American concerns over potential ice age cultural sites associated with Cape Wind! Energy generation is never environmentally neutral! I am reminded in this regard of photos I saw some years ago of the White Mountains all but stripped bare to provide lumber of firewood for Boston. But we have choices in how we get energy. We can choose technology that is less destructive such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal; or we can choose technology that is more destructive such as oil and coal; or we can choose technology that is actively dangerous such as nuclear. Common sense suggests that we choose the least damaging technology.
As I've noted previously, the United States has needed a common sense energy policy for many years. It's time we look at the harsh reality of history and started to have one.
Mr Obama, who has recently moved to allow expanded offshore drilling, has said that BP is ultimately responsible for the cost of cleanup. I find this troubling on several levels.
First, drilling in deep water is inherently difficult and risky as evidenced by similar incidents over the years. After each incident we are assured again that the industry has learned from this regrettable event, corrected things, and it won't happen again. Yet, of course, it does happen again. This is certainly a troubling common sense reality given Mr Obama's proposals.
Second, beyond the issue of inherent safety, Mr Obama seems to regard this disaster as an issue of financial responsibility. While it's nice to have someone to send the bill to for whatever cleanup is possible cleanup is not a cure as evidence by the continuing aftermath of the Exxon Valdeze where the long term effects are still being felt 20 plus years after the event and many years after an economic settlement. Common sense and history shows that money will not make the Gulf whole, will not restore biologically critical coastal wetlands, and will not restore the Gulf fishery.
Third, though certainly not Mr Obama's doing, this occurs in the context of environmental, local (not in my backyard), and bizarre native American concerns over potential ice age cultural sites associated with Cape Wind! Energy generation is never environmentally neutral! I am reminded in this regard of photos I saw some years ago of the White Mountains all but stripped bare to provide lumber of firewood for Boston. But we have choices in how we get energy. We can choose technology that is less destructive such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal; or we can choose technology that is more destructive such as oil and coal; or we can choose technology that is actively dangerous such as nuclear. Common sense suggests that we choose the least damaging technology.
As I've noted previously, the United States has needed a common sense energy policy for many years. It's time we look at the harsh reality of history and started to have one.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Common Sense Energy - After 9 years!
Boston Globe: In a groundbreaking decision that some say will usher in a new era of clean energy, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today he was approving the nation's first offshore wind farm, the controversial Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod.
"This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast," Salazar said at a joint State House news conference with Governor Deval Patrick. The decision comes after nine years of battles over the proposal. "America needs offshore wind power and with this project, Massachusetts will lead the nation," Patrick said.
The decision had been delayed for almost a year because of two Wampanoag Indian tribes' complaints that the 130 turbines, which would stand more than 400 feet above the ocean surface, would disturb spiritual sun greetings and possibly ancestral artifacts and burial grounds on the seabed, which was once exposed land before the sea level rose thousands of years ago.
Salazar said he had ordered modifications to "minimize and mitigate" the impact of the project that would "help protect the historical, cultural, and environmental resources of Nantucket Sound." He said his approval would require Cape Wind to conduct additional marine archaeological surveys and take other steps to reduce the project's visual impact.
Good news for those given to a common sense energy policy! Nine years on Cape Wind is finally approved. Wow, it only took 9 years to reach a stunningly common sense decision! This entirely common sense proposal was delayed by Senator E. Kennedy who has a home in Nantucket. That rimes with not in my back yard. The Wampanoag Indians opposition on ancestral grounds and sunsets would be laughable if it hadn't actually been taken seriously. Likewise concerns for fish, birds, and migrating marine mammals. One wonders if it's possible for the US to do what several European countries have done and actually deploy sensible renewable clean energy resources, even if they are made by that nice German company Siemans!
In the same article this interesting bit:
US Senator Scott Brown criticized Salazar's decision, saying it was "misguided."
"With unemployment hovering near ten percent in Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project will jeopardize industries that are vital to the Cape's economy, such as tourism and fishing, and will also impact aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes in the area. I am also skeptical about the cost-savings and job number predictions we have heard from proponents of the project," Brown said in a statement.
Duh! It would seem that Mr. Brown believes continued reliance on fossil fuels must be good. Or perhaps jobs to construct this facility don't count. As to tourism and fishing, wasn't that studied to death without finding any negative impacts. Likewise, aviation is a bit of a laugh. The FAA has minimum altitude limits, the lowest of which is 500'. Presumably safe with respect to a 400' wind turbine. You already know what I think about the "Native American" issue. Mr. Brown might want to go to common sense camp.
This country needs renewal energy resources. We've needed them for the last 40 plus years. That it took 9 years to approve an entirely common sense modest proposal is simply irresponsible. It's long past time that common sense renewal energy like wind, solar, and geothermal were a major common sense part of our energy policy.
"This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast," Salazar said at a joint State House news conference with Governor Deval Patrick. The decision comes after nine years of battles over the proposal. "America needs offshore wind power and with this project, Massachusetts will lead the nation," Patrick said.
The decision had been delayed for almost a year because of two Wampanoag Indian tribes' complaints that the 130 turbines, which would stand more than 400 feet above the ocean surface, would disturb spiritual sun greetings and possibly ancestral artifacts and burial grounds on the seabed, which was once exposed land before the sea level rose thousands of years ago.
Salazar said he had ordered modifications to "minimize and mitigate" the impact of the project that would "help protect the historical, cultural, and environmental resources of Nantucket Sound." He said his approval would require Cape Wind to conduct additional marine archaeological surveys and take other steps to reduce the project's visual impact.
Good news for those given to a common sense energy policy! Nine years on Cape Wind is finally approved. Wow, it only took 9 years to reach a stunningly common sense decision! This entirely common sense proposal was delayed by Senator E. Kennedy who has a home in Nantucket. That rimes with not in my back yard. The Wampanoag Indians opposition on ancestral grounds and sunsets would be laughable if it hadn't actually been taken seriously. Likewise concerns for fish, birds, and migrating marine mammals. One wonders if it's possible for the US to do what several European countries have done and actually deploy sensible renewable clean energy resources, even if they are made by that nice German company Siemans!
In the same article this interesting bit:
US Senator Scott Brown criticized Salazar's decision, saying it was "misguided."
"With unemployment hovering near ten percent in Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project will jeopardize industries that are vital to the Cape's economy, such as tourism and fishing, and will also impact aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes in the area. I am also skeptical about the cost-savings and job number predictions we have heard from proponents of the project," Brown said in a statement.
Duh! It would seem that Mr. Brown believes continued reliance on fossil fuels must be good. Or perhaps jobs to construct this facility don't count. As to tourism and fishing, wasn't that studied to death without finding any negative impacts. Likewise, aviation is a bit of a laugh. The FAA has minimum altitude limits, the lowest of which is 500'. Presumably safe with respect to a 400' wind turbine. You already know what I think about the "Native American" issue. Mr. Brown might want to go to common sense camp.
This country needs renewal energy resources. We've needed them for the last 40 plus years. That it took 9 years to approve an entirely common sense modest proposal is simply irresponsible. It's long past time that common sense renewal energy like wind, solar, and geothermal were a major common sense part of our energy policy.
Friday, April 16, 2010
CNN: Nuke cancer concern scares town. Duh!
Ground has been broken in a Georgia town for the nation's first nuclear reactor in 30 years. The town is already home to two reactors, and its cancer rates are 51 percent higher than the national average.
We are told, yet again, that nuclear power plants are safe. Well, new designs are safe anyway. Right! Just like the new designs of 30 years ago were safe!
We are told, yet again, that nuclear waste can be managed. Right! Just like we were told that there was a plan for nuclear waste management by storage at Yucca Mountain in, wait for it, 1987. And lets not note that Congress voted 388 to 30 not to completely defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
OK, so lets summarize. Safe power plants cause cancer rates that are 51% higher than the national average, and there is no place to store the waste.
Common sense suggest that the fine citizens of a Georgia town are well advised to be scared.
We are told, yet again, that nuclear power plants are safe. Well, new designs are safe anyway. Right! Just like the new designs of 30 years ago were safe!
We are told, yet again, that nuclear waste can be managed. Right! Just like we were told that there was a plan for nuclear waste management by storage at Yucca Mountain in, wait for it, 1987. And lets not note that Congress voted 388 to 30 not to completely defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
OK, so lets summarize. Safe power plants cause cancer rates that are 51% higher than the national average, and there is no place to store the waste.
Common sense suggest that the fine citizens of a Georgia town are well advised to be scared.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Dubai and the Middle East
From the Wall Street Journal:
For all their oil wealth the short common sense answer is NOT MUCH! The middle east is only marginally habitable. Lack of fresh water is a major problem. The region can not feed itself today and absent the ability to import food it will return to the impoverished past. The region has a poor to non-existent history of modern government. Indeed the Dubai news is only one of any number of examples of mismanagement. It's easy to find others in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait both of which have also largely squandered their oil wealth on extravagance and privilege. If you actually need someone to work in the region, you import them from elsewhere! When the oil that will be gone in some few years what then? There is little by way of natural resources except for sun that might be used for massive solar farms.
What then of the near term? Modern economies need oil. But for how long? Are there alternatives? The short answer is not very long and there are in fact many other alternatives, albeit they cost more. Does the Middle East have alternatives? Can they demand any price? The short answer is oil is nearly the only resource the Middle East has, it doesn't really have alternatives! They might use it themselves but as I've noted before, you can't DRINK OIL! While you can make water with it when its gone you are back where you started. Price oil to high and you only accelerate the move to other energy sources. In short the Middle East has little option but to sell oil to the West at a reasonable price.
Just a POV driven by some common sense.
LONDON -- Dubai's debt debacle is stoking a new fear for investors across the globe: potential government default by heavily indebted nations.For much of the last 30 years or so there has been remarkable interest in the Middle East and, of course, oil. I've always been a bit bemused by it. Certainly the Middle East generally is important to the West, particularly Europe, in the short term. But what of the long term? What of 20 years from now? Or 50? What, if anything, does the Middle East have going for it?
The Dubai government roiled markets this week with its move to delay debt payments owed by its flagship holding company, Dubai World. The company is stressed by tens of billions in debt that funded spending on glitzy real-estate projects from the Middle East to Las Vegas.
For all their oil wealth the short common sense answer is NOT MUCH! The middle east is only marginally habitable. Lack of fresh water is a major problem. The region can not feed itself today and absent the ability to import food it will return to the impoverished past. The region has a poor to non-existent history of modern government. Indeed the Dubai news is only one of any number of examples of mismanagement. It's easy to find others in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait both of which have also largely squandered their oil wealth on extravagance and privilege. If you actually need someone to work in the region, you import them from elsewhere! When the oil that will be gone in some few years what then? There is little by way of natural resources except for sun that might be used for massive solar farms.
What then of the near term? Modern economies need oil. But for how long? Are there alternatives? The short answer is not very long and there are in fact many other alternatives, albeit they cost more. Does the Middle East have alternatives? Can they demand any price? The short answer is oil is nearly the only resource the Middle East has, it doesn't really have alternatives! They might use it themselves but as I've noted before, you can't DRINK OIL! While you can make water with it when its gone you are back where you started. Price oil to high and you only accelerate the move to other energy sources. In short the Middle East has little option but to sell oil to the West at a reasonable price.
Just a POV driven by some common sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)