Whenever I speak on renewable energy, I’m careful to leave my audience with a sense of the “tough realities.”  We all want simple answers to our questions, but in the case of clean energy, none exist.

There are dozens of different flavors of solar, wind, biomass, hydro, and geothermal, each improving in terms of cost and efficiency, but at different rates.  There are economic issues, as none of these flavors can compete with the dirtiest form of coal, if we don’t take into account the “externalities” like lung disease and environmental damage.  And Lord knows there are political issues, where we have serious candidates for president of the U.S. who, if elected, boldly pledge to dismantle our Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy.  If this occurs, it would effectively end the efforts of the largest economy on Earth to migrate away from fossil fuels and nuclear. 

Here’s another in a series of infographics that attempts to put all this into perspective. Hope you enjoy.

Related posts:

A friend who favors right-wing ideologies sent me a video in which the Cato Institute ripped up Obama’s State of the Union Address, pointing out certain claims as lies – even challenging the legality of some of the actions he’s taken as president. While I’m not a huge fan of the Cato Institute, they’re no fools, and they certainly make some good points here. Let’s also admit that Obama has been a bitter disappointment, as millions of us realized that he’s just another politician, put in place with huge money (in this case, Big Pharma and Wall Street) to protect and expand these interests.

But I’m always astounded when intelligent people believe that one of these two political parties is right and the other wrong. When Romney or Gingrich speak, is it even remotely possible to imagine that they are sincerely interested in anything other than your vote? Or that they have a credible plan to put a space station on the moon (an American one, of course), or to power the world with nuclear energy, or close down the EPA, or “kill our enemies” – does any of this make real sense?

OK, if that didn’t annoy you, try this: What did the Cato Institute say when ex-CIA director George Tenet admitted that the most senior levels of the G. W. Bush administration launched their war against Iraq based upon false pretenses and manipulated intelligence? This isn’t a mere difference of ideology about healthcare or unemployment or debt ceiling limits. These are war crimes – you know what I mean  – the types of things for which people in other parts of the world are brought to justice, then hanged or shot.

I’m amazed that well-educated people can hold on so tenaciously to ideas that either one of these two political parties, in a process that is so overtly corrupt, can save the world, while the other is the route to hell. Sorry if I’ve insulted anyone here, but I find the notion ridiculous.

Related posts:

I’ve been preparing to make a few videos for newcomers to the subject of clean energy that answer basic questions on renewable energy, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and the energy-related challenges we face.  I’ll be recording a series of short talks, aided by graphics, that point out that all our energy sources go back to the Big Bang, and come forward through time to us as follows:

Solar power is nuclear, of course, as all that hydrogen that became our sun billions of years ago undergoes fusion and emits enormous amounts of energy. That which we accumulated over hundreds of millions of years as fossil fuels (ancient biomass) we extract and burn as oil, coal, and natural gas. That which we receive right now, or in the very recent past, we have the potential to harvest as renewables: photovoltaics, concentrated solar power, wind, new biomass, run-of-river hydro, ocean current, and wave.

Tidal and geothermal are two energy-related products of the Big Bang that don’t derive from the sun. Tides are caused largely by the moon, which was created by a huge collision shortly after the formation of the Earth. Geothermal energy actually has four different causes (the energy of impacts, friction from heavier elements migrating toward the core, radioactive decay and compression due to gravity) — all of which stem, however indirectly, from the mass and energy released in the Big Bang.

Nuclear energy comes from splitting some large atoms that resulted as simpler elements combined after the Big Bang. Here, I’ll point out that nuclear reactions are perfectly safe when they occur 93 million miles from us – on the sun, where they belong.  Though, as we’re slowly learning, this is not necessarily the case down here where we live.

Coincidentally, Bill Paul, our renewable energy finance guru, has been working along a similar vein, and sent me this masterpiece, a site on environmentalism for kids. I hope you’ll check it out.

Related posts:

I personally would say there are simply two main reasons to reject or abandon nuclear. And I fully expect some nuclear supporters to reject this.

1) Costs

2) Danger & Damage, both short-term and long-term

Costs
A majority of the general American public does not realize the immense and rising costs involved with building and developing a nuclear plant.

A former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Peter Bradford, who is also former chair of New York and Maine’s utility regulatory commissions, said recently: “Even before Fukushima, events over the last 2 years have amply demonstrated that new nuclear power was a bad investment in the U.S. Cost estimates have continued to rise while costs of alternatives are falling. Wall Street rating agencies are skeptical. Constellation pulled out of Calvert Cliffs last October. Exelon did the same for it proposed Texas reactors, and in the context of a review of its low carbon options that showed new nuclear to be far more expensive than most of its other choices.”

Paul Fremont, managing director of equity research at Jefferies & Company, Inc. said that the cost of building a new nuclear plan “…varies widely from $4,500.00 per KW estimated by the NRG for its cancelled project in Texas to $6,350.00 per KW estimated by Southern Company for its project in Georgia. Today, nuclear represents the highest cost option to construct as compared to traditional technologies…the economic alternative for new building today is gas-based on forward prices ranging from $4.40 now to anticipated $6.00 in 2015.”

Paul Gipe at RenewableEnergyWorld wrote that the sheer cost of nuclear that may overwhelm any industry “renaissance”.

A group of scientists at www.NuclearBailout.org makes that three-fold case against nuclear, saying it is uneconomical; it is polluting; and it is a health threat. The group created the site as a project of the Safe Energy Program at Physicians for Social Responsibility and points out that nuclear is far too expensive and uneconomical in a number of papers.

The New York Times ran a story on August 31^st, 2010 by James Kanter that looked at the nuclear power question. (“New Warnings about Costs of Nuclear Power.”)  In that story, the Bulgarian economy and energy minister had just announced that the cost to build their second plant (near the Danube River) was over $11.4 billion dollars ($9B Euros), while the original cost projection had been at $4B for the two reactors. At the same time, the British ministry of state for energy said that he expected each new nuclear plant to cost about $9.3 billion. Costs are dramatically out of control at a Finnish project where the French builder (Areva) agreed in 2005 to build a cutting-edge plant by 2009 at $3 billion Euros but the costs have doubled and it is not even complete (perhaps not until 2012.)

Christian Parenti, a scholar at CUNY and fellow at The National Institute, wrote in The Nation that for all of the boosters and champions of nuclear power, none seem to consider the economic factor, and he writes that the numbers just don’t add up.  He also believes that trying to argue that nuclear is a solution for climate change is just plain dangerous, because it threatens to delay the shift to clean energy.  Every dollar spent on nuclear is a dollar not spent on green tech.

Henry Sokolsky wrote the paper “The High and Hidden Costs of Nuclear Power” published in Policy Review (no 162), August & September 2010 (Stanford University.) “Since the early 1950s, every major government in the Western Hemisphere, Asia, the Middle East and Europe has been drawn to atomic power’s allure only to have market realities prevent most of their nuclear investment plans from being fully realized,” writes Sokolski.

In 2003, says Sokolski, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the nuclear industry would probably default on nearly 50% of governmental loans, even though subsidies have been pushed through. Moody’s announced that it would downgrade its rating of any power provider that invested in new nuclear construction. At the same time, the president of “America’s largest fleet of nuclear power plants, who now serves as the World Nuclear Association’s vice chairman, publicly cautioned that investing in new nuclear generating capacity would not make sense unless both natural gas prices rise and stay about 8 dollars per cubic feet and carbon prices or taxes rise and stay about $25 a ton…Industry officials believe neither condition is likely to be met…” (page 56, Policy Review, Aug & Sept 2010.)

The good news is that clean tech is catching up.  An authoritative study by the investment bank Lazard Ltd. found that wind power actually beat nuclear power, and nuclear essentially tied with solar power as to costs. Further, the Worldwatch Institute reports that between 2004 and 2009, electricity from wind (not capacity but actual power output) grew by 27 percent, while solar grew by 54 percent. Over the same time, nuclear power output actually declined by half a percent.

… to be continued

Related posts:

Now, four decades later, I’m still wondering about the pro-nuclear people. Who are they? What’s the attraction?

If nuclear were cheap, I’d at least be able to understand the appeal. But the amortized cost of building, operating, and decommissioning a nuclear facility is fantastically high. So, if you’re willing to pay increased cost, why not choose any of dozens of flavors of solar and biomass, or wind, hydrokinetics and geothermal? While they may be expensive right this minute, at least they don’t leave you with spent fuel rods that must be isolated from all life forms for half a million years (the year 502,011).

Bottom line: I don’t get it. But, as I’ve mentioned, I don’t understand the appeal of many other phenomena that the human race seems to favor either: auto racing, pro wrestling, rap music, etc. Maybe it’s just one of those things…

Related posts:

Related posts:

Dear Friends,

Yesterday, President Obama released his Fiscal Year 2012 budget and I’m afraid the overriding message is: we’ve got to get to work!

Even while slashing funds for heating assistance for the poor and cleaning up the Great Lakes, the President’s budget–like last year–proposes to triple the loan “guarantee” program for new nuclear reactor construction. That would mean another $36 Billion in loan “guarantees” for nuclear utilities to buy reactors from wealthy foreign companies like Areva and Toshiba, while the poor shiver through the winter.

Tell Congress: NO WAY!

In the fiscal fantasy world of the federal budget, it’s important to note that, in budget terms, $36 Billion in loan “guarantees” shows up as only $360 million in actual spending. But $360 million is still a big chunk of change, and would buy an awful lot of heat for an awful lot of people.

And in the real world, those “guarantees” are actually taxpayer loans. The money leaves the federal treasury and only comes back if the project succeeds. During the first go-round of nuclear construction, fewer than half of the reactors proposed were actually ever built and generated income–and that’s when the utilities had to pay for reactors without government help. There is no reason to believe things will work out any better for the industry this time around–especially if we taxpayers are liable for the bill.

Not only does the Administration want to increase nuclear construction loans, it also is proposing some $500 million over five years to develop new “small modular reactors.” But really, when we’re cutting funding to clean the Great Lakes, why should we be adding funding for new polluting power plants? And if these reactors are economically viable (hint: they’re not), why shouldn’t the companies involved develop them with their own money?

Of course, the Republicans–especially their Tea party wing–want to cut even more from the federal budget than President Obama. But will they be willing to stand up to the nuclear industry and cut this proposal?

President Obama made the same proposal to triple the nuclear loan program last year. And he didn’t get a single dime. Your actions combined with the dedicated work of the small group of people working on this issue in Washington to stop the increases completely.

Now we’ve got to do it again. Write your Congressmembers here and tell them no money for nuclear loans, no money for new reactors–small, large, or in-between! We can’t afford them and we don’t want them. When we all raise our voices, we are extremely loud. And we need each of you to raise your voice now.

We will keep you informed about the progress of these proposals in the weeks and months to come.

Finally, if you haven’t yet signed the petition to the Prime Minister of Japan to stop their government’s funding of proposed new reactors in Texas, please do so now here. Organizations can sign on by sending their info to us at nirsnet@nirs.org.

Thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Related posts:

The most dangerous times for any nuclear power plant are:  Initial start-up or during a restart, and during a shut-down, especially an emergency shut-down.

Three Mile Island Unit II, for instance, had been in commercial operation for less than three months when it partially melted down.  It was only slightly different from, slightly more powerful than, Unit 1, which, today, was relicensed by the same careless Nuclear Regulatory Commission we seek redress from today as well — for another 20 years — until April 19, 2034.  Some of Three Mile Island Unit 1′s parts will be 60 years old when it is finally “retired” — irradiated, thermally heated, pressurized, chemically embrittled, and cycled on and off hundreds or even thousands of times.

The Emergency Core Cooling Systems, mandatory for all commercial reactors, have never actually been tested, and many scientists have asserted that their calculations have indicated the ECCSs may not work when needed.  Not only that, but several ECCSs, such as Monticello’s, were found to be completely inoperative several decades after installation, and would definitely not have worked.  Control rods have jammed, fuel rods have been bent, plutonium has escaped… and one reactor, Davis-Besse, nearly corroded all the way through before anyone noticed!  Except maybe the filter salesman.

Many of San Onofre’s sea-encrusted, rusted, dilapidated parts will be 60 years old, too, if it makes it to retirement age.

And with all the NEW parts they are installing at San Onofre right now — miles of pipes, dozens of pumps, scores of valves, hundreds of new sensors, drum after drum of electrical cables — there will be new pressures and fluid flows throughout the system, new control mechanisms, and even relatively new, or completely new, operators.  People quite a bit younger than the plant itself, who don’t know how hard people fought to stop it in the first place.  Who don’t know that almost all our fears have ALREADY been realized, from cancers in the community because of the plant, to fraud at the plant, to piling nuclear waste problems, to threats of terrorism.  Yes, it was all foreseen.

Right now, one by one, each of San Onofre’s two remaining operable reactors are being rebuilt, top to bottom.  That is, pieces of them are being replaced, top to bottom (even the fog lights, and certainly the sump pumps).  But despite the retrofit, vastly more pieces are never being touched, never even being inspected.

How much inspection can such a small crew as the NRC leaves “on site” really do?  There is only one inspector for every couple of hundred workers.

Furthermore, a climate of cover-up still exists at the plant, according to whistleblowers this author has talked to.  And no doubt no one from The Shaw Group wants to expose their mistakes, since they are all new at the site and the last group or operators — Bechtel and their subcontractors — were fired en masse after about 40 years of running the most dangerous thing on earth, on August 30th, 2009.

During the retrofit — a different division of Bechtel is doing that work — the danger is probably a lot less than during an average day the plant is running.  Criticality is not occurring at the shut-down reactor.  Water isn’t screaming through the system at enormous velocities and pressures.  Lazy, sleepy operators on mood-altering cardiac beta blockers for health problems due to sitting all day long aren’t using inaccurate and faulty instrumentation to monitor the whole thing and stop it from melting down.

So I’m less scared when the plant is shut down than at any other time.  But the restart AFTER this major retrofit will be an especially dangerous time.

And then, the continued operation of the plant for 20 more years may well spell doom for SoCal at some point — for any of a million different reasons.  The old welds might start failing, let alone all the new ones that weren’t done right, or were done right in Japan or elsewhere in the world, but didn’t get shipped properly to America, or broke during installation.  And nobody reported anything, because of the climate of cover-up.

During the actual retrofit, at least the reactor that is being refitted is not increasing the quantity of spent fuel with nowhere to put it by an average of 250 pounds per day per reactor, as happens each day the reactor is operating (500 lbs per day for San Onofre altogether, when both reactors are running).  That’s in addition to the tritium which is released and poorly tracked, and the hundreds of pounds per year of noble gases which are not tracked or stopped in any way at all, and the daily releases of radioactive isotopes of all known elements, in varying quantities, as allowed by ALARA.

All nuclear facilities vent radioactive isotopes to the public.  HEPA filters were originally designed in the 1940s for cleaning the air of radioactive particles but they only achieve a 99.97% success rate (by definition).  3 particles in 10,000 may not sound like a lot, and might have been good enough for The Manhattan Project, but when you are releasing billions of billions of particles every day INTO the filters, it means you are letting a lot of children die in your community DESPITE the filters.  And HEPA filters don’t work for isolating tritium (a lot more H3 could be removed, but not that way) nor do they do anything to stop the release of the noble gases, which flow right through them.  The legal limit for releases of tritium each year by each reactor at San Onofre is about one thirtieth of a teaspoon.  Tritium is extremely hazardous, and even this seemingly small amount is way, way too much.  And besides, whenever they release more than a thirtieth of a teaspoon, the NRC gives them two special dispensations:  One not to say anything, and one not to do anything.

So-called “low-level” waste, such as the old steam generators, and the old pumps, pipes, valves, etc., which are being swapped out at the same time as the steam generator replacement project is going on, will be irradiating people, and will get into our children’s braces eventually.

No reactor should ever be restarted.  Period.  Shut them ALL down and dismantle / decommission them.  All other choices are folly.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Last March, I became aware of a situation that gave me great pause of concern. I read that U.S. Intelligence had captured a U.S. Citizen in Somalia and while interrogating him they discovered that he had worked as a laborer in 5 of our nuclear power plants here in the eastern part of the country. Having worked for NSA back in the early 1970′s I quickly realized that he wasn’t there just for the money. I suspect that he was there probing for ways to plan future attacks on our nuclear power plants. The M.O. was similarly eerie to that of the planning and implimentation that brought down the World Trade Centers on 9/11.  Instead of their trying to bring a nuclear device into this country, why not take advantage of the ones that are readily available in this country (our nuclear power plants). The terrorists found a way to circumvent our security right underneath our eyes and used what they found readily available in our aviation training schools and used our own planes as low level missiles.

I suspect this is what this terrorist was looking for when he entered 5 of our nuclear power plants then took this information back to others in his demented organization. It is my sense that these so called secure facilities have already been breached numerous times in the past and that plans have already been circulated among their cadre that may include possible attacks on the water pumps, or control rooms at these breached locations.

All we have to do is to remember what occurred in France in WWII when the German bombers pounded their cities mercessly destroying everything they encountered. France today gets 80% of their electricity from Nuclear Power. They are very proud of this technical achievement. I am rather astounded to think that they must surely have attained an implicit pact with God himself, which clearly states that their country will never again suffer such indiscriminate destruction, or otherwise, such technically advanced countries would fail to have read their 20th century history. To me, this is utter madness.

Last fall, President Obama reauthorized the resumption of the the building of a very large nuclear power plant in Georgia. I too must assume that he received the same assurrances from the Divine himself, that he would never let anyone with ill content in their veins within one mile of it. I believe that there are many in this counrty who question his judgement. I am one of those frightened skeptics.

All it would take is just one terrorists armed with the knowledge of the plant layout and a few pounds of high explosives, to find his or her way into the newly built facility and detonate a relatively small device sufficient to destroy a water pumping station, or disable their control room sufficiently to cause a Chernobal like event. Having lived in Pennsylvania most of my life, much of the time, the wind blows from the South to the Northeast. If a terrorist, either foreign or domestic, managed to accomplish his or her goal, this could result in a massive radioactive cloud to be blown towards Washington D.C., Philadelphia, New York, and Boston exposing a hundred million innocent people to an “extremely large killer cloud.

My question to you then is WHY? Is it all being perpertrated on us for $PROFIT. Is greed our only and ultimate goal? Ot, is it just plain down right absolute stupidity?  Are we too smart by half?

Related posts: