I began writing this article more than two years ago in preparation for Energy Independence Day on October 19th, 2004. I cannot think of a more appropriate time to complete it than today, four days before the largest mobilization in the history of the youth climate movement, our Week of Climate Action and just hours after the release of a new report by Greenpeace USA and other climate advocates that shows that the United States can indeed address global warming without relying on nuclear power or so-called “clean coal”.
ad·dic·tion
Pronunciation: &-’dik-sh&n
Function: noun
: compulsive physiological need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be physically, psychologically, or socially harmful —compare HABITUATION, SUBSTANCE ABUSE
What could be more “physically, psychologically, and socially harmful” than an energy policy that disrupts the global climate and compromises the health, security, and prosperity of human society?
Not only is America addicted to fossil fuels, recent evidence suggests that this addiction may be getting worse, not better. Today’s New York Times article, “Energy Research on a Shoestring” illustrates the point loud and clear:
“We are going dirtier,” said Amy Jaffe, an energy expert at the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. “If you need to come up with a fuel source other than drilling for oil under the ground in the Middle East, what is the most obvious thing with today’s economy, today’s infrastructure and today’s technology? Oil shale, liquefied coal and tar sands. It’s all dirty but it’s fast.”
There is no doubt that global warming has become a much more potent topic in mainstream U.S. culture, national politics, business circles, and the news media within the last year. However, this recent popularity should not cloud the fact that the majority of corporate America and the United States federal government are still headed full-steam in the wrong direction right now.
In his State of the Union address, instead of calling for a bold, immediate, and comprehensive plan for clean, renewable energy development with Project Apollo-sized investments, President Bush called for more investment in the same mature fossil industries that have received billions of dollars in federal subsidies and tax breaks for more than 90 years.
Contrary to popular belief, the greatest barrier to clean energy investment in the United States is not one of scientific or economic feasibility, but rather one of political will.
Addiction is characterized by the “persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be physically, psychologically, or socially harmful.” The consequences of using dirty energy sources like fossil fuels, nuclear, and incineration on our society and our environment have been understood somewhere deep in the public consciousness since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Unfortunately once the United States made its initial taxpayer investments in dirty energy technologies there has been no turning back. With global warming now threatening to drown our future in disease, droughts, heat waves, extreme weather, and scores of the world’s first environmental refugees, there is no choice but to intervene in our nation’s dirty energy addiction.
Hooked on a Myth
Most people believe that if America hasn’t invested aggressively in clean energy it is because the technologies are not yet mature enough compared to other conventional technologies, which have proven to be more cost-effective in a fair marketplace. However, a closer investigation proves that this is just not the case. In fact, solar radiation technology is more than 140 years old and utility-scale wind energy technology is more than 70 years old. Despite the long-term existence of clean, safe, and sensible alternatives, right now 90 percent of the electricity in the United States comes from the mining and processing of coal, oil, gas, and uranium (1). Almost all of the long-distance transportation in the US involves burning gas or oil. These realities are not some accident of the free market. They are a result of 90 years of very expensive decisions from government and industry leaders.
Coal, oil, gas, and nuclear power have all benefited from massive public investment for well beyond the time when they could be considered “new” or “fledgling” technologies. The US government started giving tax breaks for oil and gas production in 1916. Subsidies for the coal industry started in 1932 when the federal government began allowing coal companies to deduct the value of coal removed from a mine from their income. Today, the United States government spends $20 billion a year to subsidize the coal and oil industries (2).
Nuclear power has also received massive taxpayer support for more than fifty years. Since World War II, nuclear power has been looked to as a potential silver-bullet solution to limited fossil fuel supplies and environmental problems like acid rain and climate change. However, despite receiving more than $61 billion in research and development dollars from the US government between 1948 and 1995- almost two-thirds of all federal support for energy research and development (3), nuclear power continues to suffer a scarred history of inefficiency, soil and air contamination, hazardous waste, and tragic meltdowns.
It can certainly be argued that the energy sector IS deserving of long-term public investment in as much as energy has become a necessity for public well being and security. However, the privilege of subsidies and tax breaks for coal, oil, gas, and nuclear technology over other promising technologies has kept cleaner, safer alternatives in the early development stages for generations. Two of the most renewable and effective alternative energy technologies competing with coal and nuclear today are solar and wind power. Given the scale of funding needed to support utility-scale power facilities, the solar and wind energy industries have been crippled by a lack of government funding.
The first utility-scale wind energy conversion systems were developed in 1931 in Russia. A giant 1.25 MW turbine was installed in Vermont in 1941. Experimental wind power facilities in the United States, Denmark, France, Germany, and Great Britain during the period of 1935-1970 showed that large-scale wind turbines could operate effectively (4). With the oil crisis of 1973, the US government finally began an investment program to develop wind energy. However, despite showing impressive early results, the government withdrew funding as oil prices dropped and the program became ineffective. Fortunately, due to large private investment in the U.S. and significant public and private investment in Europe and Japan, the wind industry has since recovered and is now cost-competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear power in many places inside of the United States.
Auguste Mouchout began warning people about the shortcomings of coal power back in 1860. Unsatisfied with the technology, he put his efforts into studying solar power. Between 1860 and 1880 he laid the foundation for our modern understanding of converting solar radiation into mechanical steam power. Just before World War I, scientists had outlined all of the solar thermal conversion methods now being considered. By 1912 Sun Power Co. had built a solar pumping station that cost $150 per horsepower, which compared with $80 per horsepower for a coal system. Considering that the additional investment would be recouped in a few years because the fuel was free, it looked as if solar power could finally compete with coal and oil in the year 1912. Unfortunately, the Sun Power Co. facility was destroyed in World War I and solar power investment stalled for the next 50 years (5).
Public reliance on technically complex and often hazardous energy sources has been consistently solidified by massive taxpayer investment. Notably, commercial, fission-related nuclear power development received subsidies worth $15.30 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) between 1947 and 1961. This compares with subsidies worth $7.19/kWh for solar and 46 cents/kWh for wind between 1975 and 1989 (6). With concerns looming about the environment, economic security, global resource wars, equity and monopoly power, public support for alternative energy development has been strong for the past thirty years. However, many of the largest new project investments have gone into the fossil fuel and nuclear industries rather than towards alternative technologies.
One of the more recent proposed solutions to the environmental consequences of traditional energy systems has been the so-called “Clean Coal” programs. While this may sound like a new idea to many of us, the U.S. Congress has actually spent more than 20 years subsidizing the coal industry for the “Clean Coal” Technology Program, allocating $3.3 billion since 1984 (7, 8). Like nuclear power, the “Clean Coal” programs have proven largely ineffective and wasteful despite generous taxpayer investment. While these programs aim to reduce smog and small particle pollution from smokestacks, they do nothing to reduce the environmental and human impact of coal mining, transportation, and sludge. Furthermore, this technology does not reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of a coal-fired power plant. Finally, and most importantly, “clean coal” programs are tied to the multi-billion dollar development of new coal-fired power plants, facilities that, if erected in 2007, would be designed keep us reliant on mining and burning coal well past 2057. This is simply not practical given the implications of global warming.
A New Path
While the United States continues to spend billions of dollars each year to subsidize the coal, nuclear, oil and gas industries with relatively little investment in clean, renewable energy, countries around the world are beginning to embrace clean energy and pollution-reduction schemes. Globally, wind energy has now become the world’s fastest growing energy source. In the U.S., hundreds of businesses, schools, and communities are making significant investments in energy efficiency, solar and wind power.
America’s addiction to dirty energy sources has been allowed to persist largely because those bearing the brunt of this burden have traditionally held little clout in the U.S. political system: poor people, people of color, and young people. Fortunately, that paradigm can and has changed in important points in our nation’s history. In October of 2004, by declaring their independence from dirty energy and committing to action for clean alternatives, more than 27,000 U.S. youth took a bold step towards derailing a very powerful set of corporate interests and enabling a clean, renewable energy future. Since that date, students and youth have launched campaigns to transform more than 450 high schools, colleges, and universities through the Campus Climate Challenge, a campaign that in 2006 alone, helped to win a range of clean energy and climate commitments at more than 84 institutions.
For nearly a century, the energy policies that determine how we power our lives in the United States have led us down an increasingly more dangerous road. Federal tax breaks and subsidies for the mature, yet highly volatile industries of coal, oil and gas, and nuclear power have propped up technologies that would otherwise have since become obsolete. These technologies have fueled international conflict, compromised the health of our communities, and irreparably disrupted the global climate. For decades, clean energy and efficiency technologies have existed that can produce more jobs, protect the environment and public health, and enable a potent international response to global warming.
Today, young people have a choice to make. We can sit back and hope that in a changing political climate our leaders shift away from 90 years of bad policy and start looking out for future generations or we can rise to the climate challenge and take matters into our own hands by speaking up, taking action, and making them represent us.
To paraphrase Democratic Senator Jim Webb in response to President’s State of the Union Address on Tuesday night, if our Representatives act to end our nation’s addiction to dirty energy and begin a clean energy revolution, we will join them. If they do not, we will be showing them the way. Get involved!
SOURCES:
1) “Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer” http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html
2) “Clean Energy’s True Potential” by Ross Gelbspan – http://www.fpif.org/media/opeds/2003/1222gelbspan-energy_body.html
3) Third World Traveler – http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Nuclear_Subsidies.html
4) “Making Wind a Federal Case” – http://telosnet.com/wind/govprog.html
5) History of Solar Energy – http://www.solarenergy.com/info_history.html
6) – http://www.unplugsalem.org/FES.htm
7) “An Overview of Senate Energy Bill Subsidies to the Fossil Fuel Industry” http://www.taxpayer.net/greenscissors/LearnMore/senatefossilfuelsubsidies.htm 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_act_of_2005
See this interesting article and discussion about “clean coal”.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Regarding “Anatomy of An Addiction” (2007-01-25) and its comments about nuclear power, there really is no no need for that in the US because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to ‘concentrating solar power’ (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, these are not always nearby! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient ‘HVDC’ transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US. CSP plants in the south western states of the US could easily meet the entire current US demand for electricity.
In the recent ‘TRANS-CSP’ report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.
Further information about CSP may be found at http://www.trec-uk.org.uk and http://www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .
Where exactly has all of this soil contamination, meltdowns, and toxic waste occurred?
Please do a little research on nuclear energy before getting sucked into the hype.
Nuclear energy is extremely efficient, emits nearly nothing, and generates a tiny quantity of waste that is 95% recyclable. The only US “meltdown” was a partial meltdown of Three Mile Island in 1979. Why don’t you tell the class how many people died or even had “radiation sickness” as a result? Why don’t you tell your readers how such a tragic accident has affected the lives and property values of the people living right within sight of that reactor? And how has the other identical reactor right next to it done in the 28 years since then?
If you do just a little research, and talk to a few of the nuclear professionals in this country, you’d find that nuclear is an extremely valuable player in the fight against climate change. Perhaps why that’s why so many environmentalists like Greenpeace founder, Dr. Patrick Moore now publicly supports nuclear energy.
Michael, I think you are forgetting one little aspect of the nuclear industry, and that’s called radioactive waste. I happen to be in Washington state, living rather close to the Hanford site, where nuclear waste has leaked out of its underground containers, has contaminated the groundwater within the Hanford reservation and is travelling downstream to the Columbia River. When this contamination reaches the Columbia, we can say goodbye to the salmon that are barely clinging to existence here in the Northwest, the icon of our region. And that’s just one effect. Although there have been no direct deaths yet in the US due to the nuclear industry, it is not at all harmless. Until we can devise a way to permanenetly and safely dispose of the waste produce during nuclear reactions, the nuclear industry will be highly dangerous to the people of this country, and thus NOT the answer to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
There is no Soviet Union anymore, but everybody remember those great victories and defeats. We trusted in idea and we made our history through great losses…
http://www.backinussr.com
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R11
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy sources must change.
“Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. “Let’s face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy.” The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products should be reduced or eliminated)
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
“To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality.”
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325
Jan. 26, 2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America’s capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis–the one in 1942–President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X’s 5 hrs per day X’s 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2
4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”)
Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on “performance based” (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product – that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.
Installing renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage.
Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.
Jay Draiman
Northridge, CA 91325
Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com
Juliana,
I appreciate your calm and rational approach to discussing nuclear power, which I find absent from most environmentalist discussions. You have a very good point, and I’d like to comment on it.
Nuclear “waste” typically means the high level used nuclear fuel that has been through the reactor and is currently being stored on site at the nuclear plants across the country awaiting shipment to a permanent repository.
There are three big things to remember when talking about this waste:
1. Nuclear fuel is not some green glowing ooze which is stored in rusty barrels. It is made of solid ceramic pellets, similar to dinner plates. Imagine a dinner plate falling from the table and breaking: you wouldn’t worry about them leaking through the floor and getting into your groundwater.
2. The amount of waste generated by nuclear power is a tiny fraction of that generated by many competing technologies. Even solar panels generate more waste per kW, and the toxicity of the heavy metals and toxic chemicals in the solar panel production process doesn’t have a half-life. If you put it in barrels, it would still be toxic millions of years from now. While wind doesn’t generate much waste and I am a supporter of it, there simply isn’t enough to go around. Besides, energy security comes from a diverse portfolio.
3. Nuclear “waste” is really not waste at all. 95% of the energy is still contained in the fuel. It can be recycled and the waste from first generation reactors can be annihilated in what we call “fast” reactors. France already recycles their fuel and has reactors which are dedicated to “burning” the recycled fuel. To bury used nuclear fuel would be like burying used motor oil. That would be the real waste.
Now, I don’t know a lot about Hanford, but I do understand that it was a badly mismanaged government facility. I can assure you that the *commercial* reactors across the country are the cleanest places to be. I have been working in a commercial facility for 17 years and I can tell you that it is extremely clean. It is so clean that I and many of my co-workers live within the “Emergency Planning Zone”. We have gardens and eat the fish, because I know for a fact how environmentally friendly our commercial US reactors are. Federal oversight is physically present every day. It’s like every time you get in your car, a state trooper is riding in the seat beside you, closing monitoring everything you do.
It is so hard trying to explain to people the difference between Department of Defense nuclear projects and commercial nuclear operations. Comparing defense nuclear to commercial nuclear is like comparing lead bullets with car batteries. You might not need any bullets, but I’ll bet you depend on your car battery!
But I am but one person that is trying to make a difference one person at a time.
PATRICK MOORE AND THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY – STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
Michael Struar, you need to do some research before calling Patrick Moore and Greenpeace to the table when it comes to nuclear energy.
First lets get the Patrick Moore and Greenpeace connection sorted out. Greenpeace does not support nuclear power. Patrick Moore of Greenspirit Strategies has been riding on the coat tails of Greenpeace for some time. It is a fact that he was one of the many people who founded Greenpeace and campaigned against nuclear testing, whaling, sealing, toxic dumping. He left Greenpeace in 1984 and by 1986 had embarked on a dramatic career change that has pitted him against most environmentalist since. Some have even called him a traitor. Major corporations, such as Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, BHP Minerals, to name but a few, call him their friend. The facts require a clarification of any sentence that associates Patrick Moore with Greenpeace. Most recently he has been employed by the nuclear industry, Michael, you and other reporters should follow the money and do your homework before falling for Patrick Moore’s attempt to sensationalise his views and propell them into the public domain by calling on his ghost past. You would be hard pressed to find anyone at Greenpeace over the past 20 years that agrees with any of his views. It is high time he stopped exploiting the Greenpeace name to sensationalize his diametrically opposite views and stuck to his consulting business name, Greenspirit Strategies.
Now, nuclear power. Nuclear proponents are touting an outdated technology that is dangerous, expensive and by no means climate neutral. The waste stream remains highly toxic for thousands of years, leaving future generations to deal with our lack of resolve to produce and use energy more efficiently and safely. Every dollar spent on energy efficiency and renewables goes 7 – 10 times further on reducing greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear power does. Ultimately we need to reduce our overall consumption if we are serious about tackling climate change. That is a message people are reluctant to hear because we are so set in out “western lifestyle” and unable to see how unsustainable it is.
Check out the latest report produced by the European Renewable Energy Council EREC) and Greenpeace, in conjunction with specialists from the German Space Agency and more than 30 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes and the renewable energy industry around the world. The Energy [R]evolution is the road map for how to provide power without fueling global warming. We don’t need to look to dirty and expensive energy sources such as nuclear and coal to solve our energy crisis. Reliable renewable energy and conservation can be used to make the cut in carbon emmisions necessary to prevent global warming. This report is a global roadmap. It details a worldwide energy scenario where:
* In the United States, nearly 80% of our electricity can be produced by renewable energy sources.
* Carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced 50% globally and 72% in the U.S. without resorting to an increase in dangerous nuclear power or new coal technologies.
* America’s oil use can be cut over 50% by 2050 with much more efficient cars and trucks, potentially including new plug-in hybrids, increased use of biofuels, and greater reliance on electricity for transportation.
The plan also details how large developing countries like India, China and Brazil can develop and grow using renewable energy to avoid the mistakes of old climate-changing energy economies of developed countries. We can make a safe and sustainable global energy scenario a reality.
Read the full report at
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press/reports/energy-r-evolution-a-bluepr
Read the summary:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press/reports/energy-r-evolution-introduc
Say goodbye to the old, expensive, highly subsidised-with-no-end-in-sight, toxic and dangerous energy of the past and welcome the future. Let’s leave future generations with something we and they can live with.
One last thing on Patrick Moore – printed in the Seattle PI today:
Letters to the Editor, January 26, 2007
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/301226_webltrs26.html
We were deeply offended by Patrick Moore’s opinion piece in Tuesday’s P-I advocating that the Washington Legislature not ban toxic flame retardants that are building up in the environment and the breast milk of Washington women. As 20 former staff with a combined 220 years working for Greenpeace, we are appalled that Moore failed to reveal that he is a paid industry consultant. Instead he trades on his affiliation with the founders of Greenpeace over 30 years ago to claim the moral authority to pronounce current efforts to protect Washington citizens from toxic pollution misguided.
One quick look at his company’s Web site, http://www.greenspiritstrategies.com reveals that, for enough money, he will parrot the talking points of the most polluting industries on the planet. From nuclear power to clearcut logging, from plastics to pesticides, he’ll try to sell your polluting product by exploiting his past affiliation with Greenpeace. Patrick ends his missive by saying he wishes environmentalists would “speak scientific truth to power.” Why didn’t Moore start by just speaking the plain truth? He’s nothing but a paid industry mouthpiece.
Enough said…
Just calling Dr. Patrick Moore a “traitor” doesn’t make it so. You can call him anything you want, but by his own account, many environmentalists are their own worst enemies.
What do you consider an “outdated technology”? Is capturing the energy of the wind with a large structures a modern technology? Hmmm… I don’t think the age of a technology has much to do with its usefulness, but if you would use this as a reason to be against nuclear, then I don’t consider it a valid argument.
Yes. I agree we need to conserve! We are united in this goal! But, any gains made by conservation should first target the dirty, polluting energy that is doing immediate harm to our planet. Currently, 80% of our energy is provided by digging, drilling, or pumping something out of the ground and setting it on fire. This is the out-dated technology that needs to be replaced! Once we kick the fossil fuel habit, then we can target those other outdated technologies!
Waste? Have you been paying attention, or do you just not believe your eyes? I’ll repeat: 95% of what we consider “nuclear waste” can be recycled and used up as fuel for fast neutron reactors! It’s not “waste” unless we decide not to use it. Since we pioneered the recycling technology and France is actually using it, we know that it’s not a technical problem. It’s a political one. And as long as anti-nuclear activists keep spreading the propaganda that it’s toxic for a million years and there’s nothing we can do about it, it will just make it that much harder to fix the policy.
80% renewables? Check out the American Wind Energy Association’s website. They say that with consistent government policy support, wind *could* supply about 20% of the electricity by 2020. What they don’t say is how to cover the remaining 80%. And with population growth, increasing dependence of electricity [where do you think all of that electricity will come from to recharge 60 million hybrid-electric vehicles???], our electrical demand will certainly not decrease.
I hope that renewables will become significantly more efficient and that their use will take hold like kudzu in Missippi, but hope is not a strategy. The fact is we have a huge problem that must be dealt with immediately. And the only technology that is currently capable and available in sufficient quantity to address this *immediate* problem is nuclear energy.
Hey! This is funny! This is what I mean by environmentalists being their own worst enemies. Please take a look at the following graph and tell me what three energy technologies need to be eliminated to have a serious impact on curbing global warming:
Unless of course, you don’t believe this global warming thing is real.
No, you’ll instead want to wave your magic wand and say, “Be gone, evil fossil fuels and nuclear power! This graph is wrong just because I say so!”
You forget that the masses don’t react to wishful thinking. They need a crisis. And unfortunately, by the time a crisis is obvious to the masses, it will be far too late, and you will have inefficiently used your energy opposing our best hope – nuclear energy.
Take your own advice: Conserve your energy and apply it efficiently on the real problem – fossil fuels.
“lease take a look at the following graph and tell me what three energy technologies need to be eliminated to have a serious impact on curbing global warming:”
The graph is located at the top of the post.
PATRICK MOORE IS HIS OWN WORST ENEMY
His most recent attempt to become the apologist for the chemical industry producing PDBEs. Patrick Moore has never published one pier-reviewed paper in his life and he goes around parading as a specialist and an expert. Just because you put a “Dr.” in from of your name does not make you so. All you have to do is follow the money and you can see where Patrick Moore is coming from. It is not from Credibility Street, I’ll tell you that for nothing.
Someone on a list I am on suggested we all start a contest to see what Patrick Moore will endorse next. Here are some suggestions:
Muktuk – a high-protein part of a balanced diet
Bottom Trawling – Keeping the ocean floor clean and tidy in order to guarantee survival for our undersea brethren.
Strip Mining – What keeps the mountain folk in the grip of poverty? Mountains! In the name of prosperity, take ‘em all down
Enough about Patrick Moore
ON ANOTHER NOTE…
Mr. Stuart, renewables include a number of other technologies apart from wind. Solar seems to be absent in your comments, I wonder why? Perhaps you have not heard of it. We get enough solar energy every day to meet our annual energy needs. Instead of investing money in nuclear we should be investing it in solar, other technologies and efficiency. They have much better returns and if we pumped the kind of money nuclear takes into them they would work wonders. Read the report by following the link above rather than picking one of the points listed and skewing it.
I still maintain a very toxic process that is fraught with problems including constant leaks from plants many of which never get a mention in the paper as they are kept under the radar. Go to the UK and see what has happened to the Irish Sea due to the water that is used in the cooling process which gets dumped in to the Irish Sea. One mistake can cost a lot of people their lives, health and that does not even start to account for the environment and communities who live thousands of miles away… Chernobyl anyone?
Oh, and did I mention the time it takes to build a nuclear power plant. It take years for a nuclear power plan to come online so in terms of immediate benefits you are not going to get them from nuclear. The toxic pile-up of waste in all US facilities is a threat to people in the surrounding communities and the plan to put it at Yucca mountain would turn Nevada into the dumping ground for the US not to mention the transport issue to Yucca mountain. Shipping nuclear waste around the world to recycle is not terribly clever, it is dangerous and those ships are using fossil fuels as well or are you suggesting we power the ships with nuclear technology as well.
Oh, and did I mention the cost?
Oh, and did we mention the communities around the world, mostly indigenous peoples, who have their land taken from them and who suffer from sickness due to Uranium mining. Yep can you believe it! You actually dig the stuff out of the ground, it doesn’t just appear out of thin air — note your comment about digging and so forth earlier. Even recycling the rods has problems leaving enormous amounts of contamination in its wake. Nuclear technology is dangerous from cradle to grave. Keep Uranium in the ground and out of power plants. There is no hope associated with nuclear technology. When you are in a hole you try to get out of it, not dig another one next to it in the hope that that hole is going to be better.
Our best chance is solar, wind, efficiency and other renewable sources of energy (I don’t count hydro unless you are talking about micro-hydro in those) and consumption reduction.
I sometimes wonder when I read this kind of fierce debate if anyone is organizing a conference where a host of people from broad backgrounds, values, ideas, and worldviews get together to debate, present evidence, values and opposing mindsets to each other? Not merely to prove that “I’m right and you’re wrong”, but to really understand each other and try to move forward together pragmatically? Is Obama’s “new politics” of compromise worth considering seriously? How can we compromise without losing our ideals?
How should one understand attacks such as Mr. Stuarts and Krikors that undermine and make each other into the problem, road blocks to a stable climate? Am I misunderstanding what’s going on here in this blog discussion?
Should nuclear energy be part of a 21st century energy portfolio or not? Not “what do you think?”, but should it? Objectively. Could there be a new moral context of shared understanding that is rooted in FACT, not theory or SPIN?
Are there any youth out there in the global climate movement interested in having this dialouge or organizing a setting for this conversation?
It’s really unfortunate that this entry was hijacked. Josh hardly mentioned nuclear power, and then Michael Stuart, a nuclear industry PR employee, derailed the real and pressing content of his post. And then a few other folks followed suit.
I really appreciate y’all that are interested in having real discussions here. It’s pretty clear that we need to start talking. Now, I have mixed feelings about an “open forum” because certain agents have much more power (and $) behind them, to turn it into a “slanted forum.” I know some pretty scary things about nuclear power, have very little confidence in their ability to affect climate change, and very high confidence in their ability to be devastating and racist. It is pretty clear to me that we need culture change to address Josh’s concerns, not technology shift.
In the future, it would be cool if y’all could focus on dialogue and at least meandering nearby the topic at hand. In the end, this blog is a fairly level and democratic setting, and is a good place to have these kinds of discussions. They can happen if we want them to.
If I might respond to “A Concerned Youth”, the “facts” over the energy debate (coal, solar, nuclear, etc) have been discussed ad nauseum for years. I would argue that it is precisely our visions for a future world are a forgotten part of the debate. Our values and vision shape how we approach solutions to global climate change. Carbon sequestration and nuclear energy are acceptable if your vision is to continue (and extend to other parts of the world) a high technology, high energy use society. If your priority is to have society with less concentrated social/economic power and to modify lifestyles accordingly, then small-scale technologies fit the bill.
Please forgive any gross simplifications I may have made for purposes of brevity.
re: Matt — I agree that discussions should probably stay on point to the initial post, and I’d be curious to hear what Josh thinks of this whole string of comments. I also wonder if Art, the webmaster for this blog, couldn’t create an old fashioned AOL-style chat room so we could flush out some of these questions real time. Lastly, I wish there was someway to be notified when people post a reply to your comment or blog post, like many social networking sites offer.
Your fear about an “open forum” being slanted b/c of big money in the nuclear industry etc. is interesting. I’ve never thought of that. What if the forum was conducted in a nuetral environment and in a context of finding a new moral compass for the 21st century? Perhaps it could be facilitated or led by people who have no particular interest in anything but discovering a new way of working together? This site provides an interesting framework for discussing a revolution in the way we communicate accross value spheres. Is that what you meant by culture change? Or did you mean more in terms of ecological awareness?
re: Robert — You make a good point. Facts are facts, and what kind of world we want is debatable, precisely because values and visions differ in the spectrum of humanity. You sound like you probably value distributed social/economic power and small-scale technologies. Now, what if our nuclear friend values a heiarchy of wealth and large-scale technology? Is one right and one wrong? Are both right? If both were right, then what kind of energy policy is right? I don’t the answers here, and these are not easy questions.
I just think this kind of discussion is what is needed in this fractured world of us vs. them. If we can’t learn to understand each other more deeply and work accross value-lines, I think there is little hope for the future of humanity. Too many conferences about climate change seem to be settings for what I like to call “Green” value system talking to “green” value system (i.e. “preaching to the choir”), which is FINE, and probably still important. I’m just personally convinced that until we can work with all value systems, the movement wave will only be ripples, and never the tidal wave we need ecologically.
If anyone wants to work together on organizing a conference like this for 2008, as maybe part of Focus the Nation (www.focusthenation.org), please get in touch: noahmunro@gmail.com. Happy Week of Action!
Certainly the debate over climate change and ending oil addiction does not often discuss the values/vision question. If you ever read Ansel Adams autobiography, he talked about his debate with David Brower over Diablo Canyon. What was interesting was that he described their disagreement over the vision for the Sierra Club and the environmental movement rather than arguing over millirems or tons of CO2. Quite an eye-opener.
Paid PR guy? Hah! I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has accused me of being paid to promote nuclear energy. In the interest of complete disclosure, I am a *volunteer* PR guy who uses my vacation time and my own money to help educate interested members of the public about nuclear energy.
But what if I was paid to talk about nuclear energy? That doesn’t mean I’m allowed to lie about it.
Krikor, why do you rail against me for not mentioning solar? I am not a solar engineer, but that doesn’t mean I’m against it. No technology can meet the future demands all by itself. We need every form of non-carbon-emitting energy if we are going to address the very real and immediate problem of climate change. And conservation too!
Chernobyl? That kind of reactor was inherently unsafe, and no one in the US has built or would consider building a reactor anything like it. It’s like saying that blimps should never be built because of what happened to the Hindenberg.
It takes a long time to get new generation on line regardless of the power source. So we’d better get started.
There’s no hope in nuclear technology? Well, the world energy markets aren’t taking your advice. There are scores of reactor construction projects going on all around the world and over 30 reactors in various stages of permitting in the US.
I’m all for having an intelligent discussion about this. I live in Richmond, Virginia, but I’ll gladly travel. It’s easy to look at these typed words and dismiss the author as some sinister villian, but on a personal note – I really do care about the earth and environment. I have two little girls that need clean air and a habitable earth. Not that this will stop anyone from making any personal attacks against me, but I’m used to it.
There are a lot of recent speeches about climate change available free at Radio Ecoshock.
http://www.ecoshock.org
For example, a summary of Ross Gelbspan, author of “Boiling Point”; Sir Nicholas Stern’s Testimony to the U.S. Senate Energy Committee (in February); and British economist Adair Turner explaining why we don’t have to choose between spending on climate change reduction and poverty.
A good source to LISTEN to the planet. Free. No ads.
Alex.
By the way, I’ve done my homework and can finally intelligently address Gerry Wolff’s comment.
Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is no substitute for nuclear energy!
CSP is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.
Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state’s electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.
Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity, hands down. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What’s more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.
Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this could disrupt the delicate ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf ), these systems are “hybridized” with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!
Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation. Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources. In the medium term, we cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer. To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=11 and http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNuclear/TheBasics/tabid/66/Default.aspx
Michael, you certainly have done some homework, but as usual, I wonder if your research was designed to educate and inform yourself, or rather to search for material that helps you argue your particular case – that nuclear is the (only?) way to go.
I’ve done my homework too, and with no personal or financial interest in Concentrating Solar Power, I feel obligated to defend the highly promising technology from this seemingly deliberate attempt to discredit it, lest it become a competitor for your beloved nuclear power (your angle consistently seems to be that a renewable energy technology is OK, unless they threaten nuclear power, in which case you’d better point out all the flaws of that given technology…)
As for your three specific reasons why concentrating solar power, or CSP, is a supposedly unworkable solution, your slant clearly comes through in each of them.
First, as far is the ‘inefficiency’ of CSP, you first state the fact that CSP only generates 2 tenths of 1% of California’s power demand. That has nothing to with efficiency (and I’m sure you know that), but rather speaks to the low level of market penetration of this technology. There’s only basically one CSP plant in California, , the series of SEGS plants built in the 1980s. But the low market penetration of CSP is unrelated to the efficiency of a CSP plant and to attempt to link them is misleading.
You then go on to say that the SEGS plants have “notoriously low capacity factors” that prevent them from being a reliable source of baseload power. First, I would ask you to provide a figure for the capacity factor of these plants, or better yet, for the new generation of CSP plants being built now. CPS is currently undergoing a renaissance after years of stagnant development, and the new generation of plants is both cheaper and more reliable than those build 20-30 years ago. Using the old plants as your comparison is as misleading as comparing first generation commercial nuclear facilities with current Generation III nuclear reactors or the state of the art Generation IV reactors you are so often touting at NEI Nuclear Notes.
As you mention later on, CSP plants utilize molten salts as both a heat transfer medium, and as an energy storage medium (you fail to mention the latter). The ability to store thermal energy in the salts for later use allows CSP plants to both shape their power output on a short term (inter-hourly) basis, and (if equipped with storage tanks), to provide long-term storage allowing them to even operate 24 hours a day, delivering dispatchable power to meet peak demands. That’s a major advantage over other more intermittent renewables like wind power, and leads not to “notoriously low capacity factors” as you state, but rather quite high ones. The new Solar Tres solar power tower-style plant being built will have an annual capacity factor of 65%, for example, (on par with natural gas plants, by way of comparison) and will be able to operate 24 hours a day during summer months.
Finally, arguing that CSP can’t provide baseload power is really beside the point, as baseload plants aren’t the only kind of power plants. In fact, meeting peak power demands is crucial, and CSP excels in this service. In most places where CSP is appropriate (e.g. America’s desert southwest), peak demand periods come in the summer months when A/C loads are high. That also happens to coincide with the peak production periods for CSP plants (the sun is shining when its hottest!), meaning CSP is an excellent resource to meet peak demand periods with clean, renewable and even dispatchable (i.e. reliable) power.
[Capacity factors for those who may not be familiar with the term refers to the percentage of a power plant's maximum rated output or capacity that it operates at on average (usually over a year). A baseload coal or nuclear plant may have a high capacity factor of 80-90% while a peaking natural gas plant might have one as low as 30-50% since it's only run during periods when electricity demand is high. Wind plants, because of their intermittent nature and lack of storage capacity have capacity factors of around 30-45%. A CSP plant can get much better, because of the potential for energy storage in the molten salts, perhaps as high as 65%].
Second, your figures for solar power costs include both CSP and solar photovoltaic costs. This is a common (and potentially misleading) mistake. You are essentially comparing the cost of thousands of tiny (1-3 kW) distributed PV arrays on residential rooftops installed by individual contractors (i.e. the high end of that 13-42 cents/kWh figure) with large (10s to 100s of MW) central station concentrating solar power plants which utilize an entirely different technology and realize economies of scale. But again, I’m suspicious that you knew that when you wrote these points.
Additionally, while 13 cents/kWh may sound high, you’ve got to recognize that that’s at the beginning of a new renaissance for CSP technology, and costs will likely fall, especially if CSP received anywhere near the kind of federal R&D support that the nuclear industry has received over the years. Additionally, even at 13 cents/kWh, CSP competes favorably with peaking natural gas plants. As I mentioned earlier, CSP excels at meeting peak demands, so it is most appropriate to compare them to peaking gas plants.
Finally, your point about relying on back-up generators also ignores the high capacity factors I mentioned above and the fact that the molten salt allows CSP plants to shape and firm their own output. This also assumes that CSP plants are not hybrid plants that utilize natural gas to further shape their own output, which you mention later (when condemning CSP for its supposed environmental impact).
As for your third and final point about environmental impacts, this is just silly. Yes, CSP plants can be efficiently ‘hybridized’ with natural gas-fired generation – both types of generation use steam turbines to generate power and a CSP plant can share it’s turbine with a small natural gas plant. This is a distinct advantage, not a disadvantage, and simply means that rather than build both a peaking gas plant and a CSP plant at different locations, they can be co-located, share turbines and other equipment and operate both more effectively and more economically. Saying that CSP is responsible for the environmental impacts of the natural gas plant is a bit of a stretch, since in reality, every kWh of power produced by a CSP plant is offsetting the need for a kWh of generation at a natural gas plant (the other main alternative for meeting peak power demands). The natural gas-fired power generated at the CSP-natural gas hybrid facility would be generated elsewhere even if the CSP plant didn’t exist. CSP produces clean, renewable power, plain and simple, and saying that “this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions” is highly misleading.
As you conclude, “Today … CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources.” I will agree with you here … for now.
Today, CPS is a clean, renewable replacement for peak energy generation resources – i.e. dirty, inefficient and expensive simple-cycle natural gas plants – and should be developed for that purpose, especially in the American Southwest, with considerably more haste than it has been.
Some day, if or when CSP grows to meet all peaking power demand in the Southwest and additional potential exists, then storage or shaping options should be considered that would enable CSP to meet baseload power needs. This is not a far-fetched possibility considering the already high capacity factors of CSP plants utilizing thermal storage in molten salts. However, after geothermal energy, CSP has the most potential of any clean, renewable energy technology to meet baseload power demands, and I’m confident that with continued innovation, CSP can even offset your precious baseload power.
Michael, I appreciate your input on this and other threads regarding nuclear power. When it comes to nuclear power, rhetoric often drowns out reason and fact (from both sides of the debate). I am not a rabidly anti-nuclear kind of person. I personally believe that all low-carbon generating technologies should at least be on the table at this point – let’s not flatly rule anything out yet – given the severity of the climate crisis. That includes nuclear power. But I would ask you to please refrain from this kind of slanted condemnation of other technologies, and stick to presenting factual information on nuclear power. We all know where your loyalties lie (or they should be obvious at least), and I’m personally happy to read past the slant of your comments for the nugget of truth (of which some of your comments have more than others). But I really can’t abide by the kind of comments you made regarding CSP. It’s the same kind of half-researched, clearly biased comment that are so often made, and you so often vehemently attack, regarding nuclear power.
“to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune…”
When have I *ever* stated that nuclear is the only source of energy that’s worthwhile? Jesse, you seem to think that you have cleverly read between the lines and exposed me. If you really want to see who has the smear campaign going, why don’t you check here first:
http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/cspnn.htm
When I talk about solar, I talk about its limitations — which every power source has. Without my input, the readers of this blog would find a lopsided viewpoint of these technologies – heavy criticism of nuclear power and green sugar-coated niceties for solar.
I work in the nuclear energy field. I happen to be an expert in the field of nuclear energy. Why is it so shocking that I should speak so highly of it? It’s because I know a great deal about it. I have children too! I want a future that is clean and sustainable for them! Nuclear isn’t perfect, but it sure beats a lot of the alternatives!
Now with that said, it is a breath of fresh air to see that someone will admit that Solar and Nuclear are NOT competing technologies. Nuclear is an excellent baseload energy source. Solar is one of several peaking energy sources. They can actually work together very well.
We agree that Solar is not yet a viable baseload energy source. So what is? Currently, 90% of all energy is supplied by either nuclear or fossil fuels. We both agree that fossil fuels ought to be phased out.
Like it or hate it, there is no mature technology available today in sufficient quantities to phase out fossil fuels, meet our *baseload* energy needs, and cover increased demands other than nuclear power. Can we agree on that too?