Group items tagged

Important questions about energy confront our newly elected political leaders: What sources of energy will we depend on in the future? How long will they last? What are the impacts of using different energy sources? In my last column, I wrote that U.S. oil reserves are limited, and even if we decide to increase drilling offshore, it would take at least five years to get a platform ready to drill. Well, it's always encouraging to learn that people actually read this column; the president of a Texas offshore wind power company wrote to correct my statement regarding how long it would take to get a drilling rig ready.

To fight climate change, alternative fuels and conservation are essential, but they are not enough. A constant theme of the campaign of 2008 -- from the race for president to the state's Public Service Commission -- involves re-embracing nuclear power as a clean and available source of energy. Unfortunately, the call among candidates for more nuclear power has often been as shallow as the cry to "drill, baby, drill." Nuclear does need to be part of the nation's energy-production capacity, particularly given the role of fossil fuels in climate change. But nuclear power still faces long-term issues about cost and safety that have not been addressed or even acknowledged.

In last Sunday's Nature Watch column, Gerry Rising displayed his own admitted lack of atomic energy expertise. Nuclear power is not carbon-free. It consumes more fossil fuels in the uranium mining, refining, fuel fabrication and actual power plant construction and operation processes per unit of installed generating capacity than do the trio of the cleanest alternative sources - wind, geothermal and solar - in their production and deployment. A dollar invested in wind produces more energy, leads to a greater reduction in carbon emissions and creates more jobs than one invested in nuclear power, according to experts.

Energy Future Holdings (EFH) determination to build two nuclear generating plants near Glen Rose shows its corporate inability to change its long-term strategy in spite of overwhelming odds against success. (See: "Energy company looking to the challenges ahead," Oct. 12) After backing off plans to build 11 coal-burning power plants in Texas in 2007, you would think they would study their options more carefully. EFH should have considered solar PV (photovoltaic) power. Numerous U.S. electric utilities are moving aggressively toward utility-scale solar power generation as part of their long-term solution to growing demand for lower-cost electric power.

As a fellow exile from Neath, along with Sian Lloyd (Western Mail Business, October 15), I read with some incredulity that the West Wales Business Forum has joined the atomic advocacy club. But generously, it is supporting a new reactor being constructed in Anglesey - just about as far away from West Wales as it is possible to go without leaving the nation. Of course, even if planning permission for such a plant was to be given this month (which it won't!), it would take at least 10 years before any power could be generated.

Recently, I attended a debate organized by the Saskatchewan Council for International Co-operation regarding pro- and anti- positions on developing nuclear energy in Saskatchewan. More than 1,000 people showed up between events in Saskatoon and Regina. While each debater was a long-term, respected advocate of their position and well-informed on issues and potential positive and negative impacts of the uranium cycle, unfortunately these were many of the same arguments for and against nuclear energy that I heard 20 years ago. Some things have changed since then, however, and were largely missing from the debate.

The latest news about the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository has left me feeling a little down in the dumps. New federal guidelines, announced this month, mandate that the facility be capable of securing highly radioactive nuclear waste for a period of one million years. A previous standard of only 10,000 years was deemed to be insufficient.

Ontario must build at least $15-billion worth of nuclear plants to back out of dirty coal and better meet power growth requirements for the next few generations. This major contract is to be awarded in March and three rivals are in the running: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), which is 100% owned by Ottawa, Toshiba (formerly the nuclear division of Westinghouse) and Areva, the world's biggest nuclear company, 90% owned by France.

Do we so easily forget the nuclear plant disaster at Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island accident, that we are ready to re-license Vermont Yankee in the face of its continuing accidents and problems? Why do we think we're immune from disaster? The only real control we have over Vermont Yankee is shutting it down in 2012. We have no control over where the spent fuel is stored. Do you remember when the mountains of north-central Vermont were considered as a nuclear storage site? We didn't want the stuff in our back yard, so how can we imagine other people - especially poor, rural, indigenous people - want it in theirs?

Neil Craig (Letters, 23 October) gives a figure of 1.3p per kilowatt hour for the cost of French electricity. This is as dishonest as many of the statements of nuclear advocates. The French tariff is complicated and depends on your connection rating, the time of day and three different day "colours" announced day to day, depending on expected demand. An excellent explanation can be found on Google. For the typical example of 3000kWh at the cheap rate, 2000kWh normal rate, plus the connection charge for 9kW, the total was 0.11 per kilowatt hour in 2004 . Can Mr Craig say where he got the 1.3p figure?

After 60 years and many billions of dollars in government subsidies, nuclear power should finally have to prove itself on its own merits - which evidently it cannot do in a free market. Not only are taxpayers and citizens shouldering an unfair burden of the costs of nuclear power, but, even with these subsidies, as consumers we will be forced to cover the rising costs of nuclear plant construction. These costs have consistently been well above even the high price tag quoted at the start of the project. Overruns of 50 percent or more will be paid by energy consumers, as utility rates are raised ever higher to protect guaranteed profits for investors.

Which energy technologies get the heftiest subsidies? We've been debating that here in the Lab as nuclear-power advocates and renewable-energy advocates accuse each other of being on the dole. Here's a set of numbers to consider, courtesy of a vigorous debate on nuclear power at the Reason Foundation between William Tucker, the author of "Terrestrial Energy" (discussed in my Findings column) and Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute (quoted in a recent Lab post).

A big decision about nuclear weapons facing the next president will be "to build or not to build," but there's more to this story. The new president will need to decide whether to keep thousands of American nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired at a moment's notice, or to eliminate this potentially catastrophic cold war posture.

Nuclear power can be a safe, clean, major source of electricity. Next year marks the 30th anniversary of the accident at Three Mile Island, which stunned America and effectively shut down the building of domestic nuclear power plants. But now that existing US plants have logged nearly three decades of safe, uneventful operation, nuclear power is ready to step onto center stage again.

While public pressure is finally achieving cleaner fossil plant emissions, Sen. John McCain adamantly insists that nuclear energy is safe and efficient. In recent years, the press reveals bit by bit the litany of dangerous nuclear plant vulnerabilities, most importantly those of toxic waste storage and close-call meltdowns. As there is always the risk of possible multiple state catastrophes, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to uphold the ultimate, stringent, no-fail safety standards. But, the NRC has been attacked by congressional lawmakers for its secrecy.

As the Liberty Union candidate for lieutenant governor, I want to point out, that the Vermont Yankee reactor had another evacuation this week. Also notice that Yankee can't seem to operate for more than a few weeks without having to power down, and guess what, the lights are still on. Yankee only provides 2 percent of the power in New England and it is leaving a legacy of toxic dry casks that will be lethal for the next 250,000 years. We do not currently have the technology to change the dry casks, but their designed lifespan is 100 years. When Entergy purchased the reactor, they had a surplus in the decommissioning fund, and now they want us to pay the $400 million difference?

Once despised as the symbol of everything bad the atomic age stood for, it is now rehabilitated and is the symbol of the path to energy independence. It was potentially blamed for everything from mutant reptiles and insects, to melting down into the core of the earth and out again to China, to an explosion that would destroy millions of people, major cities and contaminate vast areas of the planet forever (as in Chernobyl). Now its image has been refinished and it shines as a cheap, safe, reliable source of the electric power we need to become free from our addiction to oil. Yes it's the once never popular but now ever popular nuclear reactor power station. Forget the problem of a Three Mile Island, Nukes are now the solution. Or so says some of the common wisdom being tossed around by candidates of both parties, some scientists, lots of business people (especially those in the nuclear power plant business) and a few other fools who haven't looked past the potential popularity and profits to the long term and deeply disturbing problem of nuclear produced power.

It cost millions to build one nuclear power plant. It will not give us jobs. It just takes a few people to run one. There are dangerous radioactive materials stored in special boxes near the plant that cannot be disposed of. Water has to constantly run to keep the reactors cooled. If something were to happen, there would be death for miles around, like the atomic bomb, and radiation for years to come. Politicians are talking about building these plants, yet we need to work at getting these tariff acts removed and get jobs back in the United States and put American-made products on our shelves.

Recently Hugo Chavez, whom I admire, has suggested that Venezuela needs to build a nuclear power plant for energy needs in the future. Do not do it! Nuclear power is probably the worst way to produce power when one takes all factors into consideration.

With the election over, let's use real numbers when discussing energy. Jim Barksdale, founding CEO of Netscape, preached "you can't manage what you don't measure." I agree. But in today's concerns about energy independence or security, numbers don't seem to matter. Examples abound from this election: 1) We're sending $700 billion abroad to buy imported oil. Fact: Our net cost of imported oil this year will be about $400 billion due to the midyear price spike. 2) We're dependent on the Middle East for our oil. Fact: We import oil from 60 countries; Canada and Mexico are our first and third largest suppliers. Persian Gulf suppliers provide less than 20 percent of imports; thus, we send about $5 billion a month to the gulf.