Group items tagged

The U.S. Department of Energy has announced that disposal of 5.7 million pounds of excess plant oils has been completed by its Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office. Advertisement The work was part of deactivation activities being done by USEC to prepare the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon for decontamination and decommissioning. According to DOE, the removal and disposal of the motor lubricating oils and transformer oils used during uranium enrichment activities at the plant in the past has been a major achievement \to remove a significant fire hazard, eliminate the potential for an environmental release and minimize hazards for workers during decontamination and decommissioning. The plant stopped producing enriched uranium in 2001 and has been in cold shutdown since 2005. The oil disposition work started in 2006 and was stepped up this year -- with 4.1 million of the 5.7 million pounds being removed in just more than nine months this year. The excess oils were incinerated at the Clean Harbors Commercial Incineration Facility in Deer Park, Texas.

The U.S. Department of Energy has announced that disposal of 5.7 million pounds of excess plant oils has been completed by its Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office. Advertisement The work was part of deactivation activities being done by USEC to prepare the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon for decontamination and decommissioning. According to DOE, the removal and disposal of the motor lubricating oils and transformer oils used during uranium enrichment activities at the plant in the past has been a major achievement \to remove a significant fire hazard, eliminate the potential for an environmental release and minimize hazards for workers during decontamination and decommissioning. The plant stopped producing enriched uranium in 2001 and has been in cold shutdown since 2005. The oil disposition work started in 2006 and was stepped up this year -- with 4.1 million of the 5.7 million pounds being removed in just more than nine months this year. The excess oils were incinerated at the Clean Harbors Commercial Incineration Facility in Deer Park, Texas.

The concept of peak oil is not about running out of crude oil. It never has been. A Shell (OTO: RYDAF, Stock Forum) geologist (M. King Hubbert) in the '50s formulated, from his years of study of oil field production, his theory of Peak Oil. He predicted, accurately, that U.S. crude production would peak between 1965 and 1970. The actual year was 1970. If you never again read anything else about peak oil, read this.

"In the article ["Cardin criticizes Obama for offshore drilling, says oil spills could hurt Bay," April 28] it states that Sen. Ben Cardin supports nuclear energy and that Cardin said that nuclear power plants would help protect the environment. The article then states, "'It also would end the reliance on oil from countries unfriendly to the U.S.,' he said." This is incorrect. Nuclear power plants generate electricity. Less than 3 percent of U.S. electricity is oil- based. Therefore, additional nuclear power plants would essentially do nothing to replace the need for foreign oil or any oil for that matter."

Workers at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant contained a small spill of fuel oil Monday morning, the second oil spill in the past couple of weeks. Vermont Yankee, the state's largest generator of electricity, actually heats the plant with boilers fired by fuel oil, according to Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear. Williams said the spill of 5 gallons of fuel oil on pavement was immediately contained and cleaned up by the company's spill response team. He said the spill was the result of a simple mistake of failing to hook up the delivery hoses correctly.

The main beneficiaries of more than $700 billion of federal energy incentives over the past five decades have been the oil and natural gas industries. The oil and natural gas industries together garnered 60 percent of federal incentives between 1950 and 2006, with 46 percent of the roughly $725 billion in federal support going to the oil sector. Our new report shows that the oil industry has benefited from $335 billion in combined incentives, with natural gas receiving $100 billion.

"The "American Power Act", the Kerry/Lieberman energy bill, was drafted to offer a lot of encouragement for offshore drilling. But then the Deepwater Horizon oil rig collapsed in the Gulf of Mexico and reminded everybody that, though drilling rig collapses are extraordinarily rare, they make a disastrous mess when they happen. The incentives to drill were kept, but the legislation was quickly amended to give states veto power over offshore drilling within 75 miles of shore. Why is that offered as a compromise? Does it make any less likely offshore oil rigs might collapse? Of course not. And it only marginally reduces the risk of onshore damage should a spill occur, since whether the oil comes ashore is a matter more of tides and currents and wind and rate of release than proximity. So why does giving states veto power somehow make the risk of offshore drilling seem different? "

"The lesson from Deepwater Horizon isn't that oil is bad and nuclear is good, says Mark Gimein in Slate, it's that, despite our best efforts, accidents happen Slate's Mark Gimein says the BP oil disaster demonstrates why we need to end our pursuit of nuclear power. On first glance, the BP oil spill seems like a good reason to push for more nuclear power, says Mark Gimein at Slate's The Big Money. Nuclear doesn't pollute the air, and it certainly doesn't "turn our beaches black." But, when you look deeper, the real lesson from the BP disaster is that "things go wrong, in unexpected ways, at unexpected times, to catastrophic effect," no matter how many levels of "failsafe" mechanisms we install. Which is why this disaster is a compelling argument against nuclear power. Imagine if Deepwater Horizon had been a nuclear reactor. Here, an excerpt:"

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.

The Gang of 10 (now Gang of 20) offshore oil drilling bill, as it has been characterized, appears headed for a Senate vote late next week. While the bill apparently isn't damaging enough to our environment and future for the "Drill, Baby, Drill" crowd, who are going to try to expand areas allowed for drilling, I won't go into the oil drilling issues here-they've been covered extensively on DK-except perhaps to borrow a phrase about how you can put lipstick on an offshore oil pig and, well, you get the idea.... But what most people-and certainly the mainstream media-haven't yet realized is that the Gang of 20 bill would do much more than open up some of America's coastlines to oil drilling. In fact, it is a major energy bill-the draft runs 233 pages-and delves into energy efficiency and conservation, renewables, coal-to-liquid, and so forth. And 18 of these pages would provide the most significant taxpayer-backed boost to nuclear power ever.

Harwood alluded to the usual stereotypes: "pro-growth versus environmentalism" and "progress versus not-in-my-backyard." But "nuclear power versus imported oil" isn't a stereotype. It's a lie. If we built more nuclear power plants, the impact on our oil imports would be zero. Yes, nuclear reactors and oil are both types of energy, just as apples and vodka both types of calories. No one in the real world -- the oil business and the utility business -- considers one to be an economic substitute for the other.

The Peace River Environmental Society arranged for a series of talks on earthquake risks surrounding the construction of a nuclear power plant near Peace River, one in Fairview at the Legion May 6. The speaker was J.R. (Jack) Century, a petroleum geologist, who suggested that building a nuclear power plant in the Peace country is both unsafe and unnecessary. Century has made a study of seismicity, vibration in the earth's crust, especially as caused by injecting or flooding liquid into and withdrawing liquid from the earth as is done for tarsands and heavy oil recovery where steam is injected to heat heavy oil to make it flow. Century says that underground fractures that help to trap oil and gas underground as well as making it possible to recover them more easily, can be both a blessing and a curse, the latter especially in a limestone structure such as underlies much of the Peace. He believes that injecting into the ground, whether it is steam to recover bitumen or carbon dioxide for storage purposes can alter the "pressure regimen" down below which can lead to increased seismic activity, which in turn could lead to collapses of underground limestone structures and/or possibly catastrophic earthquakes. He pointed to a CBC news story about Japan's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant being damaged by a large earthquake. The damage included fires, water and oil leaks and pipes knocked out of place by the tremors. He implied that the same thing could happen in the Peace. He showed a map of the Peace detailing fault lines and both the original proposed location for the Bruce Power plant at Lac Cardinal and the more recent site are quite close to a fault lines.

"There's a potential problem when drilling for gas, other than the possibility of well-water contamination by methane, brine or "fracking" chemicals (Plain Dealer, Sunday). In 1995, a national organization called the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER) reviewed state regulations on gas and oil wells. One recommendation it made was that the state should test for naturally occurring radioactive material at oil and gas exploration and production sites. In the 2000 and 2005 reviews, the same recommendation was made. Now, 15 years later, legislation requiring the testing has not even been proposed. Is there a reason to be concerned? Yes. An Environmental Protection Agency map of the radioactive gas radon shows statewide distribution. The gas slowly percolates through soil as a decay product of radium, so the potential for bringing both radon and radium to the surface during drilling exists. Additionally, gas-well borehole "cuttings" are normally buried on-site at completion of the drilling. Do those "cuttings" contain radioactive material, which would continue to expose local residents to radiation after completion of the drilling? When is legislation addressing this potential problem going to be proposed and adopted? "

"Skills gained from decommissioning the Dounreay nuclear plant could be turned to the dismantling of defunct oil and gas platforms, an expert has said. Simon Coles, a member of industry forum Decom North Sea, said 80% of the skills at the Caithness site "overlapped" with those needed in the oil sector. Two years ago, it was estimated that work breaking up redundant rigs could be worth £30bn by 2040. Most of the 470 offshore structures in UK waters will need to be scrapped. "

The Columbia Generating Station in Richland remained off-line Monday after a "brief, minor fire" forced operators to shut down the nuclear energy plant manually Friday, an Energy Northwest official said Monday. Rochelle Olson, Energy Northwest's corporate communications officer, said dripping oil sparked a fire in insulation around the plant's turbine system around 7:50 p.m. Friday. Operators used water and fire extinguishers to put out the flames, which Olson estimated at 1 to 2 inches tall. "This was more like combustion material," she said.

The Columbia Generating Station in Richland remained off-line Monday after a "brief, minor fire" forced operators to shut down the nuclear energy plant manually Friday, an Energy Northwest official said Monday. Rochelle Olson, Energy Northwest's corporate communications officer, said dripping oil sparked a fire in insulation around the plant's turbine system around 7:50 p.m. Friday. Operators used water and fire extinguishers to put out the flames, which Olson estimated at 1 to 2 inches tall. "This was more like combustion material," she said. No hazardous materials were released and no injuries occurred. The fire was extinguished at 8:06 p.m. Friday, Olson said. She described the oil as "typical oil," saying it "lubricates bearings and things."

"Canadians have watched in horror as BP's Gulf of Mexico oil spill has mushroomed week by week into the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. The damage to the Gulf's ecosystem is unknown. Oceanographers report seeing massive columns of oil well below the surface. This is a phenomenon not seen before. Likewise, the chemical dispersants used so far may prove to be a "cure" that rivals the oil itself for toxicity. Economically, the costs are already staggering. BP has spent nearly $1 billion on cleanup and appears to have barely made a dent. Fishing and oceanside tourism anywhere in the Gulf states are crippled. Huge areas of precious wetland may have to be burnt. Here in Canada we can draw some conclusions already about the consequences of this spill, which is now at least twice as serious as theExxon Valdezdisaster in 1989. "

"Much like Captain Renault in Casablanca, the White House is suddenly shocked, shocked to find that oil rigs can explode, destroying ecosystems and livelihoods. The Obama administration has backed away from its offshore oil expansion policy in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe as the long-term environmental and economical consequences unfold in the Gulf States. Headlines are clamoring for the criminal investigations of BP, TransOcean, Halliburton and ultimately, the federal regulator, Mineral Management Services (MMS). Rather paradoxically, President Obama is using the oil spill to call for more nuclear power. Yet, with the exception of a handful of insightful political cartoonists, the obvious parallel between the regulatory delinquency of MMS and that of its nuclear equivalent - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) - and the potential for an equally catastrophic accident in the nuclear sector, has not been drawn. As with the MMS debacle, the NRC is gambling with inevitable disaster with the same spin of the wheel of misfortune and with potentially even higher stakes. "

"The weaknesses of federal regulatory agencies have been exposed by recent high-profile accidents. Guest columnist Tom Carpenter fears the Department of Energy will reduce its oversight of cleanup at the nation's nuclear waste sites.\n\nBy Tom Carpenter\n\nSpecial to The Times\n\nPREV of NEXT\n\n \n\nRelated\n\nMillions of gallons of oil gush continue to rush unabated from BP's mile-deep well in the Gulf of Mexico, and 11 workers are dead from the massive explosion that caused the biggest oil spill in decades. Weeks before this event, the news was dominated by the preventable explosion that killed 29 West Virginia coal miners.\n\nIn both cases, the not-so surprising news was that the mine and the oil rig had abysmal records of safety violations before the explosions yet were still allowed to operate by the captive regulatory agencies.\n\nWhere is the government accountability? It is the government's job to assure that ultra-hazardous industries operate safely and responsibly.\n\nIs nuclear next? The Department of Energy sits on the nation's biggest nuclear nightmare. Its inventories of highly radioactive and toxic wastes defy comprehension. Washingtonians are familiar with the DOE's No. 1 accomplishment, the Hanford nuclear site, which holds the lion's share of the nation's radioactive detritus. Suffice it to say that the escape of even a small fraction of such material into the environment would constitute a Chernobyl-sized catastrophe."

"Opponents of the New Mexico oil industry would have you believe that life in New Mexico hangs by a thread due to the potential disasters tied to oil exploration, development and production. Further, they insist that state government must intensify the rules on drilling or the water, air and land of New Mexico will be ruined for generations. Not true. There was a time when New Mexico was very contaminated, and it has taken decades for that terrible pollution to abate. Many New Mexicans were sickened by this pollution and the human damage remains to this day. This pollution was not by oil; rather, it was plutonium. No one seems to remember this."

Article Highlights Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu's most daunting challenge may be reforming the department. Energy's existing structure isn't well-suited to ushering in a new energy future for the country. Only by completely restructuring the department can real change in this area be made. As a Nobel laureate in physics and a respected advocate for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama's choice for energy secretary, appears to be well suited to carrying out Obama's pledge to generate new green energy jobs and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. But among Chu's most daunting challenges will be reforming the Energy Department itself. Created in 1977 in response to oil disruptions, Energy has done little since to stem the country's burgeoning energy problems. With about 5.5 percent of the world's population, the United States consumes more oil than any other nation, three-fourths of which comes from foreign sources. And as U.S. energy dependence has worsened, its greenhouse gas emissions have grown worse as well--increasing by 17 percent since 1990--accelerating potentially disastrous climate change.

A new generation of nuclear plants requires a new generation of nuclear physicists MUCH more than worries about safety, the biggest obstacle to the revival of nuclear power in Britain is cost. Atom-splitting is expensive, with brochure prices for reactors starting around £3 billion, and dizzying lurches in oil prices make it hard to evaluate the industry's competitiveness. "Nuclear power works for oil prices above $60 a barrel," said a government adviser confidently in early October, when it was still near $100. As The Economist went to press, the price of oil was hovering around $64, barely above that margin of safety.