stupid NYT editorial today

[asheets]

I was just glancing through the op-ed section of that wonderful bastion of journalism, the Boulder (Colorado) Daily Camera.  In it was an op-ed piece from the New York Times written by Thomas Friedman.

In the article, Friedman decries current US energy policy, claiming that there is no foreseeable large-scale move away from coal and toward ethanol and biodiesel.  There was also some mention of crude oil as well.  Two things came to mind after reading the article:

1. We use coal to generate electricity.  Ethanol and biodiesel are generally thought of as crude-oil replacements.  Apples-oranges comparison, or is somebody actually proposing large-scale electricity production with ethanol and bio?
   
2. The author's last paragraph was a killer for me; he talks about the huge amount of CO2 coming out of a coal-fired plant he's watching.  This, of course, COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that ethanol and bio also produce CO2.  I wonder if the implication was deliberate, accidental bad journalism, or something else.
   

[Nando]

IGNORANCE AND LACK OF TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE

Nando

[TAH]

Not to defend the article but bio-diesel and ethanol are considered carbon nuetral since they return what they took from the air. If anyone is interested in the increase in CO2 in the last 100 years. It went from around 350 PPM to 384 PPM.

[richhagen]

It is not just that carbon dioxide is at record levels, it is also evidence that the change in the rate of increase in carbon dioxide levels versus time is also increasing since accurate measurements have been taken.  It actually looks a bit scary since I am don't know what the overall consequences of this will be - this effects so many things that it is difficult to guess the ultimate outcome.  I don't like scientific experiments where I am in the beaker.  

My thinking lately has been that if we can get renewable energy as a significant portion of worldwide energy use we would need to have some way of storing it so that energy demand can more evenly match supply.  

Lately I've been thinking that one likely aspect of this would need to be something like a pumped hydro storage facility. One on the scale of the Hoover Dam would be lovely to have as it could match well with wind and solar.  Water could simply be pumped to an upper reservoir when there was excess, such as periods with sufficient wind and sun with low demand, and power used at night or during calm periods by draining water from the upper reservoir.  That way, if the reservoir was of sufficient size, RE sources could be used as baseline power, in a similar manner to conventional hydro, to directly replace capacity of fossil fuel powered stations.  The problem is that the cost per watt would likely be higher still than the current cost per watt because of the capital costs and the loss in efficiency of the system when RE was stored for later use.  Once the initial expenditure to build such a system was spent, the facility could last for decades, just look at the Hoover Dam for example.  In the short term, large scale production near a hydro facility, especially one that is a little short on water, might make sense, simply by offsetting some of the capacity needed, and utilizing any excess to recycle some of the water from the bottom to the top reservoir for re-use later.  The problem again, is that the dollars per installed additional watt of capacity is likely still too high to be practical for private utilities to invest in now when compared with fossil fuel prices.  

Although we probably can not produce sufficient ethanol or bio-diesel to replace fossil fuels, certainly not in the forseeable future, and from what I've been reading, based on the available crop land and its efficiency using current technology likely never even with significant conservation, we can use it to offset significant amounts of fossil fuels currently in use.  This has the effect of replacing some of the fossil fuel emmissions with 'carbon nuetral' sources.  In order to do this more effectively, we would need to combine the processing of such fuels with RE sources of power as well, and again on a massive scale.  

I think that for any of this to happen, the market conditions would have to change dramatically, the price of fuel relative to other goods and services would probably have to double again in order for such massive investments as would be needed to be economically practical.  If the cost of fossil fuels does not account for the carbon dioxide emmissions, then this isn't likely absent a war, in the near term future.  If taxation on energy to address the environmental impact of energy use becomes a reality in the EU or much of the rest of the world, then the massive investments needed to replace fossil fuel use become appear to become much more attractive from an investment stand point.  Still it is not unforseeable that such an increase in costs could occur, and without long term investment in infrastructure, we could find our economies in a bit of a pickle.  If we want to move in that direction in the near term, then it would require government action in most places.  

I personally would happily spend a bit of my resources to see a shift towards more sustainable energy sources.  I don't like being at someone elses mercy for my energy usage almost as much as I don't like being part of this grand experiment we our conducting with the atmosphere of our planet.  Rich

[finnsawyer]

How about more hydro?  Dam the mouth of the Hudson bay.  Doable, and you don't need to pump any water.  Of course, that would change the bay to fresh water and affect the polar bears as well as marine life, which is why it isn't being done.  You idea of the pumped up reservoir also will have environmental impacts.  So will cutting down all the trees to grow crops for ethanol.  My solution?  Build more nuclear plants (and yes, open up Yucca Mountain), electrify the railroads, and get rid of long haul trucking.  Good for a start.  You have made a dent in three big producers of carbon dioxide at once.  

[solarengineer]

for a truly interesting phenominon check out global dimming, current research is scarry. basically global warming is being offset by particulates reflecting sunlight back to space and causing the planet to get cooler but global warming ofsets the effect.

[BigBreaker]

Friedman is normally pretty sharp.  He has been pretty good at teaching people that our energy problems come in two distinct flavors:  Reliance on imported transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel), and CO2 belching coal plants for electricity.  The two really don't overlap (yet).

Note that transportation fuels also belch C02 but they can be somewhat foregiven for that because of the energy density advantages of hydrocarbons over almost anything else.  Ethanol or biodiesel offset some of the CO2 of dino fuels but their production competes with food uses.  Also they cannot displace a large fraction of our dino fuel needs using near term technology.  We can't grow that much corn and soy bean.

Plug-in hybrids and electric cars can substantially offset our need for foreign dino transportation fuels.  The problem is that the marginal electricity needed to top off those big batteries comes almost exclusively from coal power rather than RE, natural gas or nuclear.  Our power grids are also over taxed already and have significant distribution losses.  Overnight charging looks attractive to avoid taxing the grid at it's peak but still: batteries are lousy and our grid will still need an upgrade.

We need to develop in three areas: better batteries, an improved power grid and a lot more nuke plants.  RE contributions are limited - they can't be relied upon for base power generation and base power is what it is all about.  Better storage technology can help a little but we still can't store enough to smooth the daily demand peak.  That's why we still have the concept of a base generation requirement.

Most RE sources are variable across days and weeks (solar, wind, hydro) rather than intra day.  That kind of storage technology - the days and weeks kind - is simply not likely to become economic compared to oversizing non-RE sources like coal, nuke and gas.  Coal is cheap but belches C02 and natural gas is expensive (and emits CO2 though less).  Once a nuke plant is built the marginal cost of production is pretty low.  Waste is a problem but a solvable one.  I'd argue it is more solvable than Global Warming and Middle East peace.

The $400B sunk into the Iraq war would have purchased a lot domestic power production (nukes), a lot of technological development and lots of rebates for hybrids.  This is coming from an admitted military hawk.

[The Crazy Noob]

Well, bio-mass is 100% carbon-neutral, all the plants get their carbon from the CO2 in the air (photosynthesis). When you burn it, you that carbon to the atmosphere in the form of CO2. The netto result is not more and not less CO2 than before the plant started growing.

Those "dino"fuels are "natures way of storing cabon" in the ground. (so are rocks, CaCO3) When you burn them, all that carbon that was in the ground is now transformed to extra CO2 that wasn't in the atmosphere before.

By the way, instead of investing in nuclear power, we should find other alternatives, or at least invest to make the ones we have now more efficient. The "easy-to-grab" uranium will only last us for about 30years, less if we put up more nuke plants now.

[asheets]

I would say that coal, CNG, and crude have CO2 that was in the atmosphere a long time ago... not that it makes a fundamental difference to the arguement, but at least we can try to be as scientifically correct as possible.

Which leads me to an interesting thought: many scientists today say that the ancient atmosphere on Earth had a much larger CO and CO2 fraction than it does now.  They point to oceanic and coral/limestone conversion as a large contributer to reducing that fraction (and point toward Venus, which has none of that, as a piece of evidence).  I wonder, though, how much of that fraction went into the creation of hydrocarbon fuels and diamonds?  Signigicant?

For me, the key issue right now is how much more CO2 our existing carbon sinks can absorb.  One theory says that old-growth trees don't absorb nearly as much as new-growth -- leading me to go contrary to all the tree huggers out their and say that we should cut down old-growth forests for the sole purpose of replanting.  

I think there's money to be made if one of these agri-hybrid-DNA-geen splicing researchers can do 2 things:

     (1) create a plant that is much more easily convertable to ethanol (or better yet, gasoline), or even create a plant that produces the substance outright (instead of having to rely on slow, anerobic decomposition under pressure and heat like we do now).

     (2) create a plant that absorbs lots more CO2 than most plans do now.

     (on a side note, I'd also like to see one of these gene-splicers come up with a coffee bean plant that will grow in Colorado or Kansas.)

Finally, many folks point to the increasing cultivation of the former South American rain forests for production of ethanol-producing stock plants -- seems to me that that is a triple whammy if we are worried about CO2 and global-"whatever" (warming, cooling, dimming, etc.).

[finnsawyer]

As matters stand now nuclear is the only option that can be implemented in a massive cost effective way.  That is, it doesn't have to cut into research budgets for RE, as investors would be quite willing to invest in it.  So it will only be a stop-gap solution for thirty years or so.  So, what?  Is it better to use up the stuff peacefully to save the planet from too much CO2 or is it better to leave it in the ground for some idiots to use it for bombs when the crisis due to too much CO2 finally hits?  Anyway, that's thirty years more time to develop the other alternatives.  

If global warming continues sufficiently, there is a concern that the warming of the sea floors will release massive amounts of methane hydrate, which is currently in an ice like state.  This in turn would react with the oxygen in the atmosphere depleting the O2 making it real tough for us mammals.  Release of enough methane could cause the atmosphere to become a methane atmosphere as scientists believe it once was.  Cyano bacteria would eventually restore some oxygen balance, but we humans would be long gone by then.  Oh yeah, methane is even a better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.  

[radiantboy]

I have some reservations about nuclear that haven't been mentioned.  (Many of these facts and figures are taken from the book "Take the Rich off Welfare" by Mark Zepezauer, copyright 1996, and published by Odonian Press --later merged with Common Courage Press).

1. Nuclear power plants are licensed to operate for 40 years, but only one has made it  past 30.
   
2. In 1996, the owner of the Yankee Rowe plant in Massachusetts (the first commercial nuclear power plant in the US) estimated that cost of decommissioning the plant would be $375 million, ten times what it cost to build the plant.  Other estimates went as high as $500 million.
   
3. Although the utilities maintain trust funds to cover the cost of closing their old plants, there are invariably huge shortfalls.  Chicago's Commonwealth Edison had a %73 shortfall to close six old nukes.  What the utilities can't cover, the public has to.  To help the industry, Congress lowered the income tax on these trust funds from 34 to 20 percent, further putting the burden on the taxpayers.
   
4. Most nuclear plants are near large bodies of water for coolng purposes.  With rising sea levels likely, the possibility of contamination becomes even more likely if more plants are built.  Contamination is inevitable if an accident occurs, even without any rising sea levels.
   
5. The area in Nevada near Yucca mountain has 33 known earthquake faults, the highest known number in the US.  Why was Nevada chosen, then?  Because they have the lowest population density, and thus the lowest Congressional clout to vote against being the dumping ground of everyone's nuclear waste.  While it is true that the "majority rule" in a democracy, there is the correlate of "minority rights" being preserved at the same time -- which are not being observed at all.
   
6. Quote from the book, "Yucca mountain is supposed to be financed by the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is generated by charging utility customers a fee of 1/10 cent per kilowatt hour for nuclear generated power.  But in the thirteen years [in 1996] of [its] existence, the fund has never been adjusted for inflation, which has cut its purchasing power by %45."
   
7. Since its inception, nuclear power plants were granted a limit on any financial liability an accident would cause.  In 1959, this limit was $560 million per accident, later raised to $7 billion.  
   
   

Where are the utilties going to get the $7 billion (in the event of a contaminating accident) when they can't even pay for the decommisioning of their plants, or for the storage of nuclear waste, or for the reprocessing of their spent fuel rods (which taxpayers also foot the bill for -- at 390 million a year)?

Like its many other subsidies, nuclear is hardly (in my mind, anyway) a "cost effective" answer to anything, much less global warming.  

Denmark currently gets %20-30 of their nation's energy needs from offshore wind.  And it is thought that with half as many turbines as they currently have (but with higher

towers and bigger blades), they can raise that figure to %50 percent in the next few years.

A study in the 1991 by the Dept. of Energy concluded that we could get all our electricity from wind by just using the wind resources in three states (Kansas, North Dakota, and Texas). See http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Out/Ote7_5.htm

And think -- there would be no need to limit the liability of falling wind turbines, or store any waste product for thousands of years, or to grant endlessly mounting subsidies that amount to at least 7.1 billion dollars a year, as we now do for nuclear.  Compared to nuclear, wind is CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP!

In regards to terrorism, nuclear plants actually are needed to create the end products used in nuclear bombs.  Leaving uranium in the ground helps prevent terrorists from using it, especially since most of them hardly have access to the huge mining operations necessary to extract it.

Going back to the subject of Denmark . . . if a small country like that, with a lot less resources than the USA, can get so much of their power from wind, what is our problem?  

From the linked article above: "By 2020, just 16 years from now, projections show that wind-generated electricity will be able to satisfy the residential needs of 195 million Europeans, half of the region's population."

Since that article was written, several major European countries have already surpassed their targeted goals of greenhouse-gas-emmission-reductions prematurely.  If the socialist-democrats (or like-minded politicians) return to power in countries like Germany and the Netherlands, this accelerated alternative power generation is only likely to accelerate further.

Even the in the nineteen sixites, Europe was far ahead of America in regard to auto efficiency.  The late Mercedes Benz engineer, Rudolf Uhlenhaut, once commented humorously in an interview about how 'his' 300SEL 6.3 could go 140 miles per hour with only 300 horsepower, get 18 mpg ( on average), while an American bemoth like a Caddilac or Lincoln wasn't anywhere as fast, nor as economical.

And the same was true of Citroen of France -- and so many others.

Likewise, if anyone was watching "Living with Ed" the other night, you could see Jay Leno showing his early 20th century hybrid car with Ed Begley Jr.  I don't remember the defunct company name, but I think Begley mentioned that it got 50 mpg (?).  

So come on, folks, let's not deceive ourselves about what is possible (at least technically).  

What is possible on the psychological level, on the other hand, may be indeed a much harder blockage. If folks are now so cynical or brainwashed into believing that running our world on alternative energy isn't possible, well, that is a challenge that may indeed be insurmountable.  But to assume that this is so is to make certain that nothing will ever change.

[gordon01639]

The uk gvt think wood is a carbon nuetral fuel, but you can sure burn it faster than it grows. Maybe we will all have to get used to only using power when it is available from renewable energy forms.

gonna be posting on my genny soon.

Gordon.  Wales  in the UK

[finnsawyer]

I suppose it all depends on what you view as the most important issue, reducing CO2 at all costs or not dealing with the problems of nuclear energy.  The only reason I'm concerned about global warming is because of the possibility of a massive methane release from the vast deposits of methane hydrate, not to mention the melting of the tundra with the associated decay of the trapped vegetative matter there.  I don't believe that methane and oxygen can coexist in the atmosphere.  They will destroy each other.  A sudden drop in oxygen levels has the potential of destroying all mammalian life including us.  That's a damn sight more of a issue than a rise in ocean levels or kicking off a new ice age.  

[Dennisd]

Although it might be financially damaging to some vested interests, a reconditioning of the average consumer to recognize the connection between the wars in the Mideast and their personal habits is required. When victory gardens, home generation of power and conservation are socially required, chances of our survival are greatly enhanced. Work to repeal laws against wind generators (special exemption for towers over 50' is required here) as well as regulations concerning small farms in or near city limits.

There is so much energy wasted that just conserving to standards accepted in Europe would eliminate the need for more Nuke plants or coal burners.

Dennis    

[radiantboy]

"When victory gardens, home generation of power and conservation are socially required, chances of our survival are greatly enhanced."



And that is one of the main reasons so many people oppose nuclear -- it isn't something that they can do in their backyard (at least with any safety).  Solar and wind power,  micro-hydro, biofuels,(and yes, victory gardens) etc., on the other hand, are.  One no longer has to depend on bizarre, expensive, and estoeric outside "experts" for their sustenance so much.  This is a movement toward true libertarianism, true free-market, true self-sufficient existence. (What is also nice is that most socialists actually go for it even more, being of a more roll-up-their sleeves temperment, rather unlike corporate CEOs sitting in air-conditioned offices demanding money.)



In addition, using nuclear as a "stop-gap" to prevent further global warming won't work -- it is simply too expensive, too involved.  By diverting so much energy and expense to nuclear, we will only drain money that could be used far more efficiently for wind and solar (and whatever else the average fellow with his enormously untapped creativity can, and does, dream up).  Likewise, taking advantage of the taxpayer by forcing him to pay for more expensive nuclear etc. reduces his ability to do his own energy management and production (which has been the problem all  along).  As the East Indian philospher/psychologist J. Krishnamurti stated, "the ends never justify the means, they are the means."



The irony is that historically many of those who advocate the continuation of large, centralized power generation (and by a few big players), such as nuclear and large dams etc. claim to be of a "free-market" and "free-enterprise" persuasion, yet their very insistence on these largely taxpayer-subsidized endeavors indicate that they are actually collectivists, and thus they are the very opposite of what they claim to be.  (Of course, some of them are simply naive.  The references I gave in my previous post to all the various ways nuclear plants are subsidized are not exactly front page news, nor taught in social studies -- at least in my neck of the woods -- so it is easy to be brainwashed).



Of course, wind-power might also have to be subsidized, but will require far less of the enormous monies and infrastructure (think Yucca Mountain, for example) that nuclear, hydroelectric, coal and oil depend on.  But this is only true insofar as we don't let the same corrupt interests "run the show" -- yet again.  As an example, in Holland, Shell Oil recently erected a huge wind generator.  The problems with this particular turbine are obvious: it only is projected to have a lifespan of 20 years, yet the Dutch government has essentially subsidized its existence for 25 years -- an obvious shortfall for the Dutch citizen, but pure gravy for "po' little Royal Dutch Shell."  



This same "take over" of what was once a thriving, economical, sustainable "grassroots" movement has also started to happen in Germany with the election of the Christian Democrats a few years ago.  



Under the Socialist Democrats who preceded them, on the other hand, villages began making their own biofuels from their own small farms, building micro-hydro systems, erecting their own solar farms etc. etc.  This has been enormously successful, both for the villages and the public at large since the excess electricity produced overflows to the grid.  It has required compartively little aid to what corporate giants want, and almost always get.



The only way around any and all subsidies would be to quickly phase out the ones that already exist -- which largely go toward the nuclear, hydroelectric, coal, and oil interests, and which have predominated for the past 100 years.  On a level playing field, they can't compete.  If they could, then there never would have been any need for subsidizing them in the first place -- and that has never been the case.



Of course, if the average citizen in any country can't find it in himself to care about any of this, then what the heck.  

[finnsawyer]

I don't have time to read all your verbiage.  How about just giving us some numbers that show the subsidies for nuclear power, since you have obviously researched it.  Something like the subsidy per kilowatt hour.  You might also do the same for wind power.  The fact is that today only nuclear power can be expanded fast enough and in a large enough fashion to actually significantly affect the production of CO2.  Once enough electrical energy is available one can then eliminate other CO2 generators by electrifying the railroads, eliminate long haul trucking, and electrifying local trucking.  Oh, and of course everybody uses electricity to heat their houses.  Well, at least all new ones.

Socialism?  Probably.  But, if you want a solution to CO2 generation this is the only one that I see being possible today.  Freedom, on the other hand, is the freedom to pollute.  If you have a solution that can be built today to provide the electricity at reasonable cost in the amounts needed to make these changes, let's hear it.  Oh, by the way, do you have a good battery design?  General Motors would like to hear from you.  G.M. would be happy to produce the low CO2 producing Volt if only they had the battery.  That, of course, would tend to fall more on the freedom side.  Gee, I forgot, the battery in the Volt would need to be charged at night from the CO2 producing grid.

As far as neighborhood producing wind power, forget it.  People don't like the idea of loose blades coming their way.  It's well known that it costs more to produce power from the wind than from coal fired power plants.  That may change as larger and more powerful wind generators come on line.  But those will not be placed in neighborhoods.  And again, that's not an individual thing, but puts you back at the mercy of large corporations.  

 

[radiantboy]

"How about just giving us some numbers that show the subsidies for nuclear power, since you have obviously researched it."



I don't have numbers for kilowatt per hour -- but to repeat what I stated before, since Denmark is already getting 20-30% of their total electrical usage from wind, and doing so without breaking their economy, then commonsense would indicate it doesn't require herculean efforts. And since they've already reached such a high level of wind generation, is it really hard to imagine other countries doing the same?



Insofar as numbers, I already provided quite a few in my first post. I would think that the burden now would fall on the pro-nuclear side to produce numbers.  And remember, the reason no nukes have been built for the past 20+ years (in the US) is the tendency of nuke plants to have accidents.  A nuke accident is potentially far more devastating than wind turbine blades flying off.  A National Geographic program on the Three-Mile-Island accident pointed out that just one fault in that reactor's containment dome would have sent a catastrophic amount of radiation into the atmosphere.  In addition, it was also pointed out that a "China syndrome"-runaway reaction -- if it had occurred then -- would fracture the subterrean area beneath us and send radioactive geysers shooting up out of parking lots hundreds of miles away.   Instead of saving us from catastrophe, nuclear power has the potential of competing with global warming as a serious problem.



There doesn't seem to be any mention in your post of the statement about the DOE's study in the early 1990's about the US getting all of its electricity from wind (and which was based on the wind turbine technology of the time, which has since been surpassed, and continues to improve) .  If there is no dispute of that study, then what is the problem with it as a quick solution over nuclear and coal?



My point about socialism and individualism was mainly that I believe that nuclear requires far more subsidies (assuming you want safety features like containment domes, that is) than wind.  I also pointed out that wind would probably require subsidies too, and thus still be socialist in nature.  But, if you believe that wind requires more such subsidies than nuclear, you're welcome to that belief, as I am welcome to mine -- but at least I have provided some numbers.  I have yet to see any numbers provided by the nuclear industry (or anyone else) that would cause me to reevalulate my own assessment, much less anything approaching a point by point rebuttal of Mark Zepecauer's essay that I used.  Lacking that type of number-oriented argument, it becomes impossible for me to believe that nuclear is more cost-effective. His book was written ten years ago, and yet there still isn't any argument from the nuclear industry to it.  They want to avoid such arguments, I think, because they would end up looking very silly.



Another point I wanted to make was that if the model for energy generation had been less centralized from the beginning, we wouldn't be in the predictament we're in.  I cannot "prove" that because no industrial country took a significantly less centralized approach, and thus there is practically no large scale model to make a comparison.  I can, however, point to the writings of John Perlin at http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/history_solarthermal.html
which can at least give some idea of the advantages of having individual solar thermal water heaters over using the grid, and thus over something that has to be contantly imported.




One has to remember that when nuclear power was first proposed in the Einsenhower administration, it was predicted that we would be able to "throw our meters away" it would be so cheap.  Such pie-in-the-sky predictions never came even close to being realized, even long before the 3-mile island incident effectively put a hold on all new nuke plants in the US (when most US citizens were still %100 behind it). It would be wise to study the history of nuclear and its promises before accepting the rather cavalier predictions that are being bandied about now.



Insofar as batteries, there are obvious improvement in storage systems, such as ultra capacitors, as well as the growing use of lithium batteries in EV and hybrid vehicles.  Next year, Panasonic is poised to provide the ultracapacitors for the Toyota Prius, and another company, Maxwell Technologies has just received an order for 2 million ultracapacitors from a wind-turbine manufacturer.  There is obvious improvement going on also in flywheel storage technology, and some California utilities already use it to smooth out the peaks and lows of grid usage.

[finnsawyer]

As far as Denmark's economy, I don't know, but I do know that Europe's economy in general as compared to our rapacious energy using economy is in the tank.

As far as Lithium batteries, I believe Sony Corporation has recently recalled a large number of them due to fire hazards.

I'm not against any of these alternate technologies.  Heck, I'm the guy that introduced the idea of spaced based power generation to this site.  But all of these alternatives will have to prove themselves.  And a massive subsidized investment in the wrong system could prove catastrophic.  Large wind farms, for instance, could affect micro climates due to the slowing down of the wind over a large area.  I saw a posting once where a fellow from India claimed that after a large wind farm went in the region around it got dryer.

There's not much point continuing this discussion.  The general consensus is that global warming is real.  So, the question becomes, "What are the consequences?"  I wanted to flag one possible dire consequence that was recently discovered.  Time will tell.  Researchers will be monitoring the temperatures at the sea floor.  But if they shoot up, how much time will we have?

[radiantboy]

"And a massive subsidized investment in the wrong system could prove catastrophic."



Quite true, which is why I am very skeptical of nuclear.  There are more accidents in the nuclear industry than apparently is generally known.  England had a semi-serious accident back in the early sixties (I think -- it might have been the late fifties. There was a History Channel episode on it that was quite good) and much of the milk was contaminated and had to be dumped.  Here in my home state of Alabama, near the town of Enterprise, there was a near meltdown back in the early seventies at a fairly new plant when a fire broke out, melted the controlling wires, and was very difficult to extinguish. Only some very heroic actions prevented a true catastrophe.  And (to continue this small sampling), recently MSNBC had a story entitled "Are nuclear power plant accidents on the increase?" which detailed some more recent minor but troublesome leakages.  



But there are so many more . . .



Recalls are certainly part of modern life.  One can do a search and peruse a few gov't agency websites and see (as an example) all the bicycles that are recalled from all manufacturers every month.  Likewise, like Sony, Dell recently had to recall either the lithium batteries or the chargers for them (I don't remember which was the culprit) due to fire hazards.  And auto recalls have been the mainstay since I was pre-adolescent, back the midsixties.  One could go on and on :-)



I would have some doubt about windmills causing areas to dry out -- but there have been theories advanced now and again by reputable scientists like that one, but often they are eventually discarded.  In the early nineteen seventies there was a theory that the turbulence created by auto traffic was increasing the likelihood of tornados(!), and it was widely reported on TV and radio, but nothing ever came of it. And that is one reason why it has taken so long for there to even be a real consensus on the global warming/carbon dioxide connection, because of the rather odd-ball theories that scientists have.  Of course, not all of them prove to be so oddball, but many do.



I've heard the Europe in general has had a slowdown in their economy, but nothing yet that would indicate a depression.  I certainly would doubt it is due to the increased use of renewables.  In the US, the main worry is what will happen if our foreign creditors, mainly Asian banks, finally lose confidence due to the 7-8 trillion dollar
national debt.  We could easily have a complete economic meltdown if that happens.  I may be wrong, but my impression is that this worries both the Keyesians and the Friedman schools of thought, as well as many others.



I agree that the discussion has pretty much been exhausted here on the board-- but I think in terms of society in general it needs to be increased more, particularly in the mass media.  In addition, it needs to be on a better level that the stuff that usually passes for debate there, which is often very limited and even silly. In fact, I think it has actually gotten worse than it was twenty and thirty years ago.  



But . . . to conclude, my main problem with the USA is that very few people actually want to do anything at all.  The average person would rather get a new car or SUV or pickup every two or three years rather than spend at least some of that money on a solar or wind system, or buy a much more efficient refrigerator, air-conditioner, or even a woodstove (if they live in the right area, and can collect and cut their own wood).   They can always get their new vehicle a year or two more down the road. It is hard for people to take anything seriously if it doesn't pinch them in the pocketbook first, and even then the lesson is completely forgotten as soon as conditions improve slightly.



As always, apathy rules! But the good news is that, despite our disagreements, there is at least the same, basic intent.

[finnsawyer]

I wrote a diary piece about G. W. and nuclear power a while back.  Some interesting comments were made there.  You might take a look at it for some other perspectives.  Just keep in mind that if the Government mandates something it will happen.  People up here have been fighting a proposed nickel-sulfide mine.  What they don't realize is that no matter what, if the Government decides it needs that nickel the mine will happen, and it may not be done in an environmental friendly fashion at that time.  Some questionable statements have also been made such that it could impact the Coaster Brook Trout on the Salmon Trout River when in reality the proposed mine site is in the Yellow Dog River watershed being no more than two miles from the Yellow Dog River.  There are no Coaster Brook Trout there.  Misinformation seems to be the way of the times.  Cheers!

[electrondady1]

i've just one thing to say about nuclear power, CHERNOBYL ! have you forgotten already?

[Brian H]

 Chernobyl was a Mickey Mouse reactor run by the Marx Brothers. Anything can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Best Regards,

BrianH

[finnsawyer]

A TV program called "Seconds From Disaster" analyzed the Chernobyl disaster.  It was as much or more a failure arising from the political system as it was from engineering shortcomings.  This led to a failure to follow the proper protocols.  Pressure was put on the bosses to do a safety test, believe or not, at a time and in a way when it shouldn't have been done, while high power output was maintained from the plant.  Operators misinterpreted information and removed too many fuel rods, a violation of the proper protocol, which led to the runaway condition.  At least that's the way I remember it.  You might check out the program and correct me if I'm wrong.  

Do you know that the word Chernobyl in the local language means "Wormwood"?  Sort of says it all.  A good description of the overall system.  Shot through with worms.

[electrondady1]

yea, nothing like that could happen "here"!

gaskets on solid rocket boosters can't get damaged.

chunks of ice could never punch holes in the skin of the shuttle.

there are no massive automobile recalls.

big industries never bury there chemical waste.

cigarettes are not harmfull.

phony intelligence would never lead to the invasion of oil rich countries.

i may have become cynical on my journey.

[finnsawyer]

So, do want to live like the Amish?  You can, you know.  Here and now.  I had a discussion with a fellow many years ago.  He wanted to go back to the 19th century.  I wouldn't be here if it weren't for penicillin, so I didn't agree with him.  You need to accept the good with the bad and approach everything intelligently.  My original premise was that if you wanted to make a big dent in CO2 production today, the only practical way was nuclear power with massive electrification.  Picking on the problems inherent in nuclear power doesn't refute that.

[radiantboy]

Hello again, GeoM,

I will get around (I hope) to check out that diary piece sometime.

I certainly agree that the gov't's desire usually tends to overwhelm most objections, and that it requires a truly mobilized mass movement to militate against a lot of things. But, at the same time, with that mobilization, I think practically anything is possible.  

I must add that, as much as I am in favor of wind/solar etc. I didn't mean to imply that the entire nuclear industry is composed of dumb-dumbs.  There are some interesting

innovations in the nuclear model that have popped up now and again.  I read a few years ago of a GE proposed nuke generator that would -- in the event of an imminent meltdown -- begin melting a substance that would "rain" down on the reaction and act as a brake, thus allegedly preventing a China-syndrome.   Likewise, WIRED magazine had an interesting article about a new type of reactor in China that sounded much safer.

Nonetheless neither of these two proposals would reduce expense (in my opinion), nor take care of nuclear waste problems.  A fairly recent Scientific American article was about a possible way of using the nuclear waste currently accumulating to fuel a new type of nuclear plant.  But that is still far off into the future, if ever.   And fusion research is still heavily funded, but still seems also far off into the future, even according to those most involved in fusion research.

One souce of the various nuclear accidents and near accidents that I've come across on the internet--and which deals with more than just nuclear power plants--is

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

[finnsawyer]

"Which leads me to an interesting thought: many scientists today say that the ancient atmosphere on Earth had a much larger CO and CO2 fraction than it does now."

Yes, and it was ten times higher than the amount in the atmosphere today.  This was at the end of the Earth's "ice ball stage", and the CO2 had come from and built up from volcanoes over eons.  When the atmosphere finally warmed up due to the CO2, the CO2 reacted with water vapor to form carbolic acid.  This acid then rained down and reacted with the rocks to form calcium carbonate.  This form of calcium carbonate contains no fossils, which was the tip off to the process that ended the "ice ball".  So, presumably most of that high concentration of CO2 never made it to coal.  

[spinningmagnets]

Most of the nuclear reactors are water-cooled, meaning the primary loop is water heated by uranium. It is pressurized (900 PSI?) to keep it from boiling. The other end of the loop has the radioactive primary water heat a radiator that takes non-radioactive water from the secondary loop, and flashes it into steam that turns a turbine-generator. Typically condensed by sea-water, the secondary water is re-cycled.

Chernobyl and 3-mile-island were both a primary leak (relief valve due to over-pressure) that condensed into radioactive rain.

China and So Africa are now using a low-pressure Helium reactor.  Primary Helium retains very little radioactivity (unlike water), and a leak will send Helium to the upper atmosphere where there is already a huge amount of natural radiation. The Uranium is in flecks encased in carbon the size and shape of tennis balls, un-useable for enriching into Plutonium. Easily solidified in lead-based concrete for transport, but recycling technologies are not out of the question.

Reactors don't have to be expensive, thank congress and the mob-controlled unions for that. France gets over half their power from reactors, but they settled on a basic design, and made many of the same exact type.

If you're against recycling the Uranium and you want to shut down reactors after 30 years, why not design future reactors as a separate module. The steam turbine-generators could use solar reflectors on salt slurry tubes, geothermal, or even burning natural gas. Steam is steam.

Ethanol is going to be added to gasoline as a stretcher up to 20%. Its made from corn right now because corn is cheap. Its going to be made from switchgrass when gas is $4/gal and corn doubles in price. There are a dozen ways to make ethanol.

Holland is a very crowded small country connected to the ocean with steady off-shore breezes, they have extensive public transport, and gasoline is over $5/gal. The average Dutch has a bicycle, a bus pass, a tiny home, no car, and is anti-nuclear. Have you bought anything from Holland recently? Blame their economy. Their military was a "speed-bump" to the Nazis on their way to France. Holland couldn't defend themselves, much less defend the world against a nuclear mullah in "Nut-case-istan".

China, India, and Russia are making way too many babies for a planet this size, and they are polluting the same way a drunken sailor spends money (a subject about which I have personal experience). Saying the US is the problem is like saying a fat woman can lose weight by clipping her fingernails and getting a haircut.

You want to talk about wind? The anti-wind lobbyists (Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell-BP...take your pick) have made sure the politicians are getting a steady supply of heroin...oops! I mean oil-taxes! And the politicians in exchange have made sure a big wind-gen project was proposed off the coast of Martha's Vineyard (Mass?) so now, even the big money Democrats are opposing this "eyesore that kills endangered birds".

The wind-turbines at Altamont kill about 2 birds per year each, 5 of which so far are endangered bald eagles. The endangered species act (you asked for it to save the whales) is one of the few laws with teeth, and the so-called environmental lobby is using the ESA to stop growth that doesn't match their agenda.

You will continue to see RE pilot projects to placate the masses just short of a revolt, but no real changes.  -Ron

"bank tellers do it with interest, and have a severe penalty for early withdrawal"