Posts Tagged ‘nuclear’

How NOT to Have Electricity

August 16, 2008

by Alan Caruba

Every week there’s some new proposal to cover the nation with wind farms and solar panels.

Electricity is so commonplace that no one gives any thought to not having access to it. Few give any consideration to how it is generated, but we are now being inundated with the most virulent nonsense about how wind or solar power is “clean” and practically “free.” Every week there’s some new proposal to cover the nation with wind farms and solar panels.

The problem for everyone who wants to get rich with these energy sources or those who think they are the answer to our energy needs is that neither wind, nor solar can ever power anything more than relatively small projects like a farm or a local stadium. A nation of more than three hundred million people, however, needs a lot of generation capacity.

All the razzle-dazzle of television advertising and public relations propaganda cannot justify the building of massive wind or solar farms. They are simply inadequate to the production of the electricity the nation requires now and in the future. The weird thing about T. Boone Pickens’ pitch is that he talks about oil dependency to justify wind power, but vehicles are not powered by wind. Nor are they likely to be powered by liquified natural gas as Pickens suggests.

By contrast, the July edition of Energy Tribune devoted some of its pages to the comeback of nuclear power in America. What jumped out at me was co-editor Robert Bryce’s citation of the fact that, “The U.S. government has spent some $7 billion building a repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada” and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has declared that it “is never going to open” and is “not the answer to nuclear waste storage.”

Senator Reid recently said that, “Coal is making us sick. Oil is making us sick,” and then went on to blather insanely about global warming.

According to Bryce, “On June 3, the Department of Energy submitted an 8,600-page application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking approval of the Yucca Mountain site for waste storage. Just one day later, Nevada urged the agency to reject the application.” This is a glaring example of how to make sure America lacks the electrical energy it needs.

Throughout the debate over energy use, the Big Lie has been that industrial and other activities generate carbon dioxide emissions that, in turn, are causing global warming. Ergo, we have to radically alter every aspect of modern life to avoid the Earth’s destruction.

The problem with that is a decade-old cooling period that the Earth entered in 1998 and which is getting colder, not warmer. The other problem is the fact that the Earth has passed through periods in which the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere were much higher than they are today.

Since it is getting colder, we are going to need more electricity and other sources of energy to keep us warm in our homes, offices, schools, et cetera. We are going to have to burn coal, currently the major source of power, to generate electricity as well as the cheapest and most abundant. We will continue to use natural gas as well. All the hydroelectric sources have been identified and are in use at present.

That leaves nuclear. An Energy Tribune article by William E. Burchill serves up lots of information about the nuclear production of electrical energy. Worldwide, 441 nuclear reactors are providing electricity to one billion people. Presently nuclear power provides twenty percent of America’s electricity needs, thanks to the 104 nuclear plants operating in the U.S.

Here’s something to keep in mind. “No U.S. plant worker or member of the public has ever been injured or killed by an accident caused by nuclear power.” Moreover, amidst the frenzy over CO2, nuclear is “an emissions-free source of electricity.”

Continue reading article

Time to wake up Mr. McGuinty – Ont needs cost effective power

May 26, 2008

Editor:
Ontario is rushing to enact a California style energy policy and it will have the same negative impact here as in California.

High electrical costs and the loss of well paying manufacturing jobs will be the outcome.

I have been saying this since this blog started. Manufacturers will always move to a lower cost base.

Ont. is at a cross road. Get realistic about energy production or lay waste to the manufacturing sector .

Build a nuke and put the scrubbers on the coal plants.

Time to wake up Mr. McGuinty

.

California’s proud claim to have kept per-capita energy consumption flat while growing its economy is less impressive than it seems. The state has some of the highest energy prices in the country—nearly twice the national average, a 2002 Milken Institute study found—largely because of regulations and government mandates to use expensive renewable sources of power. As a result, heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries have been fleeing the Golden State in droves for lower-cost locales.

It’s hard to claim credibly that California illuminates the world when it has trouble illuminating itself. Further, California’s particular path makes sense only if the rest of the country refuses to follow it. The state’s lawmakers and regulators have enacted policies that for several decades have allowed Californians to feel good, even smug, about their environmental credentials. Yet California’s economic prosperity has relied on the fact that other states have built power plants and established sensible regulatory regimes that don’t force businesses to flee. The power plants scattered throughout the western United States, as well as the factories in the American Midwest and South, have consistently saved California from the folly of its own anti-energy agenda.

source Nuclear Notes

EU industry sees emissions rise

April 2, 2008
Editor:
There are only two ways to lower C02 emissions. Build nuclear or shut down heavy industry.
I predict that both will happen. Because China and India are not subject to Kyoto and they have low labour costs, you will see heavy industry move to those countries. The EU will be forced to build nuclear or pay high carbon emission taxes. All the wind farms and solar panels in the world will not power heavy industry. You can wish and hope all you want but in the final analysis it takes ‘real power’ to run heavy industry.

.

EU industry sees emissions rise

By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News

PA)

Power generation was the only sector to exceed its emissions limit

Carbon dioxide emissions from Europe’s heavy industry sectors rose by 1.1% in 2007, say carbon market analysts.

The estimate is based on initial data from the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which includes more than 10,000 large industrial plants.

Environmentalists say it shows that the scheme, the EU’s main mechanism to meet its Kyoto target, is not working.

But market watchers say the ETS, in the long term, will help deliver the EU goal of cutting emissions by 20%.

“The main thing we have seen from the data released today, although incomplete, is that emissions are up from 2006 to 2007 by about 1.1%,” explained Henrik Hasselknipp, senior analyst for Point Carbon, a research company.

He added that initial analysis of the data also showed that only a few countries’ emissions had exceeded their national limit.

Get the level of cap wrong and, as we saw in Phase One of the ETS, the carbon price could drop to very low, potentially unworkable, levels
Robert Casamento,
Ernst & Young

Most notable was the UK, he said, which went over its allocation by about 85m tonnes for the three-year period between 2005 and 2007.

He suggested that power generators in the UK, Italy and Spain were the only sectors that had exceeded their allowances.

From the BBC

Nuclear and Biofuels Discussed

March 24, 2008
Editor
As you read the two stories below you will notice environmental groups against nuclear and for biofuels. The govt. took the advice of the environmental groups when they implemented their renewable policies because of the pressure of the GREENS and their fear of losing elections. Reality and science, which up till now have been absent, are finally starting to move to the forefront of the debate. The only way to understand what is going on is to understand Agenda 21. The Greens want humanity thrown back to the middle ages. Make sure to check out Global Green Agenda
If you don’t like to read watch the movie Agenda 21 Explained

Nuclear plans attract fresh fire

France nuclear plant

France has already begun to build next generation reactors

Anti-nuclear groups have expressed their disappointment at reports that the UK is poised to join France in creating new nuclear generators. The Guardian newspaper reported that plans for the joint venture are to be announced when French President Nicolas Sarkozy visits the UK next week.

Friends of the Earth says developing nuclear technology was “nonsense” when it comes to tackling climate change.

Downing Street officials said they would not comment on the report.

Nuclear power is limited, dangerous and requires a lot of hi-tech skills to deal with the waste. By far the better technology is renewables
Friends of the Earth

According to the Guardian, the plan calls for the UK to tap into France’s nuclear expertise to create both a skilled workforce and technology that can be exported worldwide within the next 15 years.

Renewables

The paper says the UK is eager to come up with alternatives to fossil fuels.

But Friends of the Earth campaigner Neil Crumpton said: “The idea of selling nuclear power around the world as a solution to climate change is just nonsense.

“Nuclear power is limited, dangerous and requires a lot of hi-tech skills to deal with the waste. By far the better technology is renewables.”

Source BBC

Call for delay to biofuels policy

By Roger Harrabin
BBC Environment Analyst

Petrol pump nozzle

Ministers want 2.5% biofuels to be mixed in petrol at the pumps

The UK’s chief environment scientist has called for a delay to a policy demanding inclusion of biofuels into fuel at pumps across the UK.

Professor Robert Watson said ministers should await the results of their inquiry into biofuels’ sustainability.

Some scientists think biofuels’ carbon benefits may be currently outweighed by negative effects from their production.

The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) is to introduce 2.5% biofuels at the pumps from 1 April.

Professor Robert Watson warned that it would be insane if the RTFO had the opposite effects of the ones intended.

He said biofuels policy in the EU and the UK may have run ahead of the science.

His comments in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme appear on the day when a coalition of pressure groups from Oxfam to Greenpeace writes to the Department for Transport (DfT) demanding that the policy be delayed until after the review.

Sustainability question

Professor Watson does not advise the DfT – and said his thoughts as chief environment scientist on the sustainability of biofuels had not been sought.

The DfT is itself under pressure from an EU policy demanding the inclusion of 5% biofuels in road fuels by 2010 in an attempt to cut carbon emissions.

The EU’s Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas earlier told BBC News that this target should only be reached if the biofuels could be proved to be sustainably produced.

It is impossible to say yet whether any biofuels are truly sustainable or not as they are blended on the world market and their origins are impossible to trace.

Some scientists believe some biofuels – particularly ethanol from sugar cane – should be seen as sustainable.

Serious concern

But others fear the impact of biofuels on food prices. And recent articles from US scientists argue that the carbon debt incurred from carbon released from ploughing virgin soil often outweighed any potential carbon saving from the biofuels.

Professor Watson said some of the calculations on soil science were controversial – but agreed that carbon losses from soil were a serious concern.

He said that the UK was a leader in exploring the full sustainability implications of biofuels.

This is certainly true compared with the US which has set numerical targets for biofuels without consideration of their carbon impact.

But many will question why energy experts promoting biofuels in the EU were allowed to go unchallenged so long by the views on biofuels of agriculture specialists or soil scientists.

Source BBC

The statement above rings true for wind farms as well. In fact the entire Global Warming Crisis has been allowed to run ahead of both science and reasonable debate. (added)

"James Lovelock’s Latest Book Trashes Renewables, Endorses Nuclear Energy'

January 3, 2008
Editor:
Mr. Lovelock seems to love nuclear and hate wind farms. The “Green Movement” loves wind and hates nukes. Odd. The “Green Movement” is based on the theory of Gaia by Mr. Lovelock.
Gaia is like a religion to the “Greens”. I appreciate Mr. Lovelock’s concern for the planet and I share that concern with him. According to Mr. Lovelock, just about everything the “Greens” are trying to shove down our collective throats, he disagrees with. The problem with the Greens is that their agenda is quite different to that of Mr. Lovelock. Al Gore, Maurice Strong, David Suzuki, Ted Turner and all the other leaders of the “Green Movement” are using Gaia to push for control, power and money under the guise of sustainability. The “Green Movement” is a fraud. They should be honest, they are about globalization or,”One World Order” controlled by the UN or a similar body.
Realistically they should be tried for treason against their respective countries.
alternative energy – “James Lovelock’s Latest Book Trashes Renewables, Endorses Nuclear Energy’

By: James A. Finch On the front page of the World Nuclear Association website prominently rests a quote from what some consider the world’s leading environmentalist and among the world’s top scientists, Dr. James Lovelock: “There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are to sustain civilization.” – James Lovelock, preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness

At age eighty-six, Dr. Lovelock has just published his fourth book, The Revenge of Gaia (Penguin Books, 2006). “Gaia” is Dr. Lovelock’s belief that earth is a living, evolving organism, not just a hunk of rock we all live upon. Through his book, Lovelock refers to Gaia, when he is discussing our third planet from the sun. His latest book is a MUST read for anyone who is following the renaissance in nuclear energy. Environmentalists won’t read this book. Perhaps their bosses will BAN them from reading this book. Those environmentalists who carefully read Lovelock’s latest book may very well become nuclear power lobbyists, if they would bathe, shave and spiff up a bit. Chapter Five, “Sources of Energy,” will instantly disintegrate every ridiculous argument propounded by the naïve and antediluvian anti-nuclear movements across the world.

Dr. Lovelock’s credentials and achievements are light years beyond those of any environmental mouthpiece espousing the “green” movement. More so than anyone alive, Lovelock is first and foremost a giant of the earth’s environmentalist movement. Since 1974, Lovelock has been a Fellow of the Royal Society. Since 1994, he has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green College, University of Oxford. New Scientist described him as “one of the great thinkers of our time. The London Observer has called him, “one of the environmental movement’s most influential figures.” In 2003, he was made Companion of Honour by Her Majesty the Queen. Prospect magazine named Dr. Lovelock in September 2005, “one of the world’s top 100 global public intellectuals.”

How does Dr. Lovelock respond to the question of nuclear waste? He writes, “I have offered in public to accept all the high-level waste produced in a year from a nuclear power station for deposit on my small plot of land it would occupy a space about a cubic metre in size and fit safely in a concrete pit, and I would use the heat from its decaying radioactive elements to heat my home. It would be a waste not to use it. More important, it would be no danger to me, my family or the wildlife.” That should enlighten the yokels arguing against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository.

Chapter Five, “Sources of Energy,” concisely and cogently answers every silly “theory” about renewable energy sources hyped by the “green” movement. Let’s take Biomass, which makes sense to any concerned citizen. Lovelock even agrees with the theory of Biomass, writing, “Used sensibly and on a modest scale, burning wood or agricultural waste for heat or energy is no threat to Gaia.” Please note that he modified his statement with “sensibly” and “modest.” In a nutshell, he explains why Biomass will not become a leading energy source, “Bio fuels are especially dangerous because it is too easy to grow them as a replacement for fossil fuel they will then demand an area of land or ocean far larger than Gaia can afford… We have already taken more than half of the productive land to grow food for ourselves. How can we expect Gaia to manage the Earth if we try to take the rest of the land for fuel production?” He added poignantly, “Just imagine that we tried to power our present civilization on crops grown specifically for fuel, such as coppice woodland, fields of oilseed rape, and so on. These are the ‘bio fuels’, the much-applauded renewable energy source…We would need the land area of several Earths just to grow the bio fuel.”

Wind power gets shellacked as well. For those environmentalists, such as Amory Lovins, who believe “Wind Farms” are going to become a significant energy source, they are full of hot air. According to the Royal Society of Engineers 2004 report, onshore European wind energy is two and a half times, and offshore wind energy over three times, more expensive per kilowatt hour than gas or nuclear energy. Denmark, which pioneered wind farms, is regretting the decision. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries said, “In green terms windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense… Many of us thought wind was the 100-percent solution for the future, but we were wrong. In fact, taking all energy needs into account it is only a 3 percent solution.” Lovelock writes, “To supply the UK’s present electricity needs would require 276,000 wind generators, about three per square mile, if national parks, urban, suburban and industrial areas are excluded… at best, energy is available from wind turbines only 25 percent of the time.” German environmentalists, who have recently led the charge for Wind Power, should reconsider. Lovelock writes, “The most recent report from Germany put wind energy as available only 16 percent of the time.”

Surely, solar power must be the answer, right? Wrong! Lovelock writes, “Solar cells are not yet suitable for supplying electricity directly to homes or workplaces, mostly because, despite over thirty years of development, they are quite expensive to make. At the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales there is an experimental house with a roof made almost entirely of silicon photocells. In summer it provides about three kilowatts of electricity, but the cost of installation was comparable with the house itself, and the expected life of the cells is about ten years. Sunlight, like wind, is intermittent and would, without efficient storage, be an inconvenient energy source at these latitudes.”

Solar and wind power were just two of the many energy sources Lovelock sends to the dumpster. Wave and tidal energy, hydro-electricity, hydrogen, fusion energy, coal and oil and natural gas all suffer similar consequences under Dr. Lovelock’s scientific microscope. Geothermal gets a partial endorsement, but Lovelock writes, “Unfortunately there are few places where it is freely available. Iceland is one of them, and it draws a large part of its energy needs from this source.” How many of you know that, while natural gas could cut carbon dioxide emissions by half, if used ubiquitously, some of the natural gas leaks into the air before it burnt? According to the Society of Chemical Industry’s report (2004), this amounts to about 2 to 4 percent of the gas used. Methane, the main constituent of natural gas is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

James Lovelock’s Conclusion on Nuclear Energy

How does James Lovelock feel about nuclear energy? “I believe nuclear power is the only source of energy that will satisfy our demands and yet not be a hazard to Gaia and interfere with its capacity to sustain a comfortable climate and atmospheric composition. This is mainly because nuclear reactions are millions of times more energetic than chemical reactions. The most energy available from a chemical reaction, such as burning carbon in oxygen, is about nine kilowatt hours per kilogram. The nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms to form helium gives several million times as much, and the energy from splitting uranium is greater still.”

Through his book, Lovelock reminds us that nuclear power is the single answer for this century, “We need emission-free energy sources immediately, and there is no serious contender to nuclear fission.”

Lovelock addresses Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, nuclear testing in the 1960s, and many other events over the past fifty years, as nuclear energy has developed. If you wondered about radiation and cancer, Lovelock answers that as well. You may leap up, after reading those pages, and start faxing them off to every environmentalist group you can contact. It may be the most definitive analysis of the disconnect the media and the greens have about nuclear energy and its impact on our health that you have ever read. Lovelock concludes, “The persistent distortion of the truth about the health risks of nuclear energy should make us wonder if the other statements about nuclear energy are equally flawed.”

James Lovelock