| 4.
Field Trip to a Power Plant
Archive of Past Articles for Chapter
4
2009 October 13. Catching
the Wind in Rural Malawi. By Maywa Montenegro,
SEED. Excerpt:
From the blustery plains of Texas
to the Danish island of Samsø, wind power—and
the giant, bladed towers that generate
it—is all the rage in a warming
world searching for cleaner sources
of energy. Fourteen-year-old William
Kamkwamba had never heard of windmills,
or climate change, for that matter,
when he stumbled across a photograph
one day and it changed his life forever.
Now 22, Kamkwamba has become something
of an international DIY celebrity:
He’s spoken at the World Economic
Forum, at the Aspen Ideas Festival,
and at TED Global—twice. He’s
chatted with Al Gore, Bono, and Larry
Page. A documentary about his life
is currently in the works. But Kamkwamba’s
story isn’t really about stardom:
It’s about the grit, resourcefulness,
and audacity of a young engineer
who built a windmill from scrap in
his native Malawi and brought power
to his home—and eventually
lit up every house in the village....
2009
September 14. Hawaii
Tries Green Tools in Remaking Power
Grids.
By Felicity Barringer, The NY Times. Excerpt:
NAALEHU, Hawaii — Two
miles or so from this tiny town in
the southernmost corner of the United
States, across ranches where cattle
herds graze beneath the distant Mauna
Loa volcano, the giant turbines of
a new wind farm cut through the air.
Sixty miles to the northeast, near
a spot where golden-red lava streams
meet the sea in clouds of steam,
a small power plant extracts heat
from the volcanic rock beneath it
to generate electricity.
These projects are just a slice of
the energy experiment unfolding across
Hawaii’s six main islands.
With the most diverse array of alternative
energy potential of any state in
the nation, Hawaii has set out to
become a living laboratory for the
rest of the country, hoping it can
slash its dependence on fossil fuels
while keeping the lights on....
2009 August 19. Drilling
Ordeals Said to Delay Geothermal
Project. By
James Glanz, The NY Times. Excerpt:
The Obama administration’s
first major test of geothermal energy
as a significant alternative to fossil
fuels has fallen seriously behind
schedule, several federal scientists
said this week, even as the project
is under review because of the earthquakes
it could generate in Northern California.
Intended to extract heat from hot bedrock,
the project has been delayed because
the bit on a giant rig, meant to drill
more than two miles underground, has
struggled to pierce surface rock formations,
the scientists said.
...The scientists who told of delays in
the project...said
that after nearly two months of the
highly expensive drilling, the rig
had reached depths of less than 4,000
feet. The original schedule called
for it to reach a final depth of 12,000
feet, or 2.3 miles, after no more than
50 days of drilling, according to company
officials.
The problems are particularly surprising
given that the drilling essentially
started at 3,200 feet, at the bottom
of an older hole at the site, north
of San Francisco at a place called
the Geysers.
...Advocates for the technique, known
as an “enhanced geothermal system,” say
it could eventually generate vast amounts
of energy and reduce America’s
dependence on fossil fuels. But the
latest delays come as AltaRock awaits
word on whether the federal government
will allow the fracturing of rock at
all....
2009 July 2. Should
We Depend on Coal or Nuclear? Five Experts
Discuss how Clean Coal Works,
how Dangerous Nuclear Waste
Really Is, and Whether the
Root of the Problem is Money. BY
Veronique Greenwood, Seed Magazine.
Excerpt: "If I compare the downsides
of coal versus nuclear, I have to
say I’d rather see renewed
investment in nuclear power plant
generation of electricity in this
century than to build more coal plants,” said
Energy Secretary Steven Chu in a
NOVA special released recently. “There’s
no question in my mind, that’s
the lesser of the two evils.”
Wave, wind, sun—the buffet
of renewable energy options is attractive.
But the sheer amount of power generated
by coal and fission cannot be rivaled
by any current system of renewable
energy. Between them, nuclear and
coal provide more than 70 percent
of US electricity. Renewable sources
provided 9 percent as of 2007. While
research is advancing by leaps and
bounds, for the foreseeable future
some dependence on these super-producers
will be necessary. But when deciding
between a new coal plant or a nuclear
plant, a knot of difficult decisions,
many of them decades old, rear their
heads.
Coal-fired plants, of course, spew
out CO2 and toxins like nitrous oxide
and sulfur dioxide. The cumulative
greenhouse effects promise catastrophic
weather phenomena, widespread flooding,
food shortage, displacement, and
extinction....
Nuclear plants produce radioisotopes
with half-lives ranging from a few
days to a few million years. Their
pollution tends to occur in bursts—either
in catastrophic accidents or waste
leaks—but, as with CO2, the
effects can propagate for decades
or centuries. Storage and disposal
of nuclear waste are longstanding
problems, complicated by President
Obama’s plan to abandon the
long-term nuclear storage project
at Yucca Mountain....
...The questions when it comes to
coal and nuclear are: Which process’s
byproducts—CO2 or radioisotopes—are
the least frightening? Which are
we most likely to figure out a solution
for in the near future, and which
has the most pressing effects?...
2009 June 8. New
Tech Could Make Nuclear the Best
Weapon Against Climate Change.
By Elizabeth Svoboda, Discover
Magazine. Excerpt:
...Buoyed by an allocation of $1.25
billion in funding for reactor
research from the 2005 Energy Policy
Act, Idaho National Laboratory scientists
are working to improve safety,
boost efficiency, minimize waste,
and decrease cost in a new generation
of nuclear reactors. Even if renewable
energy goes mainstream, INL researchers
still believe nuclear will be essential
for supporting the electrical grid’s
base load—that portion of
the nation’s
electricity that must be supplied
at a constant rate, in contrast
to the variable supplies from the
sun and wind....
Unlike burning coal or other fossil
fuels, fission—the breaking
apart of atomic nuclei, the process
underlying nuclear energy—emits
no carbon dioxide....
...Nuclear’s day-in, day-out
reliability makes it an essential
companion to renewable energy, argues
Burton Richter, winner of the 1976
Nobel Prize in Physics. “The
sun doesn’t shine at night,
and wind power is highly variable,” he
says. “To meet our emissions
goals, we’re going to have
to grasp every arrow in the quiver,
and nuclear is one of those arrows.”
Before that can happen, though, nuclear
power will have to overcome the unresolved
issue of how to dispose of radioactive
fuel waste....
That is exactly what the INL scientists
are aiming to do, however, confident
that their work is essential to the
planet’s well-being. Their
efforts focus on two new designs:
the very-high-temperature reactor
(VHTR) and the sodium-cooled fast
reactor (SFR). Both incorporate inherent
safety features to prevent core overheating
and the release of radioactive material.
The hope is that these new approaches
will finally erase the memory of
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and
eliminate some of the political opposition
that has stymied the American nuclear
power industry for three decades....
2009 May 10. Students,
faculty design green way to absorb
power plant waste.
By Dana Bartholomew, LA Daily News.
Excerpt: As drought dries the Southland,
Cal State Northridge has sprouted
a new home for the jungle yodeler
- a subtropical rain forest.
The campus ... has already won national
awards for its fuel-cell power plant,
the largest operated by any university
in the world.
Now it has created a "rain forest" of
115 tropical species that inhale
its greenhouse gas and ingest its
wastewater stream, the first such
design on the planet.
...The university built its award-winning
1-megawatt fuel-cell plant two years
ago after its main plant hit capacity
during hyper campus growth.
The $3 million fuel-cell plant, which
converts natural gas into electricity
via an electrochemical process, now
supplies 18 percent of the campus'
electricity and air conditioning
needs.
But while the combustion-free plant
produces zero particulate emissions,
it cranks out planet-warming carbon
dioxide, in addition to wastewater
high in potassium chloride.
So faculty members joined students
to design a "green" means
to absorb the waste.
...rather than spew 3,600 cubic-feet
per minute of carbon dioxide into
the sky, as traditional condensers
do, the gas is aimed into a bed of
flowering tulip trees, hibiscus,
cana lilies and more.
...And up to 6 gallons a minute of
wastewater rich in plant nutrients
leaches into the soil....
..."What we're going for here
is a marriage between nature and
technology, because this equipment
is usually hidden on rooftops," said
Ben Elisondo, manager of Physical
Plant Management....
2009 March 10. E.P.A.
Proposes Tracking Industry Emissions. By Kate Galbraith,
The NY Times. Excerpt: The Environmental
Protection Agency proposed a rule
on Tuesday that would require a broad
range of industries to tally and
report their greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposal...would require about
13,000 factories, power plants and
other facilities to report their
emissions of carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide and other gases that
climate scientists link to global
warming.
...The E.P.A. says that the rule,
promulgated under the Clean Air Act,
would account for 85 percent to 90
percent of the country’s emissions
of heat-trapping gases....
...“This is the foundation
of any serious program to cap and
reduce global warming pollution,” said
David Doniger, the policy director
for the climate center at the Natural
Resources Defense Council. “You
have to have source-by-source data
on how much of global warming pollution
is emitted and from where.”...
2009 March 10. Energy
Dept. Said to Err on Coal Project.
By Matthew L. Wald, The NY Times. Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — The
Energy Department made a $500 million
math error a year ago when it withdrew
its support from a “near-zero
emissions” coal plant in Illinois,
Congressional auditors...say....
The error led the department to say
mistakenly that the project, known
as FutureGen, had nearly doubled
in cost — an increase the Bush
administration deemed too expensive.
At the time, FutureGen was the leading
effort to capture and sequester carbon
dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas
linked to global warming. If the
project were resumed and proved successful,
it could provide a model for curbing
the carbon dioxide that coal adds
to the atmosphere.
The new energy secretary, Steven
Chu, has said that he will consider
renewing support for FutureGen but
that changes will be needed....
2009 March 9. Turn,
Turn, Turn. By C. Claiborne
Ray, The NY Times. Excerpt:
Q. Why is it that nearly every
time I see a wind farm, like the
one at Altamont Pass, so few of
the turbines are spinning, even
in a stiff breeze?
A. The wind farm at Altamont Pass in California is one of the
oldest in the country, and technology has marched on.
“The performance and reliability of older wind turbines
from the 1970s and 1980s era, of which there are quite a few
in California, is analogous to an older computer,” said
Mark Rodgers, communications director of Cape Wind, the developer
of an offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts. “It
would be like offices still using Apple II’s or Commodores
from 1978.”
“With modern wind farms,” he said, “it is possible
that an individual turbine could be down for maintenance. Or
if the winds were light, it could be right on the edge where
some turbines are getting just enough wind to operate, others
slightly less.”...
2009 March 2. Can
Geothermal Power Compete with Coal
on Price? By Christopher
Mims, Scientific American. Excerpt:
Although the environmental benefits
of burning less fossil fuel by using
renewable sources of energy—such
as geothermal, hydropower, solar
and wind—are clear, there's
been a serious roadblock in their
adoption: cost per kilowatt-hour.
That barrier may be opening, however—at
least for one of these sources. Two
recent reports, among others, suggest
that geothermal may actually be cheaper
than every other source, including
coal. Geothermal power plants work
by pumping hot water from deep beneath
Earth's surface, which can either be
used to turn steam turbines directly
or to heat a second, more volatile
liquid such as isobutane (which then
turns a steam turbine).
Combine a new U.S. president pushing
a stimulus package that includes $28
billion in direct subsidies for renewable
energy with another $13 billion for
research and development, and the picture
for renewable energy—geothermal
power among the options—is brightening.
The newest report, from international
investment bank Credit Suisse, says
geothermal power costs 3.6 cents per
kilowatt-hour, versus 5.5 cents per
kilowatt-hour for coal.
That does not mean companies are rushing
to build geothermal plants: There are
a number of assumptions in the geothermal
figure. First, there are the tax incentives,
which save about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour....
Second, the Credit Suisse analysis
relied on...the total cost to produce
a given unit of energy. Embedded within
this figure is an assumption that the
money to build a new geothermal plant
is available at reasonable interest
rates—on the order of 8 percent.
In today's economic climate, that just
isn't the case....
...There's another significant issue:
finding geothermal resources. In that
way, the geothermal industry has the
same challenges as the oil and gas
industry. The Credit Suisse analysis
doesn't factor in exploration costs,
which can run hundreds of thousands
of dollars for per well....
2009 February 17. Alaska
Is a Frontier for Green Power. By Stephan Milkowski,
The NY Times. Excerpt:
TOKSOOK BAY, Alaska — Beyond
the fishing boats, the snug homes
and the tanks of diesel fuel marking
this Eskimo village on the Bering
Sea, three huge wind turbines tower
over the tundra. Their blades spin
slowly in a breeze cold enough to
freeze skin.
One of the nation’s harshest
landscapes, it turns out, is becoming
fertile ground for green power.
...Alaska is fast becoming a testing
ground for new technologies and an
unlikely experiment in oil-state
support for renewable energy....
In remote villages like this one,
where diesel to power generators
is shipped by barge and can cost
more than $5 a gallon in bulk, electricity
from renewable sources like wind
is already competitive with power
made from fossil fuels. In urban
areas along the state’s limited
road system, large wind and hydroelectric
projects are also becoming attractive.
Alaska produces more oil than any
state except Texas, but most of it
leaves the state. Small markets and
high transportation costs have kept
local fuel prices high. As oil prices
spiked last year, the state’s
coffers overflowed with oil tax revenue,
but the rising cost of diesel and
other fuels became a local crisis.
...Advocates of renewable energy
here say Alaska, with its windy coasts,
untapped rivers and huge tidal and
wave resources, could quickly become
a national leader. The state already
generates 24 percent of its electricity
from renewable sources — almost
exclusively hydroelectric — and
Ms. Palin last month announced a
goal of 50 percent by 2025....
2008 December 25. Solar
Meets Polar as Winter Curbs Clean
Energy. By Kate
Galbraith. Excerpt: Old
Man Winter, it turns out, is no friend
of renewable energy.This time of year,
wind turbine blades ice up, biodiesel
congeals in tanks and solar panels
produce less power because there is
not as much sun. And perhaps most irritating
to the people who own them, the panels
become covered with snow, rendering
them useless even in bright winter
sunshine...As concern has grown about
global warming, many utilities and
homeowners have been trying to shrink
their emissions of carbon dioxide — their
carbon footprints — by installing
solar panels, wind turbines and even
generators powered by tides or rivers.
But for the moment, at least, the planet
is still cold enough to deal nasty
winter blows to some of this green
machinery...The
wind industry admits that turbines
can drop ice, like a lamppost or any
tall structure. To ameliorate the hazard,
some turbines are painted black to
absorb sunlight and melt the ice faster.
But Ron Stimmel, an expert on small
wind turbines at the American Wind
Energy Association, denies that the
whirling blades tend to hurl icy javelins.Large
turbines turn off automatically as
ice builds up, and small turbines will
slow and stop because the ice prevents
them from spinning — “just
like a plane’s wing needs to
be de-iced to fly,” Mr. Stimmel
said.Mr. Brokaw says that his turbines
do turn off when they are too icy,
but the danger sometimes comes right
before the turbines shut down, after
a wet, warm snow causes ice buildup.From
the standpoint of generating power,
winter is actually good for wind
turbines, because it is generally
windier than summer. In Vermont,
for example, Green Mountain Power,
which operates a small wind farm
in the southeastern part of the state,
gets more than twice the monthly
production in winter as in August.The
opposite is true, however, for solar
power. Days are shorter and the sun
is lower in the sky during the winter,
ensuring less power production...
2008 October 6. A
Gift From the ’70s:
Energy Lessons. By John Tierny,
The New York Times. Excerpt:
The presidential candidates claim to
see America’s
energy future, but their competing
visions have a certain vintage quality.
They’ve revived that classic
debate: the hard path versus the soft
path.
The soft path, as Amory Lovins defined
it in the 1970s, is energy conservation
and power from the sun, wind and
plants — the technologies that
Senator Barack Obama emphasizes in
his plan to reduce greenhouse emissions.
Senator John McCain is more enthusiastic
about building nuclear power plants,
the quintessential hard path.
As a rule, it’s not a good
idea to revive anything from the
1970s. But this debate is the exception,
and not just because the threat of
global warming has raised the stakes.
The old lessons are as good a guide
as any to the future, as William
Tucker argues in “Terrestrial
Energy,” his history of the
hard-soft debate.
...Today about 20 percent of electricity
in America is generated by nuclear
power, which is about 20 times the
contribution from solar and wind
power. Nuclear power also costs less,
according to Gilbert Metcalf, an
economist at Tufts University. After
estimating the costs and factoring
out the hefty tax breaks for different
forms of low-carbon energy, he estimates
that new nuclear plants could produce
electricity more cheaply than windmills,
solar power or “clean coal” plants....
..."The nuclear debate is still stuck
back in the 1980s," says Mr. Tucker,
the author of "Terrestrial Energy,"
the new brand he's trying to affix
to nuclear power. If people started
associating nuclear plants with natural
radioactive processes in the Earth
instead of atomic bombs, he says,
they might be persuaded that it's
the most environmentally benign form
of energy....
2008 Sep. Nuclear
Redux - Climate Change Forces a
Reexamination of Nuclear Power. By AMY KISER, Terrain
Magazine. Excerpt:
For the last several decades, "no
nukes" has
been the mantra of environmentalists
and a no-brainer for many US citizens.
The generation of nuclear
power involved impossible-to-ignore
environmental risks, horribly
obvious after Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl....plants could suffer
meltdowns, and safe storage options
for spent fuel were questionable.
Plans to build new nuclear power
plants ground to a halt in many
countries, including the US, partially
due to bad publicity and the
enormous expense of plant construction.
But then ... global warming took
center stage.... The need to
transition away from burning fossil
fuels became paramount, and some
environmentalists began to reconsider
nuclear power as a necessary
and even preferable part of the energy
portfolio.
...The Energy Commission found that
a complete life-cycle analysis of
nuclear power reveals that its greenhouse
gas emissions are
comparable to wind, solar voltaics,
and geothermal technologies.
...The radioactive spent fuel left
over from generating nuclear power
is one of its greatest liabilities,
but some argue that radioactive waste-because
it is contained-is better than the
byproducts of burning coal. ... In
1993, nuclear physicist Alex Gabbard
of Oak Ridge National Laboratory
wrote in a seminal article,
"Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material
than
fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly
noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive
ash
due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and radioactive
material from the coal. Contrary to popular belief, coal power
actually results in more radioactive waste being released into
the
environment than nuclear power. The population effective dose
equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much
as
nuclear plants."
Admittedly, comparing anything to coal sets a pretty low bar.
...The
US nuclear power industry gets much of its fuel from Russia's
decommissioned nuclear weapons.
... a large quantity of intermediate-level waste is created,
and deep
repositories like Yucca Mountain are still necessary.
...Soon, the US will be in the business of recovering plutonium
from
our own surplus weapons.
...Nuclear power plants (and reprocessing plants) are costly
to
build, and they depend on government subsidies and loan guarantees
to
be competitive. Large reactors can cost $2.5 billion to $4 billion
each; it takes decades to recoup the investment. As part of the
2005
Energy Policy Act, Congress granted approximately $10 billion
in new
subsidies to the nuclear industry.
Many environmentalists fear that public investment in nuclear
will
gobble up dollars that could be invested in renewable energy
and
energy efficiency. The National Resources Defense Council warns
that
the cost of nuclear power is prohibitive and makes it uncompetitive
on the free market.
...Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has argued that,
"every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen
climate
change by buying less solution per dollar."
...Many environmentalists are content to let nuclear power fade
into
history because they believe that the current paradigm of the
energy
grid, featuring large, centralized power plants, is outdated.
The
evolving model involves decentralized generation, often called "the
Internet for energy."
...Stewart Brand insists that a decentralized model does not
preclude
nuclear power generation. Indeed, a race is on worldwide to produce
a
new generation of small nuclear reactors that can live on a barge
or
sit in a hole in the ground for decades. ....
2008 August 31. Tajikistan
Hopes Water Will Power Its Ambitions. By
DAVID L. STERN, The New York Times.
Excerpt:
NUREK, Tajikistan — The
inscription just above a tunnel at
the foot of the colossal Nurek hydropower
dam in south central Tajikistan is
succinct: “Water Is Life.” The
frigid, frothing Vakhsh River rushing
under it adds a visual punctuation
mark.
In Tajikistan, the source of more
than 40 percent of Central Asia’s
water, this is no mere platitude.
The mountainous state lacks the industry
and natural riches that bless other
former Soviet Central Asian republics.
Water is one of the few resources
the country possesses in great abundance.
For this reason, President Emomali
Rakhmon has pinned Tajikistan’s
economic hopes — and perhaps
even its continued political existence — on
developing its hydropower potential.
Three projects are either under construction
or being considered, including Rogun,
a gargantuan structure farther up
the Vakhsh River. Tajik officials
say they have hopes of building more
than 20 hydroelectric plants and
dams.
But a number of sizable hurdles must
be surmounted before the plans for
a great hydropower future can be
realized. Tajikistan is in an earthquake
zone and the dams must be built to
withstand major seismic shocks. Officials
are expected to conduct environmental
impact studies to determine whether
any flora or fauna will be threatened.
The Tajik government is also heavily
in debt and must find heavy foreign
investment to build the dams. On
Wednesday, China agreed to build
a $300 million hydroelectric power
plant, Nurobad-2, with a capacity
of 160 to 220 megawatts. But Tajik
officials say Rogun alone will cost
up to $3.2 billion.
...Though for the moment it seems
to be managing, Tajikistan threatens
to become a failed state, say Western
experts and diplomats...The country
still has not fully recovered from
a devastating civil war a decade
ago. State coffers are virtually
empty, while the government is viewed
as unable to meet basic needs.
...All of Tajikistan’s power
troubles will be remedied by the
dam projects, the Rakhmon government
hopes. They will not only provide
for all of Tajikistan’s energy
needs but also allow the country
to export power to neighboring countries.
...Rogun, for example, will generate
about 13 billion kilowatt hours per
year, more than 80 percent of the
country’s average consumption,
officials at the construction site
say....
2008 August 26. Air
Storage Is Explored for Energy. By KEN BELSON, The New
York Times. Excerpt: When Mayor Michael
R. Bloomberg dreamed out loud last
week about a New York skyline filled
with wind turbines, one of the most
serious issues raised by the naysayers
was that the wind does not always
blow when you need it.
But a New Jersey company plans to
announce on Tuesday that it is working
on a solution to this perennial problem
with wind power: using wind turbines
to produce compressed air that can
be stored underground or in tanks
and released later to power generators
during peak hours.
The company, Public Service Enterprise
Group Global LLC, a subsidiary of
P.S.E.G. Energy Holdings, is forming
a joint venture with Michael Nakhamkin,
a leader in the development of energy
storage technology....
The venture has met with utilities
that might buy the storage technology.
Compressed air can be produced by
a variety of fuels. But the new venture
hopes to put wind power generated
during off-peak hours to use during
peak hours — typically 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. — and especially
on hot days.
...P.S.E.G. Global is trying to win
a contract to build 95 windmills
that would produce a maximum of 350
megawatts of electricity off the
New Jersey coast. If the company
is chosen, it would consider linking
the windmills to a compressed air
storage plant, Mr. Byrd said, and
then feeding it into the power grid.
Roy Daniel, the chief executive of
Energy Storage and Power, said that
an underground reservoir the size
of Giants Stadium could hold enough
compressed air to power three 300-megawatt
plants. (One megawatt hour can power
a large hospital for an hour.) The
reservoirs, which are typically more
than 1,500 feet below ground, could
take eight hours to fill at night.
The compressed air would be released
to run generators for eight hours
during the day....
2008 July 25. Oil
Spill on Nearly 100 Miles of Mississippi
River. By
ADAM NOSSITER, NY Times. Excerpt:
NEW ORLEANS - A sheen of oil coated
the Mississippi River for nearly
100 miles from the center of this
city to the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday
following the worst oil spill here
in nearly a decade. The fuel-laden
barge that collided with a heavy
tanker on Wednesday was still leaking.
The thick industrial fuel pouring
from the barge could be smelled for
miles in city neighborhoods up and
down the river, even as hundreds
of cleanup workers struggled to contain
the hundreds of thousands of gallons.
Some environmentalists worried about
reports of fish and bird kills in
sensitive marsh areas downstream,
though officials said they had so
far heard of only a handful of oil-covered
birds. Booms to protect areas richest
in wildlife, at the river's mouth,
were being deployed, officials said.
..."We've had a number of large
spills in the New Orleans area, but
this is a heavy, nasty product, problematic
in the cleanup," said Lt. Cmdr.
Cheri Ben-Iesau of the Coast Guard,
adding that it is of the sort normally
used to fire up boilers at power
plants.
"It's a significant spill, if
for nothing else because of its impact
on the water supply," Commander
Ben-Iesau said. "We've got a
lot of commerce dependent on this
water supply, so we're scrambling
to get it cleaned up."
...Officials were generally guarded
about the possible effects on fish,
plants and wildlife in these rivers
of grass and marshlands, but some
in the state's environmental community
were not.
"When it goes down to the area
where there are no longer levees,
it gets into the swamp," said
Wilma Subra of the Louisiana Environmental
Action Network. "It's going
to contaminate the marsh."....
2008 June 13. The
case for Yucca mountain revisited. NUCLEAR WASTE:
Yucca Mountain Revisited. Isaac J.
Winograd* and Eugene H. Roseboom
Jr. - Science 13 June 2008: Vol.
320. no. 5882, pp. 1426 - 1427 -
Excerpt: In papers published over
a quarter of a century ago (1-3),
we discussed the assets and liabilities
of isolating high-level radioactive
wastes (HLWs) (chiefly spent fuel
from nuclear reactors) from the environment
by burying them in areas with deep
water tables, ... This idea--endorsed
for further study by our colleagues
at the U.S. Geological Survey and
by scientists at Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory (4) and the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (5)--eventually
led to identification of Yucca Mountain
(YM) (see photograph) as a potential
repository for HLWs. ....
The idea of storing radioactive waste
at YM was born into political controversy.
In 1987, Congress, via an amendment
to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, selected YM from a group of
three previously identified potential
repository sites. ...the Nuclear
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987
became known among Nevadans as the "screw
Nevada bill."
...The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit
was aware that some of the radionuclides
in HLWs have half-lives of thousands
to millions of years and followed
a recommendation of the National
Research Council (9) regarding time
frames. ... for permissible releases
of radioactivity to the environment
to encompass a time frame of hundreds
of thousands to a million years.
Before the court's ruling, the USEPA
considered a 10,000-year time frame
as an achievable requirement. ....
...Last, and hardly least, is the
decades-old public opposition to
a geologic repository, not only in
Nevada and across the United States,
but in Europe as well.... This opposition
stems from various concerns and/or
agendas, including: fear of nuclear
radiation; distrust of governmental
and technical community assurances
regarding safety; opposition to nuclear
power; and various NIMBY...-related
issues....
In view of the above matters, it
has been argued that HLWs should
be stored at the surface, perhaps
even for a century or two during
which time better solutions may develop.
However, extended surface storage
of the HLWs (presently about 60,000
metric tons) at 72 commercial reactor
sites--many adjacent to metropolitan
areas and all next to rivers, lakes,
or the ocean--introduces its own
set of uncertainties. For example,
what is the likelihood that more
pressing future national problems
could cause final isolation of the
HLWs to be postponed indefinitely?
What is the probability that the
funds for HLW disposal, now being
generated by a surcharge on nuclear-generated
electricity, will still be available
a century in the future? In the event
of accidents, sabotage, or a loss
of institutional control, a variety
of scenarios can be envisioned that
would create environmental hazards
greater than any that could result
from emplacement of HLWs in an underground
repository. ....
Given that both geologic isolation
of HLWs and their storage at the
surface are fraught with uncertainty,
how might we proceed with the disposition
of HLWs in a manner that restores
public confidence?
2008 July 9. Ocean
Wind Power Maps Reveal Possible
Wind Energy Sources. NASA News Release. Excerpt: WASHINGTON
-- Efforts to harness the energy
potential of Earth's ocean winds
could soon gain an important new
tool: global satellite maps from
NASA. Scientists have been creating
maps using nearly a decade of data
from NASA's QuikSCAT satellite that
reveal ocean areas where winds could
produce wind energy.
The new maps have many potential
uses including planning the location
of offshore wind farms to convert
wind energy into electric energy...
"Wind energy is environmentally
friendly. After the initial energy
investment to build and install wind
turbines, you don't burn fossil fuels
that emit carbon," said study
lead author Tim Liu, a senior research
scientist and QuikSCAT science team
leader at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
in Pasadena, Calif. "Like solar
power, wind energy is green energy."
QuikSCAT, launched in 1999, tracks
the speed, direction and power of
winds near the ocean surface. Data
from QuikSCAT, collected continuously
by a specialized microwave radar
instrument named SeaWinds, also are
used to predict storms and enhance
the accuracy of weather forecasts.
Wind energy has the potential to
provide 10 to 15 percent of future
world energy requirements, according
to Paul Dimotakis, chief technologist
at JPL. If ocean areas with high
winds were tapped for wind energy,
they could potentially generate 500
to 800 watts of energy per square
meter, according to Liu's research.
Dimotakis notes that while this is
slightly less than solar energy (which
generates about one kilowatt of energy
per square meter), wind power can
be converted to electricity more
efficiently than solar energy and
at a lower cost per watt of electricity
produced...
2008 July. DOE
urged to proceed more deliberately
with global plan to expand nuclear
power. David Kramer,
Physics Today page 19. Excerpt: Critics
of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
[GNEP] say the Department of Energy
is rushing to commercialize unproven
technologies. ...Many experts believe
that a vast expansion of nuclear
power is the only plausible option
for meeting the anticipated explosion
in electricity demand from the developing
world while mitigating global warming.
...Unveiled in 2006 by President
Bush, the GNEP envisions the US and
other nuclear powers supplying aspiring
nuclear nations with both advanced
reactors and the nuclear fuel for
them. For their part, recipient nations
would agree to return their spent
fuel to its nation of origin and
pledge not to develop uranium-enrichment
or spent-fuel reprocessing capabilities
of their own.
...Two groups of outside reviewers
also have urged DOE to apply the
brakes to the GNEP. The Government
Accountability Office warned in a
May report that moving to construction
too rapidly will "likely require
using unproven evolutions of existing
technologies" and ultimately
limit their usefulness for nuclear
waste reduction and proliferation
prevention.
...No feature of the GNEP is more
controversial than reprocessing,
a technology that the US forswore
for civilian use in the late 1970s
out of concern that reprocessed plutonium
could be stolen or diverted for weapons
purposes.
... "We know exactly what it
costs to reprocess, but nobody has
even the slightest idea what it will
cost to store spent fuel," [Alan]
Hanson [executive vice president
of Areva, the French nuclear conglomerate]
told the May roundtable.
Indeed, storage costs can't be estimated
as long as the already decades-long
delay with building the Yucca Mountain
site drags on. But even if the repository
is completed-not before 2020, according
to DOE-it will have only enough room
for spent fuel that is generated
through the year 2010 (see PHYSICS
TODAY, June 2008, page 28). Without
reprocessing, DOE warns, a second
repository will need to be built
to accommodate the growing quantities
of spent fuel that will result from
a revitalized US nuclear industry,
let alone material that will be shipped
back to the US under the GNEP.
2008 Summer. America's
Energy Future: Why Water Matters. David
Holtz, Clean Water Action News. Excerpt:
While enacting strong policies
that encourage energy sources like
wind and solar seem like obvious
good global warming and employment
solutions, it is also increasingly
clear that water - protecting it,
conserving it - matters a lot in
considering other choices, particularly
nuclear and coal, in the context
of global warming.
... Proposed expansion of nuclear
power and the introduction of new,
untried technology of capturing carbon
from coal plant emissions and sequestering
it underground raise important and
still unaddressed questions related
to water. Both nuclear and coal power
plants use huge amounts of water,
mostly in cooling processes.
... In August, the Tennessee Valley
Authority was forced to shut down
one reactor at the Browns Ferry nuclear
plant in Alabama and scale back production
at the plant's two other reactors
because of overheated water in the
Tennessee River, which is used to
cool the facility.
..."Water is the nuclear industry's
Achilles heel," Jim Warren,
executive director of N.C. Waste
Awareness and Reduction Network,
told the Associated Press in January. "You
need a lot of water to operate nuclear
plants."
The vast amounts of water used by
coal plants for cooling purposes
also raise questions, said Roger
Smith, Clean Water Action's Global
Warming and Energy Policy Associate. "All
of our assumptions for power plant
water use are based on current and
historical levels of water," Smith
explained. "What happens if
those assumptions are wrong?
2008 July 1. Georgia
Judge Cites Carbon Dioxide in Denying
Coal Plant Permit. By Matthew L. Wald, The New
York Times. Excerpt:
A judge in Georgia has thrown out
an air pollution permit for a new
coal-fired power plant because the
permit did not set limits on carbon
dioxide emissions.
Both opponents of coal use and the
company that wants to build the plant
said it was the first time a court
decision had linked carbon dioxide
to an air pollution permit.
The decision’s broader legal
impact was not clear, either for
the plant, proposed to be built near
Blakely, in Early County, Ga., or
for others outside Georgia, but it
signaled that builders of coal plants
would face continued difficulties
in the court system as well as with
elected officials in many states.
In the ruling released late Monday
afternoon, a state judge relied on
a decision by the Supreme Court last
year that carbon dioxide could be
regulated as a pollutant. Carbon
dioxide, which is colorless, odorless
and not directly harmful to animals
or plants, is not now regulated,
and the Bush administration has signaled
that it would not issue such regulations
before the president leaves office.
But the judge, Thelma Wyatt Cummings
Moore in Superior Court in Fulton
County, Ga., said that federal air
pollution control laws required pollution
permits to cover all pollutants that
could be regulated under the Clean
Air Act, not just those for which
there is “a separate, general
numerical limitation.”
Robert Wyman, a partner in the Los
Angeles office of Latham & Watkins,
the law firm, who has represented
power producers in previous cases,
said of the decision: “I would
be surprised if it had much of an
impact. I’m not sure other
jurisdictions will pick up that opinion.”
Vickie Patton, the deputy general
counsel at the Environmental Defense
Fund, however, argued that the judge’s
reasoning might prove persuasive
to other courts facing similar issues...
2008 May 30. Mounting
Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal.By
MATTHEW L. WALD, NY Times. Excerpt:
WASHINGTON - For years, scientists
have had a straightforward idea
for taming global warming. They
want to take the carbon dioxide
that spews from coal-burning power
plants and pump it back into the
ground. President Bush ... has
spent years talking up the virtues
of "clean coal." All
three candidates to succeed him
favor the approach. So do many
other members of Congress.
Coal companies are for it. Many
environmentalists favor it. Utility
executives are practically begging
for the technology. But it has
become clear in recent months that
the nation's effort to develop
the technique is lagging badly.
In January, the government canceled
its support for what was supposed
to be a showcase project, a plant
at a carefully chosen site in Illinois
where there was coal, access to
the power grid, and soil underfoot
that backers said could hold the
carbon dioxide for eons.
Perhaps worse, in the last few
months, utility projects in Florida,
West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota
and Washington State that would
have made it easier to capture
carbon dioxide have all been canceled
or thrown into regulatory limbo.
...In Wisconsin, engineers are
testing a method that may allow
them to bolt machinery for capturing
carbon dioxide onto the back of
old-style power plants; Sweden,
Australia and Denmark are planning
similar tests. And German engineers
are exploring another approach,
one that involves burning coal
in pure oxygen, which would produce
a clean stream of exhaust gases
that could be injected into the
ground. But no project is very
far along, and it remains an open
question whether techniques for
capturing and storing carbon dioxide
will be available by the time they
are critically needed....
2008 May 23. Italy
Plans to Resume Building Atomic
Plants.By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
NY Times. Excerpt: ROME - Italy
announced Thursday that within
five years it planned to resume
building nuclear energy plants,
two decades after a public referendum
resoundingly banned nuclear power
and deactivated all its reactors.
...The change is a striking sign
of the times, reflecting growing
concern in many European countries
over the skyrocketing price of
oil and energy security, and the
warming effects of carbon emissions
from fossil fuels. All have combined
to make this once-scorned form
of energy far more palatable.
"Italy has had the most dramatic,
the most public turnaround, but
the sentiments against nuclear
are reversing very quickly all
across Europe - Holland, Belgium,
Sweden, Germany and more," said
Ian Hore-Lacey, spokesman for the
World Nuclear Association, an industry
group based in London.
...A number of European countries
have banned or restricted nuclear
power in the past 20 years, including
Italy, which closed all its plants.
Germany and Belgium have long prohibited
the building of reactors, although
existing ones were allowed to run
their natural lifespan. France
was one of the few countries that
continued to rely heavily on nuclear
power.
...conditions were very different
in the 1980s, when European countries
turned away from nuclear power.
Oil cost less than $50 a barrel,
global warming was a fringe science
and climate change had not been
linked to manmade emissions. Perhaps
more important for the public psyche,
almost all of Europe's nuclear
bans and restrictions were enacted
after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster
in the Soviet Union in which radioactivity
was released into the environment.
The equation has changed. Today,
with oil approaching $150 a barrel,
most European countries, which
generally have no oil and gas resources,
have been forced by finances to
consider new forms of energy -
and fast. New nuclear plants take
20 years to build. Also, Europeans
watched in horror in 2006 as President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia cut
off the natural gas supply to Ukraine
in a price dispute, leaving it
in darkness.
...To build nuclear plants, Italy
would almost certainly have to
improve its system of dealing with
nuclear waste. The plants that
were shut down years ago still
store 235 tons of nuclear fuel.
See also World Uranium Reserves,
[http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html]
By James Hopf, Nuclear Engineer,
November 2004
2008 April 23. Europe
Turns Back to Coal, Raising Climate
Fears. ELISABETH
ROSENTHAL. The NY times. Excerpt:
At a time when the world’s
top climate experts agree that carbon
emissions must be rapidly reduced
to hold down global warming, Italy’s
major electricity producer, Enel,
is converting its massive power plant
here from oil to coal, generally
the dirtiest fuel on earth. Over
the next five years, Italy will increase
its reliance on coal to 33 percent
from 14 percent. Power generated
by Enel from coal will rise to 50
percent. And Italy is not alone in
its return to coal. Driven by rising
demand, record high oil and natural
gas prices, concerns over energy
security and an aversion to nuclear
energy, European countries are expected
to put into operation about 50 coal-fired
plants over the next five years,
plants that will be in use for the
next five decades…
Enel and many other electricity companies
say they have little choice but to
build coal plants to replace aging
infrastructure, particularly in countries
like Italy and Germany that have
banned the building of nuclear power
plants. Fuel costs have risen 151
percent since 1996, and Italians
pay the highest electricity costs
in Europe. In terms of cost and energy
security, coal has all the advantages,
its proponents argue. Coal reserves
will last for 200 years, rather than
50 years for gas and oil. Coal is
relatively cheap compared with oil
and natural gas, although coal prices
have tripled in the past few years.
More important, hundreds of countries
export coal — there is not
a coal cartel — so there is
more room to negotiate prices…
The task — in which carbon
emissions are pumped into underground
reservoirs rather than released — is
challenging for any fuel source,
but particularly so for coal, which
produces more carbon dioxide than
oil or natural gas. Under optimal
current conditions, coal produces
more than twice as much carbon dioxide
per unit of electricity as natural
gas, the second most common fuel
used for electricity generation,
according to the Electric Power Research
Institute. In the developing world,
where even new coal plants use lower
grade coal and less efficient machinery,
the equation is even worse…The
European Union had pledged to develop
12 pilot carbon-capture projects
for Europe, but says that is not
enough.
On many other fronts, the new Enel
plant is a model of efficiency and
recycling. The nitrous oxide is chemically
altered to generate ammonia, which
is then sold. The resulting coal
ash and gypsum are sold to the cement
industry.
An on-site desalination plant means
that the operation generates its
own water for cooling. Even the heated
water that comes out of the plant
is not wasted: it heats a fish farm,
one of Italy’s largest…
In the towns surrounding Civitavecchia,
the impending arrival of a huge coal
plant, with its three silvery domes,
is being greeted with a hefty dose
of dread….
2008 Apr 15. Technology
Smooths the Way for Home Wind-Power
Turbines.
By JOHN CASEY, NY Times. Excerpt:
Wind turbines, once used primarily
for farms and rural houses far from
electrical service, are becoming
more common in heavily populated
residential areas as homeowners are
attracted to ease of use, financial
incentives and low environmental
effects.
No one tracks the number of small-scale
residential wind turbines - windmills
that run turbines to produce electricity
- in the United States. ... a convergence
of factors, political, technical
and ecological, has caused a surge
in the use of residential wind turbines,
especially in the Northeast and California. "Back
in the early days, off-grid electrical
generation was pursued mostly by
hippies and rednecks, usually in
isolated, rural areas," said
Joe Schwartz, editor of Home Power
magazine. "Now, it's a lot more
mainstream."
"The big shift happened in the
last three years," Mr. Schwartz
said, because of technology that
makes it possible to feed electricity
back to the grid, the commercial
power system fed by large utilities. "These
new systems use the utility for back
up power, removing the need for big,
expensive battery backup systems." ...Ecological
concerns, more than cost savings
may drive many new residential turbine
installations. "People want
to reduce their carbon footprints," Mr.
Tonko said. "They're concerned
about climate change and they want
to reduce our reliance of foreign
sources of fuels."
Mr. Schwartz, the editor, said that
even with the economic benefits,
it can take 20 years to pay back
the installation cost. "This
isn't about people putting turbines
in to lower their electric bills
as much as it is about people voting
with their dollars to help the environment
in some small way," he said.
...Even if the wind is strong, zoning
and aesthetics can pose problems. "Turbines
work in rural areas with strong wind," Mr.
Schwartz said. "But in urban
and suburban areas, neighbors are
never happy to see a 60- to 120-foot
tower going up across the street."
2008 Apr 15. New
Ways to Store Solar Energy for
Nighttime and Cloudy Days.
By MATTHEW L. WALD, NY Times. Excerpt:
Solar power, the holy grail of
renewable energy, has always faced
the problem of how to store the
energy captured from the sun's
rays so that demand for electricity
can be met at night or whenever
the sun is not shining. The difficulty
is that electricity is hard to
store. Batteries are not up to
efficiently storing energy on a
large scale. A different approach
being tried by the solar power
industry could eliminate the problem.
The idea is to capture the sun's heat. ... a "power tower," a
little bit like a water tank on stilts surrounded by hundreds
of mirrors that tilt on two axes, one to follow the sun across
the sky in the course of the day and the other in the course
of the year. In the tower and in a tank below are tens of thousands
of gallons of molten salt that can be heated to very high temperatures
and not reach high pressure.
...Terry Murphy, president and chief executive of SolarReserve,
... design is for a power tower that can supply 540 megawatts
of heat. At the high temperatures it could achieve, that would
produce 250 megawatts of electricity, enough to run a fair-size
city. It might make more sense to produce a smaller quantity
and run well into the evening or around the clock or for several
days when it is cloudy, he said.
At Black & Veatch, a builder of power plants, Larry Stoddard,
the manager of renewable energy consulting, said that with a
molten salt design, "your turbine is totally buffered from
the vagaries of the sun." By contrast, "if I've got
a 50 megawatt photovoltaic plant, covering 300 acres or so, and
a large cloud comes over, I lose 50 megawatts in something like
100 to 120 seconds," he said, adding, "That strikes
fear into the hearts of utility dispatchers."....
2008 Apr 7. Trees
Block Solar Panels, and a Feud
Ends in Court. By FELICITY
BARRINGER, The New York Times. Excerpt:
Under a California law, a criminal
court ruled that these redwood trees
cast too much shade on Mark Vargas's
solar panels. SUNNYVALE, Calif. -
Call it an eco-parable: one Prius-driving
couple takes pride in their eight
redwoods,... Their electric-car-driving
neighbors take pride in their rooftop
solar panels, installed five years
after the first trees were planted.
...The solar-redwoods dispute is
unusual largely because it is a solar-panel
owner who is mounting the challenge.
Typically, solar-panel owners have
to play defense. For example, despite
a 1980 Arizona law to protect homeowners
who install photovoltaic panels,
Henry Speak, a retiree in Avondale,
Ariz., had to battle his homeowners'
association through a series of state
courts to keep his rooftop solar
system without adding expensive screening
- screening that, like the redwoods,
would have reduced the panels' efficiency.
...On both sides of the Sunnyvale
backyard fence, there is evidence
of environmental virtue - one Prius
(Ms. Bissett and Mr. Treanor), one
electric car (the Vargases), one
water-free xeriscaped front yard
with recycled-plastic borders (Ms.
Bissett and Mr. Treanor), 128 solar
panels providing almost all the power
for one home (the Vargases), and
eight carbon-dioxide-sipping, bird-friendly
redwood trees in various stages of
growth (Ms. Bissett and Mr. Treanor).
...There was little communication
between the neighbors - until Ms.
Bissett introduced three redwood
trees in 1996. In the next five years,
she planted five more....
In 2001, Mr. Vargas installed solar
panels ... then informed his neighbors
- brusquely, they say - about the
solar shade law, saying they must
cut down all of the redwoods. ...
and offered to pay for removal and
replacement.
... in 2005, the deputy district
attorney, John Fioretta, began the
first prosecution under the Solar
Shade Act. It ended in December with
the conviction of Ms. Bissett and
Mr. Treanor by Judge Kurt Kumli of
Santa Clara County Superior Court.
...found that Trees Nos. 4, 5 and
6, ... were now collectively blocking
more than 10 percent of the panels
over the hot tub. Trees Nos. 1, 2
and 3 shaded the area when the panels
were installed, so they were exempt,
and Trees Nos. 7 and 8 did not violate
the law, the judge ruled. ...Mr.
Treanor and Ms. Bissett still do
not quite believe what happened. "It
was like I'd been hit in the chest," Ms.
Bissett said ....
Mr. Vargas said it all could have
been avoided. "My entire goal
was to find a more appropriate tree
to place between our two properties," he
said. "To have a 60-foot barrier
is unreasonable."....
2008 March 6. THE
ENERGY CHALLENGE Turning Glare
Into Watts. By MATTHEW
L. WALD, NY Times. Excerpt:
BOULDER CITY, Nev. - At first, as
he adjusted pumps and checked temperatures,
Aaron Boucher looked like any technician
in the control room of an electrical
plant. Then he rushed to the window
and scanned the sky, to check his
fuel supply. ...Especially in areas
of intense sun, an array of reflectors
can concentrate sunlight, heating
a fluid to create steam and power.
Mr. Boucher was battling clouds,
timing the operations of his power
plant to get the most out of patchy
sunshine. It is a skill that may
soon be in greater demand, for the
world appears to be on the verge
of a boom in a little-known but promising
type of solar power ... covering
acres of desert with mirrors that
focus intense sunlight on a fluid,
heating it enough to make steam.
The steam turns a turbine and generates
electricity. ...After a decade of
no activity, two prototype solar
thermal plants were recently opened
in the United States, with a capacity
that could power several big hotels,
neon included, on the Las Vegas Strip,
about 20 miles north of here. Another
10 power plants are in advanced planning
in California, Arizona and Nevada.
On sunny afternoons, those 10 plants
would produce as much electricity
as three nuclear reactors, but they
can be built in as little as two
years, compared with a decade or
longer for a nuclear plant. Some
of the new plants will feature systems
that allow them to store heat and
generate electricity for hours after
sunset. Aside from the ones in the
United States, eight plants are under
construction in Spain, Algeria and
Morocco. Another nine projects are
in various stages of planning in
those countries as well as Israel,
Mexico, China, South Africa and Egypt,
...Donald E. Brandt, the chief executive
of Pinnacle West, said the decision
to build the new solar plant was
as important as his company's decision
in 1973 to build the Palo Verde nuclear
plant, the largest and most modern
in the United States.
"The key is, the solar technology
has advanced," Mr. Brandt said.
At 280 megawatts, "it's a critical
size; it's a real power plant; it's
meaningful; it's beyond the demonstration
stage."
...If large numbers of plants are
built, they will eventually pose
some problems, even in the desert.
They could take up immense amounts
of land and damage the environment.
Already, building a plant in California
requires hiring a licensed tortoise
wrangler to capture and relocate
endangered desert tortoises. "The
one thing that's eventually going
to raise its head is desert biodiversity,
and the land area itself," said
Terrence J. Collins, an environmental
expert and professor at Carnegie
Mellon University....
2008 Feb 23. Move
Over, Oil, There's Money in Texas
Wind. By CLIFFORD
KRAUSS, The New York Times.Excerpt:
SWEETWATER, Tex. - ... wind turbines
that recently went up on Louis
Brooks's ranch ... paid $500 a
month apiece to permit 78 of them
on his land, with 76 more on the
way.
"That's just money you're hearing," he
said as they hummed in a brisk breeze
recently.
Texas, once the oil capital of North
America, is rapidly turning into
the capital of wind power. ...more
than 3 percent of its electricity,
enough to supply power to one million
homes, comes from wind turbines.
Texans are even turning tapped-out
oil fields into wind farms, and no
less an oilman than Boone Pickens
is getting into alternative energy. "I
have the same feelings about wind," Mr.
Pickens said in an interview, "as
I had about the best oil field I
ever found." He is planning
to build the biggest wind farm in
the world, a $10 billion behemoth
that could power a small city by
itself.
Wind turbines were once a marginal
form of electrical generation. But
amid rising concern about greenhouse
gases from coal-burning power plants,
wind power is booming. Installed
wind capacity in the United States
grew 45 percent last year, albeit
from a small base, and a comparable
increase is expected this year.
...The United States recently overtook
Spain as the world's second-largest
wind power market, after Germany,
with $9 billion invested last year.
...The turbines are getting bigger
and their blades can kill birds and
bats. Aesthetic and wildlife issues
have led to opposition emerging around
the country, particularly in coastal
areas like Cape Cod. Some opposition
in Texas has cropped up as well,
...Some Texans see the sleek new
turbines as a welcome change in the
landscape. "Texas has been looking
at oil and gas rigs for 100 years,
and frankly, wind turbines look a
little nicer," said Jerry Patterson,
the Texas land commissioner....
...At the end of 2007, Texas ranked
No. 1 in the nation with installed
wind power of 4,356 megawatts (and
1,238 under construction), far outdistancing
California's 2,439 megawatts (and
165 under construction). Minnesota
and Iowa came in third and fourth
with almost 1,300 megawatts each
(and 46 and 116 under construction,
respectively).
Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and Oregon,
states with smaller populations than
Texas, all get 5 to 8 percent of
their power from wind farms, according
to estimates by the American Wind
Energy Association....
2008 February 3. A
'Bold' Step to Capture an Elusive
Gas Falters. By
ANDREW C. REVKIN, NY Times. Excerpt:
CAPTURING heat-trapping emissions
from coal-fired power plants is on
nearly every climate expert's menu
for a planet whose inhabitants all
want a plugged-in lifestyle.
So there was much enthusiasm five
years ago when the Bush administration
said it would pursue "one of
the boldest steps our nation has
taken toward a pollution-free energy
future" by building a commercial-scale
coal-fire plant that would emit no
carbon dioxide - the greenhouse gas
that makes those plants major contributors
to global warming.
That bold step forward stumbled last
week. With the budget of the so-called
FutureGen project having nearly doubled,
to $1.8 billion, and the government
responsible for more than 70 percent
of the eventual bill, the administration
completely revamped the project.
...The idea is to capture carbon
dioxide emitted by coal-fire power
plants and then pump it deep into
the earth to avoid further buildup
of the gas in the atmosphere. But
several experts said the plan still
lacked the scope to test various
gas-separation technologies, coal
varieties, and - most important -
whether varied geological conditions
can permanently hold carbon dioxide.
Coal companies are desperate for
this option to work, given how much
coal remains to be mined. Many climate
scientists and environmental campaigners
see it as vital. Steady growth in
coal use by developing and industrialized
countries is expected to extend well
beyond 2030. David G. Hawkins, an
energy analyst at the Natural Resources
Defense Council, said the new approach
would have been a good move four
years ago. "But to tout FutureGen
for five years and then in the president's
last year pull the plug is just bait
and switch," he said....
2007 November 29. Helium
Isotopes Point to New Sources of
Geothermal Energy. Research
News, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Excerpt:
BERKELEY, CA -- ... geochemists
Mack Kennedy of the Department
of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory and Matthijs van Soest
of Arizona State University have
discovered a new tool for identifying
potential geothermal energy resources.
Currently, most developed geothermal
energy comes from regions of volcanic
activity, such as The Geysers in
Northern California. The potential
resources identified by Kennedy and
van Soest arise not from volcanism
but from the flow of surface fluids
through deep fractures that penetrate
the earth's lower crust, in regions
far from current or recent volcanic
activity. The researchers report
their findings in the November 30,
2007 issue of Science.
"A good geothermal energy source
has three basic requirements: a high
thermal gradient -- which means accessible
hot rock -- plus a rechargeable reservoir
fluid, usually water, and finally,
deep permeable pathways for the fluid
to circulate through the hot rock," says
Kennedy, a staff scientist in Berkeley
Lab's Earth Sciences Division. "We
believe we have found a way to map
and quantify zones of permeability
deep in the lower crust that result
not from volcanic activity but from
tectonic activity, the movement of
pieces of the Earth's crust."
Kennedy and van Soest made their
discovery by comparing the ratios
of helium isotopes in samples gathered
from wells, surface springs, and
vents across the northern Basin and
Range. ...a high ratio of helium-three
to helium-four in a fluid sample
indicates that much of the fluid
came from the mantle.
..."We have never seen such
a clear correlation of surface geochemical
signals with tectonic activity, nor
have we ever been able to quantify
deep permeability from surface measurements
of any kind," says Kennedy.
The samples they collected on the
surface gave the researchers a window
into the structure of the rocks far
below, with no need to drill.
With the urgent need to find energy
sources that are renewable and don't
emit greenhouse gases, geothermal
energy is ideal -- "the best
renewable energy source besides the
sun," Kennedy says. Accessible
geothermal energy in the United States,
excluding Alaska and Hawaii, has
been estimated at 9 x 1016 (90 quadrillion)
kilowatt-hours, 3,000 times more
than the country's total annual energy
consumption....
2007 November 23. Sweden
Turns to a Promising Power Source,
With Flaws. The New York Times.
By MARK LANDLER.
Excerpt:
MALMO, Sweden ...A 30-mile-an-hour
wind was twirling the fingerlike
blades of a turbine 380 feet above
his head. Around him, a field of
turbines rotated in a synchronized
ballet that, when fully connected
to an electrical grid, would generate
enough power to light 60,000 nearby
houses.
"We've created a new landmark," said
Mr. [Arne] Floderus, the project
manager of the $280 million wind
park, one of the world's largest,
which was built by the Swedish power
company Vattenfall.
...Yet Sweden's gleaming wind park
is entering service at a time when
wind energy is coming under sharper
scrutiny, not just from hostile neighbors,
who complain that the towers are
a blot on the landscape, but from
energy experts who question its reliability
as a source of power.
For starters, the wind does not blow
all the time. When it does, it does
not necessarily do so during periods
of high demand for electricity. That
makes wind a shaky replacement for
more dependable, if polluting, energy
sources like oil, coal and natural
gas. Moreover, to capture the best
breezes, wind farms are often built
far from where the demand for electricity
is highest. The power they generate
must then be carried over long distances
on high-voltage lines, which in Germany
and other countries are strained
and prone to breakdowns.
...In Denmark, which pioneered wind
energy in Europe, construction of
wind farms has stagnated in recent
years. The Danes export much of their
wind-generated electricity to Norway
and Sweden because it comes in unpredictable
surges that often outstrip demand.
...For a socially conscious society
like Sweden, wind turbines exert
a fashionable appeal.
Today, they account for less than
1 percent of Sweden's electricity
generation. But the government wants
to increase annual wind power production
to 10 terawatt hours, or 10 trillion
watt hours, by 2015 from less than
1 terawatt hour now (the park off
Malmo will produce a third of a terawatt
hour).
Vattenfall hopes to develop an even
larger off-shore park in the Baltic
Sea, between Sweden and Germany.
...Sweden does not need to build
wind parks to get wind power. It
could simply buy more surplus wind
power from Denmark, which it uses,
as does Norway, to pump underground
water into elevated reservoirs. The
water is later released during periods
of peak electric demand to drive
hydroelectric stations. In this way,
hydro acts as a form of storage for
wind energy - addressing one of wind
power's biggest shortcomings....
2007 October 22. Scientists
see coal as key challenge.
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special
Correspondent.
Excerpt:
The proliferation of coal-burning
power plants around the world may
pose "the single greatest challenge" to
averting dangerous climate change,
an international panel of scientists
reported Monday.Governments and the
private sector are spending too little
on research into a partial solution
- technology to capture and store
the carbon dioxide emissions from
such plants, the group said.
The study by 15 scientists from 13
nations, "Lighting the Way:
Toward a Sustainable Energy Future," was
commissioned by the governments of
China and Brazil and is the product
of two years of workshops organized
by the InterAcademy Council, the
Netherlands-based network of national
academies of science.
The 174-page report details current
and developing technologies, and
government incentives and other policies
that could lead both the developed
and developing world to clean, affordable
and sustainable energy supplies.
"The first thing it says, really,
is that conservation and energy efficiency
will remain for the next couple of
decades the most important thing
the world can do to get on a sustainable
path," said co-chairman Steven
Chu, Nobel Prize-winning physicist
and director of California's Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory.
...China expects to open one new
coal-fired plant per week over the
next five years. In the United States,
plans for more than 150 new coal
plants have been announced since
the late 1990s, although some recently
have been scrapped or delayed because
of climate and other concerns....
2007 July 23. A
Warming World: No to Nukes.
The Los Angeles Times | Editorial. Excerpt:
... Japan sees nuclear power as
a solution to global warming, but....
Last week, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake
caused dozens of problems at the
world's biggest nuclear plant,
leading to releases of radioactive
elements into the air and ocean and
an indefinite shutdown. ...Japan
has a sordid history of serious nuclear
accidents or spills followed by cover-ups....
The U.S. government allows nuclear
plants to operate under a level of
secrecy usually reserved for the
national security apparatus. Last
year...about nine gallons of highly
enriched uranium spilled at a processing
plant in Tennessee, forming a puddle
a few feet from an elevator shaft.
Had it dripped into the shaft, it
might have formed a critical mass
sufficient for a chain reaction,
releasing enough radiation to kill
or burn workers nearby....
No U.S. utility has ordered a new
nuclear plant since 1978....
Many respected academics and environmentalists
argue that nuclear power must be
part of any solution to climate change
because nuclear power plants don't
release greenhouse gases. ...nuclear
power is extremely risky. ...there
are cleaner, cheaper, faster alternatives
that come with none of the risks.
...The Union of Concerned Scientists
cites 51 cases at 41 U.S. nuclear
plants in which reactors have been
shut down for more than a year....
Nuclear plants are also considered
attractive terrorist targets....
Weapons proliferation is an even
more serious concern.... It would
be more than a little hypocritical
for the U.S. to expand its own nuclear
power capacity while forbidding countries
it doesn't like from doing the same.
...No country in the world has yet
built a permanent underground waste
repository.... The existing 104 nuclear
plants in the U.S., which supply
roughly 20% of the nation's electricity,
are old and nearing the end of their
useful lives. ... to replace them
would require building a new reactor
every four or five months for the
next 40 years. ...The average nuclear
plant is estimated to cost about
$4 billion. Because of the risks
involved, there is scarce interest
among investors in putting up the
needed capital. ...The newest nuclear
plant in the U.S. opened in 1996,
after having been ordered in 1970
- a 26-year gap....
2007 July 1. Nuclear
Energy Hot Topic Once Again.
The New York Times. By The Associated
Press. Excerpt:
Thanks to global
warming, nuclear energy is hot
again. Its promise of abundant, carbon
emissions-free power is being pushed
by the president and newly considered
by environmentalists. But any expansion
won't come cheap or easy. The enormous
obstacles facing nuclear power are
the same as they were in 1996, when
the nation's last new nuclear plant
opened near the Watts Bar reservoir
in Tennessee after 22 years of construction
and $7 billion in costs. Waste disposal,
safe operation and security remain
major concerns, but economics may
be the biggest deterrent. Huge capital
costs combine into an enormous price
tag for would-be investors. There
is also fervent anti-nuke opposition
waiting to be re-stoked. Recycling
used fuel, which contains 90 percent
of its original energy after one
use, can reduce waste. ''Reprocessing''
also produces a plutonium that's
nearer to weapons grade, raising
fears that widespread reprocessing
could increase the risks of nuclear
proliferation. … ''You don't
ban the beneficial uses of a technology
just because that same technology
can be used for evil,'' he said.
''Otherwise we would never have harnessed
fire.'' …
2007 June 6. From
Turkey Waste, a New Fuel and a New
Fight. By SUSAN
SAULNY, The New York Times. Excerpt:
BENSON, Minn. - ...Thanks to the
abundance of local droppings, Benson
is home to a new $200 million power
plant that burns turkey litter
to produce electricity. For the
last few weeks now, since before
generating operations began in
mid-May, turkey waste has poured
in from nearby farms by the truckload,
filling a fuel hall several stories
high.
The power plant is a novelty on the
prairie, the first in the country
to burn animal litter (manure mixed
with farm-animal bedding like wood
chips). And it sits at the intersection
of two national obsessions: an appetite
for lean meat and a demand for alternative
fuels.
...The critics say turkey litter,
of all farm animals' manure, is the
most valuable just as it is, useful
as a rich, organic fertilizer at
a time when demand is growing for
all things organic. ...the unwanted
attention shows, once again, how
the landscape of renewable energy
production is fraught with potential
land mines, even in a case that seems
small-scale and straightforward.
What could be so offensive about
burning turkey poop?
"This is the only advancement
in manure utilization since the manure
spreader - that's 100-year-old technology," said
Greg Langmo, a third-generation turkey
farmer who lobbied for the plant,
where he now works as a field manager.
Minnesota produces more turkeys than
any other state, some 44.5 million
birds in 2005, the most recent year
for which data are available. It
follows that the turkeys leave behind
a lot of waste in their pens, where
most are confined to gobble and peck
until they are robust enough for
slaughter. The Benson plant, then,
has been of considerable help for
farmers with a disposal problem.
The plant was built by Fibrowatt,
a Philadelphia-based company, with
financial incentives from the State
of Minnesota.
...biomass burning, as it is called,
produces its own pollutants. According
to information in one of its federal
air permits, the plant is a major
source of particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxides and hydrogen sulfide....
2007 June. Falling
in Love with Wind. OnEarth,
NRDC. by Joseph D'Agnese.
Excerpt:
How a small farm town traded its
dairy cows for renewable energy.
In the spring of 1999 a stranger
named Bill Moore arrived in the small
town of Lowville, ... New York, and
... had what he considered a good
proposal for the 27,000 citizens
of Lewis County: Milk wind, not cows.
When he started telling the locals
about his notion, Moore was met with
indulgent smiles but little genuine
enthusiasm. "...they looked
at me like I was from Mars," he
says. "They were polite. They
didn't openly laugh."
...Eight years later, though, it's
as if the cool reception Moore received
never happened at all. Windmills
stud the flat, stark landscape as
far as the eye can see. Each turbine
is taller than the Statue of Liberty,
and nearly all of them are spinning
inexorably toward the future of Lewis
County -- and perhaps our own. This
is the Maple Ridge Wind Farm, the
nation's largest new alternative
energy project east of the Mississippi
River. In the last year or so, 195
turbines have become operational
in the towns of Lowville, Harrisburg,
and Martinsburg, capable of producing
320 megawatts of electricity, the
amount generated by a medium-size
power plant, or enough power to run
98,000 homes.
...The guaranteed income -- a minimum
annual payment of about $6,000 per
turbine, adjusted annually for inflation
-- has transformed their lives. "It's
paying for me to retire," says
Bill Burke. "It's given us a
chance to stay in our house," adds
Patricia Burke. "We don't have
to sell after all. We sold off the
herd one spring, and the heifers
later, ....
... Today, 20 percent of Denmark's
electricity comes from the wind.
In sharp contrast to Maple Ridge
and other big U.S. wind farms, of
the 5,600 turbines in Denmark, only
about 20 percent are owned by utility
companies. Twenty-three percent belong
to cooperatives and almost 60 percent
to small, local companies or to individuals,
including farmers. This has been
the key to public acceptance. As
one Danish study concluded: "People
who own shares in a turbine are significantly
more positive about wind power than
people having no economic interest
in the subject. Members of wind cooperatives
are more willing to accept that their
neighbor erect [sic] a turbine." Other
experts say that local ownership
makes wind power more economical,
since expenses are lower and companies
more competitive, with cheaper connection
to the grid than big utilities would
offer and faster, less bureaucratic
decision-making. But now that grassroots-owned
technology has turned into big business,
not all is well in the state of Denmark....
2007 May 29. Uranium
Windfall Opens Choices for the
Energy Dept. By MATTHEW
L. WALD Excerpt:
WASHINGTON, May 28 - The government
accumulated vast quantities of uranium
when prices were very low and no
one else wanted it. But now that
uranium prices have increased tenfold,
the government has a precious commodity
- and some tough questions - on its
hands. ...the material's market value
has been estimated at $750 million
to $3 billion, one of the companies
most vocal in making its case says
it deserves the uranium - without
paying a cent for it. Up for grabs
is 25 million kilograms of uranium
hexafluoride that was incompletely
processed at government enrichment
plants when prices were very low.
...
The lone operating enrichment plant
in this country, built by the old
Atomic Energy Commission, is in Paducah,
Ky. It is run by a subsidiary of
USEC, a company formed in the 1990s
to privatize the enrichment monopoly
that the government had run since
the days of the Manhattan Project.
The technology at the plant is outdated,
and USEC is struggling to commercialize
a more efficient system, using centrifuges,
at another plant, in southern Ohio.
USEC will not say what it thinks
that project will cost, but it has
said it does not know how it will
raise the money. ...USEC officials
say the Energy Department could transfer
much of the uranium to it with the
stroke of a pen.
...Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill
say giving the uranium to USEC would
reward a company that has not demonstrated
fiscal responsibility. ...Representative
John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat
who is chairman of the House Energy
and Commerce committee, said in a
statement. ... Congress should consider "whether
we should be allocating this $2 billion
or $3 billion to children's health
insurance instead of subsidizing
executives who have mismanaged their
companies." USEC, he said, had "squandered
resources on multimillion-dollar
golden parachutes, stock buybacks
and dividend payments that frequently
exceeded their earnings."
...In addition to USEC, a consortium
of British, Dutch and German companies
has expressed interest in the partly
processed uranium for a centrifuge
plant that it is building in New
Mexico, using the same type of machines
that have operated for years in Europe....
2007 May 9. Clean
Power That Reaps a Whirlwind.
By KEITH BRADSHER, The New York
Times. Excerpt:
HOUXINQIU, China - The wind turbines
rising 180 feet above this dusty
village at the hilly edge of Inner
Mongolia could be an environmentalist's
dream... are also part of a growing
dispute over a United Nations program
that is the centerpiece of international
efforts to help developing countries
combat global warming. ...the Clean
Development Mechanism, ...raising
billions of dollars from rich countries
and transferring them to poor countries
to curb the emission of global warming
gases. ...China is expected to pass
the United States this year or next
to become the world's largest emitter
of global warming gases. ...the Clean
Development Mechanism ...has grown
at an extraordinary pace, to $4.8
billion in transfer payments to developing
countries last year from less than
$100 million in 2002. The Clean Development
Mechanism ...helps advanced industrial
nations stay within their Kyoto
Protocol limits for emitting climate-changing
gases like carbon dioxide. For
each ton of global warming gases
that a developing country can prove
it has eliminated, the secretariat
of the Clean Development Mechanism...
awards it a credit. Developing
countries sold credits last year...
for an average price of $10.70
each. ...China captured $3 billion
of the $4.8 billion.... African
countries... totaled less than
$150 million last year.... Even
when very poor countries are able
to organize development projects,
they may lack expertise and must
sometimes pay out as much as half
the credits in the form of fees for
international consultants and credit
brokers. ...before manufacturers
can obtain the subsidies, their national
governments need to set up a legal
framework for handling the money,
which some of the poorest countries
have not yet been able to do....The
wind turbine project here in Houxinqiu
...generates nearly 24 megawatts
of electricity that would otherwise
come from coal. China is already
building enough coal-fired power
plants each year to light all of
Britain. ...Li Guohai, a local peasant
...explained how he had received
free electricity since the wind turbines
were erected four years ago. He has
saved enough money that he bought
an all-steel plow for his mules to
pull; the new plow now frees his
son to finish junior high school
and perhaps go to high school, Mr.
Li said. The project is narrowly
profitable even without Clean Development
Mechanism payments, Mr. Tao, the
general manager, said. But the payments
made the project more attractive
and made it easier to raise money
for it....the wind farm saves the
equivalent of 35,119 tons of carbon
dioxide emissions a year. At $8 a
credit, that is worth $281,000....
2007 May 2. Power
station harnesses Sun's rays.
By David Shukman. Science correspondent,
BBC News, Seville. ...There
is a scene in one of the Austin
Powers films where Dr Evil unleashes
a giant "tractor beam" of
energy at Earth in order to extract
a massive payment. ...the new solar
thermal power plant outside Seville
in southern Spain ... concrete tower
- 40 storeys high - stood bathed
in intense white light, a totally
bizarre image in the depths of the
Andalusian countryside. ...the rays
of sunlight reflected by a field
of 600 huge mirrors are so intense
they illuminate the water vapour
and dust hanging in the air. ...It
is Europe's first commercially operating
power station using the Sun's energy
this way and at the moment its operator,
Solucar, proudly claims that it generates
11 Megawatts (MW) of electricity
without emitting a single puff of
greenhouse gas. This current figure
is enough to power up to 6,000 homes.
But ultimately, the entire plant
should generate as much power as
is used by the 600,000 people of
Seville. It works by focusing the
reflected rays on one location, turning
water into steam and then blasting
it into turbines to generate power.
...the solar power is most needed
in the heat of summer when air conditioners
are working flat out. ...this power
is three times more expensive than
power from conventional sources....
...a more realistic comparison is
with the cost of generating power
from coal or gas only at times of
peak demand - then this solar system
seems more attractive....
2007
April 23. Climate
Change Adds Twist to Debate Over
Dams. By William Yardley. NY
TIMES. KLAMATH FALLS, Ore., April
19 - Excerpt:
The power company that owns four
hydroelectric dams on the Klamath
River says the dams provide a crucial
source of so-called clean energy
at a time when carbon emissions have
become one of the world's foremost
environmental concerns. The clean-energy
argument has entered a debate over
dams. But the American Indians, fishermen
and environmentalists who want the
dams removed point to what
has happened since the first one
was built nearly 90 years ago: endangered
salmon have been blocked from migrating,
Indian livelihoods have been threatened,
and, more recently, the commercial
fishing industry off the Oregon and
California coasts has been devastated.. …The
Klamath dams provide enough power
to serve about 70,000 homes, a small
fraction of PacifiCorp's 1.6 million
customers, which span six Western
states. But the company says only
coal or natural gas are likely to
be reliable enough to replace the
river, which hits hydroelectric turbines
four times on its way to the sea
from east of the snow-capped Cascade
Range. Those who support removing
the dams largely dismiss the clean-energy
argument, saying the benefits outweigh
losing a relatively small source
of hydropower. They note that PacifiCorp's
increased interest in the environment
comes as recent rulings by judges
and federal fisheries agencies have
given new momentum for removal. The
company's federal license to run
the dams expired last year, and the
government has said PacifiCorp must
build fish ladders over the four
dams to get a new license, a proposition
that could cost $300 million and
reduce the power the dams generate,
potentially making removal a less
costly choice……The
Klamath runs more than 250 miles
from southwest Oregon to the California
coast, connecting two states where
power and water supply have long
been contentious issues……The
Northwest, where more than 80 percent
of the power generated comes from
hydroelectricity, has long had some
of the lowest electricity rates in
the nation. It has also been the
setting for epic environmental fights
that reflect the tension across the
region's topographic and demographic
divides……
2007 March 13. White
House Seeks to Cut Geothermal Research
Funds.
By Bernie Woodall. Reuters. Excerpt:
The Bush administration wants to
eliminate federal support for geothermal
power just as many U.S. states are
looking to cut greenhouse gas emissions
and raise renewable power output.
The move has angered scientists who
say there is enough hot water underground
to meet all U.S. electricity needs
without greenhouse gas emissions. "The
Department of Energy has not requested
funds for geothermal research in
our fiscal-year 2008 budget," said
Christina Kielich, a spokeswoman
for the Department of Energy. "Geothermal
is a mature technology. Our focus
is on breakthrough energy research
and development." The administration
of George W. Bush has made renewable
energy a priority as it seeks to
wean the United States off foreign
oil, but it emphasizes use of biofuels
like ethanol and biodiesel for vehicles
and nuclear research for electricity.
... DOE requested no funding for
geothermal for the 2007 fiscal year,
after funding averaged about $26
million over the previous six years,
but Congress restored $5 million.
This year, the DOE's $24.3 billion
budget request includes a 38 percent
federal spending increase for nuclear
power, but nothing for geothermal.
...New geothermal power projects
by 2050 could provide 100,000 megawatts
of electricity - enough to power
about 80 million U.S. homes, or as
much as U.S. nuclear power plants
make today, the MIT study said. But
U.S. geothermal development will
need $300 million to $400 million
over 15 years to make this type of
power competitive versus other forms
of power generation, the study said....
2007 March. Thermonuclear
Weapons.
Catalyst magazine, Union of Concerned
Scientists. by Robert Nelson is a
senior scientist in the Global Security
Program. Excerpt:
U.S. thermonuclear weapons derive
their explosive energy from the combined
power of nuclear fission and fusion.
An initial fission reaction generates
the high temperatures needed to trigger
a secondary-and much more powerful-fusion
reaction (hence the term "thermonuclear").
...The first is the detonation of
chemical explosives that surrounds
a sphere (or "pit") of
plutonium metal. The force from this
blast is directed inward, compressing
the pit and bringing its atoms closer
together...sometimes causing them
to split, or fission....
...Every year since 1997, the nation's
nuclear weapons laboratories have
certified that all U.S. nuclear warheads
are safe and reliable, and that renewed
nuclear explosive testing is not
currently needed to gauge reliability.
However, the laboratories have recently
voiced concern that warheads may
not be reliable over the long term.
It must be noted that the definition
of "unreliable" in this
context is a weapon that falls short
of its designed yield by more than
10 percent. In other words, an "unreliable" nuclear
weapon can still produce a devastating
explosion. A weapon with a 300-kiloton
yield could be deemed unreliable
if it exploded with a 270-kiloton
yield-13 times more energy than that
released by the Nagasaki bomb.
... the United States conducted its
last nuclear explosive test in 1992.
Every type of U.S. nuclear weapon
currently deployed underwent explosive
testing, but it is theoretically
possible that the properties of the
plutonium could change as it ages,
resulting in a weaker primary.
...the oldest warheads in the U.S.
weapons stockpile were assembled
almost 30 years ago. Until very recently,
the minimum lifetime of plutonium
pits was conservatively estimated
to be 45 years, which would mean
that the pits in every U.S. warhead
might have to be replaced within
the next two decades. This is the
rationale behind the Bush administration's
proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead
(RRW) program, which would redesign
and replace all 10,000 U.S. warheads.
Over the past several years, however,
the U.S. weapons laboratories have
effectively eliminated this rationale
by conducting "accelerated aging" experiments
to re-evaluate the age at which reliability
would realistically decline. By simulating
the behavior of aged plutonium, scientists
concluded that all existing U.S.
plutonium pits have minimum lifetimes
of 85 years, and most will remain
reliable for at least 100 years.
(The lifetimes could be much longer,
but further experiments are needed.)
As these results make clear U.S.
thermonuclear weapons will remain
highly reliable for many decades,
undercutting the primary reason for
the Bush administration's RRW plans....
2007 February 13. In
a Corner of Virginia's 'Switzerland,'
a Division Over a Planned Wind
Farm. By PAMELA
J. PODGER, for The New York Times. Excerpt:
MONTEREY, Va. - ...Mr. Wes Maupin,
a 52-year-old former corrections
worker... finds no joy in the prospect
that these blustery Allegheny ridges
could soon become home to the state's
first wind farm: 19 wind turbines,
each taller than the Statue of Liberty,
its pedestal included. "Any
wind farm," Mr. Maupin
said, "would surely change the
character of this county forever." ...Where
some see unwelcome industrialization
of the wilderness, others see green
energy and an estimated $200,000
a year in tax revenue for the financially
needy county. ...at Grady's Barber
Shop here in Monterey, the county
seat, 35 miles west of Staunton,
Roy Waggoner said he supported the
$60 million project. "One way
to clean up the environment is with
the wind turbines; it's green energy," said
Mr. Waggoner, 57, a sheep rancher. "I
don't want to see them on every inch
of land, but that ridge is very secluded." ...But
Randy Richardson, president of Highlanders
for Responsible Development, a group
that opposes the project, said people
worried about noise pollution from
the turbines' blades and light pollution
from the red strobes that would alert
aircraft to the 400-foot-tall structures. "We
actually had some guy saying these
will be similar to the windmills
in Holland," Mr. Richardson
said. "Well, there is a little
bit of difference between a quaint
Dutch windmill and a 400-foot turbine."....
2007 February. US-India
nuclear pact gets mixed reaction.By
Jim Dawson, Physics Today-ISSUES
AND EVENTS - Volume 60, Issue 2.
Excerpt:
In the midst of the US government's
attempts to refocus its nuclear
weapons program and stop the spread
of nuclear weapons in hostile countries,
President Bush signed legislation
in December [2006] allowing the
sale of civilian nuclear fuel and
technology to India and thus reversed
30 years of nonproliferation policy.
The legislation allows US companies
to sell nuclear fuel to India and
invest in and construct new civilian
nuclear power plants in that country.
In exchange, India will open up
14 of its civilian nuclear reactors
to international inspections but
keep 8 military reactors off-limits.
...The law makes India an exception
to the US Atomic Energy Act, which
prohibits trade of nuclear material
with countries that haven't signed
the NPT. Both the US House and Senate
voted overwhelmingly in early December
to pass the legislation, with Representative
Tom Lantos (D-CA) saying it "ushers
in a new era of cooperation between
our two great democracies." But
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) termed
the deal a "historic mistake" that
has "shredded the nuclear nonproliferation
treaty."....
2007 February. Future
of US nuclear weapons a tangle
of visions, science, and money.
By Jim Dawson, Physics Today-ISSUES
AND EVENTS - Volume 60, Issue 2.
Excerpt:
National Nuclear Security Administration
officials push for a new nuclear
bomb, some scientists and arms
control experts are asking what's
wrong with the old ones. ...The
decision on whether to go forward
with the new bomb, known as the
Reliable Replacement Warhead [RRW],
rests with the Bush administration
and Congress, but weapons and arms
control experts note that the decision
is not straightforward. The RRW
program, mandated by Congress in
2004 "to improve the reliability,
longevity, and certifiability of
existing weapons," faces a host
of questions based on need and on
cost. ...Weapons experts expect the
total cost of the RRW could reach
tens of billions of dollars over
the next 25 years if the bomb is
developed. ...Underlying the entire
discussion about the future of US
nuclear weapons is the enormous expense.
The US currently spends about $6.7
billion a year to maintain the existing
stockpile and the weapons complex....
2007 January 25. Smuggler's
Plot Highlights Fear Over Uranium.
By LAWRENCE SCOTT SHEETS and WILLIAM
J. BROAD. NY Times. Excerpt:
TBILISI, Georgia, Jan. 24 - Last
January, a Russian man with sunken
cheeks and a wispy mustache crossed
into Georgia and traveled to Tbilisi
by car along a high mountain road.
In two plastic bags in his leather
jacket, Georgian authorities say,
he carried 100 grams of uranium so
refined that it could help fuel an
atom bomb. ...Oleg Khinsagov,left,
was arrested by Georgian authorities
for smuggling almost four ounces
of enriched uranium. Interior Minister
Ivane Merabishvili, right, reported
two cases of uranium smuggling in
two and a half years. The Russian,
Oleg Khinsagov, had come to meet
a buyer who he believed would pay
him $1 million and deliver the material
to a Muslim man from "a
serious organization," the authorities
say. The uranium was a sample, just
under four ounces, and the deal a
test: If all went smoothly, he boasted,
he would sell a far larger cache
stored in his apartment back in Vladikavkaz,
two to three kilograms of the rare
material, four and a half to six
and a half pounds, which in expert
hands is enough to make a small bomb.
The buyer, it turned out, was a Georgian
agent. Alerted to Mr. Khinsagov's
ambitions by spies in South Ossetia,
Georgian officials arrested him and
confiscated his merchandise. After
a secret trial, the smuggler was
sentenced to eight and a half years
in prison. ...The old Soviet empire
had a vast network of nuclear facilities.
After its breakup, as managers abandoned
plants and security fell apart, the
West grew alarmed as many cases of
atomic smuggling came to light. ...Since
2000, however, the amounts and purity
of the seized material has declined
as former Soviet republics set up
new security precautions, often financed
by the United States. ...Georgians
called for help from American diplomats,
who sent in experts from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the Department
of Energy, American officials say.
Mr. Merabishvili said the Americans
shocked them by taking the uranium
and simply putting it "in their
pocket." Uranium in that form
emits little radiation and presents
little or no danger to its handlers.
When it was analyzed at the Energy
Department's laboratory in the Pacific
Northwest, it was found to have a
U-235 purity of 89.451 percent, "suitable
for certain types of research reactors,
as a source material for medical
isotope production, and for military
purposes including nuclear weapons."
2007
January 23. Study
Says Tapping of Granite Could Unleash
Energy Source.
By ANDREW C. REVKIN, NY Times. Excerpt:
The United States could generate
as much electricity by 2050 as that
flowing today from all of the country's
nuclear power plants by developing
technologies that tap heat locked
in deep layers of granite, according
to a new study commissioned by the
Energy Department. ...The new report,
published online yesterday, focuses
on a process that it said could affordably
harvest heat locked in deep layers
of granite that exist almost everywhere
on earth. The technique, called enhanced
geothermal, involves drilling several
holes - some two to three miles deep
- into granite that has been held
at chicken-roasting temperatures,
around 400 degrees or more, by insulating
layers of rock above. In the right
geological conditions, pressurized
water can be used to widen natural
mazelike arrays of cracks in the
granite, creating a vast, porous
subterranean reservoir. In a typical
setup, water pumped down into the
reservoir through one hole absorbs
heat from the rock and flows up another
hole to a power plant, giving up
its heat to generate steam and electricity
before it is recirculated in the
rock below.There are successful plants
harvesting heat from deep hot rock
in Australia, Europe and Japan, the
report noted, adding that studies
of the technology largely stopped
in the United States after a brief
burst of research during the oil
crises of the 1970s. ...The generating
capacity by 2050 could be 100 billion
watts, about 10 percent of the country's
current generating capacity....
2007
January 22. The
Future of Geothermal Energy -
Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems
(EGS) on the United States in the
21st Century. A
report prepared by an MIT-led interdisciplinary
panel, was released to the public.
The report suggests that 100,000 MWe
of electrical generation capacity can
be met through EGS within 50 years
with a modest investment in R&D.
(14.1MB PDF)
2006 June
6. Debate
Over Wind Power Creates Environmental
Rift. By
FELICITY BARRINGER. NY Times. Excerpt:
OAKLAND, Md. - Dan Boone ...wants
to slow the growth of wind-power
projects. For four years or more,
Mr. Boone has traveled across the
mid-Atlantic to make every argument
he can muster against local wind-power
projects: they kill birds and bats;
they are too noisy; they are inefficient,
making no more than a symbolic contribution
to energy needs.
... in the mountainous terrain of southwestern Pennsylvania,
western Maryland or West Virginia, areas where 15
new projects have been proposed. If all were built,
750 to 1,000 giant turbines would line the hilltops,
most producing, on average, enough electricity to
power 600 homes.
..."The broader environmental movement knows
we have this urgent need for renewable energy to avert
global warming," said John Passacantando, executive
director of Greenpeace U.S.A. "But
we're still dealing with groups that
can't get their heads around global
warming yet."
...Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s very public opposition
to the 130-turbine Cape Wind energy facility proposed
off Nantucket Sound has driven a wedge between activists.
...Mr. Boone's quiver of anti-wind arguments includes
economic analyses, but his first line of attack is
biological: he contends that they are a threat to
bats and potentially to migratory birds and that they
break up forest habitat. Scores of raptors and other
birds were killed by the first generation of wind
turbines set up at Altamont Pass in Northern California.
Since the Altamont Pass turbines were erected in the
early 1980's, turbine design has been altered, and
most subsequent studies have shown that birds tend
to fly above the height of most turbines though some
experts say more studies are needed. But the turbines
south of here in Thomas, W.Va., have been lethal to
bats. More than 2,000 were killed in 2003 at the Mountaineer
project, whose 44 turbines are owned by FPL Energy,
a big power company that is the wind industry's dominant
player. Industry officials agree that the bat mortality
measured at the Mountaineer site is unacceptable,
and they are studying the benefits of deterrent devices
and the best ways to modify turbine operations in
bat-rich areas....
Archive
of Past Articles for Chapter 4
|
|
GSS
Energy Use Up-To-Date Homepage
Chapters
-
How People Use Energy
- Energy
Basics
- Fossil
Fuels
- Field
Trip to a Power Plant
- America
Plugged In
- Energy
in Society
- Energy
for Lighting
- Energy
for Heating and Cooling
- Energy
for Transportation
- Our
Energy Future
European Deep Thermal Energy Programme
Acid
Rain
Geothermal
Nuclear
Renewable
Tidal
Wind
|