Our Wrong-Headed Energy Alterantives Approach
It seems that once again we are facing down an enrgy crisis, like those we saw in 1973 and 1976, by following the wrong-headed leadership of our government and industry leaders.
Rather than forming energy cooperatives where people can buy energy from not-for-profit entities, passing tax-free incentives for developing such energy cooperatives, developing and implementing more effective solar technology, creating tax incentives for individuals and cooperatives that install energy producing windmills (which is a successful program in Norway and Denmark), passing higher fuel ratings (miles per gallon) ratings for all new vehicles [IMMEDIATELY], developing alternative fuels from renewable resources, and instituting energy saving processes in our daily lives, we are reverting back to coal and nuclear energy.
When it comes to coal, there are claims that there are now new and cleaner ways of burning coal that produces LESS noxious air pollutants. BUt I have looked at the science and technology for doing so. As someone not trained in the dynamics of coal, but having more than a precursory knowledge of how coal burns from taking courses and reading technical/scientific journals, I know there is not a way to burn coal without producing some of the components that cause a widening of the ozone layer holes, acid rain, sulphuric acid that causes chemical reactions with other pollutants... in other words, there just isn't any such thing as "clean burning coal." It's sort of like "safe sex." There isn't any such thing as safe sex, but there is "safer sex."
But then, too, we have to pull the coal out of the ground. Although stripping (raping) the earth as they did in the early days of coal mining (c.f. Southern Indiana, Kentucky, parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virgina, Wyoming, etc.) is a supposed thing of the past, the Bush administration has demonstrated that they are all too willing to bypass, negate, suspend or circumvent environmental laws, regulations and protections to let the oil companies drill and explore for oil, what would stop them from doing the same with the coal companies? Then we have the fact that US coal companies have a poor record of protecting miners and their families. The recent string of coal mine "accidents" (which in my view could have been prevented or mitigated by instituting better safety protocols and providing better safety equipment) illustrates that the coal mine operators and owners are not fond of following regulations, looking out for their workers or instituting fundamental safety processes.
The fact is that these "industry giants" cannot even agree about which standards should be implemented... and that is all about MONEY, not science, technology or safety.
The Energy Challenge: Two Industry Leaders Bet on Coal but Split on Cleaner Approach
On top of this suddent advocation of coal we now have Dubya advocating for increased development and use of nuclear power as an alternative energy (electricity) source. Somehow this stance seems to ignore some facts:
1. The cost of producing nuclear energy is not the cheap alternative it once was thought to be... the cost of running nuclear plants is significantly higher than all of the predictions and forecasts once presented to congress, the NRC, the US Department of Energy, and the states where these plants are located.
2. There are numerous nuclear power plants that have had significant safety and engineering problems, including leaks of radiation, cooling system problems, emergency shut-downs, etc. Nuclear power is not as safe and environmentally sound as a lot of people think. We must not forget Three Mile Island (TMI), which was mishandled by the state and federal authorities and placed lives at risk. But, while TMI was the worst case scenario in the US, and Chernobyl was the worst in history to-date, there is a litany of problems at various nuclear power plants, including the following:
Seabrook 1, Seabrook, New Hampshire
Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Massachusetts
Zion 1 & 2, Zion, Illinois (shut down now)
Braidwood 1 & 2, Joliet,Illinois
Ginna, Rochester, New York
Three Mile Island, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
I am sure the list goes on because one world-wide web report cites over 8,000 minor leaks in 1987. According to the NRC's own inspection reports, there is not one nuclear power plant that has operated without being cited for some level of safety violation, many with several violations in a quarter, often being related to the lack of following proper safety and control procedures. While the NRC and plant operators would claim that most of these violations are minor, my concern is that these reports demonstrate a pattern of overlooking safety and control procedures until someone points it out to them and threatens legal or regulatory actions.
These concerns also include a number of leaks into the groundwater, contaminating drinking, irrigation and other water supplies.
3. The effects of nuclear radiation leaking into our atmosphere and environment are not fully understood. But if the ultraviolet radiation from the sun is linked to skin problems and cancer, and infrared radiation is known to kill bacteria, and atomic radiation from Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still producing effects, how safe can a leak really be? Having been trained in the basics of "NBC" [Nuclear, Biological and Chemical] warfare and treatment of NBC victims/casualties while serving in the Navy and Army National Guard, it is easy for me to say that any leak of radiation is an important health and environmental concern... or at least it should be. There are numerous governmental and independent reports on the health concerns of radtiation leaks from nuclear plants. A listing of some of the deaths, injuries and issues can be found at the following web sites:
U.S. Nuclear Accidents
Red Cross
4. Each and every nuclear power plant has represented a major national security risk. There have been numerous security tests conducted and after-action reports have consistently demonstrated that the security and defenses against terrorist attacks, infiltration of the plant by demonstrators or plant takeover have been poorly implemented. Even the location of these plants can be researched on the NRC web site, including active sites and sites in the process of decommission or already shut down, not to mention the road signs that point out the exact roads to arrive at a plant.
5. The handling, processing, storing and disposing of nuclear wastes is not safe. The science community has been citing problems handling nuclear wastes for decades. The history of handling these wastes are riddled with problems. The Sierra Club has a web page dedicated to these issues. The bane of nuclear waste has been in and out of the news, and Yucca Mountain is a notorious subject of these reports because so many issues about the safe handling, processing, storing and disposing of nuclear waste remian unanswered, or answered in an unsatisfactory manner.
6. Energy consumers are still paying for the mistakes of nuclear energy, including passing on recovery costs via Public Service of New Hampshire for Seabrook and Entergy Nuclear Generation Company for Pilgrim 1. The federal and state governments have taken a protectionistic approach to making sure that the companies that have invested in, sold (as in passed off the problem) and mismanaged nuclear power plants can pass the costs of their loused up efforts to the consumer.
7. There are no effective plans for properly evacuating a remediating a nuclear power plant incident. While there are "informational" pamphlets and reports on evacuation plans and procedures, none of them are effective in design, and none have proven effective in practice. In the 1970s there was a poster that described the steps we should take in case of nuclear attack. The last step in a long list of utterly ridiculous procedures was to "Bend over and kiss your sweet ass goodbye." It would seem that the evacuation plans for a nuclear power plant incident amounts to the same process: perform a long list of ridiculously useless tasks, then bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.
Here is an excerpt from the Talking About Disaster: Guide for Standard Messages produced by the National Disaster Education Coalition, Washington, D.C.:
So, I ask you, which of us actually believes that 10 miles, or even 50 miles, is going to be a sufficient evacuation zone, and exactly how are the thousands of people living close to nuclear plants going to travel to get out of the impact zone?
Since we have seen how utterly disastrous our response was to a hurricane, how much more screwed up will a response (ha!) be to a nuclear incident? Will DHS, FEMA, the Red Cross, and other agencies be able to handle a full-blown nuclear incident?
So when the great mind of George W. Bush starts advocating for more nuclear energy as a means of alternative energy breaking us away from fossil fuels and our "addiction to oil," we have to ask some serious questions and force the idiots in charge to come up with fully disclosed and fully explainable answers that do not avoid the health, safety and security issues. Another set of questions we have to ask is how are the politicians, corporations and big business leaders planning to line their pockets and rip-off our bank accounts... which is what they live to do.
Let us not jump the gun and create more problems before we get a lot of things hammered out. I am not anti-nuclear power, I am against idiocy, greed, false assurances, failure to provide evacuation procedures, faulty science and engineering, exposing our nation to unnecessary security risks, and a failure of the government to act properly.
Bush's latest speech advocating nuclear power, May 24, 2006
Rather than forming energy cooperatives where people can buy energy from not-for-profit entities, passing tax-free incentives for developing such energy cooperatives, developing and implementing more effective solar technology, creating tax incentives for individuals and cooperatives that install energy producing windmills (which is a successful program in Norway and Denmark), passing higher fuel ratings (miles per gallon) ratings for all new vehicles [IMMEDIATELY], developing alternative fuels from renewable resources, and instituting energy saving processes in our daily lives, we are reverting back to coal and nuclear energy.
When it comes to coal, there are claims that there are now new and cleaner ways of burning coal that produces LESS noxious air pollutants. BUt I have looked at the science and technology for doing so. As someone not trained in the dynamics of coal, but having more than a precursory knowledge of how coal burns from taking courses and reading technical/scientific journals, I know there is not a way to burn coal without producing some of the components that cause a widening of the ozone layer holes, acid rain, sulphuric acid that causes chemical reactions with other pollutants... in other words, there just isn't any such thing as "clean burning coal." It's sort of like "safe sex." There isn't any such thing as safe sex, but there is "safer sex."
But then, too, we have to pull the coal out of the ground. Although stripping (raping) the earth as they did in the early days of coal mining (c.f. Southern Indiana, Kentucky, parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virgina, Wyoming, etc.) is a supposed thing of the past, the Bush administration has demonstrated that they are all too willing to bypass, negate, suspend or circumvent environmental laws, regulations and protections to let the oil companies drill and explore for oil, what would stop them from doing the same with the coal companies? Then we have the fact that US coal companies have a poor record of protecting miners and their families. The recent string of coal mine "accidents" (which in my view could have been prevented or mitigated by instituting better safety protocols and providing better safety equipment) illustrates that the coal mine operators and owners are not fond of following regulations, looking out for their workers or instituting fundamental safety processes.
The fact is that these "industry giants" cannot even agree about which standards should be implemented... and that is all about MONEY, not science, technology or safety.
The Energy Challenge: Two Industry Leaders Bet on Coal but Split on Cleaner Approach
More than a century ago a blustery Wyoming politician named Fenimore Chatterton boasted that his state alone had enough coal to "weld every tie that binds, drive every wheel, change the North Pole into a tropical region, or smelt all hell!"
His words seem prophetic.
The future for American energy users is playing out in coal-rich areas like northeastern Wyoming, where dump trucks and bulldozers swarm around 80-foot-thick seams at a Peabody Energy strip mine here, one of the largest in the world.
Coal, the nation's favorite fuel in much of the 19th century and early 20th century, could become so again in the 21st. The United States has enough to last at least two centuries at current use rates — reserves far greater than those of oil or natural gas. And for all the public interest in alternatives like wind and solar power, or ethanol from the heartland, coal will play a far bigger role.
But the conventional process for burning coal in power plants has one huge drawback: it is one of the largest manmade sources of the gases responsible for global warming.
Many scientists say that sharply reducing emissions of these gases could make more difference in slowing climate change than any other move worldwide. And they point out that American companies are best positioned to set an example for other nations in adopting a new technique that could limit the environmental impact of the more than 1,000 coal-fired power projects on drawing boards around the world.
On top of this suddent advocation of coal we now have Dubya advocating for increased development and use of nuclear power as an alternative energy (electricity) source. Somehow this stance seems to ignore some facts:
1. The cost of producing nuclear energy is not the cheap alternative it once was thought to be... the cost of running nuclear plants is significantly higher than all of the predictions and forecasts once presented to congress, the NRC, the US Department of Energy, and the states where these plants are located.
2. There are numerous nuclear power plants that have had significant safety and engineering problems, including leaks of radiation, cooling system problems, emergency shut-downs, etc. Nuclear power is not as safe and environmentally sound as a lot of people think. We must not forget Three Mile Island (TMI), which was mishandled by the state and federal authorities and placed lives at risk. But, while TMI was the worst case scenario in the US, and Chernobyl was the worst in history to-date, there is a litany of problems at various nuclear power plants, including the following:
Seabrook 1, Seabrook, New Hampshire
Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Massachusetts
Zion 1 & 2, Zion, Illinois (shut down now)
Braidwood 1 & 2, Joliet,Illinois
Ginna, Rochester, New York
Three Mile Island, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
I am sure the list goes on because one world-wide web report cites over 8,000 minor leaks in 1987. According to the NRC's own inspection reports, there is not one nuclear power plant that has operated without being cited for some level of safety violation, many with several violations in a quarter, often being related to the lack of following proper safety and control procedures. While the NRC and plant operators would claim that most of these violations are minor, my concern is that these reports demonstrate a pattern of overlooking safety and control procedures until someone points it out to them and threatens legal or regulatory actions.
These concerns also include a number of leaks into the groundwater, contaminating drinking, irrigation and other water supplies.
3. The effects of nuclear radiation leaking into our atmosphere and environment are not fully understood. But if the ultraviolet radiation from the sun is linked to skin problems and cancer, and infrared radiation is known to kill bacteria, and atomic radiation from Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still producing effects, how safe can a leak really be? Having been trained in the basics of "NBC" [Nuclear, Biological and Chemical] warfare and treatment of NBC victims/casualties while serving in the Navy and Army National Guard, it is easy for me to say that any leak of radiation is an important health and environmental concern... or at least it should be. There are numerous governmental and independent reports on the health concerns of radtiation leaks from nuclear plants. A listing of some of the deaths, injuries and issues can be found at the following web sites:
U.S. Nuclear Accidents
Red Cross
4. Each and every nuclear power plant has represented a major national security risk. There have been numerous security tests conducted and after-action reports have consistently demonstrated that the security and defenses against terrorist attacks, infiltration of the plant by demonstrators or plant takeover have been poorly implemented. Even the location of these plants can be researched on the NRC web site, including active sites and sites in the process of decommission or already shut down, not to mention the road signs that point out the exact roads to arrive at a plant.
5. The handling, processing, storing and disposing of nuclear wastes is not safe. The science community has been citing problems handling nuclear wastes for decades. The history of handling these wastes are riddled with problems. The Sierra Club has a web page dedicated to these issues. The bane of nuclear waste has been in and out of the news, and Yucca Mountain is a notorious subject of these reports because so many issues about the safe handling, processing, storing and disposing of nuclear waste remian unanswered, or answered in an unsatisfactory manner.
6. Energy consumers are still paying for the mistakes of nuclear energy, including passing on recovery costs via Public Service of New Hampshire for Seabrook and Entergy Nuclear Generation Company for Pilgrim 1. The federal and state governments have taken a protectionistic approach to making sure that the companies that have invested in, sold (as in passed off the problem) and mismanaged nuclear power plants can pass the costs of their loused up efforts to the consumer.
7. There are no effective plans for properly evacuating a remediating a nuclear power plant incident. While there are "informational" pamphlets and reports on evacuation plans and procedures, none of them are effective in design, and none have proven effective in practice. In the 1970s there was a poster that described the steps we should take in case of nuclear attack. The last step in a long list of utterly ridiculous procedures was to "Bend over and kiss your sweet ass goodbye." It would seem that the evacuation plans for a nuclear power plant incident amounts to the same process: perform a long list of ridiculously useless tasks, then bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.
Here is an excerpt from the Talking About Disaster: Guide for Standard Messages produced by the National Disaster Education Coalition, Washington, D.C.:
What plans are in place in case of an emergency?
Local and state governments, federal agencies, and electric utility companies have emergency response plans that would be activated in the event of a nuclear power plant emergency. The plans define two “emergency planning zones.” The first zone covers the area within a 10-mile (16-kilometer) radius of the plant, where it is possible that people could be harmed by direct radiation exposure. The second zone covers a broader area, usually up to a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius from the plant, where radioactive materials could contaminate water supplies, food crops, and livestock.
So, I ask you, which of us actually believes that 10 miles, or even 50 miles, is going to be a sufficient evacuation zone, and exactly how are the thousands of people living close to nuclear plants going to travel to get out of the impact zone?
Since we have seen how utterly disastrous our response was to a hurricane, how much more screwed up will a response (ha!) be to a nuclear incident? Will DHS, FEMA, the Red Cross, and other agencies be able to handle a full-blown nuclear incident?
So when the great mind of George W. Bush starts advocating for more nuclear energy as a means of alternative energy breaking us away from fossil fuels and our "addiction to oil," we have to ask some serious questions and force the idiots in charge to come up with fully disclosed and fully explainable answers that do not avoid the health, safety and security issues. Another set of questions we have to ask is how are the politicians, corporations and big business leaders planning to line their pockets and rip-off our bank accounts... which is what they live to do.
President Bush promoted nuclear power Wednesday as part of his answer to energy and environmental problems as more companies consider taking advantage of government incentives to build the nation's first new nuclear plant in decades.
In the shadow of twin giant cooling towers, Bush said that his plan to expand nuclear power would curb emissions contributing to global warming and would provide an "abundant and plentiful" alternative to limited energy sources. Bush called the nuclear sector an "overregulated industry" and pledged to work to make it more feasible to build reactors.
"Nuclear power helps us protect the environment. And nuclear power is safe," he said to loud applause from workers at the Limerick Generating Station, about 40 miles from Philadelphia. He added: "For the sake of economic security and national security, the United States must aggressively move forward with construction of nuclear power plants. Other nations are."
Bush has been an ardent advocate of nuclear power since taking office, and he was introduced Wednesday as the industry's most supportive president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. The energy legislation he pushed through Congress last year offered a menu of benefits to industry to build new reactors; 16 companies have expressed interest this year, compared with two last year, although none has filed an application.
No new reactor has been commissioned in the United States since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 about 60 miles west of here, and no president since Jimmy Carter had visited a nuclear plant until Bush traveled to the Calvert Cliffs station in Maryland last year. He donned a white hard hat Wednesday for his second reactor tour, inspecting the No. 2 turbine amid a powerful hum that made it hard to hear.
Let us not jump the gun and create more problems before we get a lot of things hammered out. I am not anti-nuclear power, I am against idiocy, greed, false assurances, failure to provide evacuation procedures, faulty science and engineering, exposing our nation to unnecessary security risks, and a failure of the government to act properly.
Bush's latest speech advocating nuclear power, May 24, 2006
posted by Jim Downey at 6:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home