It's time to stop the madness

This entry was posted on 9/16/2007 10:42 PM and is filed under uncategorized.

Does anyone disagree with these five statements?

   1 - We're using corn to make ethanol (to meet a government mandate) so we can drive bigger vehicles than we need to and live in larger houses than we need.  As a result, corn prices are higher so food prices are higher.  In January 2006 a bushel of corn was $2.60; 20 months later it's now $3.50 - a 35% increase.  Sure there's an argument that farmers will plant more so the price will come down, but is this how we want to spend our resources?  Click here for more problems with ethanol.

And, let's not forget about hunger here and starvation abroad.  Would we rather drive large vehicles.....or feed people?  Can any of our elected representatives say "CONSERVE?"  MADNESS.

(My point is not to make a moralistic statement....I'm far from an energy "saint."  We need to agree as a society that non-renewable energy needs to cost more, and that those who use more of it should pay more of our federal tax burden.  People can do what they please; but, "free-for-all", non-renewable energy use will cost.)

                    


   2 - We started a war in Iraq over oil and we've now been there 4 1/2 years at a cost to-date of: 4,075  coalition soldiers lives including 3,776 Americans; reported Iraqi civilian deaths (depending on your source either over 600,000 (New York Times article) or 72,537 (iraqbodycount.org)); loss of limbs and other wounds (physical and mental); and dollars (over $452 billion and climbing).

The MADNESS?  Our elected representatives are doing nothing meaningful to solve the root cause of the war we started in Iraq (with our Department of Defense) - our addiction to oil.

   3 - Global warming is real and we're causing it.  From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Union of Concerned Scientists:
    "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.  Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."  IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.

The MADNESS?  Our elected representatives are doing nothing meaningful to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and are not taking a leadership role with other countries.

   4 - Our trade deficit is a significant problem (and is largely the result of our dependence on foreign energy).

The MADNESS?  Our elected representatives are ignoring this.

   5 - Air pollution in the U.S. is a significant problem.

The MADNESS?  Our elected representatives are ignoring this.

*************************************************

There IS a "silver bullet" solution -> phase-in a federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy.  How much of a shift?


Nuclear power is not the answer.  Unfortunately, some of our elected representatives think it is.  Let's just call them the non-leading, "everything is fine", "no sacrifice is ever needed" crowd; even in light of the problems listed above.

*************************************************

What do you think our energy policy should be?  What are you doing about it?

        

Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 9/17/2007 10:02 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  Here is a letter I sent to the Madison Capitol Times in reply to the one from Jeffery B. Zeiger.
  
  EDITOR:
  
  The letter from the director of the Alternative Fuels Institute (Friday, September 14) claims that ethanol from corn can reduce US dependence on imported oil because "we can grow it". Yes, we grow it--using petroleum products like diesel oil and gasoline to power tractors and trucks to plant, harvest, process, and transport it. So the real question is "do we get more energy back from the ethanol than from the petroleum used to make it"?
  
  The answer to that is disputed. The Cornell study says no. A more optimistic study from Minnesota University says yes, but by only a small margin. GMO corn can improve the balance, but not enough for make a significant dent in US oil consumption.
  
  The letter suggests that since most corn is fed to livestock, diverting it to ethanol won't effect humans. But we grow the livestock for food, including dairy products. Sure we export a lot of corn, but reducing that export will harm the balance of trade.
  
  It is claimed that higher corn prices will lead to planting more corn. Sure, but planting it WHERE? In place of other grains? The subsidy of corn is already increasing the price of beer and bread. Expanding agriculture into wetlands? Replacing forests?
  
  These tradeoffs might be worth it if corn ethanol actually reduced petroleum consumption enough to matter. But it doesn't.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/17/2007 9:32 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     
     Thanks for your comment; hope it gets published.
     
     Great point about WHERE will more corn be planted?  And, in place of what?

     
     Reply to this
• 9/17/2007 10:49 AM RobC wrote:
  Even the strongest advocates of nuclear energy agree that it isn't the whole solution. But neither are conservation or renewables. It's all because we live in a democracy. Elected officials won't mandate the kind of conservation needed to minimize global warming, and all the laws and taxes you could imagine won't cause windmills and solar panels to generate electricity when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
  
  Consider what nuclear gets us:
  
  (1) An electricity source that doesn’t depend on wind or sunlight or the limited amount of energy storage available, and emits virtually no greenhouse gases. It could reduce CO2 emissions by 40%.
  
  (2) An energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen, which could be used directly in automobiles and trucks or added to biofuels to make their production higher by a factor of three. Presently, transportation accounts for about 33% of CO2 emissions; all of that could be eliminated through conservation, electrification, and alternate fuels.
  
  (3) A huge reduction in air pollution, lowered trade deficits, and freedom from Middle-East involvements.
  
  The simple truth is that we won't shut down all the homes and businesses when there isn't enough wind and sunlight to power them. We won't make people stay home in their cold, dark houses. If nuclear energy isn't developed in a major way, the world will keep burning fossil fuels. In fifty years nearly all the world's people will live in severe hardship and the natural environment will have completely disappeared.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/17/2007 10:06 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     Wonderful, reasoned comment - thanks.
     
     Agree with everything in your first paragraph.  And, the answer is to make the good stuff (e.g., conservation and renewables) more cost-effective and making the bad stuff (non-renewable energy sources such as fossil fuels and nuclear power) cost more.
     
     I lump nuclear in with the bad stuff not just because it's non-renewable, but because NO ONE KNOWS HOW MUCH IT COSTS.  How much will it cost to safely dispose of nuclear waste for TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS until it won't kill anyone?
     
     Please tell me, "how much does a kWh of electricity from nuclear power cost?"
     
        ~     ~     ~
     
     If you were buying a car, and the one you're looking at has great features and benefits (just like the three you've outlined above for nuclear power) BUT, you didn't know how much it cost, although the sales person is offering great credit terms (collateral will be your children and another 500 generations (50,000 years (Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years so only 1/4 of the waste would be very harmful after this time) divided by 100)) would you buy the car?!
     
     ******************************
     
     With a federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy, there will be an incentive for conservation (lower taxes) and the renewable energy industry will flourish because the true costs of non-renewable energy will start to be included in the price.
     
     A huge arena for research, development and demonstration (once the market is more favorable) is energy storage.  Recognizing (and including) the full costs of non-renewable energy will launch this country into a renewable energy and energy storage market bonanza, because it's true - the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow.
     
     Reply to this
• 9/18/2007 10:48 AM RobC wrote:
  Paul, thanks for putting your questions out where they can be answered, instead of just shrugging the whole thing away.
  
  Presently, nuclear electricity is the cheapest of all except for hydro. Both of them are cheap because the capital costs have all been paid back. Here are average operating costs in the US in 2005, in US cents per KWH [http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html]:
  
  Nuclear 1.816
  Fossil Steam 2.769
  Hydroelectric 0.886
  Gas Turbine and Small Scale 5.885
  
  For new plants, of course, the cost would be higher because of the capital costs. Here are comparisons for different energy sources [http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf]. The costs are in UK pence/KWH.
  
  Gas-fired CCGT 2.2
  Nuclear fission plant 2.3
  Coal-fired pulverised-fuel (PF) steam plant 2.5
  Coal-fired circulating fluidized bed (CF steam plant 2.6
  Coal-fired integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) 3.2
  Onshore wind farm 3.7
  Offshore wind farm 5.5
  Wave and marine technologies 6.6
  
  Note that the coal-fired electricity costs more than nuclear, which no doubt is because advanced-technology plants are being considered in order to minimize pollution. If older-technology plants were being priced, the cost would be somewhat less, probably less than any of the costs shown.
  
  It's true: wastes last a long time. Compare nuclear wastes with the wastes from coal-burning plants, which are many times more dangerous and last forever. Anyway, the official plan is to deposit nuclear wastes in a stable geological structure where they will be isolated from the environment until they have lost their toxicity. It's odd, but typical, that people who call themselves environmentalists have not supported similar measures for the toxic wastes from manufacturing photovoltaic panels.
  
  But that's the official plan. What really will happen is different, of course. The spent-fuel wastes are immensely valuable; recycling multiplies their energy value by a factor of twenty. Ultimately, the small amount of less-dangerous, residual waste probably will be buried safely, but there also is technology available now for transmuting it into other, less noxious, materials.
  
  Here's a question for you: what harm have nuclear wastes ever caused? Why is that, with all the terrible pollution problems in the world, anti-nukes focus myopically on the only waste product that's never had an adverse effect on the environment?
  
  You know, if there were a way to store energy to make it available when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, this whole debate would change. There never will be a storage bonanza until, or unless, a way to store it is invented.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/18/2007 10:58 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     
     You're welcome (response to "thanks for putting your questions out where they can be answered...").  Debate is good.
     
         True listening is a radical act, you risk being changed by it.
     
                                                    Juanita Brown, founder of Whole Systems Associates
     
     En guard!
     
     Respectfully, we have no idea how much electricity from nuclear power plants costs.  Assuming plant decommissioning (including removal?) costs are covered, they are a drop in the bucket compared to what it will cost to store high-level nuclear waste for 50,000-100,000 years (conservative estimate).  Let's say we stick with the current "stick it all in pools of water next to each plant", and let's assume that (somehow) each pool lasts 200 years (almost as long as the U.S. has been around).  To reach the absolute minimum storage requirement, the pools would have to be reconstructed 250 times.  So....please add those costs to the costs of the electricity we've already used.
     
     How about the costs to "deposit nuclear wastes in a stable geological structure where they will be isolated from the environment until they have lost their toxicity."  From Solve 4 Biggies What about nuclear power?: 
     
          Yucca update: March 2007 - "It will cost $26.9 billion to build and operate the laceName w:st="on">YuccalaceName> laceType w:st="on">MountainlaceType> nuclear waste dump through 2023.  ...The department did not release a new figure for the total life-cycle cost of the Nevada project, estimated several years ago at $58 billion."  P.S. - don't forget transportation concerns and costs.
     
     58 billion!!!!!!!!!  (and that's the "old figure")  Are these costs included in the kWh costs you cite?
     
     The bigger problem - there's still no agreement that Yucca will open so we really don't know it will cost.
     
     Your statement, "...people who call themselves environmentalists have not supported similar measures for the toxic wastes from manufacturing photovoltaic panels."  Not sure we need to put these toxic wastes in stable geologic structures, but of course these manufacturers should be following existing laws for proper disposal.
     
     Recycling/reprocessing high-level waste - from a comment I posted July 9, 2007 on What about nuclear power?: 
          Per Wikipedia, "France is generally cited as the most successful reprocessor, but it presently only recycles 28% (by weight) of the yearly fuel use, 7% within France and another 21% in Russia."  France is the most successful and they only reprocess 28%!  The U.S. reprocesses 0%.  We'd have a lot of "ramping-up" to do.  How do you guarantee that nuclear material will not be used in a deliberate act of sabotage - particularly with all of the transport being proposed?  Given the potential loss of life and destruction, if you can't guarantee it, why take a chance?  "Dirty" nuclear bombs come to mind.
     
     The tax shift proposed is a start towards financial recognition of the true costs of non-renewable energy.  As the cost of non-renewable energy grows, the MARKET will decide the best energy path.
     
       So even if we can move to reprocessing "quickly", we're going to have a great deal of ADDITIONAL high-level waste to store for tens of thousands of years - and we do not know what this will cost so I'm not buyin'.
     
     Your "...what harm have nuclear wastes ever caused?":
     
     From Wikipedia:
          - "Mayak is the name of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.  The most notable accident occurred on 29 September 1957, when the failure of the cooling system for a tank storing tens of thousands of tons of dissolved nuclear waste resulted in a non-nuclear explosion having a force estimated at about 75 tons of TNT (310 gigajoules), which released some 20 MCi (740 petabecquerels) of radioactivity. See list of military nuclear accidents and [2]. Subsequently, at least 200 people died of radiation sickness, 10,000 people were evacuated from their homes, and 470,000 people were exposed to radiation. People "grew hysterical with fear with the incidence of unknown 'mysterious' diseases breaking out. Victims were seen with skin 'sloughing off' their faces, hands and other exposed parts of their bodies."
     
          - "A number of incidents have occurred when radioactive material was disposed of improperly, shielding during transport was defective, or when it was simply abandoned or even stolen from a waste store.[14]"
     
     Your "..... if there were a way to store energy to make it available when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining..."
     
     From Wikipedia:
     
        Storage methods

     • Electrochemical
     • Batteries
     • Flow batteries
     • Fuel cells
     • Electrical
     • Capacitor
     • Supercapacitor
     • Superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES)
     • Mechanical
     • Compressed air energy storage(CAES)
     • Flywheel energy storage
     • Hydraulic accumulator
     • Hydroelectric energy storage
     • Spring
     • Thermal
     • Molten salt [1]
     • Cryogenic liquid air or nitrogen
     • Seasonal thermal store
     • Solar pond
     • Hot bricks
     • Steam accumulator
     • Fireless locomotive

          ~         ~         ~
     
     We need to move toward inclusion of the full life-cycle costs of all energy sources by shifting federal taxes from income taxes to non-renewable energy taxes - then let the market decide which energy AND energy storage technologies are best.
     

     
     Reply to this
     1. 9/19/2007 11:19 AM RobC wrote:
        Actually, we do know the costs of treating the waste and decommissioning the reactors. The operating utilities pay a tenth of a cent per KWH into a fund for treating the waste and set aside funds for decommissioning. The fund has billions in it which the government borrows and spends on other things.
        
        The bottom line is that the externalities of nuclear are a lot less than the externalities of fossil fuels, especially coal. If there were some way to make renewables practical then it would be valuable to compare their total costs with nuclear's. From what I can tell, wind and nuclear cost out about the same, and photovoltaic is considerable higher.
        
        I didn't follow your next point. Reprocessing reduces the amount of high-level waste and leaves it less toxic. So I don't see how you concluded that there would be additional wastes.
        
        Thanks for the Mayak article in Wikipedia. I'll admit I didn't know about the accident. I won't use the challenge any more, but let me point out that we don't actually know how much harm came from the accident. The references describe extreme secrecy from the Soviet government, which we all can accept, but extends the same accusation against the Russian government. From the tone of the references, it's clear that the authors are using the accident to bolster ant-nuclear sentiments. Ralph Nader even has a conspiracy theory involving the CIA. Finding out just what happened would make a very worthwhile political cause.
        
        It's not enough to list a bunch of brainstorms from Popular Mechanics and claim that there's a solution to storing large amounts of energy. Come on, capacitors? springs? None of them, aside from hydroelectric, would have the capacity required and all of them would introduce inefficiencies that increase the environmental consequences of the sources. Sadly, there's no hydro potential left to speak of. We ought to be investing in pumped storage where it's available, but its availability is limited by other environmental considerations as well as by the limited number of potential sites.
        
        The fact remains that without nuclear energy, the world will keep burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. That's a cost the world can't afford.
        Reply to this
        1. 9/19/2007 10:28 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
           
           Respectfully, sure we know the costs "of treating the waste and decommissioning the reactors."  But, we don't the costs of long-term (tens of thousands of years) storage because we're not doing it.
           
           You can't make the statement "The bottom line is that the externalities of nuclear are a lot less than the externalities of fossil fuels, especially coal" because we don't know the cost of nuclear's externalities.
           
           In answer to your...."Reprocessing reduces the amount of high-level waste and leaves it less toxic. So I don't see how you concluded that there would be additional wastes."  Clear as mud, sorry....  By 'additional' I meant new waste, above and beyond the high-level waste that we don't have storage for now.
           
           The point of the Mayak article for me is (to quote Amory Lovins) that "nuclear power for generating electricity is like cutting butter with a chainsaw."  With this kind of raw power (and waste), accidents will happen.  Why not a "softer" energy path with a base in renewable energy.  I can guarantee that wind power will not kill hundreds of people.  I don't pretend to know the optimum short-term balance between renewables, fossil fuel, and nuclear - but I DO know that we need much more of our energy needs to come from renewables and that the best way to get there efficiently is a federal tax shift.
           
           For energy storage....you caught me, I was being flip.  My point was, of course there are ways to store energy.  Yes, there are inefficiencies getting energy to and from storage, but oh I how I wish that the billions and billions of dollars we spent on nuclear power were spent on renewables instead.  This blog wouldn't exist if we had done that.  Efficient and effective mass storage - no problem, would have been accomplished.  We can't change the past, so let's create our future by stimulating the renewable energy industry with higher non-renewable energy prices to make an entire tier of renewable projects economically viable.
           
           Let's face it.  Nuclear was subsidized and grew as it did in the U.S. because there's way more money to be made in huge centralized power systems than in smaller decentralized renewable systems.
           
           A couple of years ago I heard an Exxon executive interviewed on the radio.  He was adamant, "We're an oil company, not an energy company."  Sure, this was/is smart.  They are in business to make money.  The oil business is very profitable - they've done well.  The energy business is more risky.  So let's decide that we want the Exxons of the world to REALLY be energy companies.  We have the power - level the playing field between non-renewables and renewables by including external costs of non-renewables in the prices via tax shift from income featuring a BTU tax.  Watch Exxon run.....after the money.  We need their, and other oil companies, considerable resources ($ and talent) to get hungry to make a buck in the renewable energy industry.  Not just these cheesy, show ads for the $2.50 they're investing in some solar cell somewhere.  Get 'em fired up by changing the rules of the game.
           
           *******************************
           
           AND, let's not forget the best energy "source", the real "low-hanging fruit" for years and years and years --- CONSERVATION.  The best way to reduce energy consumption via conservation? - make non-renewable energy more expensive (via a federal tax shift).
           
           Reply to this
           1. 9/20/2007 11:19 AM RobC wrote:
              One small problem I'm having is the time warp. I'm posting comments without seeing comments from you that haven't been approved by the moderator, and the reverse also is happening. I don't criticize, because moderation is necessary. But if I'm not properly responsive that's at least part of the reason.
              
              It seems we're not too far apart. You think more should be done with renewables and conservation. I agree with that 100%. I believe you're not against nuclear, but you think that the external costs make it uneconomical.
              
              On the one hand, I think the issue is moot. Since there isn't a way to store--say--twelve hours worth of electricity, nuclear is the only alternative to coal. I don't like the argument that we *HAVE* to go to nuclear because in reality it's a very good choice anyway and we ought to be using it much more than we do even if global warming weren't a threat.
              
              Let's try to quantify the external costs. Consider the $58B estimate for Yucca Mountain. The nuclear waste fund presently has $24B from the 0.1 cent/KWH assessment on nuclear electricity. By the time Yucca Mountain opens, the fund will probably have paid the whole amount. Let's be wildly conservative. If Yucca costs more and we have to add still other costs, let's say the total is twice the $58B. That means we should add another 0.1 cent/KWH. We can bicker over exact figures, but there's no way to drive the cost high enough to make nuclear uneconomical.
              
              We cannot avoid global warming. It's already begun. The best we can do is minimize it. There are only three measures we can take: renewable energy, nuclear energy, and conservation. To neglect any of the three is to force greater warming than otherwise will occur.
              Reply to this
              1. 9/20/2007 10:43 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
                 

                 
                 My opinion on nuclear - use up the plants we have, but don't build new ones until we know what the full life-cycle costs are.  Mostly because no one wants high-level waste anywhere near them, getting a repository up and running is problematic.  So, we won't know the full costs until we actually have a repository operational (including transport, across the country, without incident (accident or terrorist), for many years).
                 
                 Another reason to not build more plants - the experts say Yucca (if it's ever built) will be full with JUST the waste generated by 2014.  (Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! - (primal scream)); how can some even be THINKING of building more.  Let's be adults people.  "The NWPA limits the capacity of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository to 63,000 MT of initial heavy metal in commercial spent fuel.⁵ The 103 U.S. commercial reactors currently operating will produce this quantity of spent fuel by 2014."
                 
                 Where is the "second" repository going to be built?  Even though we really don't have a "first" yet.
                 
                 For these reasons, building additional nuclear plants is a non-option until (if) the problems above are ever resolved.
                 
                 **************************

                 Conservation has tremendous potential to solve the four biggies.  What are your thoughts on how best to have it actually happen?
                 

                 
                 Reply to this
                 1. 9/20/2007 11:57 PM RobC wrote:
                    I notice that you keep dodging the question of intermittence. An energy supply that depends on silver bullets that have no prospects of being practical is not a solution. It's not enough to take pot shots at what you don't like; you also have to offer a real-world substitute. By the way, the substitute has to work for China and India, which are building something like one coal-fired plant per week.
                    
                    Speaking of real-world subjects, the world can't keep on discarding nuclear fuel when less than 1% of its energy value has been extracted. It is essential to recycle it. When we do that, Yucca Mountain will hold some more reasonable amount of waste.
                    
                    Somewhere in this lengthy manuscript you mentioned some cost estimates by NEA for recycling the fuel instead of disposing of it. Do you have a reference?
                    
                    Who says nuclear isn't an option until the repository issue is settled? More than one analyst favors leaving the spent fuel onsite until recycling is up and running.
                    
                    I didn't really want to respond to the conservation end of this. No one wants to minimize its importance. But what bothers me is the difference between can-do and will-do. Will democratic governments mandate real conservation measures? Everyone's in favor of compact fluorescent light bulbs and higher fuel efficiency. How many are in favor of living-space limits and fuel rationing? How many politicians would vote to outlaw pickups, SUVs, motorhomes, cabin cruisers, and personal aircraft? Or vacation trips?
                    
                    We could reduce CO2 emissions 6% by replacing space-heating systems with heat pumps or solar/heat pumps. But where will the electricity come from when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining?
                    
                    If conservation could be made both practical and acceptable, shouldn't anti-nukes be promoting that? If it really could work the way anti-nukes say, then there'd be no demand for either nuclear or fossil-fired electricity.
                    
                    The way we got into this mess in the first place was that anti-nukes told us that conservation and silver bullets would meet all our energy needs. So we kept on burning fossil fuels, confident that all the problems would be solved. They never have been, with the result that the world is facing a global-scale crisis. There's no way we're going to beat this without nuclear energy.
                    Reply to this
                    1. 9/21/2007 9:02 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
                       

                       
                       Thanks for your spirited debate.
                       
                       I'm advocating a phased-in federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy - REAL legislative action that will have real results.  Income taxes would  be reduced and the revenue would be replaced by a BTU tax on non-renewable energy sources.  This would start the process of recognizing the external costs of all energy sources.  Nuclear and fossil fuels would not "go away."  Instead they would slowly become less economically advantageous and renewable energy technologies would become more economically viable.  Conservation would increase because people would want to reduce their tax burden.
                       
                       Google "Tragedy of the Commons" - this analogous to the situation we're in.  It will take agreement among citizens to fix our predicament.  Fossil fuels and nuclear power have significant external costs (e.g., global warming, wars for oil, safely disposing of nuclear waste) which are not being accounted for (even with the Nuclear Waste Fund).   By "changing the rules" similar to anti-trust and patent laws (for the greater good, there are winners and losers) we then market will decide.  So no industry is going to "go away."
                       
                       We're simply going to start including external costs.  We're not communists so we shouldn't try to pick winners and losers from "on-high."  Instead, let American ingenuity and drive figure it out (after external costs are figured in).  As an aside, what are your thoughts on the federal tax shift concept?

                       So......with respect to many renewables being intermittent.  Yes, they are.  For renewables to be viable in the large-scale, this needs to be addressed - in a way that makes economic sense.  In the short-term, this is not an either/or debate - my goal is to simply have us begin to include the full costs of energy sources.

                       The real-world substitute is to simply have us begin to include the full costs of energy sources.  Over time, the U.S. renewable energy industry will become a mighty economic and job engine, manufacturing products for both domestic use and export.  Given the size of China and India, do you think there will be a HUGE market for decentralized, renewable power generation (with reliable and cost effective storage that will continue to be developed when non-renewable energy sources lose their unfair advantage by not being able to destroy our environment FOR FREE) or will they go for all, big centralized, towers for power lines, monster plants for all of their energy needs?  I don't pretend to know what the mix will be.....but, including the full costs of energy sources will create a better overall energy market in the U.S. and stimulate the renewable energy industry.
                       
                       Speaking of dodging, do you want to have a nuclear waste repository close to you and your family?  Do you want to have nuclear waste transported close to you and your family?  Given the vehement debate about this, how did we ever get to the point of "filling" our one proposed long-term nuclear waste site just after it opens (assuming it does before 2014)?  Greed, wastefulness, and just plain thinking only of ourselves.  Where would be now energy-wise if we slowed nuclear power down many years ago UNTIL we had long-term storage?  Electricity would cost more, we'd use a lot less and we would not be in this energy policy and environmental mess.
                       
                       Cost estimates by NEA for recycling the fuel instead of disposing of it - it's the same as the one above the cost info within that comment -->  will be full with JUST the waste generated by 2014

                       Recycling of nuclear waste - it's only a small percentage in the other major nuclear countries.  Please read comments here.  Excerpt:

                            Reprocessing:  "France is generally cited as the most successful reprocessor, but it presently only recycles 28% (by weight) of the yearly fuel use, 7% within France and another 21% in Russia. ^" 

                       So you're saying that pretty quickly (because on-site spent-fuel pools only last so long), we can reprocess not only 100% of the nuclear waste we produce, but ALSO, say, another 100% or 200% of that amount so we can reduce our current stockpiles of this deadly waste.  Oh yeah, and the cost - remember from an earlier comment on reprocessing: "....this is two to ten times the current U.S. Nuclear Waste Fund fee."   Pony up.
                       
                       Before I forget, do you have a "horse" in this race?  A personal stake in the nuclear power industry or anything related?  In fairness, I don't have any stake in the energy or environmental industries or non-profits or any related areas.

                       I'm not 100% anti-nuke as you can see in other entries.  I'm pro-federal tax shift and nuclear energy is not my energy preference for the reasons I've been writing about.
                       

                       
                       Reply to this
                       1. 9/22/2007 12:28 AM RobC wrote:
                          Okay, you've persuaded me. If the externalized costs for all energy sources were internalized, then I think you're right that economics could drive the decision. As you point out, the result would be a mix of renewable, nuclear, and very little fossil-fuel, enhanced by a prodigious amount of conservation. I'll argue that internalizing the costs of storage, assuming storage can be accomplished at all, will drive the decision in favor of nuclear. But if someone has a better idea we'll do it his way instead.
                          
                          The fuel that's been in storage pools the longest can be pulled out and put in dry storage pretty cheaply. That's one of the arguments for storing it onsite. I have no basis for challenging NEA's cost estimates. Maybe another penny per KWH has to be added to light bills to cover the cost. But nuclear will still be cheaper than renewables when all their costs are internalized.
                          
                          I'm retired and don't have a pecuniary interest in any of this. But I'm old and I regret leaving the world worse off than when I entered it. I try to open people's minds to nuclear energy's ability to undo some of the harm fossil fuels are causing. A long time ago I did safety analysis on nuclear reactors, which is why I have so much confidence in the technology. I wouldn't hesitate to live near a repository. The wastes will be heavily encapsulated and laid thousands of feet under the ground. In a few hundred years they'll be less radioactive than the uranium ore they were made from and it's not plausible that they could leak out. In the event they did, the harm they could cause would be insignificant compared to the harm coal wastes are causing now.
                          Reply to this
• 9/18/2007 3:46 PM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  << We're using corn to make ethanol (to meet a government mandate) so we can drive bigger vehicles than we need to and live in larger houses than we need. >>
  
  Right now, there's little overlap between the sources of liquid fuels for transportation and fuels for generating electricity, so you can't really conflate the crazy push for more ethanol as supporting our ego-driven mania for living in oversized houses (that require more juice to heat, cool, and light).
  
  That may change if in the future there is more crossover between these two main energy sectors---for instance, when plug-in hybrids have become common or when we've decided to destroy the rest of WV and KY to support massive increases in coal-to-liquids. For now, ethanol and big (electricity-sucking) houses are generally separate issues.
  
  As for the supporters of nukes.... Saying nuclear is cost efficient is true only if the very large externalities are ignored. But I admit that if these are ignored, nuclear makes sense---as long as each nuclear proponent agrees to house a share of the country's huge nuclear waste stockpiles in his backyard shed ... for the next 100,000 years.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/18/2007 11:16 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     Hola....

     Seems that the overlap would be home heating oil.  If we used less oil to heat oversized homes, we'd have less need to use corn to make ethanol.

     For nuclear power, couldn't agree more.  As once was written by..........you (5/27/2007) -

          "Trying to solve our energy and climate change problems by plunging into a new era of nuclear plants without having a technically feasible, affordable plan for dealing with the nuclear waste FOR MILLENNIA to come is completely irresponsible. It's saying, we're not adult enough to make the hard choices necessary to live within our energy budget. We'll take the energy now and hope a solution to the waste problem can be worked out later. This is the generational equivalent of child abuse."  (my underline)
     
     This so true (and concise).  Wouldn't it be great to see this paragraph as a 1/2 page ad in the New York Times?  I read recently that a full page ad is about $60,000, so a 1/2 page is maybe $35,000?  Mark, I just looked on your site Grinning Planet and didn't see a way to contribute.  If you do have a way to contribute, please let me know because all the world needs to read this paragraph - and I want to help fund it.
     

     
     Reply to this
• 9/19/2007 8:26 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  << Compare nuclear wastes with the wastes from coal-burning plants, which are many times more dangerous and last forever. >>
  
  Eh? Coal waste more dangerous than nuclear waste?? I agree that coal waste is a problem, but I'd like to hear more about how it's more dangerous than radioactive nuclear waste.
  
  
  << Anyway, the official plan is to deposit nuclear wastes in a stable geological structure where they will be isolated from the environment until they have lost their toxicity. >>
  
  Aptly described: "a stable geological structure." Note the singular form. There is a plan for only one place to store nuclear waste in the US---Yucca mountain---and it is in trouble, technically, economically, and politically. If it ever does happen and we get all the existing waste to it, it will suddenly be 3/4 full. To greatly expand US nuclear use, you'd need multiple Yucca's. And still, we don't know enough about how to build such systems to guarantee that they would work for the thousands of generations necessary to protect our descendants from the stuff.
  
  
  << It's odd, but typical, that people who call themselves environmentalists have not supported similar measures for the toxic wastes from manufacturing photovoltaic panels. >>
  
  They may not talk about such things as much, but all environmentalists I know are very concerned about pollution from manufacturing, whether it be PV panels or anything else. But the more proper comparison here would be panel manufacturing vs. uranium processing, which ain't exactly clean.
  
  More generally, I agree that ALL energy technologies have their impacts (pollution, habitat loss, etc.). But not all impacts are created equal, and we should strive for the technologies with the least odious impacts. This is why conservation and efficiency are so important---they avoid additional (or reduce current) energy-generation impacts. More proper inclusion of externalities in the cost of a BTU or kWH would help us energy consumers do a better job of optimizing energy use and its benefits/impacts.
  
  Tax shifting can further guide us to a cleaner, more secure and sustainable energy future. Oh sure, you can argue that such a scheme means government is actually choosing the technologies, not the market, because they would have to decide which energy types get what tax. But right now, the government AND LOBBYISTS are choosing the winning technologies. That's even worse.
  Reply to this
• 9/19/2007 8:27 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  ...part2...
  
  << The spent-fuel wastes are immensely valuable; recycling multiplies their energy value by a factor of twenty. >>
  
  If we are determined to go the route of "nuclear renaissance"---a clever, nice-feeling phrase from the nuke flacks---reprocessing the fuel is probably a must. Otherwise, two decades from now we'll be talking about Peak Uranium. Reprocessing creates more dangerous waste, yes; and it could be used for bomb making, true; but the "regular" nuclear waste is plenty bad enough to make a dirty bomb. So, if we're really going down Insanity Boulevard, then we should do it as efficiently as possible.
  
  
  << there also is technology available now for transmuting it into other, less noxious, materials. >>
  
  Less noxious, but not non-radioactive, right? How much do such transmutations reduce the time you'd have to wait to build a backyard barbecue pit out of the stuff?
  
  
  << what harm have nuclear wastes ever caused? Why is that, with all the terrible pollution problems in the world, anti-nukes focus myopically on the only waste product that's never had an adverse effect on the environment? >>
  
  Anti-nukers talk about the whole thing, not just the waste. Nuclear doesn't even make sense economically, if you loaded in ALL of the costs we must bear to support nuclear energy and waste management. But I do agree that other energy technologies have issues that are almost as bad---most notably coal. And you're right, nature-based technologies don't currently work well to generate base loads, and even though their production potential is high, their current production capacity is low. But as long as we keep throwing most of our money at nuclear, oil, gas, and coal, the technological advantage will always be theirs.
  
  
  << Seems that the overlap would be home heating oil. If we used less oil to heat oversized homes, we'd have less need to use corn to make ethanol. >>
  
  I think the % on homes heated with oil is only like 3%. Not trivial, but not huge.
  
  
  << just looked on your site Grinning Planet and didn't see a way to contribute. If you do have a way to contribute, please let me know because all the world needs to read this paragraph - and I want to help fund it. >>
  
  Thanks for the thought. There is no way to contribute to GP monetarily, other than looking at the cartoons and reading the articles---and clicking on ads (no spam-clicks please!). I need to do a new article on nuclear sometime anyway, so I'll try to incorporate the issues discussed here, as well as my quote.
  
  Thanks,
  Mark
  Reply to this
  1. 9/19/2007 9:40 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     What a hoot -
           ".......but the "regular" nuclear waste is plenty bad enough to make a dirty bomb. So, if we're really going down Insanity Boulevard, then we should do it as efficiently as possible."
     
     Very funny.
     
     Reply to this
• 9/19/2007 9:49 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  On "safety", all the deaths worldwide that you can blame on nuclear power are but a small fraction of the deaths due to just mining the coal used to produce power, to say nothing of the deaths just in the US each year that result from the air pollution from burning that coal. Then if you include climate change from the CO2...
  Yet we are currently building more coal power plants.
  
  The real drawback from nuclear is the "waste" created: so far the US has not faced up to that. But the "solution" is technically possible: reprocess it to additional fuel. That also greatly reduces the half-life of the remaining waste.
  
  The proper comparison for nuclear waste's danger time is not the millions of years that it emits radiation, but rather the time before it is less radioactive than the original ore the fuel was made from. The ore also had billions of years worth of dangerous radiation. Which is why it is still around today--duh!
  
  After reprocessing, waste from nuclear plants would be LESS radioactive than the original ore after just a few hundred years.
  
  Look, no solution is "perfect". But nuclear, whatever its problems, is still the best option we have, if you believe Climate Change is a serious problem.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/19/2007 9:48 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     
     Agree, coal is one of the worst polluters and many have died in coal-related deaths.  So, let's start to recognize (in the price of electricity from coal) these other costs by shifting federal taxes from income to non-renewable energy which includes................

     Nuclear.  Yep, nuclear waste is a real problem.  When the true and full costs of nuclear power are incorporated in it's price, economically it will look even worse.  So let's get a federal tax shift going now.

     
     Reply to this
• 9/19/2007 10:43 PM RobC wrote:
  Mark, this blog has brought back to me the inadequacies of public information. I was ignorant of the Mayak accident, and now it seems you aren't familiar with the harm done by coal wastes. I do not refer here to the airborne pollution which kills thousands of people every month. No, I refer to the sludge and tailings. Some details can be found at http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/008/index.html and no doubt other websites have similar information. This one doesn't even mention that some of the contaminants are radioactive.
  
  The difference is that nuclear wastes are managed carefully and, in the western world at least, have an superlative safety record.
  
  The thing about transmutation is that you can tailor the results to suit yourself. The wastes can just keep going through the process while the less-innocuous ones are removed. If one were to insist that all of them must be non-radioactive, such a result could be achieved. In practice, such a result is more stringent than what's required for safety.
  
  I think you're concerned about dirty bombs. The concern is that a terrorist could get his hands on spent fuel and blow it up with conventional explosives. That is a possibility, and puts it in the class of other threats, such as chlorine or ammonia or explosives made from fertilizer. But spent fuel is unattractive to terrorists for several reasons. One is that it's monitored in shipping and it's highly likely that the thieves would be caught and the terrorist plot would be exposed. Another is that it has to be heavily shielded so it would take a huge explosion to spread the waste. Another is that the radioactive material is easy to detect; people who are contaminated can be decontaminated quickly and cleanup crews can clean up the contaminated area. Of all the things we have to concern ourselves with, dirty bombs don't rank very high.
  
  Paul, you made the remark, "When the true and full costs of nuclear power are incorporated in it's price, economically it will look even worse." This is a contention, not a fact. Everyone who's looked at it objectively has come to the opposite conclusion. To be convincing, you have to support it with some facts and not just some hand-wringing from Greenpeace.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/20/2007 10:16 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     
     Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

     As for the facts regarding nuclear wastes, the facts are that:
     
          - there is no long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste in the U.S;
     
          - because of this do not know what it will cost;
     
          - Yucca cost update: March 2007 - "It will cost $26.9 billion to build and operate the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump through 2023.  ...The department did not release a new figure for the total life-cycle cost of the Nevada project, estimated several years ago at $58 billion."  (From the Nuclear Regulatory Commission website)
     
          P.S. - don't forget to add in transportation costs and concerns.
     
          P.S.S. - from the National Academy of Engineering - a Fall 2003 article Will the United States Need a Second Geologic Repository?  Yes - "The NWPA limits the capacity of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository to 63,000 MT of initial heavy metal in commercial spent fuel.⁵ The 103 U.S. commercial reactors currently operating will produce this quantity of spent fuel by 2014."  That's a problem.
     
     And, what do they mean "second" repository? - there is no "first" repository.
     
     There is an informative section, "Economics: The Nuclear Waste Fund."  However, transportation costs including providing the security for thousands of trips across the United States are not included.  How much will this cost (assuming Yucca opens)?  And, most importantly, the system/process is not running so these are only estimates.  Will the Nuclear Waste Fund cover the costs?  We don't know.  And I don't want to gamble by building and/or investing more.
     
          P.S.S.S. - do you want the next repository in your state?  Near to you, your friends and family?  The citizens of Nevada doesn't want it either.....  back to Lovins' "cutting butter with a chainsaw thing."
     
          P.S.S.S.S. - costs don't look good for recycling fuel. "...for current cost estimates for recycling. In a recent study, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) estimated costs of $1,000 to $2,500/kg just for spent-fuel reprocessing and noted that studies in the 1990s of sodium-cooled fast reactors for transmuting separated actinides estimated capital costs some 30 percent higher than for LWRs (NEA/OECD, 2002). Assuming real interest rates of 7 to 10 percent, NEA predicted that closed-cycle nuclear electricity prices are 0.2 to 1.0 cent/kWh higher than for LWR electricity with direct disposal of spent fuel; this is two to ten times the current U.S. Nuclear Waste Fund fee."
     
     Wring, wring.

     This article was written over four years ago.  Would be really interesting to see and updated version (I emailed and asked if an update is being worked on...... will let you know if I hear back).
     

     
     Reply to this
• 9/20/2007 9:17 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  Bottom line is that we are currently building new coal power plants because the only alternatives for reliable base line power are oil, natural gas or nuclear. If nuclear is really as bad as you say, then climate change or not, we should stick with fossil fuels.
  
  I agree that taxes should be shifted from "income" to "GHG", but no matter the price, the sun and wind are not reliable. Greater dependence on them would require a massive investment in additional transmission lines and/or storage systems using technologies that are not yet developed.
  Reply to this
• 9/20/2007 11:53 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  << The proper comparison for nuclear waste's danger time is not the millions of years that it emits radiation, but rather the time before it is less radioactive than the original ore the fuel was made from. The ore also had billions of years worth of dangerous radiation. >>
  
  Yes, uranium or is here on the planet and is radioactive. But it's not concentrated in one place and it's generally difficult to get to.
  
  
  << On "safety", all the deaths worldwide that you can blame on nuclear power are but a small fraction of the deaths due to just mining the coal used to produce power, to say nothing of the deaths just in the US each year that result from the air pollution from burning that coal. Then if you include climate change from the CO2...>>
  
  I actually agree that coal is at least as bad as nuclear and, on our current path, is more likely to be our undoing because of its large impact on climate destabilization. (Obviously, nuclear war would be worse than coal pollution, but we won't count that.)
  
  So, let's take nuclear AND coal power plants off the table. ie. No new nuclear plants; just use the existing ones for their remaining lifetimes. No more new coal plants; and close the oldest dirtiest plants ASAP (for climate change's sake). That solution only can work if we greatly ramp up alternatives AND bring down demand. Both of those things are achievable, but not if we keep thinking there is a "free energy lunch"---that we can just keep "growing the economy" forever, because energy supplies will (or rather, MUST) grow forever. The planet has limits. We will either enforce those on ourselves or nature will impose then on us. It's time for humanity to start acting all-grown-up. We probably won't, but I'm not going to just say, "We're too selfish to do the right thing, so screw future generations" and give in to what I think are wrong ideas.
  
  Paul, I was actually serious about my comment re: IF we're going to do more nuclear in the US, that we should reprocess the fuel. The additional danger from terrorist bomb making from reprocessed fuel is sort of a red herring used by those who oppose nuclear are are willing to make any argument to defeat it. There are plenty of excesses on the other side of the argument, too. But the benefits of reprocessing outweigh the negatives---ASSUMING WE CAN'T AVOID MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS. Which we can, of course.
  Reply to this
• 9/26/2007 8:10 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  Without building new nuclear plants, where would the power come from to shut down and replace all existing coal plants? They now produce about 50% of US electric power. Note that old "dirty" coal plants are no worse than new "clean" ones from a climate change perspective. Actually the "clean" ones are worse because they don't emit the offsetting SO2.
  
  Wishing that conservation will save the day is unlikely. The expanding US population (driven mostly by immigration) will more than offset any reductions made by members of the current population.
  
  As the climate warms, more houses will have central AC. The most promising way to reduce US "oil addiction" would be to switch to plug-in hybrid or even all electric cars. And that would require a huge increase in electric power production.
  
  As for the claim that we have no idea what it costs to convert spend nuclear fuel into new fuel, estimates can be made from the existing reprocessing plants in other countries.
  
  No one knows the exact cost of reprocessing when done on a large scale, but to deny that it would be less expensive than the (also unknown) cost of climate change is making a judgment also. One I think unlikely to be accurate.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/26/2007 10:49 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     
     <Without building new nuclear plants, where would the power come from to shut down and replace all existing coal plants?>
     
         Good question.  I'm not suggesting that shutting down all coal plants is the answer.  However, from a global warming and dependence on foreign energy perspective (the 2 biggest of the 4 biggies), the energy path we're on is disastrous.  Ever increasing greenhouse gas emissions, an appetite for energy that's never satiated, and little conservation.  Why??  Because there is little/no incentive.  (period)
     
     *************************
     I disagree with your statement regarding conservation.  U.S. population is growing at .9% per year.  Even after accounting for economic growth, I believe that financial incentives and a mindset change with respect to energy has the potential to reduce energy use by several percent per year, thereby reducing total energy use over time.
     
     *************************
     <The most promising way to reduce US "oil addiction" would be to switch to plug-in hybrid or even all electric cars. And that would require a huge increase in electric power production.>
        
         Agree, this a great way to do it.  In earlier comments, questions were raised about the viability of storage from renewable energy.  When solar panels and wind turbines charge plug-in hybrids and all electric cars...... that IS storage.
     
     **************************
     
     <No one knows the exact cost of reprocessing when done on a large scale.....> 
     
        Estimates have been made and were included in earlier comments - It's Time to Stop the Madness:
           
        From the National Academy of Engineering - a Fall 2003 article Will the United States Need a Second Geologic Repository?  Yes - "The NWPA limits the capacity of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository to 63,000 MT of initial heavy metal in commercial spent fuel.⁵ The 103 U.S. commercial reactors currently operating will produce this quantity of spent fuel by 2014."  That's a problem.
     
     And, what do they mean "second" repository? - there is no "first" repository.
     
     There is an informative section, "Economics: The Nuclear Waste Fund."  However, transportation costs including providing the security for thousands of trips across the United States are not included.  How much will this cost (assuming Yucca opens)?  And, most importantly, the system/process is not running so these are only estimates.  Will the Nuclear Waste Fund cover the costs?  We don't know.  And I don't want to gamble by building and/or investing more.
     
          P.S.S.S.S. - costs don't look good for recycling fuel. "...for current cost estimates for recycling. In a recent study, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) estimated costs of $1,000 to $2,500/kg just for spent-fuel reprocessing and noted that studies in the 1990s of sodium-cooled fast reactors for transmuting separated actinides estimated capital costs some 30 percent higher than for LWRs (NEA/OECD, 2002). Assuming real interest rates of 7 to 10 percent, NEA predicted that closed-cycle nuclear electricity prices are 0.2 to 1.0 cent/kWh higher than for LWR electricity with direct disposal of spent fuel; this is two to ten times the current U.S. Nuclear Waste Fund fee."
     

     
     Reply to this
• 10/1/2007 7:55 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  I think the estimate of US population growth is low. From the reference it includes only LEGAL immigrants. But the number of illegal (excuse me, undocumented immigrants range from 10 to 20 million, and is about equal to the number of legals. So double that figure.
  
  If you doubt that immigration estimate, just listen to conversations in Madison grocery stores. How much Spanish (for example) would you have heard even 2 decades ago? And we are a long way from the border.
  
  Jim
  
  
  
  Paul:
  Agree, this a great way to do it. In earlier comments, questions were raised about the viability of storage from renewable energy. When solar panels and wind turbines charge plug-in hybrids and all electric cars...... that IS storage.
  
  Jim:
  Yes, but I don't expect that to help very much. Why? Just think about it.
  
  Most people drive during the day. To work mostly. They would re-charge their cars overnight--when the sun does not shine, and winds typically go calm.
  
  And people drive more during the summer--the "vacation season" of Memorial to Labor Day. And that is when wind speeds are lowest and least reliable (in the mid-west at least.)
  
  People tend to work downtown and park in ramps which have many cars relative to their surface area. And are typically shaded by taller buildings around them. So using solar in the downtown of cities to recharge cars parked there during the day is not going to be very effective.
  
  The problem with electric power is that it is used most when (and where) your restricted methods of "renewable" (solar and wind) are least able to provide it. So "renewable" advocates have jumped on "bio-fuel" (meaning mostly ethanol from corn) as their "answer". They fail to admit that the problem is GHG, not "non-renewable" energy.
  Reply to this
  1. 10/1/2007 10:52 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     
     Good questions - truth is, I don't KNOW the answer and neither do you.
     
     Let's all agree on the best way to implement a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy (so we start to actually pay for the huge the external costs of non-renewable energy) AND then let the market decide.

     And, let's stop the huge gifts/subsidies too (including those for ethanol).

      

     
     Reply to this
• 10/3/2007 8:51 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  You remain hung-up on "non-renewable" and who would classify bio-fuels as "non-renewable"?
  
  I say direct the tax at the cause of the problem: GHG. THEN "let the market decide."
  
  And given the technology available today, I think I do know the best answer. Nuclear. Even adding the extra penny/kw hr for reprocessing the "waste" into additional fuel, it would be cheaper than coal today. And coal would be much more expensive if a reasonable charge were added for the CO2 released.
  
  Wind and solar remain poor choices except for some select locations, for a number of reasons.
  Reply to this
  1. 10/3/2007 9:21 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     
     Hola,

     Yep.  "Renewable" means much lower external costs - things like greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, wars for oil, trying to find long-term storage for (and a means for transporting) nuclear waste, etc. are not issues.

     Bio-fuels are renewable.  Renewable does not necessarily equal good.  Remove the subsidies (and the production mandates), shift federal taxes from income to non-renewable energy to begin the process of including external costs in energy costs.....and let the market decide.  For corn-based ethanol, one study says it takes 1 part fossil fuel energy to create 1.3 parts ethanol energy.  Net gain a whopping 30%.  When the "1 part" fossil fuel cost goes up because of a federal tax shift.....think a lot of corn-based ethanol is going to be made?

     Greenhouse gases are a huge problem, and our dependence on foreign energy (and peak oil), and our trade deficit, and air pollution are too.
     
     Nuclear energy is not the answer.
     

     
     Reply to this

Leave a comment