A Few Thoughts On Nuclear Power After The Japanese Earthquake, Tsunami & Nuclear Disasters

The quickest way I can say this is the following: I’m not a proponent of nuclear power, for almost any problem because it carries too many problems in itself that other power sources do not.

Some climate activists have been pushing for more nuclear power as one tool of many to address global warming.  Citing no carbon or methane emissions, the power is claimed to be “clean”.   While the power might be cleaner than fossil fuels (no mercury or nitrous oxides, etc.), the fuel is most certainly not clean.  In fact, nuclear fuel is the most toxic substances to any living thing that you can find.  Radiation is not good for animals.  Period.  It doesn’t make sense to me to use the most toxic substances we can find and/or manufacture and use them to boil water to generate power.

Especially when cleaner forms of energy are available via solar, wind, geothermal and biomass sources.  Nuclear fuel requires mining, as does solar PV components – so that’s more or less a wash in my mind.  Talk about solar thermal and I think a distinct advantage appears for the renewable energy source.  I’ve heard some pundits whine about all the lost birds due to wind arrays.  Isn’t it interesting those same pundits don’t ever propose destroying skyscrapers or killing every domestic cat – those two bird killers currently and for decades have killed millions of birds annually.  It’s a nonsensical argument.  Combine wind and solar on nearly any measurable stretch of land where people reside and the potential to generate many times today’s current, extravagantly wasteful energy usage is there for the taking.  Add in geothermal to heat and cool buildings and biomass to help power transportation and there is absolutely no need for nuclear power.

After all, how many solar cells have exploded or melted down in the past 50 years?  How many wind farm mining accidents have taken workers lives?  How many biomass spills have ruined entire ecosystems for decades?  How many geothermal systems have increased mortality rates, respiratory problem rates, etc.?  How many trillions of dollars will we have to spend protecting solar or wind power lines?  How many corrupt, totalitarian regimes will we keep propped up to ensure a steady flow of biomass and geothermal energy to our shores?  How many greedy, overpaid dirty energy corporate bosses will we funnel our hard-earned money to instead of producing energy where it’s needed and producing even more in places nobody wants to live or work?

Nobody should have to struggle through one of the strongest earthquakes on record, followed by a tsunami that has wiped entire towns off the earth, that followed by an escalating nuclear disaster.  The Japanese people are enduring hardships I wouldn’t wish on people I loathe.  Of all the things I truly do hope come out of this triple disaster, I hope the Japanese take a hard, fact-based look at where they get their power from and how they use it.  Nuclear disasters last longer than earthquakes and tsunamis.  Is that risk worth being able to boil some water?

Some Thoughts On the Carbon 9

As the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) of 2009 continues its way through the House now that it has been voted out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a number of groups are examining who the potential supporters and opponents of the bill might be.  An obvious (perhaps too obvious) choice are the folks “in the middle” – folks who might vote either way on the bill.  Or the way I view things – folks who are going to hold critical legislation hostage until their special interest masters get what they want out of bill negotiations and amendments.  The real issue is who will have their operations restricted the most?  Again, an obvious answer is available: those who pollute the most.  As devilstower wrote 10 or so days ago, the U.S. isn’t carbon flat.  What that means is that there are some locations in this country that overwhelmingly contribute to greenhouse gas pollution.  Those locations will, of course, face the most necessary action to come into line with future pollution limits.  A recently published paper examines the distribution of carbon emissions across the U.S.  Here is one of their findings:

The variation in intensity of carbon emissions is extreme. Across 1,559 counties with at least 25,000 residents in 2002, the average carbon emissions per capita was 7.66 tons but with a median of 3.28 tons and a standard deviation of 16.9 tons.

For those not intimately familiar with statistical measurements, the standard deviation of a variable isn’t supposed to be five times as large as the median value.  One standard deviation away from the median yields a range of -13.62 to 20.18 tons.  That tells us that while there are plenty of low emitters, there are also a large number of very large emitters.  There are very, very large carbon emitters if you consider the 2nd deviation value of 37.08 tons.  That’s about five times the average – which in the large picture isn’t good news.  Those emitters need to reduce those emission rates.  Which is where we get to the ‘Carbon 9′ – a group of 9 Representatives in the House whose votes on ACES might or might not affect its ultimate passage in the House.

Renewable Energy Legislation

On May 21st, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 was passed by the House of Representatives (253-160). This act extends a number of tax incentives for renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects, energy efficiency and conservation measures. Which all sounds really neat and cool. I want to bring forward a few examples from the bill and discuss a larger point or two.

Extends through 2009 the tax credit for producing electricity from wind facilities and through 2011 for closed and open-loop biomass, geothermal, small irrigation, hydropower, landfill gas, and trash combustion facilities. Includes marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy as a renewable resource for purposes of such tax credit.

Extends through 2018 the temporary increase in coal excise taxes.

Extends through 2013 the tax deduction for energy efficient commercial building expenditures.

So coal excise taxes are those placed on coal exports from coal producers. I don’t know much more about them than that, but on the surface it sounds alright.

But the main point I wanted to raise was the length of time each item has been extended. The difference between the wind facility extension and the coal excise tax extension is 9 years. That generates a great deal of uncertainty for wind facility development, which is a growing and important part of both Colorado’s and the U.S.’s economies. Will the tax credit continue to be extended? It depends greatly on who’s running Congress and who the President is next year, doesn’t it? I would really like to see a great deal more stability delivered to renewable energy development assistance.

Look at the commercial building energy efficiency tax deduction. It’s valid through 2013, 5.5 years from now, if this bill is signed into law. That’s a large dose of stability for commercial developers. The 2011 date for closed and open facility tax credits is more than the wind facility credit, but still two years shorter than commercial building energy efficiency. Those open and closed loop systems, especially the closed loop versions, deserve more assistance than I think this bill provides. That’s not to say the bill is bad, I just think it could be a little bit better. Of course, I don’t know the kind of deal-making that had to occur to get it passed through the House, either.

For that matter, I don’t think it’s been to the Senate yet. Who knows what changes they’ll make to it. And lastly, will President Bush sign it? I assume there’s enough fossil fuel tax credits included for him to hold his nose while continuing tax credits for renewable energy.