Democratic Party of Collin County
Environmental Issues Newsletter
September 23, 2008
*** Energy Policy ***

Hello Folks

As you know, this newsletter is dedicated to raising the level of awareness of environmental issues and making sure environmental issues are a part of public discourse. This issue is about what I consider among the greatest challenges that face our country, and indeed the world, in the 21st century, establishing an energy policy that meets our needs in an environmentally responsible and sustainable way.

There are a lot of claims being made in this campaign season about what America needs to do about energy. I think its important to put these in the context of what we are doing now, what are the problems, and what is the potential of various solutions. I've combed the web for information from government agencies, both state and federal, put that together with information from various environmental organizations, and spent some time digesting the numbers. What follows is my take on energy policy issues. You may not agree with all of it - maybe not any of it. But, hopefully you will find it useful in stimulating thinking on the subject and establishing a context for discussion.

Best regards
Bob Fusinato
[Send questions, comments, or suggestions to BobFusinato@tx.rr.com]

Note: Although there are references to numerous reports including some from the Sierra Club, where I am a member, I must emphasize, that the comments and opinions are my own and not authorized nor reflective of any organization to which I belong.


EnergyPolicy:

With high gas prices rippling through the economy energy policy has been a hot topic from the presidential campaign on down. Pretty much everyone running for office has an opinion on the causes of "the energy problem". And, by now, most have migrated toward an all of the above energy plan. But just because they have the same list, it doesn't mean they are the same plan. When evaluating an "all of the above" energy plan, one has to ask what are the priorities and what are the goals.

Goals:

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the transportation sector accounts for about 28 percent of total U.S. energy consumption. Electric power generation accounts for about 40 percent. Together they represent 68 percent of total U.S. energy consumption. There is a different mix of energy sources for each sector. So each comes with a different set of problems, a different set of solutions. Some solutions are alternatives to each other and some are not.

Here is my list of goals for electric power and transportation solutions. Its not necessarily complete, but its a start.

GOAL

Trans.

Elect.

* reduce dependence on non-foreign sources

X


* reduce dependence on non-renewable sources

X

X

* reduce hazards due to pumping transport and refining of fuels

X


* reduce hazards due to mining transport and processing fuels


X

* reduce air and water pollution

X

X

* reduce greenhouse gas emissions

X

X

* reduce or stabilize prices

X

X

* encourage transition to emerging technologies, create good jobs


X

* provide clean energy tax base for rural communities


X


With all the hype about energy policy, its easy to be misled about what solutions fix what problems. For instance, energy independence is not about energy in general. It is really about independence from unreliable sources of foreign oil. [ See Allen Mesch's blog "What is Energy Independence" ] Oil of course, is primarily used for transportation. Proponents of nuclear power plants and wind mills often list energy independence as a goal. But these things generate electricity; and, at least for now, your car runs on gasoline. So electric power solutions are not related to energy independence unless you connect the dots in concept and policy.

It goes without saying that petro-chemicals have satisfied a wide spectrum of our needs and wants - from fertilizers to industrial chemicals to energy for transportation and electric power. It has fueled the green revolution in agriculture and is a vital part of what has made the globalized economy possible. But this has not come without cost and risk. In addition to the cost of production, there is the cost to the environment during extraction, transportation, use and disposal. And, of course, as a non-renewable resource we will eventually run the risk of not getting enough to meet the demand. There will come a day when the oil we pump out of the ground will be too precious for its other uses to burn away in our cars, trucks. So it seems to me that a sensible goal of an energy policy should be to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

The transportation sector relies on fossil fuels for nearly 95% of its energy consumption. And approximately 71% of electric power in the U.S. is generated from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.

Climatologists say that in order to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of global warming, we need to reduce green house gas emissions by 2 percent a year for the next forty years. Unless you believe we can plant trees faster than people are cutting them down, metaphorically speaking, this translates pretty much into a goal of reducing the use of fossil fuels by 2 percent a year for the next forty years. Achieving this goal will go a long way toward solving a host of other problems - pollution, cost increases, and dependence on unreliable imports.

Priorities:
Americans know the problem is not just about one issue, but about gas prices, dependence on foreign suppliers, un-sustainability of current options, impact on public health, and global warming, etc.

But not all choices are equal. We must convince voters (and ourselves), that priorities matter, and that it matters what order we do things. Let's do the best things first -- things that protect the environment, are safe, will cost the least and save consumers money, things like efficiency and renewable energy that don't lock us into the polluting fuels of the past -- but leave us open to new technologies and able to embrace future solutions. Its not realistic to go cold turkey on coal or oil. But we should put clean energy like wind and solar first.

The Republican priority is to put supply-side solutions first. Their first impulse is to increase domestic production of that to which we are addicted. Then develop new clean energy technologies. Then maybe resort to efficiency and conservation. This is exactly backwards. We can do better! - After all, if your bucket has a hole in it, first you fix the leak, then you worry about pumping more into it.

Role of Government:
In developing an energy policy, one has to ask - what is the role of government and what is the role of industry. One only has to look at the haze over Beijing to know what happens when government owns industry. One can get a glimpse of what happens when industry owns government by looking at the actions of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality where logic and citizen input are irrelevant ; and, the machinations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency where political appointees override and suppress the findings of agency scientists.

Certainly the government has a role to play in providing the monetary framework for industry and facilitating the development of critical infrastructure such as the development of railroads and the interstate highway system. I believe that things work out for the better in the long run when government puts people first. I believe the government has a role to play in protecting the environment, ensuring public health and safety and limiting the impact on other industries.

Connecting the dots:

When oilman T Boone Pickens announced his plan to make America energy independent by building huge wind farms in West Texas, I wondered if he got the connection. Wind is for generating electricity; but your car runs on gasoline. It turns out that he does.

The T. Boon Pickens plan -
direct, simple and connected from problem to solution.

Problem:

$790 billion outflow of US dollars to pay for the oil we import from other countries, an amount that is wrecking havoc on the US economy.

Solution:

Wind for Gas, Gas for Oil:
Pickens plans to replace the electricity we generate from natural gas with West Texas wind power; and, use the gas, in the form of compressed natural gas (CNG) in our vehicles.

Numbers:

According to Pickens the 22% of electricity generated nationally by natural gas would replace 38% of the oil we import for transportation.

Time-horizon:

Implement in 10 years.


His plan is to replace the roughly 22 percent of electric power that comes from natural gas fired power plants with wind power and use compressed natural gas (CNG) in your car. CNG is already in use by many municipal vehicles because it is much cleaner than gas or Diesel. In fact the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) rated a Honda Civic running on CNG topped the list of greenest cars of 2008 (rather than the Toyota Prius hybrid). ... See the Pickens plan at [http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/].


Alternative Transportation Solutions:

This is the problem that's got our attention. Every trip to the grocery store, every stop at the gas station we are reminded that the current situation is not sustainable. We know we have to do something about the flow of dollars from our wallets to the fat cats in the Persian Gulf. We have to do something, but what?

Oil Supply:

Some experts say that we have consumed nearly 50 percent of the world's supply of oil since the first commercial drilling began some 148 years ago. Many believe the oil and gas remaining in the earth will be more difficult to recover than it has in the past. At the same time, increasing demand from emerging economies pretty much guarantees that production rates will not keep up with demand, shortages will occur and prices will rise.

However some economists say that the current run-up in oil prices cannot be explained by supply vs demand alone. The falling US dollar and runaway speculation in commodity markets are partly to blame. So replacing borrow-and-spend economics with policies that invest in jobs for America and programs that regulate excessive low-margin trading in commodities like oil will do more in the short run to stabilize prices than increasing supply.

The call to lift the ban on offshore drilling will do little if anything to reduce prices. Let's be clear. There is not an outright ban on offshore drilling. According to EIA data about 25% of domestic production is currently from offshore wells. The moratorium is on drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, areas where drilling threatens other industries such as tourism and fishing. Furthermore, industry analysts say that if the moratorium was repealed, it would take 7 to 10 years before any oil would come from those areas; so, it certainly is not immediate relief. At some point after meeting our demand reduction goals it might be appropriate to consider lifting the ban on drilling in areas where there are now concerns. If we do, the question should be what is different about today's technology. Are the concerns still valid and are the risks still significant? See my posting "The Offshore Oil Charade" on the Obama website for more comments.

According to the EIA, the United States sits on about 3% of the worlds oil, produces 10% of the world's supply of oil and consumes 24%. This should tell us that we have a lot more leverage on the demand side than on the supply side. As a case in point, even the announcement by Saudi Arabia earlier this year that it will increase production by 200,000 barrels per day did little to calm the markets. In the meantime, Americans are finding ways to drive less and are abandoning gas guzzlers for more fuel efficient models. Detroit is responding, finally, by shifting from SUV's and light trucks to more fuel efficient vehicles. That news seems to be having some effect as the price per barrel has eased from highs in the $140 range to around $120. [Note: the price of crude continues to decline as the economy tanks. When economic activity slows, the demand for oil decreases.]

Fuel Efficiency & Alternative Fuels:

At this point, there are a number of viable options for improving fuel efficiency and eventually replacing gas powered vehicles with something cleaner and more sustainable. The government should not be picking the winners; but should be making it easier for all of them to get a shot at it.

Last year Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) which mandates fleet wide fuel economy average of at least 35 mpg by 2020. The law places the responsibility for enforcing these standards in the Traffic Highway Safety Administration which has been adopting an extremely weak interpretation of the law. So Congress may have to strengthen it even further. Hopefully, the next president will actually try to implement the law rather than circumvent it.

Fleet averages above 35 mpg are not out of the question. In an article entitled "Taming the Oil Beast" in February of 2003, Business Week Magazine outlined steps, both technical and regulatory, to raise the US fuel consumption averages to 40 mpg. Technical measures include improvements in engine timing, transmissions and light-weight high-strength materials.

Now, hybrid gasoline-electric cars have a foothold in the market. With recent advances in battery technology, plug-in hybrid vehicles and even all electric vehicles may soon prove to be an important new option. A bit further away, but also promising are hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles. So as Congress considers strengthening CAFE standards, it should ensure that the standards do not preclude alternatives to the internal combustion engine (ICE)

Some alternative fuels, like compressed natural gas (CNG), while cleaner and more abundant in the US than oil, are not ultimately renewable. Instead they serve as a bridge fuel. This is part of the Pickens plan discussed above. Fuels from coal to liquid programs would fall in this category but there are a lot of environmental issues associated with mining and production of energy from coal. [See the section on clean coal technologies below.]

Other fuels like bio-diesel, made from vegetable oil or animal fat, serve to extend petroleum based fuel as an additive. According to the Sierra Club Energy Resources Policy - 2006, using this waste for fuel appears to be a benign and cost-effective form of recycling. The development of cellulosic ethanol from sustainable feedstocks are also encouraged because it promises significant advantages over corn ethanol production, including higher energy return, lower cultivation inputs, and soil conservation benefits.

The ultimate in zero emission sustainable fuels could be a switch to a completely different technology such as hydrogen powered fuel cells. Hydrogen has the advantage that it can be produced from water and in the process of generating electrical power, the fuel cells recombine hydrogen with oxygen to produce water. Critics point out that hydrogen is not a primary fuel because it takes energy to produce. But to some extent, so does gasoline.

When evaluating the various choices (or paths through the system) from raw materials to energy utilization, the end result should be compared to the current system in terms of environmental impact and reduction of oil dependency. It takes energy to produce oil from coal (not recommended) or hydrogen from water. So these are secondary fuels, and if any of them make sense at all, they only make sense if you can produce them from clean primary energy sources. So here's a place to connect the dots between oil dependence and the need for clean electric power.

More Efficient Transportation Modes:

There's no question that commuting in the United States has become highly auto-centric, especially in the newly ascendant cities of the South and West. Growth of US cities in the last century was tied to the growth of automobile usage. As cities spread into suburbs and suburbs expand outward, the distances urbanites travel to and from work has increased. In fact, a World Watch Institute paper, Reinventing Cities for People and the Planet, cites a study that indicates the average distance traveled within the metropolitan area per person in the U.S. cities studied grew over 22 percent between 1980 and 1990.

As more people travel further, roads become congested with many hours spent sitting in stalled traffic wasting time and energy; and, of course, adding to polluted air. New roads attract more cars, which add to congestion, which requires more roads. Logic dictates that there is a point of diminishing returns; and that over-reliance on automobiles obviates the freedom and ease of mobility that attracted us to them in the first place. As cities continue to expand, it will be wise to diversify transportation options.

So energy policy for the transportation sector should not be restricted to increasing efficiency and improving fuels. When properly deployed, rail is more energy efficient for transporting both freight and people than trucks and aircraft. Solutions may include adopting a concerted national program to enhance the rail system to shift freight and intercity passenger transportation away from highway use and aircraft. In some cases, building multi-modal mass transportation systems may make more sense than building more highways.

Building More Efficient Communities:

Introducing fuel taxes and other disincentives to drive people away from inefficient transportation modes is not very effective unless there is a choice. More often than not, this is a community choice as much as an individual choice.

Communities need to provide convenient options for walking, bicycling and mass transit (including light rail) which will reduce vehicle trips, emissions, fuel consumption, and the demand for new roads and pavement. Cities can reduce the need to drive passenger vehicles by shortening the distance between workplace, home, shopping and school, using "smart growth" planning. Well-designed mixed-use communities create long-term reductions in energy usage.

Summary of Ideas for the Transportation Sector:

Short Term

- Make better use of each trip, so we get the same thing with less traveling
- Keep tires inflated.
- Keep car in-tune and other maintenance.
- Improve driving habits - slow down, brake less.
- Re-institute the 55 mph speed limit (perhaps with some variations).
This provided about 2% reduction in demand in the 70's.

- Express bus from outlying cities to rail park and ride. (replace by extension of rail lines.
- Facilitate van pooling, tax breaks for businesses the develop/use them. Establish data base of riders.
- No tax gas ration card. Provide no tax for first X gals of gas per week. This would provide an incentive to use less; but ease the pain for those that have to do a minimum amount of driving.
- Facilitate van pooling, provide tax breaks for businesses that develop/use them. Establish data base of riders.
- Provide incentives for employers to promote telecommuting.
For example, cut their marginal tax rate by X% if they allow Y% of their workforce to telecommute at least 4 days per week. This would reduce time spent commuting and free up time for other things. It would lower the amount of gas consumed lowering the price of gas and pollution generated.

Intermediate Term Solutions

Long Term Solutions


Clean, Renewable Sources for Electric Power:

Transitioning to clean renewable electric power should be a high priority for a number of reasons some obvious and some not so obvious.

Some obvious reasons why fossil fuels are less attractive in meeting the electric power needs of the future are the impact on public health and safety due to environmental pollution and the potential for widespread disasters relating to climate change. In addtionn, fossil fuels like coal and natural gas are non-renewable and will eventually run out.

Not so obvious is that part of the solution to transportation sector reliance on petroleum is a possible shift to electric powered vehicles. Also, new clean, renewable sources can replace carbon fuels such as gas which may be better used for transportation - as in the Pickens plan. And, producing secondary fuels such as hydrogen may require electrical power which would be best produced from clean-renewable sources.

Make Efficiency a Priority:

Reducing demand for electricity through more efficient use of the power that is generated is one of the quickest (and arguably the best) ways to meet our goals. Government can be a part of the solution by providing incentives for energy efficient buildings and homes and by setting tough efficiency standards for new buildings and appliances.

A good short report on the potential for efficiency to meet Texas' electric needs is in "Power to Save: An Alternative Path to Meet Electric Needs in Texas", Optimal Energy/NRDC/Ceres, January 2007. According to the report, savings from efficiency in these sectors could eliminate 80% of the forecast growth in electricity demand over the next 15 years. Reducing demand, of course, reduces the prospect of generating power from polluting sources.

Efficiency is cost effective. A report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Potential for Energy Efficiency, March 2007, indicates that over 95% of the energy savings in the residential sector can be attained at a levelized cost of less than 8 cents per kWh saved. According to the US DOE Energy Information Agency, the average cost of electricity in Texas is 14 cents per kWh (in comparison, California has an average cost of 10 cents per kWh).

Texas Energy Usage

Lets take a look at some usage numbers that can serve as a basis for comparison of Wind and Solar power generation potentials.

In order to maintain a stable system, the power plants on line at any moment must have the capacity to generate energy at the rate it is being consumed. The amount of energy consumed is an indicator of how much fuel will be consumed; and for polluting sources how much pollution is produced.

An Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) report, issued in July of 2007, indicates that the peak demand for the ERCOT grid in 2006 was 62,399 MW. The total energy consumed in 2006 was 305.553 TW-h. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Electricity Profile for 2006, the net consumption for the entire state of Texas was 342.724 TW-h.

Note: Electricity demand in megawatts (MW) is a measure of how fast energy is being consumed. Energy consumption in Tera-Watt hours (TW-h) is a measure of how much energy is consumed over a period of time.

As a point of interest, it should be noted that the demand for most of the year is very much less than the peak. As an example, the ERCOT energy consumption for 2006 (305.553 TW-h) is the amount that would be consumed by a constant load of 34,880 MW which is just under 56% of peak demand.

Wind Power in Texas

So what is the potential for generating electricity from wind? According to assessments conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the 1990s and further studies by the Alternative Energy Institute at West Texas A&M University, Texas has enough wind to generate more than 3 times the energy consumed in all of Texas in 2006. Most of the wind potential is in West Texas. [See Texas Wind Energy Resources for more information.]

Unfortunately, full utilization of this potential would take up an estimated 26.4% of all the land in Texas. It is not likely that all the land suitable for wind power generation will be covered with wind turbines. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that wind could provide a significant portion of the state's energy usage. Coal fired power plants currently produce about 37% of total electricity usage in Texas. Generating that amount of energy from wind could be accomplished by putting wind farms on only about 2.4% of the land. Furthermore, much of this land would continue to support other uses such as farming and ranching.

Central Station Solar

Central station solar refers to large power plants that feed into an electric power grid. There are several types of utility-scale solar electric generation systems to consider. These include photovoltaic, high-temperature concentrating solar trough and tower systems, and low-temperature solar thermal systems. Solar radiation incident on an area is composed of both direct and diffuse radiation. For concentrating solar power systems likely to be used in central station applications, only direct radiation is relevant. This is important because West Texas exhibits the highest levels of direct normal insolation in Texas as well as some of the highest levels in the entire nation. So, just as for wind, the highest power generation potential for central station solar is in West Texas. [See Texas Solar Energy Resources for more information.]

A report by the Central Station Solar Task Force commissioned by the Western Governor's Association to assess the near-term potential of central station solar is available from the American Solar Energy Society website. The report lists capacity (MW) for areas above 6.75 KW-h/m2/day in seven western states (table 1, page 5/12). Although Texas is number seven in capacity, the amount is still significant. The inventoried capacity is 148,700 MW from an area that is less than one half percent of the land in Texas. Calculations in the report use a capacity factor of 40%. Applying this to the capacity listed for Texas results in energy generation potential of 521 TW-h or 1.5 times the 2006 Texas electricity usage.

Super Grids and Energy Storage

With this much potential for both wind and solar, it would seem that it would be a simple matter to generate 100% of Texas electric power from these sources. Of course cost is an issue but once the infrastructure is paid for the fuel is essentially free. The problem is that both wind and solar are variable sources. While there is more than enough to meet our electricity needs, at times you will have the potential to generate significantly more than is being consumed and at other times it may not be enough. At present, the strategy is to keep enough reserve capacity that can be brought online quickly. This role is filled today, mainly by gas-fired power plants.

However, conventional power plants must be kept at a "minimum operating level" in order to run efficiently. I have seen estimates indicating that Texas will reach the "minimum operating level" of conventional power plants when wind capacity is in the vicinity of 15,000 MW. The amount of energy generated by this capacity over the course of a year would be around 10% of 2006 usage. At present, Texas has roughly 5000 MW of wind capacity. We have been adding about 1000 MW per year over the last couple of years. At this rate we would reach the "minimum operating level limit" in about 10 years.

There are strategies to mitigate this problem. One is to have geographically diverse generating sources feeding into geographically diverse centers of consumption via a grid that is designed to keep things in balance. Another is to develop utility scale storage mechanisms such as pumped hydro and underground compressed air. Another storage mechanism would be use of plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars. See my article, "Roping the Wind" in the Dallas Sierra Club newsletter for more of my thoughts on this.

Related links:
Rocky Mountain Institute - Getting a Firm Grip on Renewables
Tx State Energy Conserv. Off. - Wind in Reserve
PluginPartners.org


On-Site Solar

Many opportunities exist in our communities for local, small-scale application of renewable technologies. Distributed clean energy solutions will reduce the distance needed for transmission and distribution of power, decrease transmission losses and improve grid stability and reliability. Distributed photoelectric sources (solar cells) is definitely a viable solution for providing electric power in Texas. Austin Energy, for instance, has a strong commitment to integrating distributed solar electric power sources into its generation and distribution system.

Although the capacity of roof-top photoelectric systems has been increasing, and the up-front costs of installing these system has been coming down, we have not yet seen the widespread acceptance of these systems that would lead to full utilization of their potential. Government sponsored rebate programs such as Austin Energy's Solar Rebate Program would help kick start this industry leading to development of infrastructure and expertise necessary to install the systems, connect them to the grid, and integrate into smart grid technologies. Electricity Feed-in Laws in Germany have helped that nation become a leader in the production and utilization of photovoltaic technologies. See World Watch Paper, "Mainstreaming Renewable Energy in the 21st Century" at link below. Although the idea has met with initial resistance in the US, there is some movement in this direction.

Related links:
Austin Energy
- The Value of Distributed Photovoltaics ...
- Solar Rebate Program

Worldwatch Institute
- Paper #169 Mainstreaming Renewable Energy in the 21st Century
- "Renewable Energy Payments in the US: Prospects and Perspectives"


Low Temperature Geo-Thermal

Low-temperature geothermal energy uses the Earth’s own heat for building and district heating and cooling, and can provide an effective residential and neighborhood energy supply.


Cap and Trade or Cap and Auction

A market-based cap and trade program was introduced into Congress earlier this year. It was intended to reduce carbon emissions while generating funds that can be invested in renewable energy development and efficiency technology. The primary purpose of a cap and trade program is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since actions to reduce GHG emissions emphasize using less fossil fuels through efficiency and the switch to clean renewable fuels for electricity production, Cap and Trade programs are considered a component of energy policy as well as environmental policy.

Key features of Cap and Trade programs
- Set an overall limit on GHG emissions in certain sectors
- Set up a market for trading emission reduction credits
- Cap and Auction programs auction off allowances for polluting industries to trade rather than just giving them away. This is fairer to companies that have been pro-active in reducing GHG emissions. Funds collected are available for promoting clean renewable energy sources and protecting low-income households from higher prices or other temporary negative impacts.

Related links
Sierra Club - Sierra Club Factsheet on Cap and Auction (April 2008)


Nuclear Energy:

Currently, nuclear energy produces 20% of electrical power in the U.S. But we have not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. With concern about global warming gaining mainstream acceptance, proponents of nuclear power point out that greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power plants are negligible. Why not increase nuclear power generation capacity? We could replace dirty coal fired power plants with nuclear and we could meet our future needs with cheap abundant nuclear power.

If only it were that simple. Its certainly true that nuclear power plants do not emit appreciable amounts of green house gases in the course of generating power. Nor do they emit other pollutants associated with the burning of fossil fuels. However, they are not without environmental impact. They take large amounts of water for cooling and steam generation. In addition, when you consider the economic and environmental costs of the full fuel cycle from mining to processing of the fuel, to re-processing, and long-term storage of nuclear waste, the benefits are not as big as some people think.

There is good reason why Americans lost their enthusiasm for nuclear power. Doing the job right is a challenge for materials engineering as well as nuclear power. Early projects were hampered by faulty construction causing delays and cost overruns. One of the last to be built was the Comanche Peak, facility near Glen Rose, Texas. The plant was completed in 1993 after 20 years of construction and cost 11 billion dollars, 12 times more than the initial estimate. Ratepayers absorbed the hit.

Investors in nuclear power have to be concerned not only about cost overruns, but also about responsibility for waste disposal and liability due to nuclear accident. The incident at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979 and, of course, the catastrophe at Chernobyl in 1986 played havoc with the industry. Basically, the Market decided that nuclear power wasn't worth the risk.

Nuclear Waste:
I believe the key problem is what to do about nuclear waste. No solution has been found for the radioactive byproducts of thermonuclear power generation, which can remain hazardous not for just hundreds of years, but for thousands or even tens of thousands of years. There seems to be strong disagreement among experts as to the best solution. At present, the preferred solution in the US is to store spent fuel in geological repositories like Yucca mountain. Expanding nuclear power will require additional sites. Others believe that the best solution is re-processing of spent fuel so that it can be used in fast neutron reactors which will eventually consume most of the radioactive energy. Opponents say there are issues with safety and cost of this approach. In the spirit of never say never, one might justify some money for research.

Blast from the Past:
Unfortunately the nuclear power industry and some politicians are not waiting for resolution of these issues. Now that concern about global warming has gained mainstream acceptance, nuclear proponents in Congress have managed to include nuclear power on the list of technologies that qualify for Federal Loan Guarantees for "clean energy" development. And, according to the energy plan posted on his campaign website, "John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants".

Largely spurred by the new loan guarantees and other federal incentives, companies are already floating plans to build a significant number of new nuclear plants in the United States. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) there are 22 active applications for nuclear power plants nation-wide. Although some countries license plants that use spent fuel, there have been restrictions on commercial use of such technology in the US due to concerns over proliferation of weapons grade nuclear material. The new plants to be built here are improvements of the basic thermonuclear designs currently in use in the US. These designs require mined uranium rather than spent fuel. In my opinion, it is extremely irresponsible to proceed down this path unless and until the issue of nuclear waste is resolved.

Cost of Fuel:
The recent surge in enthusiasm for nuclear power might yet be dampened by uncertainties associated with the cost and availability of fuel. At a hearing for the proposed new plants at Comanche Peak, NRC reps were asked if uranium reserves are sufficient to meet the demands of the (approx. 22) new power plants in the works. The answer was that demand is driving up the price which is opening up new (or closed) mining operations.

The cost of fuel is a smaller percentage of the cost of generating power for nuclear plants than for fossil fuel plants. However one should consider what would happen to supply vs demand if there was a significant increase in nuclear power generation. How long will uranium reserves last? A quick Web search returned estimates which range from 200 years down to 20 years. We know about peak oil and peak coal. What about peak uranium? The bottom line, I think, is that we don't know because there has not been the consistent demand over the years that would provide a meaningful production rate curve to support resource depletion estimates. If the market for uranium follows the path of oil, we could have a doubling of the price, in a short period of time, at some point before the new plants have reached profitability.

Mining uranium is not without cost to the environment. Mining in Texas has already left some areas with radioactive drinking water, and no relief from the federal or state government. For more info see "Agricultural and Rural Impacts of Uranium Recovery Activities in the South Texas Uranium District"

When you consider that there are cheaper, safer, and less technically challenging alternatives, it is irresponsible to promote large scale dependence on nuclear power. Bottom line, the government should not waste money subsidizing inherently dangerous energy sources when it would be much cheaper to promote efficiency measures and to accelerate the development of inherently clean renewable sources.


Clean Coal Technology:

Most "all of the above" energy plans include clean coal as one of the energy sources that must remain on the table. McCain, for instance, wants to commit $2 billion annually to accelerate development of "clean coal" technology. No specifics are given as to what constitutes "clean coal" technology.

It is possible that much cleaner coal plants, in regions where it is the dominant fuel, could displace older, very polluting plants as a transitional strategy. However due to the problems associated with mining, use, and disposal, cleaning up coal is problematical and more costly than programs to improve efficiency and to develop inherently clean energy systems.

According to the Sierra Club Energy Policy

"There is no such thing as "clean coal" The coal fuel cycle, from mining to coal sludge impoundments and disposal of tailings and fly ash, causes extensive pollution of air, water, land, the food chain, and local communities. Damage is caused by all forms of mining, whether underground, longwall or the various forms of mountaintop removal. While toxic and particulate emissions are significantly lower in new coal fired power plants, and regulation and legal action have forced the retrofit of some older facilities, the industry has consistently undermined efforts to reduce the worst polluting practices and avoided responsibility for cleanups."

In my opinion, the government should establish regulations and effective permitting processes that will reduce emissions and protect public health and safety. There should be a cap on global warming emissions consistent with a 2% per year reduction in global warming gases over the next 40 years. Mountain top removal should be outlawed, and strict limits on environmentally destructive mining practices should be established and enforced. The industry and its investors will have to decide whether it is better to spend money on cleaning up polluting technologies or switching to clean ones.

Bottom line, the government should not waste money subsidizing inherently dirty non-renewable fuels when it would be much cheaper to promote efficiency measures and to accelerate the development of inherently clean renewable sources.

Summary of Ideas for the Electric Power Generation Sector:

Short Term

Intermediate Term and Long Term

Further Reading:

Finally this section contains suggested sources of information about energy policy.

Surprising as it may seem, the Bush administration's National Energy Policy, is an excellent summary of where we stand on energy production and consumption. It provides a review of energy related data gleaned from a number of government agencies. You may not agree with all the conclusions and recommendations, but it serves as a good starting point. An up-to-date summary of energy information can be found on the U.S. DOE's Energy Information Agency website , "Energy in Brief "

The Sierra Club Energy Policy, is also a good overview with emphasis on environmentally friendly, sustainable solutions.

Other references are more specific. If your interested in the notion of "peak oil" read the Scientific American article, "The End of Cheap Oil", by Colin Campbell. The Sierra Club report, "The Dirty Truth About Coal" details the true cost of coal as an energy source. The brief tutorial, "How Wind Works", in the Union of Concerned Scientists website, provides a good overview of wind as a source of electric power.

The 2007 Texas Legislative session, responded to increased awareness of the environmental effects of electric power generation from fossil fuels on the environment by introducing numerous bills to mitigate these effects. Unfortunately, none passed the legislature. However a Select Committee on Electric Capacity Generation and Environmental Effects chaired by Representative Bonnen was commissioned to address the question of how should Texas meet its energy needs while taking into account the potential effect on climate and other environmental impacts of many of our energy choices?

In April of this year the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club unveiled a preliminary "12-Step Plan" for a "Cool Texas" with the goal of meeting the electric power generation needs of the state while reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The 12-Step Plan was authored primarily by Chapter Conservation Director Dr. Cyrus Reed, with input from the Chapter Energy Committee and other Chapter staff and volunteer leaders. The plan was submitted as input to the Select Committee.

The document has been refined over the past three months, and an updated version of the full report and plan, "Cool Texas: A 12-Step Plan for Meeting Our Electricity Needs that is Good for Texas... and the Climate", is available on the Lone Star Chapter website.
http://texas.sierraclub.org/conservation/coolTexasreport.pdf

In a presentation to the Victoria Lions Club, Dr Reed explains why Nukes Are Not the Answer
http://texas.sierraclub.org/Conservation/nukesnottheanswer.pdf


Note: To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please click - Unsubscribe -