The dangers of reprocessing nuclear waste
We recently had a post about former Greenpeace cofounder, Patrick Moore’s support of a “nuclear renaissance” in America. One of Moore’s arguments was that nuclear power plants in America have removed and reprocessed weapons grade materials from the former Soviet Union, thereby keeping those materials from potentially entering the black market.
In our analysis, we pondered what would happen to all of the radioactive waste that would result from increased nuclear energy production. Environmental Capital had a post yesterday looking at this issue. Currently, the Bush Administration favors a process that would recycle used fuel rods. However, this plan is controversial because the reprocessing method can create weapons grade plutonium. Additionally, although the most potent nuclear waste is recycled, there is an increased amount of lower grade nuclear waste not reused that must still be stored.
Again, we come back to the point we made last week about the inevitability of human error, given enough time… If reprocessing fuel dramatically increases the amount of weapons grade plutonium in the world, this naturally will increase the odds that human error or poor judgment may lead to increased weapons proliferation. If reprocessing nuclear waste actually increases the amount of weapons grade material in the world, this would cut against one of Moore’s key arguments in favor of nuclear energy. (Although it is not clear to us that Moore has advocated reprocessing civilian nuclear waste.)
Oil demand continues to rise while supply stagnates
Historically, when gas prices have increased, so has oil production. This is not currently the case. The New York Times has an article looking at this unique situation, where oil prices have recently skyrocketed, but an increase in supply has not followed, thereby leading to even higher oil prices.
The article quotes Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency, who states, “According to normal economic theory, and the history of oil, rising prices have two major effects. They reduce demand and they induce oil supplies. Not this time.”
Other than OPEC, there is no explicit agreement between oil producers to artificially restrict supply. According to the article, some of the presumed causes for the failure to increase supply stem from issues such as higher drilling costs, nationalistic policies that restrict foreign investments, high petroleum taxes, costly licensing agreements, scarce manpower, and political wrangling and violence.
The article states that according to Jeff Rubin, an analyst at CIBC World Markets, by 2012, gas prices in the United States could potentially reach $7 per gallon.
Santa Monica contemplates commercial development ban
The Bottleneck blog has a couple recent posts regarding a proposal in Santa Monica to suspend commercial development in the city, in order to deal with the growing traffic mess. If passed by voters, the measure would limit commercial development to 75,000 square feet of floor area per calendar year.
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce President Tom Larmore, who opposes the ban, states, “This goes far beyond office development. The commercial development definition includes a whole raft of things.” Some of the unintended consequences may include preventing new hotel developments (which do not substantially increase traffic) and medical facility expansions.
While Santa Monica traffic is a major quality of life issue, an outright ban on new development may not be the best solution. Yes, unchecked commercial growth without parallel mass transit investment has been a major cause of the congestion problems. However, an outright ban is not going to solve the problem. The solution is, and always has been, to have smart growth—development coupled with intelligent transit and planning solutions, including things like public rails, efficient traffic signal management, mixed use buildings, and congestion pricing. If this ban is just a temporary solution which focuses the city’s attention on the real needs (mass transit), then it might not be such a bad thing. But if it is just an excuse to avoid dealing with the real issue of alternative transit and smart planning, then it will likely be counterproductive.
Unlike McCain and Clinton, Obama opposes gas tax suspension
Having reported on Senator McCain’s proposal to suspend the federal gas tax during the summer months, we wanted to report on Senator Clinton’s support of this policy and Senator Obama’s opposition. We noted that one benefit of high gas prices is the continuing incentive for entrepreneurs, big businesses, and governments to develop alternative technologies and mass transit solutions. Governmental policies intended to lower gas prices, could decrease some of the incentive to innovate and evolve. (Although we tend to assume this is a moot concern since gas companies will likely make up for any price drop with a commensurate increase in prices.)
This week on the campaign trail, Obama asserted that “I think John McCain’s proposal for a three-month tax holiday is a bad idea.” He continued, by stating “We’re talking about 5 percent of your total cost of gas that you suspend for three months, which might save you a few hundred bucks that then will spike right up. Now keep in mind that it will save you that if Exxon Mobil doesn’t decide, ‘We’ll just tack on another 5 percent on the current cost.’”
Hat tip: MetroRiderLA
NPR’s ‘Car Talk’ hosts take on fuel efficiency in 1 hour TV special
On Tuesday the PBS show, NOVA, had a great program [watch online] with Tom and Ray Magliozzi (a.k.a. Click and Clack of Car Talk), where they traveled across the country in search of ways to increase fuel efficiency in cars. Besides being their hysterical selves, the program was actually very informative and took a broad look at potential solutions to the gas problem. Not surprisingly, they did not identify a silver bullet solution, but instead highlighted a series of potentially useful technologies, ranging from fuel cells, to biofuels, to hybrids. The program was entertaining and informative and I would highly recommend viewing it (which can probably only be done online now). An overview of the program’s conclusions can be read here and the trailer can be viewed here.
Cofounder of Greenpeace advocates a ‘nuclear renaissance’
Fareed Zakaria, of Newsweek, had an interview with Greenpeace cofounder, turned nuclear energy cheerleader, Patrick Moore, this week. Mr. Moore has gone from protesting nuclear weapons tests to protesting the environmental movement itself, due to their opposition to nuclear power production.
According to Moore, the environmental movement has made a big mistake by lumping nuclear energy together with nuclear weapons. He uses the example of the many health benefits of nuclear medicine to show that all nuclear technology is not “evil.” His main criticisms of Greenpeace, which he has since left, are that they engage in “pop environmentalism” and communicate with people on an emotional rather than intellectual level. Moore goes on to state that we are about to enter a “nuclear renaissance.”
While he seems to make some valid points about not grouping all nuclear technologies together as “evil” and that arguments should be made on an intellectual rather than emotional level, not everything he claims seems to make sense. Specifically, in response to a question regarding the issue of nuclear waste, Moore responds that a lot of nuclear fuel today is reused from old Soviet warheads. While this may be true, and would be a good thing, it doesn’t change the fact that nuclear energy production creates substantial nuclear waste that must be safely stored. Yes, reusing old nuclear material from warheads is dealing with nuclear waste on a literal level, but he does not address what happens to the waste specifically created by nuclear power plants.
However, what concerns us most about nuclear power, which is not addressed in the article, are the risks of human error. Our belief is that whenever there is the opportunity for human error, given enough time, that error will occur. There is no way that nuclear power plants, no matter how ingeniously they are designed, can be truly insulated from human error. And even though accidents at nuclear power plants are incredibly rare, when they do occur, those accidents can be incredibly disastrous.
Nalgene to drop BPA
In response to consumer concerns over the presence of bisphenol-a in their products, Nalgene, the manufacturer of the popular plastic water bottle has announced they will no longer be selling products that contain the chemical. This decision comes on the heels of reports that the Canadian government is on the verge of declaring BPA “toxic.”
The good news for hippies and other lovers of the ubiquitous “Nalgene bottle” is that the company has found a suitable alternative for the chemical that shares many of the same properties as BPA, such as shatter-resistance, but has not been found to cause health problems.
Unfortunately, this alternative is apparently not a viable option for replacing the BPA currently found inside aluminum food and beverage cans. This plastic lining inside the cans is used to protect the contents from taking on a metallic taste and to extend their shelf life. A spokesman for the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, an industry group in favor of keeping the cans as they are, stated that there is no evidence that these linings expose humans to significant amounts of BPA and that there is currently no viable alternative.
Hat tip: Grist.org
LA is top three! (In CO2 emissions)
A study conducted by a research team at Purdue University ranked U.S. cities based upon their aggregate carbon emissions. According to this article, the calculations were based upon CO2 outputs from the burning of fossil fuels from sources including factories, power plants, roads, etc.
An assistant professor involved with the study stated, “It’s interesting that the top county, Harris, Texas, is on the list because of industrial emissions, but the second highest CO2 emitting county, Los Angeles, California, is on the list because of automobile emissions. So it’s not just cars, and it’s not just factories, that are emitting the carbon dioxide, but a combination of different things.”
This project was funded by the federal government and involved Purdue University, Colorado State University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The numbers next to the city names are for millions of tons of carbon emitted per year.
1. Harris, Texas (Houston), 18.625 million tons of carbon per year
2. Los Angeles, Calif. (Los Angeles), 18.595
3. Cook, Ill. (Chicago), 13.209
4. Cuyahoga, Ohio (Cleveland), 11.144
5. Wayne, Mich. (Detroit), 8.270
6. San Juan, N.M. (Farmington), 8.245
7. Santa Clara, Calif. (San Jose), 7.995
8. Jefferson, Ala. (Birmingham), 7.951
9. Wilcox, Ala. (Camden), 7.615
10. East Baton Rouge, La. (Baton Rouge), 7.322
11. Titus, Texas (Mt. Pleasant), 7.244
12. Carbon, Pa. (Jim Thorpe), 6.534
13. Porter, Ind. (Valparaiso), 6.331
14. Jefferson, Ohio (Steubenville), 6.278
15. Indiana, Pa. (Indiana), 6.224
16. Middlesex, Mass. (Boston metro area), 6.198
17. Bexar, Texas (San Antonio), 6.141
18. Hillsborough, Fla. (Tampa), 6.037
19. Suffolk, N.Y. (New York metro area), 6.030
20. Clark, Nev. (Las Vegas) 5.955
Hat tip to MetroRiderLA.com
Canada set to declare chemical found in plastic ‘toxic.’
According to reports, the Canadian government is on the verge of declaring BPA (bisphenol), a chemical found widely in plastics used for food and beverage containers, to be toxic. Once declared, such an action would lead to a two year review process which could lead to the partial or complete ban of plastics with the chemical that is used in food related applications.
If released, this determination would make Canada the first country to make an official health ruling that BPA is toxic. While studies have not conclusively proven that the chemical is dangerous to humans, based upon animal studies, it is believed that BPA adversely effects the hormonal systems of humans, like it has been shown to do with animals. There is extra concern regarding the effects of this chemical on developing children.
Currently, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services is also studying the dangers of BPA and recently released a draft report indicating that there is “some concern” that the chemical could be dangerous to humans and that further research is necessary.
McCain proposes suspension of gas tax.
Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain proposed a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax for the summer season (from Memorial Day to Labor Day). The intent of McCain’s proposal (which also includes the suspension of oil purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) is to ease the financial burden Americans are facing at the gas pumps. Currently there is an 18.4 cent and 22.4 cent per gallon federal tax on gasoline and diesel, respectively.
Although we don’t have an economist’s background, we wouldn’t be surprised if removing this tax simply leads to gas stations raising their retail prices and thereby eliminating any intended savings. However, if the gas companies and retailers don’t make up for the spread with price increases, one result of the price of gas going down would be to reduce incrementally the incentive on entrepreneurs to develop alternatives to petroleum.
It is basic economic theory that as gas prices go up, alternative energy sources which may previously have been too expensive, inherently become more competitive with gasoline. Fortunately McCain has the foresight to put a sunset on the gas tax suspension proposal, but nonetheless, it will be interesting to see if this policy, if enacted, creates a precedent that will be used to decrease gas prices again in the future.
Bush EPA regulation pitting fish against power plants to be heard by High Court.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a case involving utility company efforts to overturn an environmentally friendly holding by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The dispute in the case involves an EPA regulation that permitted energy companies to avoid the most costly technologies (closed-cycle cooling systems) that protect aquatic life in rivers and lakes surrounding power plants. The harm at issue stems from the process by which power plants take water from surrounding sources in order to cool the plant’s operations. Unfortunately, without this costly technological feature, this process does substantial damage to the aquatic life.
The Bush Administration put in place a rule that allowed these companies to undertake a case-by-case cost-benefit analysis in determining to what extent the damage to aquatic life should be mitigated by technology. Environmental groups sued, claiming that the Clean Water Act requires the use of the more expensive and effective technology, and the Circuit Court agreed—specifically holding that it was not clear that the costs of this technology could not be reasonably borne by the industry.
Although the Supreme Court will consider overruling this decision when the case comes before it, if the next president disagrees with this Bush Administration pro-business policy, the issue could quickly become moot, as the regulation could be overturned by the EPA.
Wall Street anticipates future carbon regulations.
The New York Times had an article about the anticipated effects of impending federal carbon emission regulations on big energy companies. Since all three remaining presidential candidates support emission regulations, such controls are assumed to be inevitable. Consequently, Wall Street has begun compiling data on which power companies are likely to excel and which are likely to fail under this regulatory scheme.
Interestingly, nuclear power plants are expected to benefit greatly from these controls, since their primary waste is solid instead of gaseous. Additionally, since natural gas plants emit 40% less carbon dioxide than coal, they too will likely benefit.
According to the article, the consulting firm Innovest rates the following energy companies as the most likely to succeed under a carbon regulatory regime: FPL Group, PG&E, and Con-Ed. The least likely to succeed, due to their minimal attempts to reduce emissions, are: Allegheny Energy, the Southern Company, the Ameren Corporation and the Scana Corporation.
European agency recommends pullback from biofuel craze.
In light of recent studies indicating that biofuels, such as ethanol, have numerous adverse global effects, and may actually be worse for the environment than petroleum, the European Environment Agency’s scientific advisory board recommended this week to suspend the 10% biofuel target in place for the EU.
It is unclear what policy change, if any, will result, but this is indicative of a push back against the trend in favor of biofuels. Given all of the recent scientific criticism of biofuel, it will be interesting to see if the United States follows suit in looking to roll back these policies, or if we have in fact, already become addicted to corn.
Hat tip: Green-blog.org
Biggest tidal turbine in world built in N. Ireland.
Having looked at the controversial tidal turbine that has been proposed for the San Francisco Bay, we were interested to read that the world’s largest tidal turbine has been installed in Northern Ireland. The turbine, which generates power from the natural sea currents, is the first of a series of turbines that are proposed in the United Kingdom. This particular turbine is projected to generate enough energy to power 1000 local homes.
Additionally, having wondered about this question ourselves, we were also interested to see that the reason tidal turbines do not pose a serious threat to marine life is that the blades are spinning slow enough (10x slower than a typical boat propeller) that most marine life can safely avoid them.
Massive solar plant to open in Mojave Desert.
Treehugger cited a story in SFGate.com reporting that deals were agreed upon this week between Pacific Gas and Electric and a company called BrightSource Energy, for the construction of a series of massive solar energy plants in the middle of the Mojave Desert northeast of Los Angeles.
The impetus for this deal is a California law requiring all major energy utilities to have renewable energy (other than water power) account for at least 20% of their overall energy production by the year 2010.
While it is unclear how much the energy generated by these plants is projected to cost, it is good to see that costs have come down significantly from past decades—indicating the possibility that solar energy might someday be able to stand on its own without governmental mandates.
