One of the most pressing questions of our time, if the predictions about the effects of climate change are to be believed, is what we will do to reduce our Carbon Dioxide emissions. While there are many sources of CO2 in our modern world, including cars, planes, and livestock, one of our largest, most complicated sources is still electricity generation. There are Pickens plans, bridge fuels, renewables, etc. which are each targeted at lowering CO2, and therefore mitigating the consequences of climate change. Each requires a significant expansion of an energy source which is not being used in large quantities currently in the United States. For example, wind energy only accounts for about 3% of total U.S. electricity generation. Natural gas currently accounts for about 25% of our total electricity generation, but it would have to be scaled up as a bridge fuel, only to be replaced by a more permanent source.
There is only one source that currently produces a significant portion of our electricity supply, and can also be the energy of the future: nuclear energy. According to the Department of Energy, nuclear power produces about 1/5 of the electricity we use in the United States. It takes 104 nuclear reactors to produces that 20% of our energy supply. For comparison, to produce about 45% of our electricity, it takes well over 1000 coal fired generators.
So what is holding our nuclear energy industry up? Stated simply, it is fear. People fear the “big one,” the massive nuclear incident that could kill or injures thousands of people at once. Despite the fact that more people died in the Deep Water Horizon incident than in the entire history of the U.S. Nuclear Industry, nuclear power still inspires visions of people mutated and deformed beyond recognition. People remember the devastation the nuclear weapons wrought at Hiroshima and Nagasawki. They remember Chernobyl, and it scares them to think what can happen. In other words, the nuclear industry is scarier than climate change.
Unfortunately, this perception isn’t going to change any time soon. The Fukushima disaster in Japan has only added more ammunition to the war chest of those that oppose the nuclear industry. Thus, the United States is left with a dilemma. Either the country can pursue a type of energy that is already established but is feard, or it can gamble on production methods that are not feared but may or may not be able to sustain our energy needs.
Sources:
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerplants/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants
http://205.254.135.7/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Student Post: Climate Change
We have all been hearing about climate change since elementary school, and it is amazing to look back at how support for measures to slow or stop global warming has grown. Although, as the book notes, there has been doubt cast upon climate change and the scientists arguing that it is happening, the large consensus among scientists leaves little doubt that this is a serious problem that we are going to deal with eventually.
In class we have discussed different types of energy sources, both fossil fuels and renewable energy sources. With 34 percent of the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions coming from fossil fuels in power plants, it seems that there are quite a few things that could be done to limit future carbon dioxide emissions.
Saying that carbon dioxide emissions should be reduced is one thing, getting it done is an entirely different matter. The book notes how many European countries have mandated carbon dioxide emission levels for cars and things like that, but the United States has lagged behind. There are arguments for and against the government telling people what they must do in regards to potentially climate-changing actions, but there is no doubt that things need to change if we truly want to avoid the problems predicted by climate scientists.
Power plants and production are one key area that could be gradually changed to help solve this problem. One possible solution is to develop technology to help current fossil fuel consuming plants to become more efficient and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions if possible. If less energy was lost in the process of creating electricity, there would be less waste and less of an impact on the environment. This solution combined with increased research and development into renewable energy sources could be a very practical solution. It would be impractical to suddenly stop using fossil fuels, but if we put the time and money into researching alternative energy sources now we might be able to avoid the most serious impacts of global warming.
Carbon dioxide emission limits on vehicles are also an option. Many European countries have limits on their cars, and as new technology emerges their citizens must adjust and upgrade to the more efficient cars. While this has had a much slower start in the United States, I am sure there are ways to promote more efficient cars in the United States. Whether it be taxing vehicles based on their emissions, or taxing the vehicles themselves at different rates, something can be done to help change our current path.
In class we have discussed different types of energy sources, both fossil fuels and renewable energy sources. With 34 percent of the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions coming from fossil fuels in power plants, it seems that there are quite a few things that could be done to limit future carbon dioxide emissions.
Saying that carbon dioxide emissions should be reduced is one thing, getting it done is an entirely different matter. The book notes how many European countries have mandated carbon dioxide emission levels for cars and things like that, but the United States has lagged behind. There are arguments for and against the government telling people what they must do in regards to potentially climate-changing actions, but there is no doubt that things need to change if we truly want to avoid the problems predicted by climate scientists.
Power plants and production are one key area that could be gradually changed to help solve this problem. One possible solution is to develop technology to help current fossil fuel consuming plants to become more efficient and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions if possible. If less energy was lost in the process of creating electricity, there would be less waste and less of an impact on the environment. This solution combined with increased research and development into renewable energy sources could be a very practical solution. It would be impractical to suddenly stop using fossil fuels, but if we put the time and money into researching alternative energy sources now we might be able to avoid the most serious impacts of global warming.
Carbon dioxide emission limits on vehicles are also an option. Many European countries have limits on their cars, and as new technology emerges their citizens must adjust and upgrade to the more efficient cars. While this has had a much slower start in the United States, I am sure there are ways to promote more efficient cars in the United States. Whether it be taxing vehicles based on their emissions, or taxing the vehicles themselves at different rates, something can be done to help change our current path.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Student Post: Earth Hour v. Human Achievement Hour
This past weekend, many people around the world celebrated Earth Hour. On Saturday, from 8:30 to 9:30 P.M. local time, participating individuals turned off all non-essential lights. The purpose was to make a statement about climate change and the need for energy responsibility.
But they were not the only individuals using this time slot to promote their agenda. During the same time slot, the Competitive Enterprise Institute was at work as well. The CEI wished to promote an agenda of the “. . . necessity to protect the individual persons from government coercion . . . .” To accomplish this, the group introduced the Human Achievement Hour. During the Human Achievement Hour, which happened to coincide with Earth Hour, participants “. . . gather[ed] with friends in a heated home, watch[ed] television and surf[ed] the Internet instead of dimming or shutting off the lights altogether. . . .”
It doesn’t take a climate change enthusiast to see the problem with this. America has turned into a country where people use their beliefs as a way to attack the beliefs of others....and really nothing more. On its face, I have not an ounce of problem with Human Achievement Hour. However, the fact it was clearly created to combat Earth Hour, as opposed to being a legitimate statement, completely ruins it for me. So you don’t like Earth Hour.....don’t participate! I won’t hold it against you. But I will hold against you the fact you intentionally scheduled your event during Earth Hour for no clear reason besides pushing somebody’s buttons. Let them have their hour, and you pick your own.
As a fan of free speech, I really could care less when the CEI schedules their events. But what the situation here is lacking is respect. Respect for the beliefs of others, and respect for the idea of letting them have their day to promote those beliefs. I think people today have lost sight of the fact respecting competitive thought doesn’t hurt one’s position. In fact, I would argue showing that respect to your opponent makes your position stronger.
But who can blame people today for the tactics they use to promote their positions. Look at American politics. Politicians today focus on poking holes and smearing their opponent’s campaign, rather than promoting the strong points of their own. This has resulted in Americans, time and time again, having to choose between the lesser of two evils. With this as an example of how we should promote our beliefs, it is no wonder why CEI chose the day and time it did for its Human Achievement Hour.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/30/let-there-be-light-human-achievement-hour-to-coincide-with-earth-hour/?cmpid=cmty_{linkBack}_Let_there_be_light%3A_%27Human_Achievement_Hour%27_to_coincide_with_Earth_Hour
But they were not the only individuals using this time slot to promote their agenda. During the same time slot, the Competitive Enterprise Institute was at work as well. The CEI wished to promote an agenda of the “. . . necessity to protect the individual persons from government coercion . . . .” To accomplish this, the group introduced the Human Achievement Hour. During the Human Achievement Hour, which happened to coincide with Earth Hour, participants “. . . gather[ed] with friends in a heated home, watch[ed] television and surf[ed] the Internet instead of dimming or shutting off the lights altogether. . . .”
It doesn’t take a climate change enthusiast to see the problem with this. America has turned into a country where people use their beliefs as a way to attack the beliefs of others....and really nothing more. On its face, I have not an ounce of problem with Human Achievement Hour. However, the fact it was clearly created to combat Earth Hour, as opposed to being a legitimate statement, completely ruins it for me. So you don’t like Earth Hour.....don’t participate! I won’t hold it against you. But I will hold against you the fact you intentionally scheduled your event during Earth Hour for no clear reason besides pushing somebody’s buttons. Let them have their hour, and you pick your own.
As a fan of free speech, I really could care less when the CEI schedules their events. But what the situation here is lacking is respect. Respect for the beliefs of others, and respect for the idea of letting them have their day to promote those beliefs. I think people today have lost sight of the fact respecting competitive thought doesn’t hurt one’s position. In fact, I would argue showing that respect to your opponent makes your position stronger.
But who can blame people today for the tactics they use to promote their positions. Look at American politics. Politicians today focus on poking holes and smearing their opponent’s campaign, rather than promoting the strong points of their own. This has resulted in Americans, time and time again, having to choose between the lesser of two evils. With this as an example of how we should promote our beliefs, it is no wonder why CEI chose the day and time it did for its Human Achievement Hour.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/30/let-there-be-light-human-achievement-hour-to-coincide-with-earth-hour/?cmpid=cmty_{linkBack}_Let_there_be_light%3A_%27Human_Achievement_Hour%27_to_coincide_with_Earth_Hour
Student Post: Don't Forget, but Don't Worry
Twenty six years ago this month Chernobyl, Ukraine experienced the world’s most devastating nuclear accident to date. Hundreds of thousands were displaced from their communities, thousands experienced acute effects of immediate radiation exposure, and thousands more are waiting for delayed side effects to kick in. To be sure the horrors of that day have been recorded in countless studies, papers, and reports but for those of us who were too young (or perhaps not even born yet) to properly take in and process the events surrounding the accident, a recap may be helpful.
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) reports that the accident occurred when the reactor was being shut down for routine maintenance. When the operators switched off an important control system they essentially allowed an already structurally flawed reactor to reach unstable low-power conditions. When the plant experienced an unexpected power surge, a steam explosion ensued, causing the reactor vessel to rupture and allow damaging fuel-steam interactions. A 10 day fire resulted during which massive quantities of radioactive materials were released.
Immediately over 100,000 people in close proximity to the plant were evacuated. In the following months and years more than 200,000 residents of surrounding areas in Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine were evacuated.
Within the first four months after the accident about 30 workers died from severe effects of radiation exposure. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) maintains that around 600,000 responders were involved in the initial cleanup and continue to be monitored for delayed health effects.
Of those exposed to radiation, the most significant health threat has been increased incidence of thyroid cancer, especially among children and adolescents who drank milk contaminated with radioactive iodine. The NCR reports that to date about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer have been found in these children. The UNSCEAR found another 2,000 to be affected in Belarus and the Russian Federation. Both studies agree that apart from thyroid cancer, no other increase in cancer rates can be attributed to the Chernobyl accident. Astonishingly, the NCR asserts that “fortunately, no evidence of any effect on the number of adverse pregnancy outcomes, delivery complications, stillbirths or overall health children has been observed among the families living in the most contaminated areas.”
Both the NCR and the UNSCEAR assure that radiation-related casualties are and will continue to be much lower than originally surmised.
Scientists promise that because our nuclear reactors have different plant designs, different control systems, and “robust containment structures,” we in the United States should’t be concerned about falling victim to our own Chernobyl event. Still, without vigilance even the most comprehensive safety protocol could show cracks.
So what’s the point of re-hashing a nightmare that will never affect us? A reminder never hurt anyone.
Photos: https://www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+kids&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=3857T7SBIcmL2AXy1L3PDA&biw=1252&bih=566&sei=6M57T5ygOojL2QXH1bHiDA#um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=chernobyl+birth+defects&oq=chernobyl+birth+defects&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=img.3...0l0l2l129718l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a6a1ce394f096f20&biw=1252&bih=566
Credits:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) reports that the accident occurred when the reactor was being shut down for routine maintenance. When the operators switched off an important control system they essentially allowed an already structurally flawed reactor to reach unstable low-power conditions. When the plant experienced an unexpected power surge, a steam explosion ensued, causing the reactor vessel to rupture and allow damaging fuel-steam interactions. A 10 day fire resulted during which massive quantities of radioactive materials were released.
Immediately over 100,000 people in close proximity to the plant were evacuated. In the following months and years more than 200,000 residents of surrounding areas in Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine were evacuated.
Within the first four months after the accident about 30 workers died from severe effects of radiation exposure. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) maintains that around 600,000 responders were involved in the initial cleanup and continue to be monitored for delayed health effects.
Of those exposed to radiation, the most significant health threat has been increased incidence of thyroid cancer, especially among children and adolescents who drank milk contaminated with radioactive iodine. The NCR reports that to date about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer have been found in these children. The UNSCEAR found another 2,000 to be affected in Belarus and the Russian Federation. Both studies agree that apart from thyroid cancer, no other increase in cancer rates can be attributed to the Chernobyl accident. Astonishingly, the NCR asserts that “fortunately, no evidence of any effect on the number of adverse pregnancy outcomes, delivery complications, stillbirths or overall health children has been observed among the families living in the most contaminated areas.”
Both the NCR and the UNSCEAR assure that radiation-related casualties are and will continue to be much lower than originally surmised.
Scientists promise that because our nuclear reactors have different plant designs, different control systems, and “robust containment structures,” we in the United States should’t be concerned about falling victim to our own Chernobyl event. Still, without vigilance even the most comprehensive safety protocol could show cracks.
So what’s the point of re-hashing a nightmare that will never affect us? A reminder never hurt anyone.
Photos: https://www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+kids&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=3857T7SBIcmL2AXy1L3PDA&biw=1252&bih=566&sei=6M57T5ygOojL2QXH1bHiDA#um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=chernobyl+birth+defects&oq=chernobyl+birth+defects&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=img.3...0l0l2l129718l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a6a1ce394f096f20&biw=1252&bih=566
Credits:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
Student Post: Should Government Underwrite the Risks of Nuclear Energy?
In the case of a nuclear disaster who should be responsible for cleanup and compensation for damage? The Price-Anderson Act caps the liability of private companies and puts the rest of the burden on the Federal Government. It is hard to know what the actual costs of nuclear energy are because of government intervention in reducing liability. If nuclear facilities had to rely on private insurance, be liable for all damage, the game would definitely change. By limiting liability the government encourages risks that otherwise would not be undertaken. The costs of storing waste and protecting waste is also subsidized by the government. These costs are all costs that should be included in the price of energy created by nuclear power plants.
Private insurance companies have come to the conclusion that insuring nuclear power is too risky. The government has capped the liability of the nuclear power plants. The costs have simply been shifted to the taxpayers but these costs must be included in the price we pay for energy. If liability is capped why would the shareholders of the nuclear power plants care about safety? If full liability was placed on the nuclear power plants themselves you can be sure they would be much safer. If nuclear energy is that dangerous that private insurance companies will not provide insurance than is it worth the risk? If the costs of insurance are so high that nuclear power plants cannot be profitable than they should not exist. The costs still exist they are just being shifted to the taxpayer.
The government by limiting liability also encourages nuclear power plants to be built in areas they otherwise would not be built in. In Japan nuclear power plants are built in areas subject to tsunamis. In many European countries nuclear power plants are built next to residential areas. The “not in my backyard” approach in the United States has limited where nuclear power plants are built. While many people complain about NIMBY, with nuclear energy, it is probably a good thing. The costs of a disaster next to a residential area, farming area, fishing area, etc… would be huge. The costs of cleanup and reimbursing those injured would be given to the government. If the nuclear power plant had to cover all the costs you can be sure they would not build in certain areas. Government subsidizing the risks of nuclear power plants gives no incentives for nuclear power to be safe or to be built in areas where the damage would be minimal.
Shareholders of nuclear power plants are not held responsible for the damages caused by the nuclear facilities. In fact, like any public utility, nuclear power plants are given monopolies on energy in certain areas. The government creates these monopolies and then protects them from liability for damages. The true costs of nuclear energy will be realized once we have a disaster and the government steps in to pay for the damages. What happens if the government claims the nuclear power plant did everything right within regulations but still had an accident? Will those that are injured by compensated? Nuclear power plants should exist based on their ability to pay for their own insurance. If nuclear energy cannot be profitable, covering its own liability, than we should look to other ways in providing energy.
Private insurance companies have come to the conclusion that insuring nuclear power is too risky. The government has capped the liability of the nuclear power plants. The costs have simply been shifted to the taxpayers but these costs must be included in the price we pay for energy. If liability is capped why would the shareholders of the nuclear power plants care about safety? If full liability was placed on the nuclear power plants themselves you can be sure they would be much safer. If nuclear energy is that dangerous that private insurance companies will not provide insurance than is it worth the risk? If the costs of insurance are so high that nuclear power plants cannot be profitable than they should not exist. The costs still exist they are just being shifted to the taxpayer.
The government by limiting liability also encourages nuclear power plants to be built in areas they otherwise would not be built in. In Japan nuclear power plants are built in areas subject to tsunamis. In many European countries nuclear power plants are built next to residential areas. The “not in my backyard” approach in the United States has limited where nuclear power plants are built. While many people complain about NIMBY, with nuclear energy, it is probably a good thing. The costs of a disaster next to a residential area, farming area, fishing area, etc… would be huge. The costs of cleanup and reimbursing those injured would be given to the government. If the nuclear power plant had to cover all the costs you can be sure they would not build in certain areas. Government subsidizing the risks of nuclear power plants gives no incentives for nuclear power to be safe or to be built in areas where the damage would be minimal.
Shareholders of nuclear power plants are not held responsible for the damages caused by the nuclear facilities. In fact, like any public utility, nuclear power plants are given monopolies on energy in certain areas. The government creates these monopolies and then protects them from liability for damages. The true costs of nuclear energy will be realized once we have a disaster and the government steps in to pay for the damages. What happens if the government claims the nuclear power plant did everything right within regulations but still had an accident? Will those that are injured by compensated? Nuclear power plants should exist based on their ability to pay for their own insurance. If nuclear energy cannot be profitable, covering its own liability, than we should look to other ways in providing energy.
Student Post: Manitoba Hydro: A Cross-Border Energy Option
The readings this week focused on water power, with a particular emphasis on hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power is of a particular interest to myself, coming from Manitoba, as almost all of the electricity in Manitoba is currently generated by hydroelectric dams and significant projects are underway to see the expansion of the hydroelectric generation.
Manitoba Hydro, which is a public company, is the exclusive electrical provider throughout the province. The power it provides is generated almost exclusively from large hydro electric dams built in remote locations in Northern Manitoba. The power is transferred through long distance transmission lines to different power stations throughout the province. During non-peak periods power is also sent to parts of North Dakota, Wisconsin and Minnesota, through partnership agreements with Xcel-Energy, Minnesota Power, and Wisconsin Public Service. These agreements currently don't amount to significant power sources for these companies, but with Manitoba’s power generation potential they could prove to be much more fruitful in the future.
To understand the benefit it is important to know that peak power consumption in Manitoba takes place in the winter period, while peak power in much of the United States takes place during the summer. This difference means that Manitoba often has a surplus, when much of its’ neighboring states are seeking additional power sources. Considering this, if Manitoba were to find ways to increase its’ surpluses the neighboring states should be able to take greater advantage of this energy source.
Conveniently Manitoba is working on a project to do exactly that. Manitoba Hyrdo is currently working to significantly expand its energy producing capabilities through the creation of three new hydroelectric generating stations. The stations will be completed in stages, with the smallest being completed within the next year and the largest with a current target date of 2023. These stations once completed are projected to add an additional 2000 megawatts to Manitoba Hydro production. Manitoba does not currently have a demand for additional energy generation and its current means of production are more than satisfying Manitoba’s needs. This project is largely being done to ensure that Manitoba has a steady supply of clean and renewable energy to meet potential future demand. For the foreseeable future however, it will create an even larger surplus of electricity.
With many American companies seeking clean, affordable electricity, Manitoba appears poised to help meet this demand. Northern Manitoba is sparsely populated, has many large rivers and much of the land surrounding the waterways is undeveloped. This reduces some of the concerns about flooding and/or resistance to taking of farm or residential land. Manitoba is also currently putting the infrastructure in place to aid in the building of dams and the transfer of electricity through long distance power lines running from the northern rivers to the large power consumption areas in the southern part of the province. This could allow for further development beyond that which is currently being constructed and may present opportunities for investment or development by American energy companies seeking clean and affordable energy sources.
As America continues to seek alternative energy sources, Manitoba may provide a viable option.The readings this week focused on water power, with a particular emphasis on hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power is of a particular interest to myself, coming from Manitoba, as almost all of the electricity in Manitoba is currently generated by hydroelectric dams and significant projects are underway to see the expansion of the hydroelectric generation.
Manitoba Hydro, which is a public company, is the exclusive electrical provider throughout the province. The power it provides is generated almost exclusively from large hydro electric dams built in remote locations in Northern Manitoba. The power is transferred through long distance transmission lines to different power stations throughout the province. During non-peak periods power is also sent to parts of North Dakota, Wisconsin and Minnesota, through partnership agreements with Xcel-Energy, Minnesota Power, and Wisconsin Public Service. These agreements currently don't amount to significant power sources for these companies, but with Manitoba’s power generation potential they could prove to be much more fruitful in the future.
To understand the benefit it is important to know that peak power consumption in Manitoba takes place in the winter period, while peak power in much of the United States takes place during the summer. This difference means that Manitoba often has a surplus, when much of its’ neighboring states are seeking additional power sources. Considering this, if Manitoba were to find ways to increase its’ surpluses the neighboring states should be able to take greater advantage of this energy source.
Conveniently Manitoba is working on a project to do exactly that. Manitoba Hyrdo is currently working to significantly expand its energy producing capabilities through the creation of three new hydroelectric generating stations. The stations will be completed in stages, with the smallest being completed within the next year and the largest with a current target date of 2023. These stations once completed are projected to add an additional 2000 megawatts to Manitoba Hydro production. Manitoba does not currently have a demand for additional energy generation and its current means of production are more than satisfying Manitoba’s needs. This project is largely being done to ensure that Manitoba has a steady supply of clean and renewable energy to meet potential future demand. For the foreseeable future however, it will create an even larger surplus of electricity.
With many American companies seeking clean, affordable electricity, Manitoba appears poised to help meet this demand. Northern Manitoba is sparsely populated, has many large rivers and much of the land surrounding the waterways is undeveloped. This reduces some of the concerns about flooding and/or resistance to taking of farm or residential land. Manitoba is also currently putting the infrastructure in place to aid in the building of dams and the transfer of electricity through long distance power lines running from the northern rivers to the large power consumption areas in the southern part of the province. This could allow for further development beyond that which is currently being constructed and may present opportunities for investment or development by American energy companies seeking clean and affordable energy sources.
As America continues to seek alternative energy sources, Manitoba may provide a viable option.
Manitoba Hydro, which is a public company, is the exclusive electrical provider throughout the province. The power it provides is generated almost exclusively from large hydro electric dams built in remote locations in Northern Manitoba. The power is transferred through long distance transmission lines to different power stations throughout the province. During non-peak periods power is also sent to parts of North Dakota, Wisconsin and Minnesota, through partnership agreements with Xcel-Energy, Minnesota Power, and Wisconsin Public Service. These agreements currently don't amount to significant power sources for these companies, but with Manitoba’s power generation potential they could prove to be much more fruitful in the future.
To understand the benefit it is important to know that peak power consumption in Manitoba takes place in the winter period, while peak power in much of the United States takes place during the summer. This difference means that Manitoba often has a surplus, when much of its’ neighboring states are seeking additional power sources. Considering this, if Manitoba were to find ways to increase its’ surpluses the neighboring states should be able to take greater advantage of this energy source.
Conveniently Manitoba is working on a project to do exactly that. Manitoba Hyrdo is currently working to significantly expand its energy producing capabilities through the creation of three new hydroelectric generating stations. The stations will be completed in stages, with the smallest being completed within the next year and the largest with a current target date of 2023. These stations once completed are projected to add an additional 2000 megawatts to Manitoba Hydro production. Manitoba does not currently have a demand for additional energy generation and its current means of production are more than satisfying Manitoba’s needs. This project is largely being done to ensure that Manitoba has a steady supply of clean and renewable energy to meet potential future demand. For the foreseeable future however, it will create an even larger surplus of electricity.
With many American companies seeking clean, affordable electricity, Manitoba appears poised to help meet this demand. Northern Manitoba is sparsely populated, has many large rivers and much of the land surrounding the waterways is undeveloped. This reduces some of the concerns about flooding and/or resistance to taking of farm or residential land. Manitoba is also currently putting the infrastructure in place to aid in the building of dams and the transfer of electricity through long distance power lines running from the northern rivers to the large power consumption areas in the southern part of the province. This could allow for further development beyond that which is currently being constructed and may present opportunities for investment or development by American energy companies seeking clean and affordable energy sources.
As America continues to seek alternative energy sources, Manitoba may provide a viable option.The readings this week focused on water power, with a particular emphasis on hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power is of a particular interest to myself, coming from Manitoba, as almost all of the electricity in Manitoba is currently generated by hydroelectric dams and significant projects are underway to see the expansion of the hydroelectric generation.
Manitoba Hydro, which is a public company, is the exclusive electrical provider throughout the province. The power it provides is generated almost exclusively from large hydro electric dams built in remote locations in Northern Manitoba. The power is transferred through long distance transmission lines to different power stations throughout the province. During non-peak periods power is also sent to parts of North Dakota, Wisconsin and Minnesota, through partnership agreements with Xcel-Energy, Minnesota Power, and Wisconsin Public Service. These agreements currently don't amount to significant power sources for these companies, but with Manitoba’s power generation potential they could prove to be much more fruitful in the future.
To understand the benefit it is important to know that peak power consumption in Manitoba takes place in the winter period, while peak power in much of the United States takes place during the summer. This difference means that Manitoba often has a surplus, when much of its’ neighboring states are seeking additional power sources. Considering this, if Manitoba were to find ways to increase its’ surpluses the neighboring states should be able to take greater advantage of this energy source.
Conveniently Manitoba is working on a project to do exactly that. Manitoba Hyrdo is currently working to significantly expand its energy producing capabilities through the creation of three new hydroelectric generating stations. The stations will be completed in stages, with the smallest being completed within the next year and the largest with a current target date of 2023. These stations once completed are projected to add an additional 2000 megawatts to Manitoba Hydro production. Manitoba does not currently have a demand for additional energy generation and its current means of production are more than satisfying Manitoba’s needs. This project is largely being done to ensure that Manitoba has a steady supply of clean and renewable energy to meet potential future demand. For the foreseeable future however, it will create an even larger surplus of electricity.
With many American companies seeking clean, affordable electricity, Manitoba appears poised to help meet this demand. Northern Manitoba is sparsely populated, has many large rivers and much of the land surrounding the waterways is undeveloped. This reduces some of the concerns about flooding and/or resistance to taking of farm or residential land. Manitoba is also currently putting the infrastructure in place to aid in the building of dams and the transfer of electricity through long distance power lines running from the northern rivers to the large power consumption areas in the southern part of the province. This could allow for further development beyond that which is currently being constructed and may present opportunities for investment or development by American energy companies seeking clean and affordable energy sources.
As America continues to seek alternative energy sources, Manitoba may provide a viable option.
Student Post: Does the Nuclear waste problem need a recycling plant or a dump?
As our casebook authors allude to, of all the NIMBY problems inherent in energy production, consumption, and transmission, the disposal and transportation of the radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants is probably one of the most difficult tasks that energy regulators face.
Currently all of spent nuclear fuel rods in the United States are stored in some sort of facility either at the nuclear reactor site, or very close to it. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission states that currently all U.S. nuclear electricity generating plants store their spent fuel in massive pools of water.[1] These pools are constructed of concrete several feet thick and have steel lining.[2] Following a dip of anywhere from 3 years to 10 years, the spent fuel can be put in “dry cask” storage.[3] This cask is essentially a steel barrel filled with gases that resist chemical changes.[4] These barrels are contained inside concrete storage areas.[5] These storage techniques are only a temporary plan though.
With the only “permanent” storage site that was authorized for development by Congress no longer an option for the status quo of storage of nuclear wastes will remain in the United States. While this may not necessarily be a bad development, as one of the scholars in our casebook argues, it does beg the question as to what direction possible solutions should go.
A resurgent option is the “recycling” of nuclear wastes by extracting the unused parts of the fuel rods to use as more fission material for generating even more nuclear power. Many other countries have adopted this as a proposed solution to their high level nuclear waste problems, including France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Russia.[6] The U.S. military also reprocesses nuclear wastes.[7]
Intuitively, the idea of extracting more electricity out of waste seems entirely appealing, especially given that all that it is doing is sitting right in the facilities where electricity is generated. Most people would consider anything besides using the whole amount of fuel as a waste of resources. It is a similar intuition that makes the flaring of uneconomically feasible natural gas at producing oil wells not sit well with so many people. But in the nuclear context, a desire to get every drop of energy out of the spent fuel rods would likely cause more waste problem than it would solve.
In addition to the spent fuel rods, which are considered high-level waste, there are also low-level wastes that need to be disposed of in a proper manner given their radioactive nature. As the Union of Concerned Scientists point out, the U.S. is much better off from a total waste standpoint from not reprocessing high-level wastes.[8] If the U.S. were to implement whole-scale nuclear reprocessing at commercial facilities, the amount of high-level waste would decrease by about a quarter, but the amount of low-level waste increased by six to seven times current levels.[9] Particularly concerning is the increase of a particular type of low-level waste, called greater-than-class-C low-level waste. Under whole scale reprocessing, this type of waste would increase by 160 times current levels.
The recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission seem to recognize that nuclear reprocessing is definitely not the solution to the nuclear waste problem.[10] While the Commission seeks to open up new possible sites for a repository on a consent-based model, given recent events involving the Japanese Tsunami and their nuclear disaster, I suspect that the familiar problem of NIMBY will rear its ugly head once again for many proposed repository sites. Since neither the recycling truck or the garbage truck is pulling up the U.S. nuclear power plants anytime soon they will have to continue siting in their own trash.
[1] Spent Fuel Storage in Pools and Dry Casks: Key Points and Questions & Answers, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html (last updated Mar. 29, 2012).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Nuclear Waste Mgmt. Org., Used Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing 1 (2010),available at http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads_managed/MediaFiles/1596_used_nuclear_fuel_reprocessing.pdf.
[7] Id.
[8] Reprocessing and Nuclear Waste, Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/nuclear_terrorism/technical_issues/reprocessing-and-nuclear.html (last updated Mar. 21, 2011).
[9] Id.
[10] See Blue Ribbon Comm’n on Am.’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy viii (2012), available at http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf.
Student Post: Aging Nuclear Infrastructure: How old is too old?
As the current infrastructure of nuclear power plants in the United States continues to age, major decisions regarding how and when to repair or retire these facilities rise to the surface. According to a CNN article from last year in March, over half of the countries 104 nuclear power plants are over 30 years old. These plants have been applying for, and being granted, extensions on their operating licenses. http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/news/economy/nuclear_plants_us/index.htm
Prairie Island Nuclear Power facility in Minnesota is one of the plant that is over 30 years old. The twin reactors on the site began operating in 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Island_Nuclear_Power_Plant Exel Energy has been working for the last few years on gaining approval to continue operating this plant until 2034. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/05/17/xcel-prairie-island/
This raises a number of safety concerns including, how old is too old for a nuclear power facility and at what point has one location been exposed to an unsafe amount of radioactive waste being stored on site?
Prairie Island Nuclear Power facility in Minnesota is one of the plant that is over 30 years old. The twin reactors on the site began operating in 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Island_Nuclear_Power_Plant Exel Energy has been working for the last few years on gaining approval to continue operating this plant until 2034. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/05/17/xcel-prairie-island/
This raises a number of safety concerns including, how old is too old for a nuclear power facility and at what point has one location been exposed to an unsafe amount of radioactive waste being stored on site?
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Student Post: North Dakota's Stance on Water: Heal, Don't Harvest
Pursuant to Federal regulations, North Dakota has developed and is currently executing its Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Plan, designed to address certain issues of nonpoint source pollution through watershed restoration.
Nonpoint source pollution is defined as, “any source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of "point source" in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act.”[i] Point source pollution is defined as water pollution resulting from “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged,” but it does not include agricultural storm water discharges or irrigation return flow.[ii] An example of nonpoint source pollution found in North Dakota would be runoff from a barnyard. Congress has reserved the regulation of point source pollution to the Environmental Protection Agency, but the regulation of nonpoint source pollution has been left to the states.
Each state is required to submit a management program to EPA, “for controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to the navigable waters within the State and improving the quality of such waters.”[iii] North Dakota's “Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Plan,” finalized in April 2010, has the long-term goal of “initiating 20 watershed restoration projects by 2015,” with many of those projects likely to be completed around 2021-2024.[iv] Rather than cutting off nonpoint source pollution entirely, these programs focus on rehabilitating the waters, lands, and habitats that have been impacted by decades of nonpoint source pollution, and North Dakota has created some rather lofty goals for restoring the state’s watersheds.
In approximately one year, North Dakota had two successful watershed restoration projects under its belt, the Bowman-Haley Watershed Restoration and the Cannonball River Watershed Restoration, both located in the Southwestern part of the state.[v] The Bowman-Haley project, “Created 40 wetlands, enhanced 10 miles of instream/riparian habitat, restored water quality to [the] watershed, installed 25 permanent waterfowl nest structures, developed a 420-acre CRP grazing demonstration cite . . . [and effectuated] 20 to 30-year Wildlife Extension Agreements.”[vi] Meanwhile, the Cannonball River project, “restored 15 wetlands, created 179 wetlands, enhanced 45 miles of instream/riparian habitat, installed 26 permanent waterfowl nesting structures, [and effectuated] 20 to 30-year Wildlife Extension Agreements.” Id. There is no doubt that such results fall squarely within North Dakota's Management Plan purpose to “protect or restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the state by promoting locally sponsored, incentive based, voluntary programs where those waters are threatened or impaired due to nonpoint sources of pollution.”[vii]
While these programs appear to have been successful, it seems unlikely that the programs will see similar successes in other parts of the state, where land and commodities prices are at a premium. Not only does maintaining farmland, let alone development in the Western part of the state, mean less land available for watershed restoration, it means that nonpoint source pollution will continue. The most difficult part in regulating nonpoint source pollution is that mostindividualscausing the pollution are not violating the law. For example, farmers who spray their crops with pesticides are not violating a law by doing so, but those pesticides may eventually pollute certain waters through runoff. Environmental concerns are numerous, and rightly so, but a law-abiding landowner's legal right to the “free use and enjoyment of his land” cannot be ignored. North Dakota's use of incentive-based programs is just one way that states are attempting to lure farmers and livestock owners into the clean water discussion. The agriculture community may eventually come around and be more open to a compromise such as grazing/wetland rotation[viii], but North Dakota has much work left to do in order to realize its conservation goals.
With an abundance of energy production in North Dakota, in seems highly unlikely that the goals of watershed restoration would be forsaken for the development of hydroelectric systems within the state.
[i]“What is nonpoint source pollution?” (April 30, 2011) http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/whatis.cfm.
[iv]N.D. Dep't. of Health: ND Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Plan: 2010-2015, p. 2 (Apr. 2010).
[v]U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Habitat Restoration Projects, (May 2, 2011) http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pfw/nd/nd5.htm.
[vii]ND NPS Management Plan, p. 2.
[viii]see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Farm Conservation Plans – a “Mini-Joint Venture”, (May 2, 2011) http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pfw/nd/nd52.htm.
Student Post: Changing Property Rights in Mid-Stream
Property rights have evolved as people began to realize that mineral rights can be owned separately from the surface rights. But the only way an owner of surface rights does not also get to own the mineral rights is when someone sells the land and seperates the two. That is a decision that the landowner makes at some point in order for the mineral rights and surface rights to be separated. The fact that splitting the two property rights is a choice that the landowner makes argues for no change in the status of the mineral rights vs. the surface rights owners.
Unfortunately, in Kentucky, courts and legislatures decided arbitrarily to change the status of property rights when they pitted surface owner against mineral rights owners. The Kentucky Supreme Court opened Pandora’s Box when they ruled in the 1956 landmark case Buchanan v. Watson (290 S.W.2d 40), effectively changing property rights midstream by holding that surface owners couldn’t prevent mineral rights owners from using strip mining to mine coal pursuant to broad form deeds. The Kentucky legislature then stepped in to try to prevent it, but the Kentucky Supreme Court held that law unconstitutional in 1987, and thus protected the mineral property rights.
However, the Kentucky legislature in 1988 ratified an amendment to the constitution which effectively restricted mineral rights owners from strip mining and invading the surface rights owner’s property rights. Now, in 1993 the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld that law, a full 37 years later. This effectively enhanced the rights of the surface owners at the expense of the mineral rights owners.
Is that fair to change property rights midstream?
Changing the nature of property rights in midstream is a bad idea. First of all, making a change in property rights holders in mid-stream distorts the values of these rights, and set a bad precedent that includes allowing courts to change property rights long after the owners of those rights have calculated their values decades earlier.
If I own property and do not want mineral rights owners to invade my surface rights, all I need to do is not sell them! Or stated another way, not buy land that only has surface rights attached to them. That is a choice I make as a rational decision maker, a calculated decision make at the time of purchase. But to change the rights of millions of property owners by a single stroke of a few pens is bad policy as it signals to property owners that you MIGHT be buying these rights, but beware that the courts or legislature can always change them.
Property rights are one of the significant pillars of a civilized world, and from the beginning of time until 1993 they could be counted on by rational decision makers and potential owners to provide stable expectations as to what was actually owned. Now that the Kentucky courts and legislature has decided that property rights no longer are sacred, who knows what you are really buying now when bidding on property?
Unfortunately, in Kentucky, courts and legislatures decided arbitrarily to change the status of property rights when they pitted surface owner against mineral rights owners. The Kentucky Supreme Court opened Pandora’s Box when they ruled in the 1956 landmark case Buchanan v. Watson (290 S.W.2d 40), effectively changing property rights midstream by holding that surface owners couldn’t prevent mineral rights owners from using strip mining to mine coal pursuant to broad form deeds. The Kentucky legislature then stepped in to try to prevent it, but the Kentucky Supreme Court held that law unconstitutional in 1987, and thus protected the mineral property rights.
However, the Kentucky legislature in 1988 ratified an amendment to the constitution which effectively restricted mineral rights owners from strip mining and invading the surface rights owner’s property rights. Now, in 1993 the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld that law, a full 37 years later. This effectively enhanced the rights of the surface owners at the expense of the mineral rights owners.
Is that fair to change property rights midstream?
Changing the nature of property rights in midstream is a bad idea. First of all, making a change in property rights holders in mid-stream distorts the values of these rights, and set a bad precedent that includes allowing courts to change property rights long after the owners of those rights have calculated their values decades earlier.
If I own property and do not want mineral rights owners to invade my surface rights, all I need to do is not sell them! Or stated another way, not buy land that only has surface rights attached to them. That is a choice I make as a rational decision maker, a calculated decision make at the time of purchase. But to change the rights of millions of property owners by a single stroke of a few pens is bad policy as it signals to property owners that you MIGHT be buying these rights, but beware that the courts or legislature can always change them.
Property rights are one of the significant pillars of a civilized world, and from the beginning of time until 1993 they could be counted on by rational decision makers and potential owners to provide stable expectations as to what was actually owned. Now that the Kentucky courts and legislature has decided that property rights no longer are sacred, who knows what you are really buying now when bidding on property?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Student Post: Getting Past Oil: Why Haven't We Already?
The narrative of the past few decades, really since the oil shocks of the 1970s, has been that of a desire to move past fossil fuels and onto newer, cleaner sources of energy. We’re all aware of the arguments for such a move so I won’t discuss those here.
We know that government has made efforts, serious or not, to encourage the development of new technologies. A myriad of subsidies and tax credits exist for just about any new technology out there.
My own feelings on the subject are that fossil fuels, through their relative abundance and energy density, still provide value that simply cannot be matched in the marketplace. In a price competitive market, emerging energies are simply not in a position to be competitive. I also take the position that fossil fuels will predominate in the coming decades because it will take much longer for newer sources of energy to compete. I think we are much farther away from a fossil fuel free society than we think.
However, over the weekend I had the opportunity to hear Peter Thiel speak. Thiel is the Silicon Valley tycoon who founded PayPal and was one of the first to invest in Facebook. Thiel, as evidenced by his estimated fortune of $1.5 billion, is a forward-thinking man but he has taken an increasingly dim view of future. He spent the majority of his fifteen presentation describing his view that innovation, the sort of large-scale, society-changing innovation of the past, has basically stagnated since the oil shocks of the 1970s. In a piece for National Review, Thiel wrote the following:
When tracked against the admittedly lofty hopes of the 1950s and 1960s, technological progress has fallen short in many domains. Consider the most literal instance of non-acceleration: We are no longer moving faster. The centuries-long acceleration of travel speeds — from ever-faster sailing ships in the 16th through 18th centuries, to the advent of ever-faster railroads in the 19th century, and ever-faster cars and airplanes in the 20th century — reversed with the decommissioning of the Concorde in 2003, to say nothing of the nightmarish delays caused by strikingly low-tech post-9/11 airport-security systems. Today’s advocates of space jets, lunar vacations, and the manned exploration of the solar system appear to hail from another planet. A faded 1964 Popular Science cover story — “Who’ll Fly You at 2,000 m.p.h.?” — barely recalls the dreams of a bygone age.
There are certainly arguments to be made in disagreement with Thiel, but it does open up the possibility, at least in my mind, that maybe we should have been a post-fossil fuel society by now. As society we like to think we’re always on the cutting edge with exciting breakthrough technologies, but who’s to say that is actually true?
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that Thiel is correct in saying innovation has slowed drastically in the energy and transportation sector. The logical question is then “why?” Because this is only intended as a thought experiment I won’t pretend these are empirical answers, but merely hypotheses.
First, is it possible that we as a society are looking at all the wrong ideas? We look to government as the source of funding for new innovations, but government works by earmarking funds specifically designated for certain ideas. How can government, or rather the politicians within government, possess any inclination towards what has potential or not? In his speech on Saturday, Thiel made the point that government is overwhelmingly staffed by lawyers, who have little to no background in science. If government is to be a source of technological innovation, the deficit of scientists in politics is a serious impediment.
Second, does government actually warp the incentives of innovators? Thiel spoke of a failure of imagination among society at all levels. He has concluded that too many scientists and investors are content to go after the “low-hanging fruit.” It’s my contention that this is the unintended consequence of government funding specific projects. When politicians are willing to hand out billion dollar grants to clean-tech startups, in effect these innovators have already made their money. The conditions attached to these grants sets expectations too low, in my opinion. Energy startups need to be subject to the cutthroat demands of the market. It also needs to be pointed out that every scientist who works under the auspices of a government grant is one less scientist available to work for a more ambitious, more demanding company in the private sector. Again, it’s the law of unintended consequences at play.
Lastly, I think society at all levels suffers to a large extent from a regulatory bottleneck. Reading about the mishmash of federal, state, and local regulation involved in building electrical infrastructure should give one a good idea of how slow society moves when regulated. In contrast, computers and the Internet have thus far largely escaped significant regulation and they are dynamic industries.
In closing, maybe Thiel is correct in saying that society is suffering from a lack of imagination. I’m a firm believe in the credo of letting markets work, but our issues probably extend far past simply letting markets work as currently configured. If we are to get back to the day of rapidly occurring innovation in all sectors of the economy, it will require an undoing of the bureaucratic sclerosis we find ourselves mired in and elimination of the perverse incentives we throw at scientists and innovators.
We know that government has made efforts, serious or not, to encourage the development of new technologies. A myriad of subsidies and tax credits exist for just about any new technology out there.
My own feelings on the subject are that fossil fuels, through their relative abundance and energy density, still provide value that simply cannot be matched in the marketplace. In a price competitive market, emerging energies are simply not in a position to be competitive. I also take the position that fossil fuels will predominate in the coming decades because it will take much longer for newer sources of energy to compete. I think we are much farther away from a fossil fuel free society than we think.
However, over the weekend I had the opportunity to hear Peter Thiel speak. Thiel is the Silicon Valley tycoon who founded PayPal and was one of the first to invest in Facebook. Thiel, as evidenced by his estimated fortune of $1.5 billion, is a forward-thinking man but he has taken an increasingly dim view of future. He spent the majority of his fifteen presentation describing his view that innovation, the sort of large-scale, society-changing innovation of the past, has basically stagnated since the oil shocks of the 1970s. In a piece for National Review, Thiel wrote the following:
When tracked against the admittedly lofty hopes of the 1950s and 1960s, technological progress has fallen short in many domains. Consider the most literal instance of non-acceleration: We are no longer moving faster. The centuries-long acceleration of travel speeds — from ever-faster sailing ships in the 16th through 18th centuries, to the advent of ever-faster railroads in the 19th century, and ever-faster cars and airplanes in the 20th century — reversed with the decommissioning of the Concorde in 2003, to say nothing of the nightmarish delays caused by strikingly low-tech post-9/11 airport-security systems. Today’s advocates of space jets, lunar vacations, and the manned exploration of the solar system appear to hail from another planet. A faded 1964 Popular Science cover story — “Who’ll Fly You at 2,000 m.p.h.?” — barely recalls the dreams of a bygone age.
There are certainly arguments to be made in disagreement with Thiel, but it does open up the possibility, at least in my mind, that maybe we should have been a post-fossil fuel society by now. As society we like to think we’re always on the cutting edge with exciting breakthrough technologies, but who’s to say that is actually true?
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that Thiel is correct in saying innovation has slowed drastically in the energy and transportation sector. The logical question is then “why?” Because this is only intended as a thought experiment I won’t pretend these are empirical answers, but merely hypotheses.
First, is it possible that we as a society are looking at all the wrong ideas? We look to government as the source of funding for new innovations, but government works by earmarking funds specifically designated for certain ideas. How can government, or rather the politicians within government, possess any inclination towards what has potential or not? In his speech on Saturday, Thiel made the point that government is overwhelmingly staffed by lawyers, who have little to no background in science. If government is to be a source of technological innovation, the deficit of scientists in politics is a serious impediment.
Second, does government actually warp the incentives of innovators? Thiel spoke of a failure of imagination among society at all levels. He has concluded that too many scientists and investors are content to go after the “low-hanging fruit.” It’s my contention that this is the unintended consequence of government funding specific projects. When politicians are willing to hand out billion dollar grants to clean-tech startups, in effect these innovators have already made their money. The conditions attached to these grants sets expectations too low, in my opinion. Energy startups need to be subject to the cutthroat demands of the market. It also needs to be pointed out that every scientist who works under the auspices of a government grant is one less scientist available to work for a more ambitious, more demanding company in the private sector. Again, it’s the law of unintended consequences at play.
Lastly, I think society at all levels suffers to a large extent from a regulatory bottleneck. Reading about the mishmash of federal, state, and local regulation involved in building electrical infrastructure should give one a good idea of how slow society moves when regulated. In contrast, computers and the Internet have thus far largely escaped significant regulation and they are dynamic industries.
In closing, maybe Thiel is correct in saying that society is suffering from a lack of imagination. I’m a firm believe in the credo of letting markets work, but our issues probably extend far past simply letting markets work as currently configured. If we are to get back to the day of rapidly occurring innovation in all sectors of the economy, it will require an undoing of the bureaucratic sclerosis we find ourselves mired in and elimination of the perverse incentives we throw at scientists and innovators.
Student Post: The Chevy Volt: Moving at a Snail’s Pace
While I believe it is important to take the opinions and assertions presented in “Who Killed the Electric Car” with a grain of salt, I was nevertheless surprised by the events that transpired following the release of GM’s EV-1. Growing up, I was a car fanatic, reading every car magazine I could get my hands on. I remember reading about the EV-1 prior to its release, and even seeing pictures of the concept vehicle, but my interest was limited since, as a 7th grader, I always thought other cars, like GM’s Corvette, were way “cooler.” This “cool” factor has been a pervading trend in the American automobile industry since its beginning. Americans love their cars, and they love their cars to be big and fast. Following GM’s eradication of the EV-1, the documentary emphasized the almost ironic promotion of GM’s gas-guzzling vehicles such as the Hummer H2. In a symbolic “one step forward and two steps back” approach to the alleged demand for fuel-efficiency, GM abandoned a promising innovation to return to the status quo. The question remains, however, is the paradigm shifting? Are Americans becoming increasingly serious about their need for fuel efficiency? It seems that in the last couple of years auto makers have jumped on the colloquial bandwagon in an effort to produce vehicles that use less gas. One of the most anticipated events to occur as a result of this trend was the introduction of the Chevy Volt in 2011, a vehicle that has both gasoline and electric machinery. This vehicle seemed to be the first big step in a direction back towards the electric automobile, but how has it been received by consumers like you and me?
The Wall Street Journal released a blog post yesterday on the recent news that GM will be halting production of the Chevy Volt for the next five weeks. This announcement is noteworthy for a couple of reasons. First, it compromises President Obama’s plan to have one million electric cars on the road in the U.S by 2015. The anticipation in the popularity of the Chevy Volt played a key role in the formulation of this plan. GM had initially planned to sell 15,000 Volts in 2011, but had to reduce this target to 10,000. Unfortunately, GM ended up only selling 7,700 Volts in 2011. Taking into account this disappointing reception, GM’s plan to sell 45,000 Volts in 2012 is now being reevaluated. With thousands of Volts remaining in inventory, GM is finding itself in somewhat of a sticky situation. Obama’s plan for one million electric cars on the road by 2015, 505,000 of which were supposed to be Chevy Volts, is losing speed quickly.
The second interesting issue centers on the consumer’s actual demand for electric vehicles. It is undeniable that there was significant hype on the release of the Volt. It was arguably one of the most anticipated vehicles in recent years. Yet we see that this hype has not resulted in sales. Consumers seem to be leery about taking the plunge. It should be noted that there were some safety issues with the Volt’s batteries, which perhaps left some consumers cautious, but was this really enough to drive most potential purchasers away? It seems that the consumer passion demonstrated by EV-1 owners in the documentary has not caught on yet by the modern majority of Americans. Although I believe that the paradigm is starting to shift away from strictly gasoline vehicles, it appears to be moving at a snail’s pace.
The Wall Street Journal released a blog post yesterday on the recent news that GM will be halting production of the Chevy Volt for the next five weeks. This announcement is noteworthy for a couple of reasons. First, it compromises President Obama’s plan to have one million electric cars on the road in the U.S by 2015. The anticipation in the popularity of the Chevy Volt played a key role in the formulation of this plan. GM had initially planned to sell 15,000 Volts in 2011, but had to reduce this target to 10,000. Unfortunately, GM ended up only selling 7,700 Volts in 2011. Taking into account this disappointing reception, GM’s plan to sell 45,000 Volts in 2012 is now being reevaluated. With thousands of Volts remaining in inventory, GM is finding itself in somewhat of a sticky situation. Obama’s plan for one million electric cars on the road by 2015, 505,000 of which were supposed to be Chevy Volts, is losing speed quickly.
The second interesting issue centers on the consumer’s actual demand for electric vehicles. It is undeniable that there was significant hype on the release of the Volt. It was arguably one of the most anticipated vehicles in recent years. Yet we see that this hype has not resulted in sales. Consumers seem to be leery about taking the plunge. It should be noted that there were some safety issues with the Volt’s batteries, which perhaps left some consumers cautious, but was this really enough to drive most potential purchasers away? It seems that the consumer passion demonstrated by EV-1 owners in the documentary has not caught on yet by the modern majority of Americans. Although I believe that the paradigm is starting to shift away from strictly gasoline vehicles, it appears to be moving at a snail’s pace.
Student Post: Hydroelectric Power – The Three Gorges Dam
Harnessing the power of falling water to create energy has been a technique used from the earliest days of energy production. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, currently about 7 percent of our nation’s power is produced in hydroelectric plants by power generators placed inside dams. The Great Depression and the need to provide electricity to rural areas led to public programs such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Bonneville Power Administration Act of 1937, and construction of the Hoover Dam. In the past few decades there have been no new large-scale dam construction projects in the United States, and hydroelectric continues to make up a relatively small share of our overall power production. Worldwide, however, hydroelectric power makes up about 19 percent of energy production, with China being the largest producer. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html
While hydroelectric power is considered to be a renewable and clean energy source, it has definite advantages but also creates some negative impacts. Construction of a dam can provide a durable, constant source of energy and production can be stopped when energy is not needed. The electricity produced does not generate any greenhouse gases, and water is a clean source of fuel. However, building large dams requires surrounding areas to be evacuated and can cause significant damage to the ecological system. http://www.earthconservation.net/hydroelectric-power-plant-its-pros-and-cons.html
In China’s large and expanding hydroelectric industry, the Three Gorges Dam is the world’s largest dam facility. The Three Gorges dam was built in order to increase production of electricity and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in China, as well as to reduce flooding. The dam harnesses the Yangtze River, which is the longest river in Asia, and was completed in 2008. The estimated output of the dam is that it will provide approximately one-tenth of China’s energy needs. Critics of the dam pointed to ecological concerns because the dam will disrupt silt flows in the river, depriving fish and agricultural land of vital nutrients downstream. The Three Gorges project also led to the dislocation of 1.27 million people. http://www.power-technology.com/projects/gorges/. In addition, there are considerable environmental impacts resulting from the Three Gorges Dam. In addition to fertile farm land, hundreds of factories and dumps were submerged as a result of the dam. This debris, along with upstream industrial centers, has resulted in an incredibly polluted reservoir. Changing water levels on the reservoir have triggered landslides, and there are concerns that earthquakes and other natural disasters could follow.
Are the ecological risks of hydroelectricity worth the benefits? As the world continues to look to renewable energy sources to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, the Three Gorges Dam will be one to watch. Being a relatively new dam and built on such a large scale, its impacts on the environment may not be fully realized for years.
Student Post: Old King Coal: Where is the Innovation?
The process of extracting energy out of coal to create electricity has remained fairly static since its inception. Coal is ignited which boils water which turns to steam which then turns the blades on a turbine. The process is quite inefficient with a large amount of heat produced by the coal being lost. The process also remains extremely "dirty" and harmful to the health of those living nearby and ultimately the health of all those that inhabit this planet as the undesirable particles increase their density in our air. Why is it that the energy industry, especially the coal industry, is so slow moving when it comes to improving efficiency and developing better technologies that don't have such adverse effects on the environment? How is it that a technology, a critical one at that, that has been around for over 100 years still looks almost identical to itself upon inception when things like computers, cellular phones, cars, medical advancements and countless other technologies have come so far?
Coal is one of the cheapest and most abundant resources available to provide for our country's and the world's ever growing energy demands. It is relatively cheap to mine. It has become easier and quicker to transport to power plants and it is abundant. Because of these factors, the final product is cheap for the consumers. We enjoy cheap energy. We have grown ever dependent on electricity and there will likely not be a major change to our habits.
What about the coal industry and the energy industry in general that has prevented it from evolving over time? The book discusses the early days of coal plants in London. The city would regularly become enveloped in thick smoke from the nearby coal plants. It took numerous deaths, deaths directly attributable to the plants and the waste products coming out of their stacks, before regulations came into play. Now, because of those regulations and similar ones made in the US, the undesirable byproducts of burning coal are not so readily visible. That is not to say we are necessarily burning the coal more efficiently or reducing the amount of harmful products being pumped out of the factories. Essentially, we are just doing a better job of hiding the effects from plain sight.
The problem with coal is essentially two-fold: 1) we demand cheap reliable electricity and 2) we already have such a reliance on the product. In order to shift away from coal or to reduce the amount we burn would require vast lifestyle changes by the major users of electricity. Coal accounts for such a large percentage of what makes up the world's electricity portfolio and there are either no viable alternatives (solar and wind) or no desirable alternatives (nuclear).
The coal industry is in a pretty solid position of power and influence in this country and worldwide. There really is no incentive for them to explore much innovation because they understand that the reliance on it is too great and the adverse health effects are difficult to directly attribute to it for us to completely cut our ties.
Coal is one of the cheapest and most abundant resources available to provide for our country's and the world's ever growing energy demands. It is relatively cheap to mine. It has become easier and quicker to transport to power plants and it is abundant. Because of these factors, the final product is cheap for the consumers. We enjoy cheap energy. We have grown ever dependent on electricity and there will likely not be a major change to our habits.
What about the coal industry and the energy industry in general that has prevented it from evolving over time? The book discusses the early days of coal plants in London. The city would regularly become enveloped in thick smoke from the nearby coal plants. It took numerous deaths, deaths directly attributable to the plants and the waste products coming out of their stacks, before regulations came into play. Now, because of those regulations and similar ones made in the US, the undesirable byproducts of burning coal are not so readily visible. That is not to say we are necessarily burning the coal more efficiently or reducing the amount of harmful products being pumped out of the factories. Essentially, we are just doing a better job of hiding the effects from plain sight.
The problem with coal is essentially two-fold: 1) we demand cheap reliable electricity and 2) we already have such a reliance on the product. In order to shift away from coal or to reduce the amount we burn would require vast lifestyle changes by the major users of electricity. Coal accounts for such a large percentage of what makes up the world's electricity portfolio and there are either no viable alternatives (solar and wind) or no desirable alternatives (nuclear).
The coal industry is in a pretty solid position of power and influence in this country and worldwide. There really is no incentive for them to explore much innovation because they understand that the reliance on it is too great and the adverse health effects are difficult to directly attribute to it for us to completely cut our ties.
Student Post: International Coal Transportation
Today’s reading had a section on the United States’ transportation of coal within our borders. However, the United States is also a major exporter of coal. It was estimated in 2010, that the United States exported 74 megatons of coal. That would be the 4th largest exporter of coal in the world behind Australia, Indonesia, and Russia.
According to worldcoal.org, coal transportation accounts for only 16% of the coal that is consumed in the world. Most of the coal that is procured is consumed in the country of origin. That being said, over 70 countries use coal, and roughly 50 commercially produce coal. The coal needs to get from place to place.
With the increased demand of coal in the world, shipping coal over the seas has become a popular mode of transportation. However, the increase in fuel costs have led to an increase in freight costs across the board. Increased freight costs have stymied the ability of developing nations to ship coal cost effectively.
For example, the Indonesian National Shipowners Association stated that 285 vessels would be needed to handle the shipment of coal exports from Indonesia. Currently, only 75 ships are owned and used by Indonesian companies. The remaining ships are contracted out at a cost to the coal distribution centers. Thus rising the overall cost of coal.
Theenergylibrary.com states that international shipping of coal increased from 498 Mt in 1990 to 917 Mt in 2007. With the rise in international shipping there is concern because ocean transport requires five things: 1) transportation from mine to port, 2) coal handling facilities at the export port, 3) ocean carrier networks that can handle the exports, 4) coal handling facilities at the import port, and 5) transportation from port to customer.
In 1979, the National Research Council Maritime Transportation Research Board issued Critical Issues in Coal Transportation Systems: Committee Report. In this report it was emphasized that the U.S. make accurate export estimations regarding the transportation of coal. This report states: “[t]he underestimation of exports would lead to transport congestion and missed sales opportunities. An overestimation would lead to costly excess capacity at a number of shipment points.” These ideals can still be used today.
The basic theme of the research regarding international shipping relates to cost efficiency. The United States imports many manufactured goods from around the world. In connection with that, coal is a major source of energy in the nations the United States imports goods from. If the cost of energy raises the cost of production in those countries, then the cost of those manufactured products is raised here.
It is a cycle that needs to find a more efficient way to save money around the globe. Extra costs from shipping inefficiencies to port taxes have raised prices of consumer goods.
According to worldcoal.org, coal transportation accounts for only 16% of the coal that is consumed in the world. Most of the coal that is procured is consumed in the country of origin. That being said, over 70 countries use coal, and roughly 50 commercially produce coal. The coal needs to get from place to place.
With the increased demand of coal in the world, shipping coal over the seas has become a popular mode of transportation. However, the increase in fuel costs have led to an increase in freight costs across the board. Increased freight costs have stymied the ability of developing nations to ship coal cost effectively.
For example, the Indonesian National Shipowners Association stated that 285 vessels would be needed to handle the shipment of coal exports from Indonesia. Currently, only 75 ships are owned and used by Indonesian companies. The remaining ships are contracted out at a cost to the coal distribution centers. Thus rising the overall cost of coal.
Theenergylibrary.com states that international shipping of coal increased from 498 Mt in 1990 to 917 Mt in 2007. With the rise in international shipping there is concern because ocean transport requires five things: 1) transportation from mine to port, 2) coal handling facilities at the export port, 3) ocean carrier networks that can handle the exports, 4) coal handling facilities at the import port, and 5) transportation from port to customer.
In 1979, the National Research Council Maritime Transportation Research Board issued Critical Issues in Coal Transportation Systems: Committee Report. In this report it was emphasized that the U.S. make accurate export estimations regarding the transportation of coal. This report states: “[t]he underestimation of exports would lead to transport congestion and missed sales opportunities. An overestimation would lead to costly excess capacity at a number of shipment points.” These ideals can still be used today.
The basic theme of the research regarding international shipping relates to cost efficiency. The United States imports many manufactured goods from around the world. In connection with that, coal is a major source of energy in the nations the United States imports goods from. If the cost of energy raises the cost of production in those countries, then the cost of those manufactured products is raised here.
It is a cycle that needs to find a more efficient way to save money around the globe. Extra costs from shipping inefficiencies to port taxes have raised prices of consumer goods.
Student Post: Indian Nations and the Coal Industry: A Brief Look at What's Happened on Lands Close to Home
Indian Nations of the United States hold vast amounts of land in federal trust that are home to large coal reserves, coal mining, and coal plants. Indigenous people of these lands deal disproportionately with the boon and bane of the coal industry. The common challenges of land and resource development are exacerbated by the poor economic situation of many of the tribes, which raise questions of environmental justice and indigenous sovereignty. Within the boundaries of North Dakota, there are four federally recognized tribes that have independent, sovereign relationships with the federal government: the Standing Rock Sioux of Standing Rock Indian Reservation south of Bismarck; the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa at Turtle Mountain Reservation; the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation of Fort Berthold Reservation in west-central North Dakota; and the Spirit Lake Tribe near Devil’s Lake.
The Department of the Interior tells us that twenty-five Native American reservations in the United States have coal reserves. Of these twenty-five, three nations are located within our home state or close to it: the Fort Berthold reservation of central North Dakota; and the Northern Cheyenne and Crow out of eastern Montana. All three tribes have coal reserves for potential development, or currently have mining operations in place for lignite coal. Fort Berthold Reservation in particular has been referred to as the ‘Saudi Arabia of America’ for its rich holdings in lignite and petroleum. North Dakota has the second largest lignite coal production in the U.S. and lignite coal reserves in Western North Dakota are used to generate about 90% of the electricity consumed.
Mining and burning coal have a unique impact on Native American lands and people due to the particular socio-economic and cultural situation. Significant poverty on Indian reservations often influences the choice to develop coal resources, yet because of the special relationship the tribes have to the land as sacred, there is often deep resistance to development and to the resulting damage and pollution to the land and people. There are few social services on many reservations and development often strains the infrastructure. Historically, the development of coal on Native American lands has been guided by treaties between the federal government and tribes. In the past, the Bureau of Indian Affairs arranged and managed coal development land leases. Today, many tribes prefer that their tribal government or an entity of the tribal council independently manage their coal resources, with contracts subject to review by the Secretary of Interior on tribal trust lands. Tribal lands have been the sites of some of the most protracted battles against coal development. Some tribes have taken legal action against the government to cancel the federally administrated leases because of unfairness or exploitation of mineral leases. An example of this is the Northern Cheyenne tribe of Montana.
The lands of the Northern Cheyenne tribe of southeastern Montana are surrounded by five large strip mines, Montana’s largest coal-fired power plant, the Colstrip Steam Plant, and Montana’s only active drilling site for coal bed methane. The coal reserves under the reservation are some of the largest held by any tribe in the country, estimated between 20 and 50 billion tons of low-sulfur coal. The Northern Cheyenne have a long history of successful resistance to outside development of their land. From 1966 to 1971 the tribal council signed leases with coal companies including Peabody Coal, Consolidated Coal, and Amaz Coal. Acting as trustee for the tribe, the BIA failed to complete an environmental impact statement, sold the exploration rights for around $9.00 per acre and agreed to royalties for the tribe of only 17.5 cents per ton in long term mineral leases. The tribe successfully fought to have the leases cancelled in 1973, forced the corporations to pay about $10 million in damages, and regained 7,000 acres of land that had been purchased for mining. The Northern Cheyenne also successfully used the Clean Air Act to stop the expansion of the Colstrip plant, forcing the utilities to equip the plant with the best air-pollution scrubbers in 1977. In addition, the Northern Cheyenne managed to void coal leases on three sides of the reservation in 1982, cancel the permit of a new coal mine east of the reservation in 1997, and retain ownership of all subsurface rights on the reservation.
For thirty years, the Northern Cheyenne tribe fought the development of coal on the reservation, but the dire economic situation within tribal boundaries led to increased support for small-scale development in recent times. As of 2003, 87 percent of Northern Cheyenne on the reservation were living in poverty, with a 65 percent unemployment rate and annual income of $4,479. Dire economic struggles and the associated social problems from poverty drove many Northern Cheyenne off the reservation. On November 7, 2006, the tribe voted 664 to 572 in favor of developing coal on the reservation, and at the same time voted 365 to 841 against coal bed methane drilling.
Today, the Colstrip Steam Plant is coal-fired power stations owned primarily by Puget Sound Energy and operated near the Northern Cheyenne reservation in Colstrip, Montana. Colstrip would never have been founded if it weren’t for the fortune of dirty coal that lies beneath the town and the neighboring reservation. It adds up to an approximate value of $355,000 per acre. Aerial photographs taken around Colstrip from the 1980s until today demonstrate the damage the coal mining and coal plant have wreaked on the landscape. The Colstrip Steam Plant is ranked the ninth dirtiest plant in the nation, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions and fly ash. It is ranked the eleventh dirtiest in the nation, in terms of mercury pollution, and the number one mercury polluter in all Western states. The well water in Colstrip is notorious for smelling like sewer; feeling oily, and gritty from sediment.
The coal plant’s carbon dioxide scrubbers pump ash slurry into an elaborate pond system at 7,500 gallons per minute; a rate of 964,000 tons of waste annually. State and company records revealed the waste ponds that border either end of town as the top culprits for leaking pollutants since 1979. Company records show efforts to maintain the lining of waste pits has failed eighteen times. These issues didn’t come to light until 2003 through the discovery process in litigation between Colstrip residents and PPL Montana (who operates the plant), Avista Corp., PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric, NorthWestern Energy, and Puget Sound Energy.
In 2010, Abt Associates issued a study commissioned by a nonprofit advocacy organization, the Clean Air Task Force on the effects attributable from coal-fired power plants. Fine particle pollution from coal-fired power plants is a mixture of soot, heavy metals, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. The most dangerous of this pollution is the tiniest particulates, as they evade our lung’s natural defenses, enter the bloodstream, and can be transported to organs. The elderly, children, and those with respiratory disease are at the greatest risk. This study found that 13,500 deaths and tens of thousands of cases of chronic bronchitis, acute bronchitis, asthma, congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, and pneumonia every year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. coal plant emissions. These deaths and diseases show coal’s external costs: the harm inflicted on the public, and particularly low-income and minority populations. The Abt Associates study assigned a value of $7,300,000 to each mortality in 2010 from coal particle pollution. The monetary valuations ranged from $52 for an asthma episode treatment, to $440,000 for a case of chronic bronchitis. This story is a sobering example of the complex legal facets attorneys and legislators face in regulating the industry, regulating the environment, and advocating for both the energy companies and the welfare of community residents.
Sources:
· Interview with Winona LaDuke, April 19, 2004, available at: www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2004/04/19/laduke/index.html
· Bob Struckman and Ray Ring, A Breath of Fresh Air, High Country News, January 20, 2003, available at: www.hcn.org/serlets/hcn.Article?article_id=13658.
· Clair Johnson, Northern Cheyenne Coal Future ‘Delicate Issue’, Billings Gazette, November 16, 2006,available at: http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/11/16/news/local/45-coal.txt.
· Clean Air Task Force interactive table, Find Your Risk from Power Plant Pollution, February 2011,available at: www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing.
· Kristen Lombardi, The Center for Public Integrity, Problems Related to Coal Ash at the Cosltrip Steam Plant, February 19, 2009, available at: www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1144/.
· Brendon Bosworth, Montana’s Colstrip Power Plant Among Worst in the Nation for Mercury Emissions, Says Enviro Group, January 31, 2011, available at: www.newwest.net/topic/article/montanas_colstrip_power_plant_among_worst_in_the_nation_for_mercury_emission/C618/L618.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)