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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)