Thursday, March 12, 2009

Open Forum on Nukes. By Geniusofdespair

There is a simple premise to this blog, it is an experiment to see if I can tap into the silent majority. I want you to leave a comment about how you feel about two more nuclear reactors at Turkey Point. Need to know more about Turkey Point? Hit here.

The Blog will be this one post and, I hope, many comments. Let's hear how you feel about 4 Nuclear Reactors on our Miami Dade coast. If you are against more reactors ANYWHERE, please feel free to comment too. Lets talk!

Your comment can be as simple as: "No Way."

Just hit on the word "comments" below.

Below the comment box (scroll down) you MUST choose an identity. Pick "anonymous." Put your name and email in the comment box if you want to. You can also send a email and I will post it: geniusofdespair@yahoo.com

Thank you....comment away! I have been adding articles in the comment section...

32 comments:

Marshmaid said...

If ratepayers fund new nukes and they are actually built, by Florida law the Public Service Commission will be unable to justify ratepayer funding for other, truly safe and sustainable, power sources. Big utilities stay in business-as-usual while delaying real societal progress toward a truly clean energy future.

Anonymous said...

It ain't financially viable:

According to a 1/28/08 press release from Nuclear Information and Resource Service. " MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company announced that it is canceling its plans to build a new nuclear reactor in Payette County, Idaho." The company cited the poor economics of nuclear power. The press release said:

MidAmerican was planning on Warren Buffett’s Berkshire/Hathaway company to provide major financing for the project. Buffett is a major owner of MidAmerican.

Which leads NIRS to the obvious conclusion:

"If Warren Buffett cannot figure out how to make money from a new nuclear reactor, who can?"
Geniusofdespair
Geniusofdespair@yahoo.com
(I will put my real name in later)

Anonymous said...

I do not approve of four nuclear power plants within 20 miles of my home.
I do not approve of 60 ft tall massive power polls coming down US1.
I do not approve of Coconut Grove filled with FPL and ATT wires that nearly block out the sky.
Harry Emilio Gottlieb
Coconut Grove, FL.

Anonymous said...

I have been vehemently opposed to nuclear energy my entire adult life. I grew up in Illinois and there was a monster, on Lake Michigan (source of most of that midwestern area's drinking water) the Zion Power Plant.

There were always reports - from brave and tenacious souls such as you - as to the many problems from operations to security. One of the reasons I resisted moving to Miami was the proximity to Turkey Point. (However, mi esposo was adamant to move.)

When we lived in Miami-Dade we heard many reports from neighbors that were employed there as to again, operation problems and blatant security breaches.

Guards were habitually caught on camera sleeping, boaters & pranksters wandering in, etc. Then Andrew hit---hey, ain't that great? Again we heard personal reports (often not mentioned in media) of damage to the plant.

It is beyond mind boggling that there is a continued desire for such folly and expansion.

There is no known safe disposal of the waste that is dangerous for centuries; the cost is incredibly high were it not for subsidies; it isn't a "stand alone" fuel- it depends on other scarce energy sources; obviously there are giant gaps in security and technology and the geographic placement in a known hurricane zone defies reason.

I know of a wonderful "real" group (translation not corporate/political lackeys): The Union of Concerned Scientists.

They are a wealth of knowledge on this topic and I suggest that you contact them for additional info on this continual war. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/

Anonymous said...

no way, no how. no no no! noooooo!

Anonymous said...

Yes, we need more nuclear power. Wind, solar, and thermal aren't going to be enough.

The Plant Man said...

we should be focusing on safer forms of energy!

Unknown said...

I completely disapprove of new nuclear power plants being built. Until there is a safe method to "dispose" of or eliminate nuclear waste, nuclear energy use should be restricted, and certainly not expanded.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Crist,

Help Florida by developing alternative energy. Thank you

Anonymous said...

Geez, you should all get more involved. The project is well on its way to getting some important local approvals, which do not give much consideration to the Union of Concerned Scientists, or anyone like that. Even if you are not worried about the "nuclear" part, there will be dredging and filling on a scale not seen since the cooling canals were built. There are water supply issues, and some serious questions about whether the hot, salty water in the cooling canals now is really staying there. Speak up, please!

Laura Sue, the Silver Nightingale said...

I am unalterably opposed to nuclear plants and nuclear weapons, both new and old. To focus specifically on your question re Turkey Point:

Contrary to what the Nuclear Industry says, nuclear plants do NOT produce clean, affordable energy. There are a variety of severe pollution problems at numerous points throughout the nuclear fuel cycle, not the least of which is the unsolved problem of what to do with nuclear waste that's toxic for zillions of years.

An even bigger "problem" is the fact that one small accident, whether caused by human error or equipment malfunction, could literally mean the end of all life on Earth. What could be more expensive than that?

Just think about that little O-Ring on the space shuttle Challenger, and the consequences of something very small like that happening at a nuclear plant, and it's obvious that just about any other form of energy production would be preferable to nuclear. And with all the great new technology now coming to the fore, we have plenty of better, cleaner, safer, more affordable options!

There are a multitude of reasons why nuclear plants in general, and nuclear plants at Turkey Point in particular, are just a gosh-darned bad idea. But I find the possibility of ending life on Earth to be a compelling argument all by itself, so will leave other important issues to be raised by others.

In summary: Turkey Point is a turkey! (no disrespect to actual turkeys)

For more of my thoughts on this subject, as well as a host of environmental and No Nukes resources, please visit my Silver Nightingale Nuclear Free Zone

Thanks for this forum!
Nuclear Free Florida!
Laura Sue, the Silver Nightingale

Anonymous said...

Time for going vegan! for real.
We need to wake up jon q public and have them join us in moving forward with energy from the sun and wind. We can do it!
Rachel Gracee

Anonymous said...

Terrible idea. Why is FPL building solar in North Florida and not here? Because they know that our government officials will lick their shoes and give them anything they want (I still haven't figured out why.)

Anonymous said...

I listened to the siren below...it is an odd little video. Strangely, I still stayed till the end and the sound actually sent shivers up my spine.

Mandy Hancock said...

NO NEW NUKES IN FLORIDA OR ELSEWHERE! When are our "representative" decision makers going to realize that we can not continue to listen to the industry in regards to our energy needs? We need REAL and SAFE solutions to climate change. People who think nuclear is the answer are misinformed about the risks, dangers, environmental impacts, and the cost. many think it is "cheaper," but they do not realize that our tax money is what makes it "cheaper" on our bill. If our money is subsidizing the energy industry, I think we should have a say in how that money is spent. I vote for wind, solar, and tidal energy supplemented with grand scale efforts to increase efficiency. California set in strong measures in the 70's to slow its increasing demand for energy. Now, 40 years later, their energy needs have barely risen. Their economy and population have grown with the rest of the country, yet their energy needs have only modestly increased because the state stepped in with conservation and efficiency measures. Just goes to show, the cleanest, cheapest kwH is the one that never even gets used!

MaryO said...

It was an honor to come to Florida and gather people who are working FOR efficient use of renewable energy (nuclear is NOT renewable) -- and also convene a summit of folks who are committed to opposing Turkey Point so close to Miami and also Levy County on the Nature Coast (a total of 4 new reactors). We had the great good fortune of hearing Dr. Arjun Makhijani speak -- his book "Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for US Energy Policy" was the basis for his talk. The book in entirety and also a shorter summary are available on-line at no charge. http://www.ieer.org

Makhijani himself was surprised -- YES we can support our current economy + growth with efficiency and renewables -- and it is CHEAPER than using nukes.

PLEASE -- WAKE UP -- FLORIDA of all places needs a REAL solution to the Climate Crisis -- and nuclear is a FALSE solution -- costs too much, takes too long... is not sustainable!

Mary Olson, NIRS Southeast
http://www.nirs.org
nirs(at)main.nc.us

Anonymous said...

NO! NO! NO! Nukes are not the answer to anything! We need SAFE and SUSTAINABLE forms of energy. There are no real ways to get rid of the wastes from nuclear plants that will scourge its radius for centuries. Do you want your children to live with radiation? Actually, if you live in the radius, you might not even be able to have children. Wait, let me flip it. Nuclear energy is phenomenal! It is so efficient that Warren Buffet CANNOT even find ways to make money from it. My drinking water will be polluted and radioactive. I can get sick by running water from the pipes at home :-) My children will have birth defects, and eventually I'll become sterile. Ooh, who loves cancer? Me! Hmm, if the earth can still sustain life in the future, and the finite source of nuclear energy runs out, will the radiation be gone? No way! That means the future generations of my family, and all our families, can experience the fun of nuclear plants too! Yay! Nuclear, it's the way to go!

Anonymous said...

It amazes me that people will live near a nuclear power plant. I would never live near one. I can't forget 3 mile island.

hopeforcleanwater said...

I'm part of that "not quite silent" majority...and I don't want nuclear power, don't want 4 new reactors in FL, in fact, I believe we should shut down the ones we have now...I don't know where or how the reactor rods or everything radioactive would possibly be stored or made even slightly safe...but I do know that nuclear is not a wise choice. I read where we could supply ALL of our energy needs here in FL with solar. I know all the reasons that the utilties do not want us to go to solar, but I know that solar is the right way for us.
The depression/recession that we are in hopefully will stop these bad ideas of new nukes from becoming a reality.
No nukes, no coal, no kidding. still.

Anonymous said...

No Nukes! Its better to have Solar, Wind, GEOTHERMAL!!! and more important than all of that is CONSERVATION and cutting down our need for energy and making renewables more in the price range for most by using more efficient energy star items, compact flourescent light bulbs, refrigerators, appliances, microwaves, ovens.
Insulate your homes
Seal your homes

Then get yourself a Solar Panel half the size and moreover get it financed if you can't afford it in one lump sum, it will make the VALUE of your home go up and make your home value INCREASE!!!
Plus its a TAX WRITE OFF!

Teach people about how PLAUSIBLE these are, then purchase these items from companies that will befriend you and work WITH YOU!

Network peoples... I'm out.

Jordan Stone @ USF
Tampa, FL

Anonymous said...

"Nuclear energy belongs in a museum"
Hermann Scheer makes an argument that our Florida Energy
Office, Public Service Commission and the NRC need to hear. We are at
the fork in the road now, with no ground yet broken on new nuclear in
Florida, and must make the prudent decision as a community to err on
the side of caution. We must exhaust the potential for safe and
sustainable renewables, conservation and efficiency first.
Article published in The German Times August 2008 http://www.hermannscheer.de/en/index.php?Itemid=11&id=208&option=com_content
&task=view
We can meet all our electricity needs with renewables

Snip: "In 1974, the International Atomic Energy Agency forecast that
by 2000, nuclear power plants would have an annual capacity of 4.5
million megawatts. Today, 440 reactors provide 300,000 megawatts - a
mere 2.5 percent of the world's energy needs."

Snip: "A solar or wind-driven generator can be installed within a few
days, while a nuclear power plant takes an average of 10 years to
build."

"And renewables do not come with an incalculable risk."

Anonymous said...

First Christie Whitman, then Patrick Moore, came lobbying around the Miami environmental groups. Armed with nothing but their reputations, we were unimpressed, almost embarrassed for them. Just in case anyone believes that Patrick Moore has anything to do with Greenpeace, please read this on nukes (full statement covering many issues at http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-statement-on-patric):
Moore’s recent call that the U.S. should generate 60 percent of U.S. electricity from nuclear power is ludicrous. These plants are acknowledged by the federal government’s own National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States – commonly referred to as the 9/11 Commission – as terrorist targets. An accident or terrorist attack at a nuclear plant could result in thousands of near-term deaths from radiation exposure and hundreds of thousands of long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within only fifty miles of a nuclear plant.

His proposal not only fails to address the risk posed to the American public by our existing plants, but also fails to address the urgent issue of global warming. According to Dr. Bill Keepin, a physicist and energy consultant in the U.S., “given business-as-usual growth in energy demand, it appears that even an infeasibly massive global nuclear power programme could not reduce future emissions of carbon dioxide. To displace coal alone would require the construction of a new nuclear plant every two or three days for nearly four decades…in the United States, each dollar invested in efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon than a dollar invested in new nuclear power.”

According to Moore, “Three Mile Island was actually a success story in that the radiation from the partially melted core was contained.”

TRUTH:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that 10 million curies of radiation were released into the environment by the Three Mile Island Meltdown. Expert witnesses in the TMI law suits estimated that 150 million curies escaped, because the containment at Three Mile Island was not leak tight and the NRC ignored many of the potential escape routes for the radiation.

Geniusofdespair said...

i have met with Moore/Whitman. They are getting paid big money to promote/greenwash nuclear.

Anonymous said...

Gainesville Sun | Friday, December 19, 2008
*http://www.gainesville.com/article/20081219/news/812199984*
*

Gainesville Regional Utilities agreed with members of the solar industry
Thursday and recommended a higher rate for the proposed solar energy
incentive program.

Known as a feed-in tariff, the program would allow GRU to purchase energy
produced from privately owned solar photovoltaic panels at a rate to be
profitable to those installing the expensive equipment.

While many have been excited if not giddy about the program, there has been
debate about what a "profitable rate" would be.

On Thursday, GRU staff increased their recommended rate. Ed Regan, assistant
general manager for strategic planning with GRU, had originally proposed
20-year contracts with solar investors, guaranteeing a rate of 26 cents per
kilowatt hour of electricity generated by the solar panels.

That rate jumped to 32 cents per kilowatt hour Thursday night after a
unanimous vote by Gainesville city commissioners.

Regan said original analysis had indicated that 26 cents per hour would have
provided a 5.87 percent rate of return, but that did not consider taxes.

With taxes that come with smaller investments, the rate of return would have
only been .67 percent.

"Which would not be a good investment at all," Regan said.

He said 32 cents per kilowatt hour would provide 2.93 percent return on
investment and up to 5 percent for more efficient or less expensive systems.

The expense of the program will be passed on to customer bills through the
fuel tax exemption portion of utility bills.

Regan said in 2009 with the lower kwh purchase rate the impact on an average
bill would have been 32 cents, while the adopted more expensive 32 cents per
kwh will be an average increase of 42 cents per bill.

Commissioners voted to implement a "stop-loss" element that would pause the
program if the impact on utility bills increased to 1 percent.

Regan said it would take 4 megawatts of solar panels installed in a single
year ? a highly unlikely scenario ? to have that great an impact.

Other considerations were whether the commission should create regulations
to ensure all solar installations are done by licensed solar providers.
Regan cautioned against selecting regulations for a market that was still
developing. "We're getting a lot of pressure to pick this certification over
that certification, and we're not sure what business model is the best,"
Regan said.

Commissioners voted to look into various consumer protections that could be
put in place. "This is such cutting edge technology, I think it leaves the
door open for businesses that might not have their customers' best interests
in mind," Commissioner Lauren Poe said.

Anonymous said...

Folks who say that solar and wind "will not be enough" have it backwards -- there is a trickle of oil and a small pile of uranium...even coal (which we MUST stop burning in any case) is small when compared to the amount of energy that comes to Earth every single day from that nuclear source safely positioned 93 million miles away -- SOL -- our Sun! In ONE HOUR Earth gets as much power as human beings currently generate from ALL other sources in a whole year! SOLAR IS THE BIG SOURCE! The sun makes the wind...which IS also huge by comparison to fuels we dig up. There is more wind energy just in the center of North America than the energy reserves of ALL OF OPEC!!!

This is GREAT NEWS -- we CAN DO IT -- we can get off carbon fuels and we don't need nukes to get there!
-- Mary Olson, NIRS Southeast

Anonymous said...

Because nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases, Florida Power & Light - the state's largest utility and operator of nuclear plants in St. Lucie County and Turkey Point near Florida City - says nuclear is green.

The clueless governor agrees.

FPL has proposed changing the name and eligible fuel sources allowed in the state's green energy rules from "renewable" to "clean."

Say: No Way!

Geniusofdespair said...

Monday, January 05, 2009
Miami Beach resident and Time Magazine Sr. Correspondent Mike Grunwald on Nuclear Energy

Come on, FPL: why won't you support new state policy to compensate Florida's electric utilities based on units of energy conserved? Grunwald concludes in the Time Magazine Dec 31, 2008: "The key will be reducing demand through energy efficiency and conservation. Most efficiency improvements have been priced at 1¢ to 3¢ per kilowatt-hour, while new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget." Click read more for the full article.


Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2008
Nuclear's Comeback: Still No Energy Panacea
By Michael Grunwald
Nuclear power is on the verge of a remarkable comeback. It's been three decades since an American utility ordered a nuclear plant, but 35 new reactors are now in the planning stage. The byzantine regulatory process that helped paralyze the industry for a generation has been streamlined. There hasn't been a serious nuclear accident in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979. And no-nukes politics has become a distant memory. It was a sign of the times when John McCain ridiculed Barack Obama for opposing nuclear energy--and the allegation wasn't even true. "There's only a very small minority in Congress that still opposes nuclear power," says Alex Flint, the top lobbyist at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). "That's quite a change."

The most powerful change agents have been the surge in U.S. electricity demand--forecast to grow another 30% by 2030--and the threat of global warming. Atomic reactors produce no carbon emissions, so energy analysts, politicians and even some environmentalists have embraced them as a clean power source for a wired world, an alternative to fossil fuels that can generate electricity when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. The specter of a carbon-pricing scheme to address climate change has transformed nuclear economics. Originally touted as "too cheap to meter," nuclear energy turned out to be extremely expensive, but advocates say it will look much cheaper once coal and gas plants have to pay for their emissions. And unlike clean coal and other speculative technologies, nuclear energy already provides 20% of our power. "We're sitting on a ham sandwich, starving to death," says Georgia Republican Senator Johnny Isakson.

But some little-noticed rain has fallen on the nuclear parade. It turns out that new plants would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive. The first detailed cost estimate, filed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) for a large plant off the Keys, came in at a shocking $12 billion to $18 billion. Progress Energy announced a $17 billion plan for a similar Florida plant, tripling its estimate in just a year. "Completely mind-boggling," says Charlie Beck, who represents ratepayers for Florida's Office of Public Counsel. "A real wake-up call," says Dale Klein, President Bush's chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). "I'll admit, the costs are daunting," says Richard Myers, NEI's vice president for policy development.

The math gets ugly in a hurry. McCain called for 45 new plants by 2030; given the nuclear industry's history of 250% cost overruns, that could rise to well over $1 trillion. Ratepayers would take the main hit, but taxpayers could be on the hook for billions in loan guarantees, tax breaks, insurance benefits and direct subsidies--not to mention the problem of storing radioactive waste, if Congress can ever figure out where to put it. And those 45 new plants would barely replace the existing plants scheduled for decommissioning before 2030.

This sticker shock has unnerved Wall Street. A Warren Buffett--owned company has scrapped plans for an Idaho nuclear plant; banks and bond-rating agencies are skeptical as well. In fact, renewables attracted $71 billion globally in private capital during 2007 while nukes got zero. The reactors under construction around the world are all government-financed. "I have to keep explaining: France and China are not capitalist countries!" says Congressman Ed Markey, an antinuclear Massachusetts Democrat. "Nobody wants to put their own money into this so-called renaissance--just ours."

A nuclear renaissance still might make sense if it could save the planet. America's existing nuclear plants already prevent the release of nearly as much carbon as America's passenger cars actually release every year. But more plants simply can't reduce emissions quickly enough to address our climate crisis. We need serious cuts within a decade, and the first new plant won't come on line before 2016.

The nuclear renaissance, in truth, has yet to be born. No one has broken ground or made any irrevocable investment decisions. "There's been some excessive exuberance," the NRC's Klein says. Still, license applications are cascading into the commission. Bush's full-throated support for the industry has been echoed by Democrats as well as greener Republicans like Governors Charlie Crist of Florida and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. "Nuclear is expensive, no doubt about it," says former EPA head Christine Todd Whitman, now a paid spokeswoman for the industry. "But we can't keep saying no to everything."

The nuclear industry has learned from the mistakes it made in its first go-round, when timelines doubled, costs exploded, and half its orders for new reactors were canceled. It ran at a record 92% capacity last year, virtually trouble-free. The not-in-my-backyard fear that was a factor in shuttering so many plants has faded; one industry poll found that new reactors are supported by most Americans, including four-fifths of those who live near one. And regulators have worked with the industry to standardize reactor designs, which should enhance safety margins--Klein jokes that France has 104 varieties of cheese but only one standard reactor, while the U.S. has one cheese but 104 different reactors. The NRC is fast-tracking applications, combining construction and operating licenses into a single permit and taking other steps to, as Myers puts it, "strip the risk out of the regulatory process." Congress has even approved "risk insurance" to reimburse the industry for regulatory delays; that's in addition to the government-issued liability insurance it already enjoys. And the industry often has more clout at the state level; Florida has guaranteed utilities collect-as-you-go cost recovery for nuclear investments even if they never complete any reactors. "We have a very positive political and regulatory environment," says FPL president Armando Olivera, whose company spent $2.3 million on six Washington lobbying firms in 2007. "We wouldn't be comfortable building new reactors if we didn't."

The rest of the case for nukes relies on the unattractive alternatives. Coal is filthy. Natural gas isn't exactly clean, and its price is volatile. Solar and wind are intermittent. Crist, who has blocked several coal plants for environmental reasons, explains his support for nukes in three words: "We need juice!" Industry officials argue that if you disregard capital costs, nuclear plants are the cheapest source of power.

But you can't disregard capital costs--they're out of control. The world's only steelworks capable of forging containment vessels is in Japan, and it has a three-year waiting list. The specialized workforce required for manufacturing reactors has atrophied in the U.S., along with the industrial base. Steel, cement and other commodity prices have stabilized, but the credit crunch has jacked up the cost of borrowing. FPL's application concedes that new reactors present "unique risks and uncertainties," with every six-month delay adding as much as $500 million in interest costs. Meanwhile, radioactive waste languishes in temporary storage pools and casks at plants around the country. Energy maven Amory Lovins has calculated that, overall, new nuclear wattage would cost more than twice as much as coal or gas and nearly three times as much as wind--and that calculation was made before nuclear-construction costs exploded.

So how should we produce our juice? The answer may sound a bit unsatisfying: more wind, less coal but mostly the same electricity sources we're using, until something better comes along. The key will be reducing demand through energy efficiency and conservation. Most efficiency improvements have been priced at 1¢ to 3¢ per kilowatt-hour, while new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget.

Now that's an unsatisfying answer--especially since we'll be paying the bills.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869203,00.html
Copyright © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Geniusofdespair said...

Saturday, January 03, 2009
Why Does the Miami Herald Kiss the Ass of Florida Power and Light? By Geniusofdespair


Caught up in the hoopla of the exciting beauty contest being conducted on this blog, I almost missed an important story. And, it appears the Miami Herald columnist who wrote PSC: Expand ‘Clean Energy’ missed a big part of it too!
Now readers, you must all learn: The online version of an article is NOT the same as the paper version. I don’t know why. Anyway, the paper version was a longer article and, as usual the OTHER SIDE of this important issue is given inadequate coverage:

Most environmentalists have been adamantly opposed to expanding the definition to include nuclear power.

That’s it Mister Reporter? That is all you could muster in both the online and paper version of the article? Why are they opposed? What did they say? Which environmentalists? Are we talking about the "environmental" lawyers at Greenberg Trauig? "Environmentalists" is a pretty broad term.

We readers all know Florida Power and Light are trying desperately to expand the definition of CLEAN ENERGY and do away with the current words of RENEWABLE ENERGY so that nuclear and clean coal (oxymoron) can be somehow included in Crist’s statement. All of this word wrangling is because Governor Crist has set a goal, that 20% of all electrical power should come from “renewable energy.” So before your eyes that statement is going to change, it will be massaged by FP&L lobbyists/brass to include UNRENWABLE energy and the reporter is not quoting any environmentalists with their side of the story of why this betrayal of the public trust should not happen. The Herald did quote FPL spokesman Mayco Villafana to let him/her get their side very clear (without a rebuttal of course).

By the way, in another article I saw, pay attention all you high school graduates (yes high school): FPL provides paid training of 18 months, plus ongoing paid training to become a Nuclear Power Plant Operator. You can make about $60,000 to $85,000 a year. Have no fear, according to the article, reactor operators are projected to grow by 11% through 2016, providing 400 new jobs!

Thanks, in part, to Miami Herald's one sided reporting, I expect the growth will be true.


Let's see what the Palm Beach Post did with the story:

State's green-energy future down to one choice: Renewable or clean
By CHRISTINE STAPLETON - Palm Beach Post Staff Writer - December 22, 2008

Renewable energy regulations

What is a Renewable Portfolio Standard?

These are regulations that require Florida's power companies to
generate a set amount of retail energy from renewable energy sources
by a specific date.

What is renewable energy?

According to Florida law, it is a fuel from biomass, geothermal, solar
or wind energy and power from ocean tides and currents, hydroelectric
and agricultural products.

Why is Florida creating a Renewable Portfolio Standard now?
In 2007, Gov. Charlie Crist signed an executive order directing the
Public Service Commission to develop a Renewable Portfolio Standard by
2009. The standard will set a deadline for utilities to produce at
least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable resources, with
strong emphasis on solar and wind.

The future of green energy in Florida and the fate of your electric
bill rest in the state's choice between two words: renewable or clean.
Five months of public hearings ended this month, and Florida's utility
regulators now must decide whether the state should have "renewable"
energy rules or "clean" energy rules. The seemingly insignificant
choice of an adjective is actually a billion-dollar decision that will
put nuclear power in its place in Florida's energy future.

Because nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases, Florida Power &
Light - the state's largest utility and operator of nuclear plants in
St. Lucie County and Turkey Point near Florida City - says nuclear is
green. The governor agrees. FPL has proposed changing the name and
eligible fuel sources allowed in the state's green energy rules from
"renewable" to "clean."

"To be clear, we have advocated the inclusion of new nuclear power as
part of a Clean Energy Portfolio Standard, and have not argued that
nuclear power is a renewable source of energy," FPL spokesman Mayco
Villafana wrote in an e-mail response to questions from The Palm Beach
Post.

The controversial rules, called a Renewable Portfolio Standard, will
require power companies to meet deadlines for generating a set amount
of energy from renewable or clean energy sources. Proposals range from
20 percent of retail sales from renewable by 2020, to 2030 or 2041.
Changing from renewable to clean would allow FPL to count energy from
its new nuclear power plants toward its obligation to generate green
energy. Today, 19 percent of the power FPL generates in Florida comes
from nuclear power. None comes from green sources, such as solar,
wind, biofuels or geothermal.

However, a commission created to advise the legislature and a
consultant for the regulators say Florida needs a Renewable Portfolio
Standard and that nuclear power is not renewable.
"We did not think, as a body, that nuclear was a true renewable in a
traditional sense, something that continually replenishes itself,"
said Tommy Boroughs, a lawyer and chair of the Florida Energy
Commission. In its 2007 report to the legislature, the commission
specifically excluded nuclear in its definition of renewable sources
of energy.

Why does it matter? Because if lawmakers decide that nuclear power is
not clean or renewable, FPL will have to purchase or build facilities
to generate green energy to comply with the looming edict. That would
mean higher electric bills.

"Excluding new nuclear power will require the addition of other clean
energy projects, such as wind and solar facilities, which will result
in higher bills for customers," Villafana wrote.
The Public Service Commission has until Feb. 1 to send its
recommendations to the legislature.

That will not end the debate. All players - environmentalists,
renewable power developers and utilities - vow to lobby lawmakers on
the nuclear issue.

"The fight really begins in the legislature," said Michael Dobson,
president and CEO of the Florida Renewable Energy Producers
Association. "FPL has relationships and our members have relationships
there. The legislature is going to be a donnybrook."

Incoming Senate President Jeff Atwater, a member of the Governor's
Action Team on Energy and Climate Change, declined to take a position
last week. Gov. Charlie Crist toured a nuclear power plant in France
last summer with FPL President Armando Olivera.

Crist turned down a hefty campaign contribution from FPL in 2006
because of the company's support for his opponent in the GOP primary.
But the governor relied heavily on FPL's financial support to pass a
property tax cut amendment this year.
Last week, he said he supports including nuclear in either a clean or
renewable energy plan.

"We have to defer to the scientists on that point," Crist said. "But
there are great indications about renewability."
At his first climate change conference in 2007, Crist ordered utility
regulators to set a standard for utilities to achieve 20 percent of
electricity sales from renewable fuels by 2020.

Twenty-six other states have created similar renewable energy regulations.
Only Ohio allows some nuclear power to be counted toward renewable energy goals.
For now, everyone is waiting until Dec. 29, when the PSC delivers its
final report to the commission.

"At the end of the day we all know, frankly, that the legislature
doesn't have to accept any of the recommendations," Dobson said. "It's
going to be very political."
Sphere: Related Content

at 9:51 AM

Labels: Florida Power and Light, Genius Favorites, Miami Herald, Nuclear Power Plant

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Herald as usual is doing its spin of the facts. Look up renewable in the dictionary. Nuclear does not fit the definition. Clean coal is a joke. Energy companies have decided to use marketing in their approach, to say the words clean coal over and over in the hope that it will be believed. Sun, wind, plants, tidal, geothermal and a few others meet the definition of renewable.
January 03, 2009
Anonymous said...

The Palm Beach Post article is easier to understand and it does give the other side -- at least a little bit. I did't know what "Donnybrook" meant so I didn't get the quote. I looked it up.
January 03, 2009
Anonymous said...

On Sept. 16, 2008 there was an item that flew through a first read at the County Commission - a Text Amendment filed by Bercow on behalf of FPL. It's asking to revise Agriculture language. FPL want to revise the CDMP text for the Ag area, East and South of Homestead Air Base to allow water management projects "subject to certain specific critera".

This say's it all: "the aggregate from the water management project shall not be sold and shall only be used as fill for the water management project, or for public infrastructure projects by the County.......

It's truly a disgusting read. This will go to CC 15 I think than to the PAB sometime in March/April.

Yep, FPL's working hard to keep us "green" by destroying our ag land and do some rock mining (maybe they can hook up with the Parkland/Krome Gold party, or they already have).

The usual suspects on the PAB will rubber stamp this BS and probably the Ken Forbes owned CC15 too. Need I say what the Commission will do?
January 03, 2009
Anonymous said...

Ratepayers have NO CLUE that they are paying for this kind of stuff... thanks to the Herald. At least the blogs don't have to kiss FPL's ass.
January 03, 2009
nonee moose said...

Genius, I am curious. Are you willing to have your rates double to meet the Governor's goals? And before you answer that, let me just give you some context. Even assuming renewable sources were used to address incremental demand growth over the years (which is physically impossible, btw), the costs of operating existing plants still remains. Assuming new renewable generation could serve to displace existing non-renewable generation (again, a physical impossibility) the obligation of writing down those existing (and now non-producing) plants still remains. The cost of the fuel necessary to run the existing non-renewable plants generally increase over time. As soon as increased use of renewable plants using biomass increases enough to stress the supply of biomass, it too will join the carbon-based fuels on the increasing slope. The sooner the goal, no matter what it is, is to be met, the greater the economic impact (rate shock) in the near-term. Down economies exacerbate rate shock.

There is no doubt that aggressive carbon reduction goals, met through strict use of renewable sources is the most desirable way to achieve pure environmental goals. The sad reality is that pure environmental goals, noble and absolutely necessary as they may be, run counter to pure economic goals, from the simple standpoint of whether current consumer buying power can absorb increases at the rate necessary to accomodate the pure environmental goal. The key is how to move forward toward the environmental goal while stressing the economic contraint to its breaking point and not further. Not an easy task.

To call nuclear energy renewable would be an insult, of course. To call it "clean" is accurate from an emissions standpoint. This speaks directly to the overall goal of carbon emissions reduction. The benefits of nuclear energy can still be challenged on the basis of safety issues, and a legitimate discussion can be had. To challenge nuclear energy as not providing a leg up on attaining carbon-reduction goals is disingenuous. And when put against the backdrop of economic stressors and constraints, an attempt to have the argument both ways makes for drastic reductions in credibility emissions.

So, "environmentalists" have painted themselves into a bit of a corner. They must choose between the mere possibility of nuclear risk, and the purported hard science of global warming. It used to be that when the enviromental lobby was a voice without an audience, they, as a general class, had the luxury of lobbing message bombs indiscriminately without heed for any heirarchy of greater goods and acceptable compromises. They could afford to stand purely on principle, without regard for their own adjacent inconsistent principle. Now in the spotlight, the movement is treated to active, even loving, scrutiny. And the inconsistencies must be reconciled.

So, what to do first? Save the polar caps from certain melting - and all that comes with it- or rid the planet of the evils of fission?

Seems to me everyone needs a shot of reality. No chaser.
January 03, 2009
geniusofdespair said...

Heating water into steam (nukes) doesn't seem like the way, it puts heat in the atmosphere. Aren't we trying to do the opposite?

Nonee Moose, I would gladly double my electric bill if it would help even triple it. Yes I am financially crunched right now but I think this is too important.

Also, this is like the car industry. They had no incentive to build fuel efficient cars so they didn't. We have no incentive to develop good energy sources so we don't. The nuclear road is enormously expensive, dangerous and uses up one mega amount of water, which we can't afford to give up. Even sea water - the sea is becoming so alkaline (or whatever) the coral reefs are dying off. We are at a turning point for the planet and I am not a scientist, I am just a regular Joe, and this --nukes -- doesn't seem the answer to me. I hope you go back and look at my Thanksgiving post about the liquidators.

Also, if some people could get off the grid somewhat with solar panels, that would take the pressure off. We need solar panels widespread. Yes, it wouldn't be the solution but it might be able to hold us till we ingenious Americans find a better more permanent source of energy. Remember: Nonee, No incentives, no answers eg. American cars.
January 03, 2009
Anonymous said...

Dear Nonee Moose: Why won't FPL support a new utility compensation regime in Florida, that rewards FPL for reducing energy demand instead of increasing it?
January 03, 2009
Anonymous said...

Hey Nonee: How about some Bagel power? Let's get those vats cranking out some electricity with those bagels.
January 03, 2009
out of sight said...
This post has been removed by the author.
January 03, 2009
geniusofdespair said...

HEY PUT THAT POST BACK I LIKED IT...
January 03, 2009
MARY OLSON said...

Folks who say that solar and wind "will not be enough" have it backwards -- there is a trickle of oil and a small pile of uranium...even coal (which we MUST stop burning in any case) is small when compared to the amount of energy that comes to Earth every single day from that nuclear source safely positioned 93 million miles away -- SOL -- our Sun!

In ONE HOUR Earth gets as much power as human beings currently generate from ALL other sources in a whole year! SOLAR IS THE BIG SOURCE! The sun makes the wind...which IS also huge by comparison to fuels we dig up. There is more wind energy just in the center of North America than the energy reserves of ALL OF OPEC!!!

This is GREAT NEWS -- we CAN DO IT -- we can get off carbon fuels and we don't need nukes to get there!
-- Mary Olson, NIRS Southeast
January 03, 2009
youbetcha' said...

I think that it is unholy that the County and the City of Homestead are literally in bed with FPL.

The love affair with Homestead was warmed in 2003 when the city council had a FPL Management person on the board. The city was even at the time being courted by FPL was a possible buyer for the Homestead Utility. Can you imagine the off-the-record chit-chat between FPL and city people? The Sunshine Law was not an issue for some people.

Of course, a city with it's own power plant still needs FPL to sustain it's wild growth management plan. The city is after the air base and wants all that area to be in the city boundaries. (If this has hasn't been accomplished yet, it will be.)

The chamber loves FPL as well. These groups all feed off each other: growth = money = keeps the board happy. So why would they not love each other?

On June 7, 2007 Florida Power & Light announced it had filed an application seeking county approval for up to two new nuclear reactors at Turkey Point in South Miami-Dade. That is great, except the only people who are following that sort of news are the activists. Other affected people are too tangled in their webs of daily living to research and chase down the facts that are important to their family's safety.

The County needs FPL's goodwill. The County Officals have electric needs to pay for and a real need for quick responses from their executives. Previously, FPL had a lovely page on the county website. I didn't see it today when I looked, but if it was removed, I am sure it was to protect us from something. May be like, protecting us from free advertising?

FPL could very well put windmills (or the like) out at Turkey Point. They could also put as much time and money into alternate energy as they do marketing the new nuclear plants. Gosh, they have some dandy film of the nuclear waste containers being plowed into by a train. Look! No rupture! No contamination issues! Yay. So, lets call nuclear power CLEAN energy! And so goes the plan.

The facts are: We, the consumer, will be nailed with FPL's cost of doing business, whether they are using nukes, coal, gas or wind. We are going to pay up front, so we should have a say-so in the choice of bio-hazards we fund or chose not to fund.

PS: All you folks living in the Nuke zone... READ your freaking safety guides. You should have them by now. It is a piece of marketing that leaves you warm and secure.

You better think twice about living that close to 4 nuke plants. When you pack your clothes to leave your home (in case, of an unlikely nuclear event), you are going to have to trust that all those people listed in that Nuclear Safety Guide are not going to panic, and they are going to do what FPL promises. I am not too sure that school bus drivers are really going to want to drive into the contaminated area to pick up kids and move them to their safety zones at other schools.
January 03, 2009
Anonymous said...

You all would be licking FP&L's feet, if your power went out for more than one hour.

Now zip it, and pay up.

m
January 04, 2009
geniusofdespair said...

Not a moderate, always wrong except once as I recall.
January 04, 2009
nonee moose said...

Solar can be an ameliorating factor, but not a complete answer. The land requirements are too great for any large scale commercial implementation to take root. Eventualy, we will be arguing about destruction of the fragile ecosystem in Florida to serve the ravenous land grabs of the solar power industry. (And if that's not high irony, I don't know what is...) So you're down to who can afford the investment necessary to actually go off the grid. Everyone here who screams of class warfare should consider that and take it to its logical conclusion.

To the person who suggested windmills at T-Point... Wind generation needs vast amounts of land as well. They also need consistent winds above a certain velocity in order to operate efficiently. Those velocities are not found consistently in Florida, but when they are, it is usually on oceanfront property. Exhorbitant costs and lifestyle questions aside, how do you pacify the "cute and furry" wing of the environmental lobby, when we want to locate windmills amid the fragile ecosystems of the coast?

With regard to FPL's support for a new compensation scheme: I can't speak to that. I don't work for FPL, and I don't know the cost/benefit analysis they engage in to take the position they do. My guess is that decoupling revenues from sales at this point represents too much risk for the company, in that they are not experiencing an appreciable downward trend in demand. Revenue decoupling only makes sense to a utility if they expect their sales to drop over the long term. At this point, the population growth in FPL's territory is still positive, and demand forecasts are still growing. I am not sure what role FPL itself plays in increasing energy demand. They dont sell appliances, and as far as I know they don't actively encourage you to keep the lights on longer at home, or outdo your neighbor's festival of lights during the holidays.

Mary Olson is right- there is but a trickle of oil and gas and a small pile of uranium. And we have to adjust to that fact now, before it is too late. But my question remains: When faced with the cost of all of this, costs which ratepayers will invariably bear, who among us is willing, and able, to afford it? Genius says she will, so that's one. It takes alot more than one.

Our society isn't built to see long-term. That is the greatest danger we face. Bigger than any environmental or social challenge. Because a lack of vision makes all those other evils possible.

PS- My money is on ocean current and tidal energy. I'm always up for a fish fry...

And bagel power? That's just silly.
January 04, 2009
geniusofdespair said...

I think the Bagel Power was a joke on you Nonee, the person obviously hit on your name.

Anyway, I value your astute comments and welcome this dialogue we are having here. I wish I knew more, that is why I have a beef with the Herald, they are not supplying us with enough information from the other side, where I would like us to be. Steve Seibert, previously a head of DCA (See my post of Nov. 21, 2007) said that all homes should have cisterns and solar panels. If this were to happen, we wouldn't be having giant fields of panels as you suggested. He was certainly against that.
January 04, 2009
Anonymous said...

I would care less if my "utility" power went out. Our home has been on a wind/solar system for many years, and is still growing strong. The only downside is it's not cheap to install but did pay for itself after 3 years of being "off the grid".
January 04, 2009
exFPLer said...

G.O.D
Just want to remind you that most forms of electric generation, even some forms of solar, use water to generate steam. Nuclear is not unique in using steam to power turbines. Also to comment on the dialog that nonee moose has entered; until some form of cost effective energy storage is developed there will be a requirement to have backup generation available anytime the “wind don’t blow or the sun don’t shine”. Last time I looked the sun don’t shine about half the day on average.
January 04, 2009
geniusofdespair said...

Thanks exFPLer. All good things to know.

You may have caught my other blog NO NEW NUKES. I didn't say NO NUKES...I want us to work with what we have and add to it in "GREENER" ways. I know that solar can't do it all yet, and maybe never, but let's hope in the future solar will pull it weight.
January 04, 2009
Anonymous said...

The problem is systemic and clearly there is no innovation or desire to change. If FPL can muddle through with the rest of the electric grid suppliers why should they change? Passing the extra fuel costs on to consumers was approved by the PSC, which as we know stands for Power Suppliers Conspirator. We need to find the next Charles Proteus Steinmetz, but I'm afraid he/she is working on cellphone sunglasses for the Miami crowd. Oops did I spill the beans?
January 04, 2009
youbetcha' said...

M - Those of us who lived in the area from SW 186 street south to turkey point and further south in Key Largo lived weeks, if not months without power after Hurricane Andrew. It was not convenient, however it is surprising how well we adapt as a community.

Nonee - Your point being? We should just continue on with Turkey Point 5 & 6? I believe that the birds and furry creatures would adapt to the wisp wisp wisp sound of the windmills. If I am not mistaken, the birds thrive too well at the air force base and the bunny's pro-create, hmmm, like bunnys under the sound of jets at MIA.

I also want to remind you that there is a newly discovered siting mechanism for solar panels. This is particularly exciting news considering the situation here in Florida, particularly, South Florida. The news is there are this things called: rooftops! :o

I think there are about 22,000 acres out at Turkey Point. Is that the correct number? Seems like that is plenty of acreage to do some pilot programs with alternate energy sources. On the other hand, it is plenty of room to store nuclear waste, since we have an issue with the movement of waste materials.

Of course, FPL still has the water needs issue. (Wasn't that about 80,000-90,000 gallons a day?)

FPL can build a pipeline from the South Dade caca plant for gray water (brown water?) to provide for the nukes water needs. Or speaking of tidal flow, FPL has also toyed with the idea of sucking salt water from the Atlantic Ocean (no harm done to the National Park, of course. Salt water apparently is not corrosive to nuke equipment.

I would like to see the NRC requirements for securing these plants. I bet they are not what one would expect.
January 04, 2009
nonee moose said...

youbetcha, my point, among other things, is that we are all faced with an economic decision to an environmental problem. And that while some of us can absorb the costs of all these wonderful solutions everyone is so certain about, no solution is that easy. Personally, I have no problem with having renewable generation integrated with our environmentally sensitive areas in a way that does little if any harm. But not everyone feels that way. My point, also, is that people like you (no offense) offer rooftops as if the word alone represented an answer so self-evident that we should all knock ourselves in the forehead for being so blind to not see it so plainly. It's the same mentality that leads one to think that being close to a power plant will help you get your power back sooner when it goes out. I will risk my better judgement to assume you've lived long enough to know nothing is ever that simple, lest you be knocked on the forehead a few times yourself. You may need ice for your head. Lots of it.

Most generation plants, nuclear or not, need several million gallons per day cycling through the system. And yes, water sources are the main issue for any plant.

Should Turkey Point 5 & 6 move forward? Yes as long as the case is made for their need (in terms of demand) and an acceptable environmental risk, whatever that is. We don't have the luxury of flashcutting over to renewables in order to meet the bulk of our future demand, not just merely from the size of it, but also from th enature of that demand as well. Most future demand is not discretionary in nature, that it can use power when power is available. We are talking hospitals and schools, police stations, even the offices that will administer universal healthcare. Get it?

I'm not against windmills per se. But that is not a solution here. You would need 2000 windmills to offset the new nuclear plants, assuming they could run all day. I defy you to find even the greenest of engineers who will say that is possible anywhere, much less here.

Yes, if more people took it on themselves to put solar panels on their roofs, perhaps the need for large additional plants might be curbed somewhat. But that still doesn't address the economics problem. Only those who can afford to do it will. And what of those who can't? Where is the safety net for those people who, by the way, breakout along the same lines as the wealth distribution in this country. What do they do, rub two sticks togehter? Sounds mighty republican to me (again, no offense).
January 05, 2009
geniusofdespair said...

You say that nuclear is an "Acceptable environmental risk". That is where the difference lies.

The technology today cannot generate enough electricity...we all agree on that. But, we are hoping that with money put towards research, perhaps in the future, it can. They haven't even tried to replace our energy sources of today. We are always a couple of beats behind.
January 05, 2009
nonee moose said...

I believe nuclear is an acceptable environmental risk, yes. I don't get to make that call, however, and I am able to live with the alternative, so long as the level of reliability we enjoy today can be maintained. To consider alternatives that cannot ensure that level at this point should not be an option, because we would not merely be talking about changing our culture towards conservation, we would be attempting to turn back time.
And that is unrealistic. I am also told it is impossible, except for some guy in California.
January 05, 2009
geniusofdespair said...

December 17, 2008 -http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=54292

Wind, Water and Sun Beat Biofuels, Nuclear and Coal for Energy Generation, Study Says

Wind power is the most promising alternative source of energy, according to Mark Jacobson.

by Louis Bergeron, Stanford News Writer
California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants, says Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

And "clean coal," which involves capturing carbon emissions and sequestering them in the earth, is not clean at all, he asserts.

Jacobson has conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. His findings indicate that the options that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options. The paper with his findings will be published in the next issue of Energy and Environmental Science and is available online here. Jacobson is also director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford.

"The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most. And some options that have been proposed are just downright awful," Jacobson said. "Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels." He added that ethanol may also emit more global-warming pollutants than fossil fuels, according to the latest scientific studies.

The raw energy sources that Jacobson found to be the most promising are, in order, wind, concentrated solar (the use of mirrors to heat a fluid), geothermal, tidal, solar photovoltaics (rooftop solar panels), wave and hydroelectric. He recommends against nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, which is made of prairie grass. In fact, he found cellulosic ethanol was worse than corn ethanol because it results in more air pollution, requires more land to produce and causes more damage to wildlife.

To place the various alternatives on an equal footing, Jacobson first made his comparisons among the energy sources by calculating the impacts as if each alternative alone were used to power all the vehicles in the United States, assuming only "new-technology" vehicles were being used. Such vehicles include battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and "flex-fuel" vehicles that could run on a high blend of ethanol called E85.

Wind was by far the most promising, Jacobson said, owing to a better-than 99 percent reduction in carbon and air pollution emissions; the consumption of less than 3 square kilometers of land for the turbine footprints to run the entire U.S. vehicle fleet (given the fleet is composed of battery-electric vehicles); the saving of about 15,000 lives per year from premature air-pollution-related deaths from vehicle exhaust in the United States; and virtually no water consumption. By contrast, corn and cellulosic ethanol will continue to cause more than 15,000 air pollution-related deaths in the country per year, Jacobson asserted.

Because the wind turbines would require a modest amount of spacing between them to allow room for the blades to spin, wind farms would occupy about 0.5 percent of all U.S. land, but this amount is more than 30 times less than that required for growing corn or grasses for ethanol. Land between turbines on wind farms would be simultaneously available as farmland or pasture or could be left as open space.

Indeed, a battery-powered U.S. vehicle fleet could be charged by 73,000 to 144,000 5-megawatt wind turbines, fewer than the 300,000 airplanes the U.S. produced during World War II and far easier to build. Additional turbines could provide electricity for other energy needs.

"There is a lot of talk among politicians that we need a massive jobs program to pull the economy out of the current recession," Jacobson said. "Well, putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles and transmission lines would not only create jobs but would also reduce costs due to health care, crop damage and climate damage from current vehicle and electric power pollution, as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power."

Jacobson said that while some people are under the impression that wind and wave power are too variable to provide steady amounts of electricity, his research group has already shown in previous research that by properly coordinating the energy output from wind farms in different locations, the potential problem with variability can be overcome and a steady supply of baseline power delivered to users.

Jacobson's research is particularly timely in light of the growing push to develop biofuels, which he calculated to be the worst of the available alternatives. In their effort to obtain a federal bailout, the Big Three Detroit automakers are increasingly touting their efforts and programs in the biofuels realm, and federal research dollars have been supporting a growing number of biofuel-research efforts.

"That is exactly the wrong place to be spending our money. Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make in our efforts to move away from using fossil fuels," Jacobson said. "We should be spending to promote energy technologies that cause significant reductions in carbon emissions and air-pollution mortality, not technologies that have either marginal benefits or no benefits at all."

"Obviously, wind alone isn't the solution," Jacobson said. "It's got to be a package deal, with energy also being produced by other sources such as solar, tidal, wave and geothermal power."

During the recent presidential campaign, nuclear power and clean coal were often touted as energy solutions that should be pursued, but nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration were Jacobson's lowest-ranked choices after biofuels. "Coal with carbon sequestration emits 60- to 110-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy, and nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy," Jacobson said. Although carbon-capture equipment reduces 85-90 percent of the carbon exhaust from a coal-fired power plant, it has no impact on the carbon resulting from the mining or transport of the coal or on the exhaust of other air pollutants. In fact, because carbon capture requires a roughly 25-percent increase in energy from the coal plant, about 25 percent more coal is needed, increasing mountaintop removal and increasing non-carbon air pollution from power plants, he said.

Nuclear power poses other risks. Jacobson said it is likely that if the United States were to move more heavily into nuclear power, then other nations would demand to be able to use that option.

"Once you have a nuclear energy facility, it's straightforward to start refining uranium in that facility, which is what Iran is doing and Venezuela is planning to do," Jacobson said. "The potential for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon or for states to develop nuclear weapons that could be used in limited regional wars will certainly increase with an increase in the number of nuclear energy facilities worldwide." Jacobson calculated that if one small nuclear bomb exploded, the carbon emissions from the burning of a large city would be modest, but the death rate for one such event would be twice as large as the current vehicle air pollution death rate summed over 30 years.

Finally, both coal and nuclear energy plants take much longer to plan, permit and construct than do most of the other new energy sources that Jacobson's study recommends. The result would be even more emissions from existing nuclear and coal power sources as people continue to use comparatively "dirty" electricity while waiting for the new energy sources to come online, Jacobson said.

Jacobson received no funding from any interest group, company or government agency.

Energy and vehicle options, from best to worst, according to Jacobson's calculations:

Best to worst electric power sources:

1. Wind power 2. concentrated solar power (CSP) 3. geothermal power 4. tidal power 5. solar photovoltaics (PV) 6. wave power 7. hydroelectric power 8. a tie between nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Best to worst vehicle options:

1. Wind-BEVs (battery electric vehicles) 2. wind-HFCVs (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) 3.CSP-BEVs 4. geothermal-BEVs 5. tidal-BEVs 6. solar PV-BEVs 7. Wave-BEVs 8.hydroelectric-BEVs 9. a tie between nuclear-BEVs and coal-CCS-BEVs 11. corn-E85 12.cellulosic-E85.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were examined only when powered by wind energy, but they could be combined with other electric power sources. Although HFCVs require about three times more energy than do BEVs (BEVs are very efficient), HFCVs are still very clean and more efficient than pure gasoline, and wind-HFCVs still resulted in the second-highest overall ranking. HFCVs have an advantage in that they can be refueled faster than can BEVs (although BEV charging is getting faster). Thus, HFCVs may be useful for long trips (more than 250 miles) while BEVs more useful for trips less than 250 miles. An ideal combination may be a BEV-HFCV hybrid.
January 05, 2009
youbetcha' said...

Nonee:

I was not being literal about roof tops... it was more or less tongue-in-cheek...

Just the same though, we are not making the most of the existing opportunities to ease the power need by using other technologies.

And living next to 4 nukes doesn't sound healthful and doesn't sound secure to me. I do consider my family and friends part of the environmental landscape, and I care what we do us just as much as I care about what happens to the birds and bees.
January 05, 2009

Geniusofdespair said...

Nuclear power has benefits; being truly 'clean' isn't one
Monday, January 05, 2009

A report recommending how to make Florida's power companies more
"green" is too kind to nuclear power.

Gov. Crist and the Legislature originally asked the PSC to draft a
plan for Florida to get 20 percent of its power from "renewable"
sources. The definition of "renewable" did not include nuclear power.
The staff of the Public Service Commission last week said utilities
should be able to meet the goal using "clean" sources as well and that
nuclear power generated from new plants should qualify as "clean." The
staff also recommends that utilities have until 2041 to meet the 20
percent standard.

The timeline is too long. And the recommendations favoring nuclear
power take away incentives for innovation in wind, solar, tidal and
other alternative energy sources that are renewable.

Not surprisingly Florida Power & Light - which already plans new
nuclear units - pushed for nuclear power's "clean" status and welcomed
the staff's recommendation. "With a clean-energy standard that
includes new nuclear generation as well as wind and solar, we can
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce costs, dampen fuel price
volatility for customers, and meet aggressive targets that should
ultimately be adopted by the state," FPL spokesman Mayco Villafana
said.

FPL and other utilities have said they are concerned that energy from
wind and solar sources would be too expensive and drive up customers'
rates. While it's always good to be skeptical of utilities' claims
about rates, some facts do favor nuclear power.

Although building and operating nuclear plants is very expensive, the
amount of power generated is far above anything achievable today
through wind or solar generation. And nuclear power is "clean" in the
sense that it does not emit greenhouse gasses.

But can a technology that produces waste that remains lethal for
centuries really be termed clean?

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission classifies spent fuel
rods from nuclear plants as "high level nuclear waste," described this
way on the NRC Web site: "Since the only way radioactive waste finally
becomes harmless is through decay, which for high-level wastes can
take hundreds of thousands of years, the wastes must be stored and
finally disposed of in a way that provides adequate protection of the
public for a very long time."

But plans to create an underground high-level waste storage facility
at Yucca Mountain, Nev., remain stalled. In the meantime, nuclear
plants must store the waste on-site.

The Public Service Commission on Friday holds a hearing on the staff
recommendation and must recommend a plan to the Legislature by Feb. 1.
After that the Legislature, as always, is free to rewrite any
proposal.

Nuclear might have to be part of the final "green" mix, particularly
if the state, as it should, sets a deadline earlier than 2041, which
is 16 years later than the deadline other states have adopted.

But to keep up the pressure to develop truly clean and renewable
sources such as solar, any percentage of new nuclear capacity that can
be used to meet the goal of 20 percent clean or renewable energy
should be capped.

Unknown said...

There is still a physical issue of energy storage for renewables. Current technologies are NOT cheap and you end up with 40% capacity factor energy devices coupled with 40% capacity factor energy storage devices. A lot of equipment sitting idle.

As for the Jacobson report, he uses nuclear explosions to justify the higher carbon emissions. This is apples and oranges. Countries that want nuclear weapons will go for centrifuges or production reactors. Power reactors are the worst way to generate weapons material. ExternE study and the IPCC each conclude that nuclear energy is a lower carbon emission technology. Efficiency is good, but it will not get rid the entire growth in global electric demand. We are soon going to face a stark choice: more nuclear, more carbon, or a huge expense trying to make an all-renewable grid before the technology is ready.

Geniusofdespair said...

http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/945615.html

Posted on Thu, Mar. 12, 2009
Court papers reveal nuclear feud at Turkey Point
BY JOHN DORSCHNER
At 1:09 one afternoon last year, 90 metal rods slid into the cores of the
two nuclear reactors at Turkey Point, part of an automatic shutdown that had
been triggered by a utility worker's blunder moments earlier at a substation
miles away. A million customers lost power.

Florida Power & Light executives ordered that the reactors be back online
within 12 hours, according to court documents. The plant's top nuclear
operator, David Hoffman, said that would be dangerous. When FPL executives
disagreed with him, he walked out at 8 p.m., refusing to participate in
actions he felt were unsafe.

At 11:49 that night, Feb. 26, 2008, he submitted a heated resignation
letter, blasting FPL for constantly putting cost savings ahead of safety and
creating a horrible morale problem. ''People are not valued and are treated
like equipment and numbers,'' Hoffman wrote.

Hoffman's charge offers a rare insight into safety complaints made by
nuclear workers, who are often forbidden by contract from saying anything
negative about their bosses. The information came to light because FPL is
suing him for the return of a bonus, and he's charging in a countersuit that
the utility is improperly trying to silence his complaints about safety.

The information is being revealed at a crucial time as FPL is planning to
build two new reactors at Turkey Point, part of a national resurgence of
more than 20 new plants planned to reduce dependence on foreign oil and the
greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

The utility insists that Turkey Point is operated safely and that the
company is working hard to retain employees.

''Taking into account the fact that Turkey Point's restart process was
conducted according to well-established safety guidelines and under the
strict oversight of federal nuclear regulators, it's clear that Mr.
Hoffman's claims are made out of self-interest, not the public interest,''
FPL spokesman Tom Veenstra said in an e-mail.

``Without exception, the safety of our customers, communities and employees
is always FPL's top priority at Turkey Point and all of our facilities. The
facts clearly show that this case is totally without merit, having nothing
to do with safety, but rather, one individual's attempt to improperly keep a
retention payment that he chose to forfeit.''

The company is suing Hoffman, insisting that he return a bonus of $50,000 he
was given on condition he work at FPL until 2010.

The retention bonuses exist because there has long been a scarcity of
nuclear operators, and Turkey Point, like other nuclear plants, has a hard
time keeping employees. Some FPL nuclear operators get $50,000 a year in
bonuses, on top of $125,000 to $150,000 in salaries that include lots of
overtime.

SAFETY CONCERNS

But the pay has not made many operators feel good about FPL. A survey of
Turkey Point employees last year about the process for reporting safety
issues, the Employee Concerns Program, found that more than one in four --
29.2 percent -- disagreed with the following statement: ``I am confident
that nuclear safety and quality issues reported through the ECP are
thoroughly investigated and appropriately resolved.''

More than one in three disagreed with this following statement: ``I can use
the ECP without fear of retaliation.''

The FPL report concluded: ``There is a perception problem with ECP in the
areas of confidentiality and potential retribution. No actual cases
involving breach of confidentiality or retribution for filing a concern
could be identified. However, the perception remains as evidenced by
surveys, interviews and the high percentage of anonymous concerns.''

The report noted that similar concerns had been voiced in previous surveys,
``but little or no progress has been made in reversing the perception.''

Spokesman Veenstra said the utility works very hard to be open. ``FPL
vigorously encourages anyone working at any of our nuclear power plants or
our other facilities to identify any safety concerns without fearing
reprisal of any kind.''

Some workers are not convinced. ''Most are afraid of coming forward,'' said
Mike Kohl, a nuclear operator at Turkey Point.

Kohl is one of 20 operators who filed a lawsuit against FPL, accusing the
utility of underpaying workers for overtime -- a crucial issue since the
lawsuit says that most operators have ``an average workweek of 60 to 70
hours or more.''

Federal regulators, concerned that operators can't stay alert for such long
stretches, have set new guidelines, starting Oct. 1, so that operators don't
work more than 54 hours a week on average.

''FPL has complied, and continues to comply, with all federal regulations
governing work-hour limits for operators,'' Veenstra said. The current
maximum is 72 hours a week, but that will drop to an average of 54 later
this year. (In-depth looks at overtime problems and retention bonuses are
available at MiamiHerald.com.)

POINTS OF CONTENTION

In Hoffman's case, his complaints against FPL became public only because the
utility filed a lawsuit demanding that he pay back the bonus. Hoffmann
responded that he didn't need to return the money because he was essentially
forced out on Feb. 26 for refusing to violate federal procedures, which
could cause him to ``lose his license to work in the nuclear field, as well
as being subject to possible jail.''

Hoffman was the senior license holder at Turkey Point, ''for which he held
direct responsibility to the federal government's Nuclear Regulatory
Commission,'' he said in court filings.

In those filings, Hoffman said he complained to the utility several times
about issues in which he thought executives let cost-cutting ''interfere
with the proper maintenance'' of the Turkey Point reactors.

His complaints reached a boiling point on Feb. 26, when a field engineer
working at a substation in West Dade caused a voltage drop in the grid that
took down 38 substations and five power plants, including Turkey Point.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has found 25 or more violations of
reliability standards because of the incident, and FPL is now facing
millions of dollars in fines.

According to Hoffman's resignation letter, top FPL officials rushed to the
Turkey Point plant and ordered one of the reactors to start producing power
in 12 hours, by 2 a.m.

Hoffman said that was too fast, considering all of the systems that needed
to be checked, particularly the ''status of xenon,'' he wrote.

E.C. Morse, a nuclear engineering professor at the University of California
at Berkeley, said in an interview that xenon is a chemical element that is a
byproduct of nuclear fission and ''gobbles up neutrons,'' reducing the
fission process.

During regular operation, the xenon's effect is neutralized, but when
control rods shut down the core, the xenon process keeps going for another
10 hours or so. To bring a reactor back online after only 10 or 11 hours
''is really asking for trouble,'' Morse said.

The biggest nuclear disaster in history, at Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986,
happened because operators tried to restart the reactor too soon after a
shutdown, Morse said.

In his resignation letter, Hoffman complained that his restart fears ''fell
on deaf ears,'' and he left.

In the end, it took FPL a week to get both reactors restarted.


© 2009 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.

Geniusofdespair said...

Florida Power & Light is seeking a zoning change at Turkey Point that most environmentalists know nothing about.

BY JOHN DORSCHNER

After more than two million pounds of nuclear waste has piled up in South Dade over 35 years, Florida Power & Light is quietly seeking a zoning change to allow six acres of its Turkey Point site to be used for new above-ground storage casks.

Environmentalists have known for a long time FPL planned to use casks but they knew little, if anything, about the need for a zoning change, which generally allows for public discussion that could lead to modifications of the utility's plans.

''It's news to me,'' said Lloyd Miller of the South Florida National Parks Trust. ''Haven't heard a thing,'' said Mark Oncavage, who follows South Florida energy issues for the Sierra Club. ``I definitely think we should have a say in this.''

''I've heard from two people that something is happening, but no details,'' Audubon's Laura Reynolds said. ``Can you share any details?''

FPL spokesman Tom Veenstra said the utility hasn't been at all secretive about dry storage. ``Information about this project has been on our website since 2006 and since 2007 we have discussed it as part of our ongoing community outreach presentations.''

The website, however, makes no mention of changes needed in zoning.

FPL's problem is that it's running out of space to store waste at Turkey Point, and there is no place in the country to send it. For more than a decade, the feds have been trying to create a national nuclear waste facility under Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert, but it's been stopped by vehement opposition from environmentalists and local residents.

Marc LaFerrier, director of the Miami-Dade Planning and Zoning Department, said he didn't know if FPL's request with the county could be dealt with through paperwork or would require a public hearing. ``This is a little different than the normal plan approval.''

Environmentalists emphatically want a hearing. ''There are very important issues here,'' said Reynolds. ``Because this site is so close to the water, we're concerned about rising water levels with global warming and storm surges from hurricanes.''

LAST CHANCE

A county hearing may be the environmentalists' last chance to stop expansion of the storage area. Last month, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection gave its approval for the site change.

For more than 30 years, FPL has stored the Turkey Point waste in stainless steel-lined covered concrete pools. Those pools will be filled in the next two years, Veenstra wrote in an e-mail, and FPL plans to switch to dry-cask storage in silo-shaped structures six feet wide and 16 feet tall, consisting of ''stainless steel containers secured inside concrete modules,'' two to four feet thick.

Around the country, dry casks have been used for more than 20 years at 55 sites, said Veenstra. They have been ``proven both secure and environmentally sound.''

snipped!