Energy/Environment – Page 69 – artdiamondblog.com

Fed Scientist Says Oil Spill Did Not Kill Most of Dead Turtles

(p. A9) A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist says he believes most of the dead turtles that have been examined since the Gulf of Mexico oil spill died not from the oil or the chemical dispersants put into the water after the disaster, but from being caught in shrimping nets, though further testing may show otherwise.

Dr. Brian Stacy, a veterinary pathologist who specializes in reptiles, said that more than half the turtles dissected so far, most of which were found shortly after the spill, had sediment in their lungs or airways, which indicated they might have been caught in nets and drowned.
“The only plausible scenario where you would have high numbers of animals forcibly submerged would be fishery interaction,” he said. “That is the primary consideration for this event.”
Many times the usual number of turtles have been found stranded this year, but NOAA has cautioned from the beginning that the oil spill is not necessarily to blame.

For the full story, see:
SHAILA DEWAN. “Turtle Deaths Called Result of Shrimping, Not Oil Spill.” The New York Times (Sat., June 26, 2010): A9.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated June 25, 2010.)

Exposing the Hot Air of Wind Power

Source of book image: online version of the WSJ review quoted and cited below.

(p. A15) So you want to build a wind farm? OK, Mr. Bryce says, to start you’ll need 45 times the land mass of a nuclear power station to produce a comparable amount of power; and because you are in the middle of nowhere you’ll also need hundreds of miles of high-voltage lines to get the energy to your customers. This “energy sprawl” of giant turbines and pylons will require far greater amounts of concrete and steel than conventional power plants–figure on anywhere from 870 to 956 cubic feet of concrete per megawatt of electricity and 460 tons of steel (32 times more concrete and 139 times as much steel as a gas-fired plant).

Once you’ve carpeted your tract of wilderness with turbines and gotten over any guilt you might feel about the thousands of birds you’re about to kill, prepare to be underwhelmed and underpowered. Look at Texas, Mr. Bryce says: It ranks sixth in the world in total wind-power production capacity, and it has been hailed as a model for renewable energy and green jobs by Republicans and Democrats alike. And yet, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which runs the state’s electricity grid, just “8.7 percent of the installed wind capability can be counted on as dependable capacity during the peak demand period.” The wind may blow in Texas, but, sadly, it doesn’t blow much when it is most needed–in summer. The net result is that just 1% of the state’s reliable energy needs comes from wind.

For the full review, see
TREVOR BUTTERWORTH. “BOOKSHELF; The Wrong Way To Get to Green; Once you’ve carpeted the wilderness with wind-farm turbines, and crushed any guilt about the birds you’re about to kill, prepare to be underwhelmed and underpowered.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., APRIL 27, 2010): A15.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated APRIL 30, 2010.)

The book under review is:
Bryce, Robert. Power Hungry; the Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future. New York: PublicAffairs, 2010.

MidAmerican Energy Gives Ben Nelson a $1.1 Million Ride from Georgia to Omaha

(p. 3B) LINCOLN — MidAmerican Energy is suing the state after state officials grounded a $1.1 million sales tax refund the company expected on the purchase of a corporate jet.

Under Nebraska’s 1987 economic development act, LB 775, companies can get sales tax refunds for such aircraft.
But the Nebraska Department of Revenue rejected the refund because MidAmerican’s multimillion-dollar Falcon 50EX jet, purchased in 2004, was used to transport U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., on a trip between Albany, Ga., and Omaha on Nov. 28, 2006.
Using such planes for fundraising or transporting an elected official disqualifies a company from getting the sales tax benefit, State Tax Commissioner Doug Ewald ruled, citing prohibitions in LB 775.
MidAmerican, an Iowa-based energy firm headed by Omaha businessman David Sokol, is appealing.
The company is asking the Lancaster County District Court to overturn the department’s March ruling.
MidAmerican argued that a single trip taken by Nelson should not be enough to deny the refund. It also maintained that the state, under LB 775, should have based its ruling on the intended purpose of the airplane and can test that use only when the plane is purchased.

For the full story, see:
Paul Hammel. “MidAmerican Sues State Over Tax Credit on Jet.” Omaha World-Herald (Friday, May 7, 2010): 3B.
(Note: the online version of the article was dated Thursday, May 6, 2010 and had the title “MidAmerica (sic) sues Neb. for refund.”)

Walter Scott Endorses Nuclear as Only Economically Viable Green Energy Source

“MidAmerican shareholders. David Sokol, Walter Scott, Greg Abel and Warren Buffett.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited below. (Note: bold added.)

(p. 1D) Despite recent steps to encourage wind-generated electricity in Nebraska, Omaha businessman and philanthropist Walter Scott said Thursday that nuclear power is the only economically viable way to generate electricity without carbon-dioxide emissions.

“To me, that is the ultimate answer if you want to reduce carbon dioxide,” Scott told about 150 people at a breakfast session of the Omaha chapter of the Association for Corporate Growth, held at Happy Hollow Club.
Solar and wind-generated electricity require government subsidies, Scott said. And because the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, Pa., shut down nuclear energy construction in the United States, this country will have to buy its new nuclear-generating equipment from France and Japan, which dominate that industry, he said.
“Isn’t that a wonderful thing?” asked Scott, who also said electric vehicles eventually will capture a significant market.
The Three Mile Island accident “shook people up” even though no one was killed and the containment vessel worked as designed by engineers to prevent radioactive material from spreading, said Scott, chairman-emeritus of Peter Kiewit Sons’ Inc. and a director of several corporations, including Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Kiewit has been involved in the energy industry for decades, he noted, and Berkshire’s energy division, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., has substantial wind farms in Iowa and several other states. But those wind farms are viable only because they operate under government rules that guarantee a return on investment, even with their higher costs, Scott said.

For the full story, see:
Steve Jordon. To Cut Carbon, Go Nuclear; It’s the Ultimate Answer for Reducing Emissions, the Kiewit Official Suggests in a Speech.” Omaha World-Herald (Friday, May 14, 2010): 1D-2D.
(Note: the online version of the article had the title “Scott: To go green, go nuclear.”)

New York City Would Creatively Adapt to Global Warming

“Rising Currents: Projects for New York’s Waterfront In this MoMA show, a model by Architecture Research Office marries a wholly new landscape to Lower Manhattan’s streets.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

Much is in doubt about “global warming” including how much the globe will warm, and how fast, to what extent the benefits of global warming would balance the costs, and what actions (such as Nathan Myhrvold’s creative plan) might be taken to counteract global warming.
But one certainty is that if governments leave innovative entrepreneurial capitalism alone, human creativity will find ways to adapt in order to increase the benefits and reduce the costs.
Few cities have displayed as much creative destruction in architecture as New York. (One book on New York architecture was even called The Creative Destruction of Manhattan“). The article quoted below describes some visions of how New York City might adapt to an increase in sea level that might result from global warming.

(p. C21) “Rising Currents: Projects for New York’s Waterfront,” a new show at the Museum of Modern Art, reflects a level of apocalyptic thinking about this city that we haven’t seen since it was at the edge of financial collapse in the 1970s, a time when muggers roamed freely, and graffiti covered everything.

Organized by Barry Bergdoll, the Modern’s curator of architecture and design, the show is a response to the effects that rising sea levels are expected to have on New York City and parts of New Jersey over the next 70 or so years, according to government studies. The solutions it proposes are impressively imaginative, ranging from spongelike sidewalks to housing projects suspended over water to transforming the Gowanus Canal into an oyster hatchery.
. . .
(p. C23) A general interest in re-examining parts of the urban fabric that we take for granted, like streets, piers and canals — as opposed to the more familiar desire to create striking visual objects — is one of the main strengths of the exhibition. A team led by Matthew Baird Architects, for example, has focused on a huge oil refinery in Bayonne, N.J., that, if current estimates hold, will be entirely under water before our toddlers have hit retirement age. Rather than taking the predictable and bland route of transforming the industrial site into a park, the team proposes a system of piers that would support bio-fuel and recycling plants, including one that would produce the building blocks for artificial reefs out of recycled glass.
Those large, multipronged objects, which the architects call “jacks,” could be dumped off boats in strategically chosen locations, where their forms would naturally interlock to create artificial reefs once they settled at the bottom of the harbor. The jacks are magical objects, at once tough and delicate, and when you see examples of them from across the room at MoMA, their heavy legs and crushed glass surfaces make them look almost like buildings.
But here again, what’s really commendable about the design is the desire to look deeper into how systems — in this case, global systems, both natural and economic — work. According to Mr. Baird’s research, the melting of the ice cap could one day create a northern shipping passage that would make New York Harbor virtually obsolete. The manufacturing component of the design is meant as part of a broader realignment of the city’s economy that anticipates that shift.

For the full story, see:
NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF. “Architecture Review; The Future: A More Watery New York.” The New York Times (Fri., March 26, 2010): C21 & C23.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: The online version of the article is dated March 25, 2010 and has the title “Architecture Review; ‘Rising Currents: Projects for New York’s Waterfront’; Imagining a More Watery New York.”)

The book I mention in my comments is:
Page, Max. The Creative Destruction of Manhattan, 1900-1940. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

“By Far the Greatest Pollution Crisis the Earth Has Ever Endured”

(p. 79) While oxygen is the third most common element in the universe, we know that free oxygen was exceedingly rare in the Earth’s initial atmosphere, until roughly two billion years ago, when an ancestor of modern cyanobacteria hit upon a photosynthetic process that used the energy from the sun to extract hydrogen from the abundant supply of water on the planet. That metabolic strategy was spectacularly successful–the organism quickly covered the surface of the planet–but it had a pollution problem: it expelled free oxygen as a waste product. During this period, now known as the Proterozoic, the oxygen content of the atmosphere exploded from 0.0001 percent to 3 percent, beginning its long march to the current levels of 21 percent. (Even today, Earth’s atmosphere is actually dominated by nitrogen, which makes up 78 percent of its overall volume: other gases. like argon and carbon dioxide, constitute less than a single percent.) The massive increase of oxygen in the atmosphere triggered what has been called “by far the greatest pollution crisis the earth has ever endured,” destroying countless microbes for whom the cocktail of sunlight and oxygen was deadly.

In time, though, organisms evolved that thrived in an oxygen-heavy environment. We are their descendants.

Source:
Johnson, Steven. The Invention of Air: A Story of Science, Faith, Revolution, and the Birth of America. New York: Riverhead Books, 2008.

Underwater Power Cables Maximize Profits and Improve Environment

“Laying line in San Francisco for the Trans Bay Cable project, which submerged 33 miles of cable.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) Generating 20 percent of America’s electricity with wind, as recent studies proposed, would require building up to 22,000 miles of new high-voltage transmission lines. But the huge towers and unsightly tree-cutting that these projects require have provoked intense public opposition.

Recently, though, some companies are finding a remarkably simple answer to that political problem. They are putting power lines under water, in a string of projects that has so far provoked only token opposition from environmentalists and virtually no reaction from the larger public.
. . .
(p. B7) . . . , the underwater approach solves some intractable problems. In San Francisco, for example, old power plants that burn natural gas are about to be retired because a new transmission company has succeeded in running a line 33 miles across the San Francisco Bay.
Mr. Stern said his company’s Neptune Cable, which runs from Sayreville, N.J., to Levittown, N.Y., on Long Island, now carries 22 percent of Long Island’s electricity. His company is trying to complete a deal for a cable that would run from Ridgefield, N.J., to a Consolidated Edison substation on West 49th Street in Manhattan.
Those two cables were not motivated primarily by environmental goals — they are meant to connect cheap generation to areas where power prices are high. Mr. Stern’s company, PowerBridge, is now considering two renewable energy projects, however. One cable would connect proposed wind farms on the Hawaiian islands of Molokai and Lanai to the urban center on Oahu, and another would bring wind power from Maine along the Atlantic coast to Boston.

For the full story, see:
MATTHEW L. WALD. “A Power Line Runs Through It; Underwater Cable an Alternative to Electrical Towers.” The New York Times (Weds., March 17, 2010): B1 & B7.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version is dated March 16, 2010 and has the shorter title “Underwater Cable an Alternative to Electrical Towers.”)

L.A. 5% Electric Rate Increase to Pay for Uneconomical Solar Subsidies

(p. A17) . . . , the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the largest municipal utility in the United States, is poised to pass a roughly 5 percent rate increase on electricity use. The proceeds would be earmarked for renewable energy purchases and programs, including one that would repay people or businesses that use solar panels to contribute to the power grid.

. . .
The money would also be used to help pay for what is known as a feed-in tariff, under which the utility will pay a set rate for electricity from customers who install solar panels.
. . .
But “feed-in tariffs for solar power is not good use of money,” Professor Borenstein said. “Solar power at the residential level is not close to economical. There are many things you should do before you subsidize it.”
Californians have been squeezed by high unemployment and fee increases, and Los Angelenos may not cotton easily to a rate increase.
“Californians are environmentally conscious,” said Dan Schnur, the director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “But much less so if it causes them economic difficulty.”

For the full story, see:
JENNIFER STEINHAUER. “Los Angeles Electric Rate Linked to Solar Power.” The New York Times (Thurs., March 11, 2010): A17.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the article is dated March 10, 2010.)

Smaller, Compact Design Makes Nuclear Reactor Cheaper, Safer and Quicker to Build and Expand

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) A new type of nuclear reactor–smaller than a rail car and one tenth the cost of a big plant–is emerging as a contender to reshape the nation’s resurgent nuclear power industry.

Three big utilities, Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp., on Wednesday signed an agreement with McDermott International Inc.’s Babcock & Wilcox subsidiary, committing to get the new reactor approved for commercial use in the U.S.
. . .
The smaller Babcock & Wilcox reactor can generate only 125 to 140 megawatts of power, about a tenth as much as a big one. But the utilities are betting that these smaller, simpler reactors can be manufactured quickly and installed at potentially dozens of existing nuclear sites or replace coal-fired plants that may become obsolete with looming emissions restrictions.
“We see significant benefits from the new, modular technology,” said Donald Moul, vice president of nuclear support for First Energy, an Ohio-based utility company.
He said First Energy, which operates four reactors at three sites in Ohio and Pennsylvania, has made no decision to build any new reactor and noted there’s “a lot of heavy lifting to do to get this reactor certified” by the NRC for U.S. use.
. . .
(p. A16) One of the biggest attractions, however, is that utilities could start with a few reactors and add more as needed. By contrast, with big reactors, utilities have what is called “single-shaft risk,” where billions of dollars are tied up in a single plant.
Another advantage: mPower reactors will store all of their waste on each site for the estimated 60-year life of each reactor.
. . .
. . . , some experts believe that if the industry embraces small reactors, nuclear power in the U.S. could become pervasive because more utilities would be able to afford them.
“There’s a higher likelihood that there are more sites that could support designs for small reactors than large ones,” said David Matthews, head of new reactor licensing at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
. . .
Experts believe small reactors should be as safe, or safer, than large ones. One reason is that they are simpler and have fewer moving parts that can fail. Small reactors also contain a smaller nuclear reaction and generate less heat. That means that it’s easier to shut them down, if there is a malfunction.
“With a large reactor, the response to a malfunction tends to be quick, whereas in smaller ones, they respond more slowly” which means they’re somewhat easier to control, said Michael Mayfield, director of the advanced reactor program at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Once on site, each reactor would be housed in a two-story containment structure that would be buried beneath the ground for added security. They would run round the clock, stopping to refuel every five years instead of 18 to 24 months, like existing reactors.
Jack Baker, Energy Northwest’s head of business development, says he was initially skeptical about small reactors because of the “lack of economies of scale.” But he says he now thinks small reactors “could have a cost advantage” because their simpler design means faster construction and “you don’t need as much concrete, steel, pumps and valves.”
“They have made a convert of me,” he says.
Babcock & Wilcox’s roots go back to 1867 and it has been making equipment for utilities since the advent of electrification, even furnishing boilers to Thomas Edison’s Pearl Street generating stations that brought street lighting to New York City in 1882.
Based in Lynchburg, Va., the company has been building small reactors for ships since the 1950s. In addition to reactors for U.S. Navy submarines and aircraft carriers, it built a reactor for the USS NS Savannah, a commercial vessel which is now a floating museum in Baltimore harbor. It also built eight big reactors, in the past construction cycle, including one for the ill-fated Three Mile Island plant.
When a U.S. nuclear revival looked imminent, the company debated what role it could play.
“Instead of asking, ‘How big a reactor could we make?,’ this time, we asked, ‘What’s the largest thing we could build at our existing plants and ship by rail?’ ” said Christofer Mowry, president of Modular Nuclear Energy LLC, Babcock’s recently created small-reactor division. “That’s what drove the design.”

For the full story, see:
REBECCA SMITH. “Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes .” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., Feb. 18, 2010): A1 & A16.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited above.

Small Nuclear Reactor Will Run on Spent Fuel From Big Reactors

“An artist’s modeling of the proposed EM2 reactor, which would be small enough to be transported by truck.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) Nuclear and defense supplier General Atomics announced Sunday it will launch a 12-year program to develop a new kind of small, commercial nuclear reactor in the U.S. that could run on spent fuel from big reactors.

In starting its campaign to build the helium-cooled reactor, General Atomics is joining a growing list of companies willing to place a long-shot bet on reactors so small they could be built in factories and hauled on trucks or trains.
The General Atomics program, if successful, could provide a partial solution to one of the biggest problems associated with nuclear energy: figuring out what to do with highly radioactive waste. With no agreement on where to locate a federal storage site, that waste is now stored in pools or casks on utilities’ property.
The General Atomics reactor, which is dubbed EM2 for Energy Multiplier Module, would be about one-quarter the size of a conventional reactor and have unusual features, including the ability to burn used fuel, which still contains more than 90% of its original energy. Such reuse would reduce the volume and toxicity of the waste that remained. General Atomics calculates there is so much U.S. nuclear waste that it could fuel 3,000 of the proposed reactors, far more than it anticipates building.
The decision to proceed with its 12-year program indicates that General Atomics believes the time is right to both make a nuclear push and to try to gain approval for an unconventional design proposal despite the likely difficulty of getting it certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The EM2 would operate at temperatures as high as 850 degrees Centigrade, which is about twice as hot as a conventional (p. B2) water-cooled reactor. The very high temperatures would make the reactor especially well suited to industrial uses that go beyond electricity production, such as extracting oil from tar sands, desalinating water and refining petroleum to make fuel and chemicals.

For the full story, see:
REBECCA SMITH. “General Atomics Proposes a Plant That Runs on Nuclear Waste.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., February 22, 2010): B1 & B2.

Minnesota Windmills Do Not Turn in Cold Weather

“Inspecting a windmill in Chaska, Minn. The blades on some in the area have been stationary.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A12) For those who suspect residents in places like Minnesota of embellishment when it comes to their tales of bitterly cold winter weather, consider this: even some wind turbines, it seems, cannot bear it.

Turbines, more than 100 feet tall, were installed last year in 11 Minnesota cities to provide power, and also to serve as educational symbols in a state that has mandated that a quarter of its electricity come from renewable resources by 2025.
One problem, though: The windmills, supposed to go online this winter, mostly just sat still, people in cities like North St. Paul and Chaska said, rarely if ever budging. Residents took note. Schoolchildren asked questions. Complaints accumulated.
“If people see a water tower, they expect it to stand still,” said Wally Wysopal, the city manager of North St. Paul. “If there’s a turbine, they want it to turn.”
No one knows for sure why these turbines do not. Officials believe there may be several reasons, but weather is the focus of much speculation.

For the full story, see:

MONICA DAVEY. “When Windmills Don’t Spin, People Expect Some Answers.” The New York Times (Fri., February 5, 2010): A12.
(Note: the online version of the article was dated February 4, 2010)