Enviornmental Ethics Professor Is Clueless On Both…
May 1st, 2008
|
| Share |
Recently this little opinion piece was brought to my attention in the Long Island paper “Newsday.” It’s short enough that I’ll quote the whole thing:
Energy for LI still in debate
It took Newsday 40-plus years, but you finally have it right on Long Island energy policy. I’m stunned. Hallelujah!
This newspaper was a die-hard advocate for Shoreham and nuclear power for 30 years. Then, on the Broadwater issue, you tried to be a power broker. Rather than demand the protection of Long Island Sound, Newsday was willing to accept a deal that would have allowed the Broadwater monstrosity to be built, if only Broadwater would kick back some money into Long Island’s energy coffers.
Investment in our energy and economic future must focus on conservation and renewable energy. These energy choices will be the foundation of Long Island’s new economy that will create many “green collar” jobs during the present economic slowdown.
Peter Maniscalco
Editor’s note: The writer teaches environmental ethics at Dowling College.
Well, Mr Maniscalco, it seems you are as clueless on the environment as you are on ethics. First of all, Mr Maniscalco obviously has no idea about the realities of “renewable” energy options, but we’ve gone over that before. Long Island happens to have some of the highest electrical rates in the region and is in something of an energy crunch which is cutting into the standards of living of those who live on Long Island. (Of course, not the rich people with mansions in the Hamptons. It never hits those that hard.)
To begin with, this fellow is apparently one of the crowed behind the worst nuclear disaster in US history, which occurred at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. The disaster was not a radiation release, no, it was the fact that Shoreham, which could have alleviated the power situation in Long Island never opened. It was built, to the tune of SIX BILLION DOLLARS and went critical briefly in 1988 for testing of the systems. It was to produce 820 megawatts with one reactor and a second reactor planned for the future, but it was all for not. Despite the investment of massive amounts of capital, the fully built plant was shut down before it could start, primarily due to local opposition and forces which insisted that all of Long Island could not be evacuated in the event that the plant were to blow up or be hit by a massive asteroid or something else equally unlikely or impossible.
It was the target of a “60 Minutes Investigation,” and a rallying point for many anti-nuclear groups. It was built anyway and now it still sits there, idle. The low pressure turbines were salvaged for another power plant, but other than that it was a complete loss. For the companies involved, however, much of the money invested ended up being recovered… from tax payers and rate payers. Also, the decommissioning of the reactor has cost nearly 200 million dollars. You might think it’s not necessary to go through the whole decommissioning process for a reactor vessel that was only critical for a very very short time and therefore was barely irradiated at all – but NOPE the regulations don’t make sense like that.
Good job, Maniscalco. Now the electricity is generated in fossil fuel plants and there’s no doubt many have died from the exhaust. At Maniscalco: I’d have no problem with seeing you tried under the Nuremberg protocol and executed by hanging for the blood on your hands. If this represents the people teaching future generations about “the environment” and “ethics” then we’re in trouble, and anyone who happened to attend such a class should ask for their money back.
Oh, by the way, the site of the power plant now hosts a small wind farm, which generates about .01% of the power of the nuclear plant. It’s also the home of the link to the cross-sound HVDC cable which those like Maniscalco protested like crazy. The cable is necessary, in part, because of the lack of power generation on Long Island and has helped (somewhat) ease the crunch on the local electrical grid by giving it a better connection to the regional grid. Power can flow in both directions, but generally is sent out to Long Island, thus making MY electrical rates higher. Of course, I’m still glad it’s there because the grid needs it badly!
Broadwater is yet another project which is sorely needed and, if done properly, would be both economically and environmentally beneficial. It has also be opposed by numerous groups, most of whom claim to be pro-environment and even a few which seem to suggest that somehow opposing Broadwater is going to somehow help with emissions and global warming. There’s even a whole coalition against it. (or more likely a small group of idiots in need of attention)
It seems the likes Maniscalco are so smug about having caused a stink over…
What Broadwater is:
Broadwater is a proposal for a liquefied natural gas terminal located several miles off shore close to the middle of Long Island Sound between Connecticut and Long Island. The terminal would consist of a fixed platform for liquefied natural gas tankers to offload gas as well as pipelines to Connecticut and Long Island to deliver the gas, primarily to existing natural gas and petroleum infrastructure. There are also plans for future expansion with pipelines going to New York City and increased capacity, if things go according to plan. The offshore facility will also contain the regasification equipment to convert the LNG to CNG and pump it through the pipeline.
Broadwater is a joint venture of Shell Oil Company and TransCanada Corp. It intended to interface with other pipeline projects. Iroquois Corporation already operates a natural gas and LPG distribution system in the area and hopes to upgrade their transsound pipelines in order to take advantage of the gas supply from Broadwater.
Similar opposition to Broadwater came up with the laying of the cross-sound submarine cable, which provides an HDVC link from Connecticut to Shoreham Long Island. The project was delayed several times and energizing the cable was finally allowed in 2003 by an emergency order. The cable was intended to help stabilize the power grid of the Northeast, especially in Long Island, which has experienced power supply problems. Energizing the cable was a contentious issue and was only allowed by an emergency order, shortly after the 2003 blackout, which helped show the weakness of the electrical grid in the US Northeast. Many of the same who opposed the cable are now fighting Broadwater tooth and nail.
How things are now:
The primary reason for the proposal for the Broadwater project is simply that there is not enough natural gas infrastructure in the Northeastern United States. In the Northeast, heating oil is the most common way of providing structure heating in the winter. With the current oil situation it seems like this would not be a very good use of a fuel as valuable as oil, but in the Northeastern US, there are few alternatives. Natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel, it’s more avaliable domestically and it does not have the same impact on gasoline prices as diverting fuel oil does. Unfortunately, with the exceptions of a few metropolitan areas, the natural gas grid in the Northeastern US is completely inadequate.
Shown to the right is a DOE map of major natural gas pipelines in the Northeastern US. Notice that there are no major pipelines in Long Island. All natural gas for the area must be sent through the congested New York City Metropolitan area. Aside from one LNG terminal in Massachusetts, all the gas used north of New York arrives by pipeline. The next closest terminal is in Maryland. Pipelines also connect to wells in Canada and the Midwest.
Worse still, there are several power plants in the Northeast which burn oil to produce electricity. In general these plants are relegated to the role of “peakers” – that is, plants which are only used when there are times of high demand, but increasingly they are being used during times of even moderate demand. Combined cycle gas plants are significantly cleaner and tend to be more economical, especially with the current price of oil. Yet they have been limited due to the lack of adequate natural gas supplies.
This has lead to generally higher energy prices and less use of natural gas in the Northeast, especially Long Island. Even worse, the lack of natural gas combined with the rampant opposition to nuclear energy by radical elements of the eco-stupid movement has lead to huge amounts of environmental damage from coal and oil burning power plants. The Connecticut Business Journal has made the point that Broadwater offers the opportunity to provide incentives for conversion of more power plants from coal and oil fired units to cleaner natural gas fired plants. (Personally, I’d rather have nuclear, but compared to coal, I’d take natural gas any day!)
The Alternative:
If not Broadwater, then there’s little chance that natural gas will become available and economical in Long Island and much of Connecticut. Supply crunches will continue in the New York area and existing facilities will continue to have to pick up the load. There are no LNG terminals in the area where broad water would serve. For Long Island, all fuels are currently sent by pipeline through the congested New York area, from refineries in New Jersey and elsewhere and terminals located hundreds of miles away. The nearest LNG terminals are located in Maryland and Massachusetts, but they are running at near capacity just to provide energy to the New York and Boston areas. For Long Islanders, this means little chance of a wide deployment of natural gas and also the possibility of higher gasoline prices, as more oil is needed to heat and provide electricity.
The current energy infrastructure is both old and nearly entirely on shore. For example, the harbor of New Haven Connecticut is completely dominated by a massive petroleum terminal. There is no area left for any cafes or waterfront hotels, and even if there were, the only thing in sight are the massive oil tanks and unloading of tankers. A large oil-burning power plant also sits on the harbor.
With no place else to unload their cargo, there’s no possibility that the terminal could be downsized or moved further inland. While the tankers frequently seen there are massive, many are not actually the tankers which transported the oil and gas from it source. The super tankers are not able to make it into the harbor and are forced to unload to smaller ships out in Long Island Sound. Without the benefit of a fixed platform, this is a haphazard task which can result in spills and generally increases the price of oil and gas in the area.
As I’ve driven over the bridge that goes past the terminal, there has occasionally been a distinct smell of heavy hydrocarbons in the air. It’s a bit unsettling.
So why is it opposed:
- It’s not “renewable” or in other words, it works.
- Impact on the sound – Not really a valid point considering that it is of a minimal footprint and that the pipeline technology is pretty well established and does not have a huge impact on marine life.
- Increased traffic in Long Island Sound – There are already plenty of tankers and other large vessels are already in the sound. Broadwater would actually be away from shipping lanes.
- Because someone stands to make a profit – Therefore it is evil, right?
- It could be a terrorist target – Sure, because we know how much the “terrorists” would stand to gain by blowing up a big gas terminal located nine miles offshore and far from any major settlements. Especially when they could blow up one of the major terminals located near a city. (sarcasm)
It has been noted that in theory, if the full capacity of the facility were released as a single massive cloud of methane and if that methane were carried by winds in a manner which did not disperse it, and if that cloud made it to shore and if it were mixed to the correct fuel air ratio and if it ignited on shore, it could be a disaster. Of course, this is highly unlikely to say the least and considerably less of a danger than that which is posed by the existing on-shore facilities.
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 1st, 2008 at 5:02 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Education, Enviornment, Good Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
May 1st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I should probably have made it more clear that in general I prefer nuclear energy for electricity generation over natural gas and I’m only luke-warm on the combined cycle gas method as a major power source. However, we sorely need this in the area. For one thing we’re limited energy wise and secondly the lack of natural gas has been leading to an overuse of oil for jobs which I’d rather not see it being burned for. Gas is cleaner and it won’t hit the gasoline prices the way burning heating oil rather than using it to make motor fuel can.
Quote Comment
May 1st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Since we’re going to be using fossil fuels for the time being I’d think the best policy would be to avoid using oil for fixed site applications. As you say, it’s too valuable for that. Power generating and heating only accounts for something like 15% of petroleum usage in the US, but that’s 15% that would help a lot cutting. Using oil to make electricity is insane and to heat homes is not much better.
Natural gas is of course cleaner too. Also, more upgraded systems and LNG are bound to leak less than the older pipelines and stuff. I’d say environment and commerce wise I’d have a hard time thinking why not to install this.
Quote Comment
May 1st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I think it’s probably just the fact that it’s a big project with a lot of money and local concern involved. That’s why it has so much excitement. They want high profile stuff to attack and make a stink over.
Also it’s ‘fossil fuel’ which is complete BS, because it is so narrow to look at it that way. You don’t stop fossil fuel use by fighting the terminals anyway, it’s better to get it at demand because if you cut supply you hurt everyone so let this go and try to cut demand by some other means like an alternative. They seem to think that alternative is renewable and I’m not so sure. This is a bad way to go after it though.
More fossil fuel is what we need unless someone offers us something better we should use the cleanest and most avaliable we have. Stop this and people burn more oil and coal. Maybe nuclear would be better.
“it’s more fossil fuel” is bunk. This is needed.
Quote Comment
May 1st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
This guy is such a shame it’s disgusting.
“hen, on the Broadwater issue, you tried to be a power broker. Rather than demand the protection of Long Island Sound, Newsday was willing to accept a deal that would have allowed the Broadwater monstrosity to be built, if only Broadwater would kick back some money into Long Island’s energy coffers.”
Jesus Christ! They were willing to support a necessary gas terminal and also have general money spent on the energy system? How dare they??
Christ, you know nobody builds this just because they’re evil. It’s built because there’s a damn demand for energy. This bastard seems to think it’s his job to dictate to everyone else what they’re allowed to use and then he’ll turn around and keep coal and oil burning with his claims that nuclear is the devil. Great: An energy shortage and more polution.
People like this disgust me so much if I saw him I don’t know I could restrain myself from punching the bastard in the face. He thinks he is a crusader for the environment. He’s the opposite. He makes people suffer and fights progress toward better energy policy. Why? Because fish don’t like the pipeline.
Maniscalco, shame on you! Shame on you and your kind, Maniscalco! Self righteous air bags like them disgust me to no end.
Quote Comment
May 1st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“…tried under the Nuremberg protocol and executed by hanging…”
Good idea. I know this has come up in the past but it bears reexamination: what if any are the legal recourses available to make these frauds take responsibility for their lies? Surely in a country that can stage multi-million dollar lawsuits over hot coffee spilled into someones lap, and where I’ve learned that barratry laws have been repealed, an idiot like this can be sued over something.
Quote Comment
May 1st, 2008 at 7:23 pm
DV82XL said:
Yes, I think people like this should be sued by all the people who have health problems or lost property value from having lived in the shadow of coal power plants or who have lost money due to bad energy policy.
Actually though, I don’t see why one could not try this kind of idiot on the grounds of crimes against humanity in the same way Nazi war criminals were. One of the things established was that the commanders of the movement were not immune from prosecution for the consequences of their actions even if they did not directly kill anyone or order any individual killed. They were responsible for having instituted the policies which resulted in death and suffering. Therefore, since the movement this man is in has been instrumental in advancing policies which have caused death and suffering, I think you could make the argument that he could be tried for crimes against humanity even if he was just a political supporter who helped further the policies.
I’m sure this would not happen and it seems to most like that would be ridiculous but people like this, literally are responsible. The blood of those who have died of respiratory problems or in coal mines and the millions indirectly effected is on their hands.
I’m not actually suggesting we should do this, but lets keep in perspective how dishonest, dishonorable and destructive these ones are.
Quote Comment
May 1st, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Recently LIPA killed their touted offshore wind turbine plan because of excessive costs. LIPA has had the highest rates in the country because of the Shoreham debacle and the need to meet demand with natural gas fueled gas turbines combined cycle plants that are the only power plants LIPA has been able to build. LIPA does have some coal or oil fired plants on the north shore but these are old, dating from the sixties at best.
High energy costs represent a heavily regressive tax on the poor in fringes of NYC who can’t afford to live in the city. I doubt that there is much that can be done in regards to energy efficiency, that handwavium that is always invoked by the Greens, who always seem to so eager to spend other people’s money. But no amount of conservation handwavium will change the fact that the factories which provided a lot of good jobs on Long island, high tech industries like Fairchild Republic and Grumman would have shut their doors and move if Long Island couldn’t solve its power problems, which in fact they did shortly after the Shoreham debacle. The BANANAs like Mr Maniscalco are willing to walk all over the poor, the working, and the businesses of where they live all the while assuming the moral high ground on the grounds of environmental purity while driving their junk cars taped together with the appropriate bumper stickers. These people are just disgusting.
Quote Comment
May 1st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
That is the case in many “conservation successes” the greens like to tout so much. It’s true for California as well as for Germany. High energy prices force energy intensive industries out of the state or country. Of course that means the per capita energy use goes downs. But so does the tax base and the number of useful employed people. So these idios first FORCE globalisation, and then protest against it.
Where have all the good jobs gone.
Long time passing.
Where have all the nuke plants gone.
Long time ago.
…
When will they ever learn,
when will they eeeever learn.
Quote Comment
May 1st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
They tried to build a nuclear plant. They were stopped. SIX BILLION DOLLARS LOST
They needed power so they put in a cable to bring it in (which is expensive anyway): The greens fought to try to stop it (and gladly failed)
They were forced to build power plants using gas, but the greens won’t let them build a gas terminal so they have a gas shortage.
So what do we have now? Gas power plants running as best they can on limited expensive gas. Coal power plants still in operation because they’re needed to fill the energy needs. Oil power plants burning oil because even if oil is dirtier and more expensive, they have to use it because they don’t have enough gas to go around because the greens stop every gas pipeline.
Great. Just freakin great. Now I remember why I moved away from Long Island in 1994.
Quote Comment
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
You all have very bad ethics. He wants to protect the sound and knows that fossil fuels are not the way to go and that’s why he opposes it. Nuclear is even worse, BTW. The Sound matters and should not be torn up. We need electricity yes, but why not from renewables? If people would listen and we had been building wind/solar like the environmentalists want we would have all the power we would need and also we should be conserving it anyway.
Quote Comment
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
FizzKid said:
The problem is that renewables will not do what you want them to, and wanting it won’t make it so. The only way to remove the need for this terminal is to move to nuclear energy, and the sooner people like you pull their heads out of their butts and realize that this is the case the better we all will be.
Quote Comment
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I’ve read some things on their website about the project and it seems to me that this is one of the best single solutions to help with the energy shortages and general high cost of electricity and of fuels in the area in the *short term.*
Nuclear energy will be a better *long term* solution, but I think it would reasonably take some time to get a large portion of electricity from nuclear energy and even longer before it could start to displace other uses for natural gas or other fuels. Therefore, if I lived in that area I’d have a hard time not supporting this project. Lets remember that this is a floating platform of a minimal footprint and an underwater gas pipeline which is not that disruptive. Compared to the footprint of hundreds or thousands of wind turbines and the cables to connect them, this is hardly a major concern to the local seabed ecosystem.
And as mentioned, gas is both cleaner and more economical to burn for electricity production and heating. You need natural gas avaliable in order to use it for that and if you are using oil right now, gas would be supperior.
Quote Comment
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
FizzKid said:
Do you know that the infamous Cape Wind project was going to go up right in the middle of a key fishing ground. That installing the wind turbines would have required the extensive dredging of new channels. The renewables, due to their low energy density have a huge footprint that in itself has a large impact on the environment. This makes it very difficult to use renewable soucres like wind turbines in places like Long Island and Connecticut because the real estate where renewables actually work at all is just not available. The Broadwater platform is a buoy and a barge to which ships moor. This is not much different from existing activities and structures that exist in the Sound already.
People like Mr Maniscalco have kept Northeast Utilities and LIPA from building new nuclear plants, causing untold pollution and health problems due to coal and oil fired power plants that have been kept running far past to their retirement dates. In order to protect the Sound Mr Maniscalco has been part of its destruction. I have lived near the Sound for most of my life. I have swum, boated, fished, kayaked and dived in its waters for most of my life. I certainly do not want it damaged. Yet we have to deal with the real world as it is rather than some fantasy that ignores such things as the laws of physics and thermodynamics. The real world is not some cartoon show where magically the wind turbine spins and the whole city lights up.
Quote Comment
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
For TransCanada Corp, the biggest gas pipeline operator in Canada, this rejection marks another disappointment on the LNG front. In February this year, its plans for a $1 billion LNG terminal in Quebec at in Gros Cacouna in partnership with Petro-Canada were tossed into limbo when Russia’s Gazprom canceled a Baltic Sea plant that was expected to provide steady supply. The company’s plan for an LNG terminal in Harpswell, Me., was rejected by residents there in spring 2004, was trying its luck again.
However there are other factors on the LNG front that need to be taken into account. Russia’s Gazprom canceled a Baltic Sea plant that was expected to provide steady supply for Eastern North American terminals, and the recent discovery of a large pool of natural gas in the St.Lawrence valley, which experts are saying may exceed the benchsetting Barnett shales, in Texas may reduce the need for seaborne LNG in the Northeast for several years.
Quote Comment
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Cape wind may get in the way of a fishery and also may have some disturbance of the ocean but I think it’s okay if it’s worth it to get clean power in return and also I’m sure that it was considered and there are ways it not be done if it wasn’t safe for the earth. The people doing cape wind are doing it for making a better difference and it’s a pro-environment project which is why I’d trust them to know they’re taking care of the environment. The gas project is from people who don’t care about the environment and that is why it’s different and also it’s not the same because it pollutes too.
If a wind company said something is good for the earth and an oil company said something is good for the earth who should you trust? duh. Obviously the wind company since they’re only trying to help and the oil people only want money and don’t care!
Plus wind is better in the long run because it’s unlimited power for free once they build the wind turbines it’s all done. That is better than nuclear any day and also it won’t blow up and kill you and everyone you know or make nasty waste that we can’t do anything with! If they had wind there would be power for everyone in LI.
Quote Comment
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Those windmills might actually be able to generate some decent electricity if they were being powered by the smoke you are blowing out your ass. You have no idea about any of this. And by the way, all companies including Cape Wind want to make money and in the case of Wind Power it’s generally from collecting tax writeoffs and other subsidies and also counting on power companies buying the power at a premium.
Seriously, do some research. And by the way: Nuclear energy is actually extremely safe. It’s safer than hydro and safer than most fossil fuel energy sources in general.
And at DV82XL: I did not know there was a supply issue with natural gas tankers or any new domestic reserves found, but even if there are, that still seems to me like they’ll need to upgrade pipelines and infrastructure either way to deliver that gas. Especially if LI and the Northeast USA is behind the ball on gas networks, then that gas does them no good without laying some pipe or building a terminal.
I am sure the Greens would oppose a pipeline in LI Sound just as much, so it hardly matters. Of course, if we had enough nuclear capacity it wouldn;t be such an issue, but they made sure to ruin that one too.
Quote Comment
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Chaddam0809 said:
Brilliant typical Green logic, “We have to destroy the planet in order to save it.” And they say that the oil industry doesn’t care. Earth First! means people last a viewpoint that quite frankly is self destructive and insane. Of course if one is indoctrinated by the constant drumbeat of Green political mush until they can repeat without thought, actually thinking your way through a problem becomes a little difficult.
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:14 am
CtrlAltDel said:
Well I was broadening the discussion a bit. LNG is all the rage because of methane’s relatively low kgCO2/MW numbers but there is going to be increased pressure on supply, and some analysts are beginning to wonder about the economics of expansion in this sector.
Several projects have died because they could not secure supply. A failure to secure an LNG supply spelled the end for an LNG plant that had been planned for Port Hawkesbury, N.S. and Houston-based Andarko Petroleum mothballed its $700 million Bear Head terminal in March 2006 and took a $111 million loss. A subsidiary of Galveston LNG, Kitimat LNG is proposing to build an import, regasification and sendout terminal on British Columbia’s coast but as of yet where specifically Kitimat LNG planned to get its LNG from has not been established, and investors are getting edgy as the project has been pushed back at least until the fall. The company now expects to come on stream in 2010, a year later than planned.
In fact almost all North American LNG projects are having difficulty in sourcing supply, not because there’s a shortage of gas but because of delays in building LNG liquefaction facilities overseas. These are huge multibillion-dollar projects, mired often in political risk (Russia, Nigeria, Iran, for example), environmental challenges and so on. Compounding the problem is the Chinese are looking to supply a LNG terminal in China’s eastern Fujian province, and along with Japan, who is the largest consumer of LNG at the moment may have the Pacific supply sewn up before North American interests can cut a deal.
In other words the whole LNG picture is not that clear at the moment, and I am wondering if the principles of the Long Island Sound project are letting the Greens do their dirty work for them rather than face due diligence questions from investors when it was foud out there was no supply deal for the terminal.
I’m just saying…..
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
You might be right about the supply issue. Anyway, LNG is still a more secure energy source than wind or solar, but that’s true of just about anything.
Remember, this situation would not exist if Shoreham and all the other proposed nuclear projects had not been cut down anyway. A larger and larger amount of natural gas is being used to generate electricity, which, IMHO is not a very good use for fossil fuels. Considering the supply issues we are starting to have I’d rather see gas used mainly for applications that are not (yet) very realistic for nuclear energy such as small peak generation, home heating, industry etc.
Anyway, it just goes to show what caused this problem to begin with!
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
So it seems the rule is to just oppose any energy project whether or not it’s gas, nuclear or whatever?
And then turn around and support wind even if the footprint and potential local damage is greater. This being the rule, it would keep the existing coal and oil burners in operation even past their prime because there is no alternative?
Jesus, how can this guy not see how destructive that is?
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Roo said:
Yes, well let’s think about that for a second. A Latin adage that still serves as a standard rule applied in criminal investigations is cui bono (who benefits), and I believe in many instances this applies to much of the opposition to practical energy solutions in general, and nuclear in particular. As it stands now, the only ones gaining here are, as you pointed out legacy high carbon generators. I submit that asking just how involved they are financially in antinuclear and pro-renewable activities like lobbying and public opinion management.
We are told that people like Maniscalco lead influentially large groups of concerned citizens, yet there is often slim evidence to support this contention. It’s instructive to consider the recent experience of a leading antinuclear group in Ontario last weekend. Ontario is gets most of it’s electricity from nuclear power, and has embarked on a plan to build more reactors in the near future. This antinuclear group staged an open-house in an attempt to increase their membership as they prepare to fight this, and had exactly two people show up. Two. Complaining of the public’s apathy, one of the organizers let slip that their current membership was less than forty. The population of Ontario is around 12 million.
I am forced to wonder if this is not the case elsewhere, where great claims of public outrage over nuclear plants is claimed and if these masses are not, in fact behind these movements – where is the money and influence they wield coming from?
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
CtrlAltDel said:
Natural gas is a key keystock for a lot of polymer and carbon processes because c2h4 is a basic monomer. If we have to resort to it for power generation then a lot of the new materials that the Green are depending become much more expensive than they already are. Carbon fiber has been around for at 30 years now and Rivkin and Lovins should ask themselves just why the automakers have not made extensive use of those materials even though they have been playing with them for almost that long and composite materials even longer, back to the Fifties, in fact. What do the automakers know that the Greens don’t.
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
J Carlton said:
Composite manufacturing is well established and has been around (as you mention) for a long long time. Carbon fiber is very well known as a high strength, low weight material. It’s been used in aerospace for a long time and there have been all composite aircraft since the early 1980’s. The new 787 relies heavily on carbon fiber composite material.
It does have its limitations compared to metal. It breaks at a certain point, as opposed to bending because it has little plasticity. If it is broken it’s impossible to fix as you could with metals by hammering out dents or welding them. This was a problem early on, but modern composites have become so strong and resilient that it’s not what it once was.
There have been some all carbon fiber cars and they’ve been very successful, but they’re currently limited to the super high end of cars. The custom $250,000 dollar cars that use it are the ones which are built by McClaren, Bugatti or Aston-Martin specials. It’s proven an excellent material and they have even done crash tests and found that these cars, in addition to being super light weight, are able to withstand extreme crashes. (One I remember was a 45 MPH front end crash that snapped the bumper but the car was still drivable!). It was to the point where the car was so strong there were concerns that the occupants might be subject to extreme deceleration because the car did not absorb the energy by failing.
However, carbon fiber composites are an energy-intensive product. To make the high strength ones requires pyrolytic carbon, which as mentioned is usually derived from methane. Also high temperatures and pressures may be required to form the material into the shapes desired. It depends on the material but in general creating the high strength carbon fibers requires that they are processed at temperatures of 2000-3000 C under pressure to achieve the proper bonds. Next the sheets of woven material are bonded with polymers at high pressure and temperature and this is done repeatedly because many such materials use multiple layers.
However, if energy were affordable it would be 100% possible to use many more composites in automobiles. Of course, this assumes that the raw materials were avaliable too. Gas or petroleum hydrocarbons are generally the choice material to start off with.
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
DV82XL said:
The trick is that these people do not need or want large representation of memberships. Here’s case in point:
http://www.merrittparkway.org/
Other than a few local celeberties like Paul Newman the group’s board consists of high power attorneys. This group was instrumental in killing badly needed upgrade to an interchange on the Merritt Parkway, yet as far as I can these people don’t represent anybody other than themselves.
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
J Carlton said:
Did they actually kill it? It seems from the website you linked too they put forward alternate designs that would not have as big an impact on the area, and this is fair.
God would I love public argument over a new reactor building to be centered around whether the architecture would blend in to the surrounding area, and debate of the aesthetic merits of various designs.
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
DV82XL said:
Well, this is something I could agree to disagree on and have a non-nasty debate on, but I’d prefer that it *not* blend into the surrounding area and that it be built to stand out. The reason being that if there were a big nuclear plant in my area it’s something I’d take pride in and I’d want it to be known.
There was a time when this is how industry was viewed. If you look at things like the Battery Sea Power Plant or the Hoover Dam they have art-deco kind of styles with lights to illuminate the face and sculpture as part of the structure becasue it was seen as an engineering trimupth to be proud of.
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Well I meant it more as ‘I wish any debate was over trivial issues like this.’
Nevertheless ‘blend in’ in the architectural sense means more ‘not to clash’ rather than be nondescript. And yes I too like that strident 1920’s – 1930’s Modernism as well, but I’m afraid it is not to everyone’s taste anymore.
It would be interesting to see what a group of architecture student’s would come up with if you asked them to design a nuclear powerhouse so that it met functionality and made a strong aesthetic statement.
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Yes I understand what you meant about it being a trivial issue. I was just somewhat thinking out loud. I do like that stuff as well. It is something you don’t see much of now. The idea that it’s a powerhouse and it should look powerful and have an aesthetic that is a salute to its function is something that would be fun to try on a nuclear power plant.
I was just saying that my view of something like nuclear energy is far from it being something to hide away and be embarrassed over as an ugly necessity.
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
DV82XL said:
They killed it for a while. In fact they actually stopped construction while it was undergoing. The problem is that this particular intersection is so dangerous that the need to make changes is overwhelming and the the best this group can do is delay the inevitable.
My point in using this group is show how a small group of self interested can game the system with the help of a friendly Federal judge who doesn’t have to half kill themselves every time they want to get off the the highway. The bridge they are discussing is actually the least decorated bridge on the highway having a random rock veneer over a concrete base. The actual truth is that most of the overpass bridges on the Merritt which are done in Thirties style art deco need repair that they will not get because of the extra money these idiots who purport to care about the highway have wasted. So the concrete is eaten away and the bridges ruined.
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
J Carlton said:
I understand, but it goes to show how one can be sucked in by a web page oozing with good intentions, when you don’t have a grasp of the underlying issues.
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2008 at 12:45 am
drbuzz0 said:
Ah, it was a different world once. Today technology in general and stuff like power plants are thought of as a necessary evil and something to hide. Stuff is supposed to be closed in a box and blending into the background. Even bridges and buildings are supposed to look like they’re not supported. They’re not supposed to look strong and powerful. You’re talking about a time when the idea of building big things was taken with a measure of pride and the form of the buildings and structures was supposed to be progressive and look strong and powerful.
I think it’s part of a change in how we view our achievements. We’re supposed to apologize for them these days.
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Wow. I found this and thought it would be about an enviornmental professor who was not pro-environment but it turns out you people here are all just horrible! Yes to more renewable and NO NO NO to destroying the earth with nuclear and burning fossil fuels.
How is he helping coal and oil? he’s like every other good person who cares about the planet! He wants renewables and you really will stand here and say no? Either you are working for the oil and nuclear companies or you’re stupid or evil or both!
Get a clue! Solar is where it is and maybe wind too but nuclear is bad bad and other stuff is bad but not as bad as nuclear. You should learn something. Don’t you realize that we’re running out of fuels and polluting the world? Do you want that?
The environment needs greener thinking and that is what he is all about and me too thanks!
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Dancing Darla said:
This is from This Week In Nuclear: Episode 57 – Media Myths
Shell Pulls Out of Wind Project
The UK is going along with the EU in an attempt to build enough “renewable energy” electric capacity to provide 20% of their electricity needs by 2020. Their current definition of “renewable” by the way does NOT include nuclear plants. The UK is counting on 33 GW of off-shore wind generation as a key component of that renewable generation package. That would mean a monumental wind energy construction program never before attempted. I’ve spoken about the financial and performance limitations of wind generation before, and now those limitation are becoming realities and are causing the UK government and investors to reconsider.
Here’s the latest example: Royal Dutch Shell has decided to pull out of a huge off-shore wind energy project known as the London Array because of skyrocketing costs. The London Array is a proposed 1000 MegaWatt, or 1 GW wind farm that is slated to be built off the southeast coast of the UK. It’s a giant project composed of 341 wind turbines. Original cost estimates to build the farm were about 1 Billion BSP, but although construction has not begun the price has more than doubled. Even with massive subsidies from the British government that project could never compete with nuclear power plants. Here’s why;
- Let’s assume the cost for the 1GW London Array is $2B BSP – we know it is more, but let’s use that round number. That’s about $4 Billion.
- Wind has a best case capacity factor of less than 30%, but let’s give this project the benefit of the doubt and assume the London Array will achieve a 30% CF.
- That means the usable electric energy will be 300 MW.
- $4 Billion for 300 MW? No one in their right mind would spend $4B for 300 MW! By comparison, a single EPR reactor would cost about the same, and would generate five times as much electricity! That means the capitol cost of electricity from wind would cost five times that of nuclear.
I know this is a bit of a simplification. I’ve used round number and back-of-the-napkin math, but it’s certainly not that far off. I used optimistic cost and capacity factor values for wind, and still wind is five times more expensive than nuclear generated electricity. The anti-nuclear crowd has been very successful in creating a perception that nuclear plants are very expensive to build. However, when you compare the cost of new nuclear plants with other forms of non-GHG emitting sources, it is the lowest cost and most reliable option available. I learned something else about the UK’s wind energy program. There is a two year waiting list for the turbines, so even if you wanted to begin installing them today you wouldn’t be able to have the plant in full production for 3 to 4 years from now. All of a sudden the 48 to 50 months that it takes to build a new nuclear plant does not sound so long!
If the UK is loosing support for the first 1 GW of off-shore wind, how in the world will they be able to install 33 GW in the next 14 years. That 33 GW would cost well over $120 Billion. It simply is not going to happen. On the other hand, when corrected for capacity factor, it would only take 6 or 7 new nuclear plants to generate the same amount of electricity as all those hypothetical wind turbines. That is certainly achievable by 2020. And it could be done for about one-fifth of the cost.
Oh yea, and you’d have electricity when the wind isn’t blowing!
My last thought on this story is this: when are we going to change the definition of “green renewable energy” to include nuclear power?
So maybe your the one that needs to learn something. Wanting and believing that wind and solar will do the job won’t make it so. Reality kicks in and makes you face the music.
If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Dancing Darla said:
So you don’t care about poor people and the environment? The problem with Green thinking is that it is elitist and shallow. It doesn’t help the rain forests you want to protect to push for the greater use of ethanol which causes increases in the amount of land needed to grow food. Where do you think that most of that land is going come from? If you try to run an economy on the renewable energy sources you come up on their limits very quickly. It’s fine to say “split wood, not atoms” but then you end up with no forests. It’s fine to talk about a sustainable economy if you just accept that everybody will be poor. The problem is that poor people care more about getting something to eat than the environment. The world is littered with places that died because the ecology was wrecked by people trying to get enough to eat. I just saw a wonderful TV program about a village on the shores of lake Biwa in Southern Japan. The rather pompous David Attenborouogh narration went on and on about how close to nature these people were. here’s the program’s website:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/satoyama/
Yet these people could only sustain their lifestyle because they lived in a wealthy nation. The Satoyama is sustained by the nuclear power plants of Japan and Japan’s ability to create wonderful things that other people want. The hard work of the villagers pays off because the hard work of many other s supports their lifestyle. Scrooge McDuck in the old Disney cartoon show always used to say “Work smarter not harder.” I think that is what most of us here are trying to do. For myself, I have been studying the issues involved here for a very long time. The people who propose these environmental programs and the alternative energy sources do not have your best interests at heart. Here’s an outline of the agenda:
http://green-agenda.com/index.html
The problem with the sustainable lifestyle is that it is hard work. I frankly don’t think the Greens realize how hard. Like many of those on the Left, the Green education seems to be the education of the fantasy history of “the class struggle” and movements rather than how societies actually work. I have spent much time visiting working museums including Colonial Williamsburg, which was near where I lived. One thing that has struck me is how hard things were in the early industrial times and just how much time and effort went into what were the most trivial but necessary tasks. I don’t know if you read Laura Ingalls Wilder as a girl, but you should now as an education. The long term history of the world has been a huge bunch of people living in grinding poverty and a few rent seekers on top controlling everything.
Al Gore is a classic rent seeker. George Soros is a rent seeking totaltarian who wants to be the puppeteer for the world. If Al Gore and his ilk really care about the environment, really felt that an environmental catastrophe was imminent do you really think that he would continue to live the lifestyle he live. Al Gore is a classic rent seeking aristocrat who likes living high on the hog at the expense of us little people while advocating anything that helps to keep us little people little. Which is of course the point.
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2008 at 11:23 am
So it’s all about the money in the end, isn’t it? Maybe we need to rethink what wealth and value are. Money is not everything. Money is the root of all evil. We need to think differently. You are talking about the old way and we need to think about a new way of living.
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am
DelvGH86 said:
So I take it you live this new way? Please tell us how you grow tour own food and weave your own cloth, and make your own energy from sustainable resources, and still have time to drop comments on forums like this.
Did you not get the point of J Carlton’s comment? WE CAN”T DO THIS ANYMORE. there are too many people to support with that way of like; for all the damage to the environment caused by technology, it would be worse without it, We are suggesting that we can do even better by the planet by using even more technology not less. And we can prove that this is the right path.
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Well it is partially about money because money is a limited resource and we can’t spend trillions and trillions to create a small amount of energy. It’s not just about that though. It’s about the investment of materials and man power and time. It’s also about the return, which with something like wind is tiny and also it’s intermittent which opens up all kinds of other problems. The economics of it are not just the money it’s also all the copper and carbon fiber and aluminum that goes into one of those things and the sea floor that needs to be torn up to make one. That needs to be considered and compared to the amount of energy you get back.
Then also consider time. To get to 20% wind and solar would take many decades. 20% is not enough and many decades is too long. We can’t run countries into bankruptcy and bring our industry to the breaking point for such a tiny return.
And as far as money? That money is still going to be an issue. There’s a need for money to do anything. Why spend it on something with so little return. Every dollar (or euro) that goes to building one of these comes from funds that can otherwise pay for education, health care, research, public infrastructure and so on. Plus, it also saps the economy and takes it from the pockets of individuals. You ever heard of the Great Depression? That was an example of why the economy is so important. It hurt the little guy. It hurt the little guy bad. Sure, there were rich people who lost big too, but in general, there were still a surprising number of filthy rich people during that time. The reason is that an economic downturn always tends to increase the class divide and hurt the have-nots worst. So it is money, but it’s often money from the pockets of the poorest.
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
DelvGH86 said:
DelvGH86 said:
Only the wealthy can afford to think differently. Consider North Korea.
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
DelvGH86 said:
If that’s how you feel, perhaps you should stop asking for government hand-outs?
Money is just an IOU for a unit of labour. If you somehow do away with money you’ve lost an interchange medium with which you can compel people to cooperate but you’ve not rid yourself of the reason solar cells and wind turbines are expensive and next to useless. Without money there’d be even less interest in renewable energy as people would be too busy farming their own food and plowing down forrests to provide heat and farm land; they certainly would not subsidize ideas that weren’t immediately practical.
Coal saved the forests, oil saved the whales and nuclear can save the climate. Split atoms, not wood.
Quote Comment