Tag: Energy Policies

France And Its Nukes

Many proponents of th nuclear energy have used France as an example of what can be accomplished.  The country gets a hign precentage of the power from nukes and is a shining example of what can be accomplished when we set out minds on safe clean energy.

A major uranium leak at the Tricastin nuclear facility has focused attention on a series of recent incidents in France’s nuclear industry, raising serious doubts about its safety precautions for its workers and the environment. The conflicting reports issued by state officials and representatives of France’s public nuclear energy conglomerate, Areva, heighten suspicions of a cover-up.

A decree passed on July 23, 2003 and a law passed on June 13, 2006, restricting publicly available information on nuclear facilities in the name of the fight against terrorism, limit what can be revealed about the incidents. The measures classify information relative to stocking, protection, accountancy and transport of nuclear material as top secret. They also apply to the preparation of nuclear safety exercises.

The enquiry on the July 7 incident also detected water table pollution, apparently linked to the storage of military nuclear waste at Pierrelatte. Due to the feelings provoked by the first incident, it was decided to test the water tables around all 58 French power plants. Citing the fact that that the initial Tricastin leak was at a fuel processing plant and not a power plant, Frederic Marillier, spokesman for nuclear questions at Greenpeace France, said in a July 17 press release: “this analysis must not stop at the nuclear plants but must be widened to all nuclear sites: to processing sites (such as Cadarache, Marcoule, or the Hague), to disused uranium mines (such as Bessines), to military sites (such as Valduc), and to waste-stocking centres, notably in the Manche region and at Soulaines.”

In the following weeks, there were other incidents, receiving less coverage: on July 11, at the Nogent-sur-Seine nuclear power plant; on July 12 at a plant at Gravelines; on July 18 at Saint-Albans-Saint-Maurice, and in the reactor at Tricastin on July 23. On July 17, another leak was detected at the FBFC factory at Romans-sur-Isère (also in the Drôme), caused by a pipe break dating back several years. In total, according to CRIIRAD figures quoted by the daily Le Monde, 126 workers were contaminated.

Recently the safe Naval nuclear energy has been found to be not so safe and now the shining light of the nuke eneregy lobby is starting to dim a bit.

No Vote On OffShore Oil

For weeks, pressure has been mounting in Congress to approve more domestic oil drilling, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has held the line, using her power to block a vote on offshore drilling.

President Bush has made almost daily calls for Democratic leaders to take action. House GOP leaders, citing a new poll showing that a slim majority of Californians now favor offshore drilling, issued a release today saying “even (Pelosi’s) own California neighbors oppose her efforts to block new drilling far off American coasts.” GOP lawmakers are so disgruntled they’re urging Bush to deny Congress its August break by calling a special session on energy.

Even some Democrats are getting antsy, fearing the party’s stance could hurt in the fall elections. But Pelosi, who has opposed offshore drilling throughout her two decades in Congress, insists opening new areas to drilling won’t lower gas prices in the short-term. She believes a vote would only help the GOP blame Democrats for high gas prices.

While I agree with Pelosi on this matter, because there are already 68 million acres of leases already.  Let the companies start there and then see if it will make a difference in the price of gas.  I doubt very seriously if it will and the whole clap trap about it is just that a shovel full of manure.

A Nuke Industry Pep Rally

Nuclear power plants, which use atom-splitting fission to release energy and produce electricity, currently generate about 19 percent of America’s electrical output. A far greater percentage of the nation’s electricity is created with fossil fuels like coal, natural gas, and oil. These are used to heat water into steam which turns the blades of a turbine, which in turn rotates the shaft of an electrical generator, causing a coil of wire within the generator to spin in a magnetic field and create electricity. Coal today is used to produce about 49 percent of America’s electricity, while natural gas and petroleum account for another 20 percent and 2 percent, respectively. Other sources of electricity include:

  • hydropower (accounting for 7 percent of U.S. electrical production), where flowing water is used to spin the turbine·
  • geothermal power (less than 1 percent), which harnesses heat energy buried beneath the earth’s surface
  • solar power (less than 1 percent), which is four times more expensive than nuclear power and at least five times the cost of coal, and is undependable because it produces electricity only when the sun is shining.
  • wind power (less than 1 percent), which is similarly expensive and undependable because its turbines produce electricity only about a third of the time (i.e., when the wind is blowing)
  • biomass power (about 1 percent), a highly inefficient system that uses agricultural waste to produce electricity; to shift America’s electrical production entirely to biomass, a farming area ten times the size of Iowa would be required.
  • fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum) currently account for a combined 71 percent of U.S. electrical production.

Nuclear energy offers an extremely clean, cost-effective alternative to those fossil fuels. Nuclear plants put no carbon dioxide into the air, and the relatively miniscule quantities of radioactive waste they produce are stored in sealed, self-contained, carefully guarded sites. A coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radioactive material than an equivalent nuclear reactor—and not into a self-contained storage site but directly into the atmosphere. By generating electricity whose production otherwise would have required the use of fossil fuels, the 104 nuclear plants now operating in the U.S. prevent the release of approximately 700 million additional tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year; that is the equivalent of removing 96 percent of all passenger cars from U.S. roads.

If not for nuclear energy, America’s dependence on foreign oil would be even greater than it currently is. During the 1973 oil embargo, nuclear technology produced only 5 percent of the U.S. electric supply, while oil accounted for 17 percent. Today those figures are 19 percent and 2 percent, respectively. If more nuclear plants are constructed, they could replace coal and natural gas as America’s major source of electricity production.

There is some good info in this piece but is there something missing from this cheery little diatribe?

Republican BS On Energy

In a piece written by H. Rosenfeld, he states the following:

Remedies for soaring gasoline prices proposed by President Bush and Sen. John McCain, who the GOP prays succeeds him, would increase America’s capacity to produce more energy from its own resources.

What those remedies would not do is reduce the cost of gas anytime soon or much ever. The President’s demand that Congress immediately lift its bans on exploring for oil and natural gas off-shore and on federal lands wouldn’t be productive for at least seven years, more likely 10. The impact on world prices, and on the cost of a gallon of gas in America, would be minimal. That’s because the U.S. controls, at most, only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves.

Nowhere in the Bush or McCain proposals is there so much as a hint that all of the added oil and gas would be retained exclusively for American consumption, which presently accounts for a quarter of the world’s production. That’s because it wouldn’t. Instead America’s mammoth oil companies would continue to seek the highest returns, meaning the growing markets in Asia especially.

The 200 mile off-shore exploration requires the use of drill ships outfitted with the gear to exploit oil fields located deep in ocean beds. The makers of the these ships are furiously building, but the world competition for their product is severe. That adds to the time lag between finding a field and exploiting it commercially.

For his part, McCain came out in another speech for the building of 45 nuclear power plants in the U.S. by 2030, and another 55 some unspecified time down the road. At present, the 104 nuclear reactors still on line produce about 20 percent of the country’s electricity. Bush also routinely invokes nuclear power as an energy shortage antidote.

Their reasoning is why not step up nuclear’s role because it does not add to the global warming as fossil fuels do.

What McCain did not discuss was the practicality of doing so. The federal government over the years has dedicated billions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear industry. But that would be chicken feed to what it would cost to erect new plants today. It could well be so much that any gains would be overtaken by their costs. Besides, McCain has no plan to add to nuclear subsidies, pretty much undermining his supposedly bold idea.

Dealing with the challenge of the energy crisis requires more than political tomfoolery that the Republican President and the Republican candidate have so far mustered. The solution rests in the nearer future much more on government supported conservation. On their own, Americans are beginning to drive less. They should be enabled to do so in more efficient vehicles and encouraged to otherwise modify the profligate ways energy is consumed in this country. That actually would bring costs down.

May I suggest that the voter take the time to read about the issues and vote from knowledge.  They have been voting for BS for too many years and that is why we are in this pickle now.  Lies and pandering have done nothing to improve the lives of working Americans.