HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Global Warning - Mar 8, 2010 - Printable Version
- Some Questions for President Obama
by Robin Buckallew
Recently President Obama has come out in favor of increasing the amount of power we generate from nuclear sources. This is his approach to reducing emissions, in face of the growing threat from global warming and the total inability of our country to come to grips with the need to reduce reliance on CO2-generating coal, oil, and natural gas. Obama isn’t the first on the left to endorse nuclear as an option; however, he is in a better position than all those who came before him to actually carry it to fruition. So, before we embark upon a big, and difficult to reverse, step in this direction, I would like to ask him a few questions. It’s possible he’s thought these things through; if so, I think we, the citizens of the world, deserve to know what he’s thinking. After all, this is our world, too, and we have to live here. First of all, I’m somewhat concerned about this decision on the heels of an earlier decision to take Yucca Mountain totally out of consideration as a nuclear waste storage site. Right now, all the nuclear waste that has been generated is just stored on site at the plant where it has been generated. Most scientists recommend underground storage, because of the unique danger posed by such wastes. Personally, I’m a bit ambivalent about the Yucca Mountain site. I’ve seen the studies on it, and it appears to be solid scientifically, and possibly is the best site in the country to store it; however, it does seem a bit…shall we say, unfair…to store all the nuclear waste the country is generating in a state that doesn’t want it, and that has no nuclear power plants of its own. That being said, that’s a strictly political argument, and Obama has promised to utilize proper science in making scientific decisions. Is his decision based on science? If so, what are the scientific arguments supporting his decision? It appears to me that the decision is strictly political, and as such, while it might be the right decision, it generates some disturbing questions. Such as…where are we going to put the waste? At this point, there is no alternative site identified that can meet the criteria for keeping us safe from radiation. In fact, Yucca Mountain really can’t meet the EPA criteria, but then, we will never find a site that can. You see, at this time, the EPA requires that we find a site that will keep society safe for the next million years. You heard me right, I said a million years. Unfortunately, there is no way that any scientific assessment that extrapolates a million years into the future can possibly be presented with a straight face. It’s a sure bet that the current practice of on site storage is failing miserably at meeting this standard; it’s a sure bet that we are not going to identify a site that we can guarantee will be safe from accident or sabotage for a million years. This is a very dynamic planet; things happen. The familiar surface of the Earth is the result of nearly five billion years of moving continents, volcanoes and earthquakes, meteorites, and other traumatic events that have shaped and scarred the crust. So, why has the EPA written such a ridiculous standard? Because of the unique nature of nuclear waste, that’s why. Because high-level nuclear waste remains radioactive for millennia, and the EPA has decided that we don’t have the right to dump our garbage on the future. Perhaps wise, yes, but certainly at this point, an impossible task. We’ve already generated the waste; it’s too late now to say “oops”. So, where, Mr. Obama, are you going to put the additional waste that additional nuclear power plants will generate? Yucca Mountain? No, you’ve nixed that. Perhaps we should consider Washington D. C.?
Another consideration that I’m curious about is the long time frame it takes to bring nuclear power plants online. Most nuclear plants take years to build, and so we’ll continue to generate massive amounts of CO2 while we’re waiting. Dick Cheney actually had a solution for that, and it would have worked, too. He proposed lifting the safety restrictions that take so long and cost so much, and then we can get the plants on line faster and cheaper, and they can begin pumping out clean energy right away. Safely? Well, no, but cleanly. Hey, we can’t have everything, can we? So, my question for you, Mr. Obama, is this: are we simply trying to postpone the day of reckoning by embracing a technology that can’t be brought around quickly? Or are we intending to relax the rules to allow quicker assembly? Or none of the above? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, because I think it’s an important question.
Another problem: mining. At this point, we utilize Uranium-238 for generating nuclear power. This is a non-renewable resource, and it’s buried inside earth’s crust. In order to be used, we must bring it out, which requires mining. This requires damage to the surface of the earth, severe and often irreversible damage. For some reason, I have not yet heard this question brought up at presidential debates or other fora where nuclear power is being discussed. Everybody asks about waste…nobody asks about mining. Why not? Is it because most of the mining is being done in the southwestern US, where most of us don’t live? We can’t see the enormous scars left on the earth. We don’t live next to the huge piles of radioactive tailings that have been pulled out of the mines and discarded. We aren’t the ones who, because we weren’t told initially that the material was dangerous, dealt with those piles of dirt by using them to build our homes and our sidewalks. We aren’t the ones who have huge mounds of radioactive material near where our children play and our animals graze. In fact, much of this is happening on reservations, so it’s the Hopi and the Navajo who have to deal with these messes. It’s easy to ignore that which isn’t in our backyard, but we need to become aware of the issues. After all, if the radiation is dangerous, and our employees at power plants wear protective clothing and radiation suits, why are we content to leave huge piles of the stuff all over the landscape? Over the past 60 years, there have been numerous instances of water contamination from tailings pile spills, and most of these haven’t been dealt with yet. So, if we increase the nuclear power contribution to our electrical grid, we’ll be making larger piles, and when will we get around to dealing with those? In addition, are we really content to sacrifice the delicate ecosystems in which this mining is occurring just so that we can plug in yet another hair dryer or toaster? Probably some people are…I, for one, am not.
Another problem is water. Uranium mining requires a great deal of water, and most of it is being done in the southwest – the portion of the United States with the least abundant supplies of that precious liquid. This could pose a serious problem, especially with the rapidly growing population in this region creating more and more pressure on the existing supplies. In addition, nuclear power plants require huge amounts of water for cooling. This might not seem like such a difficult problem, but in recent years, some plants have had to be shut down temporarily because of droughts. In a world already afflicted by global warming, droughts are likely to become even more frequent and severe. Even if it remains possible to draw water away from agriculture and domestic use to send to the power plants, it may not be possible to generate enough water at all. This is a factor that I’ve also rarely heard mentioned in the discussions on the issue. Perhaps it’s time we give water a seat at the table of stakeholders.
Expense is another issue. Nuclear power is, quite simply put, the most expensive form of electricity. Originally, the Eisenhower administration informed us it was going to be “too cheap to meter”. This was rhetoric, propaganda if you will, and wasn’t really based in a lucid assessment of the issues involved. Turns out, we have a choice: we can have it cheap, or we can have it safe. The Soviet Union opted for cheap; the result was Chernobyl, which spread radiation over substantial portions of Europe in a very short period of time. We, along with the rest of the western world, opted for safe. As a result, it costs real money, more money than other forms of power. Most people aren’t really aware of this, because the government provides subsidies to bring the fee to the end-user down to a point where it’s compatible with the cheaper forms, such as coal. What is going to be the ultimate cost of increasing nuclear power generation? Who will pay the cost? Will the consumer begin to shoulder more of the financial burden, and if so, will the users remain willing to use nuclear power at the increased rates? Or will the government continue to subsidize the power? If so, then I really must ask you, Mr. President…if we are unable to afford to insure all our citizens under a public option, how in hell are we going to be able to afford to pay for nuclear power, which is a good deal more expensive?
Finally, the big question globally: if we begin to focus on nuclear power as the answer to CO2 emissions, then it would seem logical to assume that this would become a global answer. So, are we going to continue to use enrichment of uranium as an excuse to invade those countries who have annoyed us, on the off chance that sometime in a vaguely defined future, they might actually begin to enrich it to weapons grade uranium that can be used to build bombs? Judging from recent experience, I am loathe to consider the possibilities. After all, Iran has nuclear power plants. You voted to give the President (that would be George W. Bush at the time) power to go to war with Iran, if it was deemed necessary. I am concerned about the future, especially if we should ever get into a situation where the calmer heads are kicked out of Washington, and the frenzied, paranoid sort take over (nope, couldn’t happen, not here…right?).
I know that we need to do something to curb our emissions. I also know that many of the proposals before us have negative impacts on other parts of the environment, including nuclear power, while most are of questionable benefit to emissions reductions. For the most part, this proposal appears to be an attempt to reduce our emissions painlessly, without asking Americans to actually change anything they’re doing. We want to keep our profligate lifestyles, while feeling good about all that we’re doing to protect the environment and limit global warming. I’m afraid that such an approach is bound to fail. There are, however, things we can do that don’t have the long lag time of nuclear power, that are at least somewhat less expensive, and that will probably have a better success rate without the serious implications to other aspects of the environment. Some of these, however, will require at least a certain amount of lifestyle change for most, if not all, Americans.
So, the very first focus should be education. Although many people feel we’re working on this, from what I’ve seen, it’s rather limited in scope, and certainly in success. Many of the people who have taught alongside me in various classrooms around the country have expressed their aversion to putting all the cards on the table for fear of offending someone; as a result, they end up only validating the ideas that the students came into class with, and don’t ask them to re-evaluate. They present acceptance of the evidence as an optional, rather than as something that needs to be done to understand the problem. So, we all need to put our heads together and devise a good, effective educational program that will be convincing, scientifically sound, and reach as many Americans as possible. That should be step one.
Step Two? Conservation….conservation…..conservation. This is NOT a matter of personal virtue and self-righteousness; this is a matter of survival. We are simply using too much stuff, energy included. Start simple: encourage people to turn off lights they’re not using. Many houses are lit up like Christmas trees all the time, even when people aren’t home. Most people feel safe with the lights on everywhere; the irony of this, of course, is that they’re actually less safe. Crooks don’t see well in the dark, either, and if you leave your house dark when you leave home, a light will be more noticed than if you leave it lit up all the time. Another thing I’ve noticed in the past couple of decades is how many businesses remain lit up all night long, even after closing. Neon lights everywhere, and at least some of their interior lights on. Can we please go back to the old days, when people turned off the lights at night, once they’d locked the doors of their business and gone home? There are other reasons to do this, too. Besides the issue of emissions and energy use, there is also the issue of light pollution. Let the night be night. Let the cities stop competing with the stars. Let the animals that rely on darkness and only certain types of light be once again able to navigate properly, be able to hide from predators, or be able to do the other things they might do in the dark.
That’s just the beginning. If you really care about solving the problem of CO2 emissions, another possible solution is for the government to subsidize retrofitting existing houses with solar panels, and to require all new homes to be built with solar panels. Also, tax rebates for individuals who choose to retrofit for solar/wind could be part of the overall package, along with net metering. Individuals who produce solar power, but choose to remain on the grid for those times when solar isn’t feasible can sell back excess power to the grid. Many of us actually use the least electricity during the day when the sun is the brightest; so we could sell all that back which we don’t need, and it would be a net gain for everyone. Subsidize renewables such as wind and solar, so that they become more affordable, and can more easily compete with the old, outdated, polluting fossil fuels.
Now, we get into the tougher stuff. This is where you’ll really need to get the voting public on board with you, but I’ve watched you, Mr. Obama, and there are few rhetoriticians out there with finer oratorical skills. If anyone can do it, you can. Mass transit, Mr. Obama. Link all the large cities by bullet trains; use high speed rail in town. Make buses regularly available, efficient, convenient, and affordable. Make them pleasant to ride in, and make sure they run on time. People won’t ride them, you say? I know…I’ve heard all that. So, here’s what you do: charge for driving. Right now, driving is mostly free…roads are free, parking is free, gas and autos are heavily subsidized to make them cheaper. So, pass the cost of driving on to the driver. Toll roads. Parking lots that cost money. Carbon taxes for the gas consumed. Cheap mass transit, expensive private transportation…that’s the way it is in New York City. That’s the way it is in Europe. That works. People in those areas don’t take the car for granted, and they utilize the mass transit. If you’re not sure how to do it, then take a trip to Curitiba, Brazil. Take several of the other movers and shakers in Washington with you. It would make a nice working vacation, and you’re beginning to look tired. You need a break. So, go to Curitiba. Take the wife and the girls. They’d enjoy it, too. Then, when you get back, inspired, commit the US government to get behind positive change, real change, change that will actually work, rather than these half-hearted, business as usual approaches. Vision, Mr. Obama. Vision, imagination, and courage. That’s what it will take.
Oh, and one last thing…if you really want to solve the problem of global warming, there is one thing you musn’t forget. Put a gag on James Inhofe. The world will thank you for it.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).