Learning About Energy

Protecting Us From the Truth

A Brief History

 

The first Environmental Impact Statement for a nuclear power plant was for Calvert Cliffs.  Norm Frigerio started gathering cancer data and natural radiation background levels, as required under the law.  When it became clear that the cancer rate was inversely proportional to the radiation level (more radiation, less cancer) someone decided that this information was unwelcome, and canceled Frigerio’s project.  The report was never published.  Why?

In early 1997, when the Washington Post hired a new environmental reporter named Joby Warrick, I brought him over to my house and spent several hours showing him data on our radioactive, hormetic earth.  He wrote a major article, cited on page 1, describing how participants in open-air nuclear weapons test were outliving their unirradiated companions, nuclear shipyard workers had lower cancer rates than non-nuclear workers, etc.  His article received great international attention, and we planned further pieces.  But then he failed to return my calls, and started writing page-one anti-nuclear pieces, for which he ultimately won a Pulitzer prize.  Why this reversal of the truth?

When Ted Quinn was outgoing ANS President and Andy Kadak was incoming, they and I and others carefully worked out a new ANS Position Statement on low-dose radiation and LNT.  After sending it in to ANS HQ to be published, strongly warning that not a word should be changed, it was canceled without explanation.  We were told merely that others had to be satisfied, but these others were never named, nor required to state their case.  What truth were we being protected from, and why?

Cohen’s radon data are discounted because of generic limitations of epidemiological studies, though in practice, these concerns are not applicable to his specific case.  But, we are told that the only really reliable type of evidence is case-control studies where individuals are followed to their death.  So Otto Raabe gives us a solid population of radium dial painters whose individual body burdens of radium has been measured.  Immediately, funding to follow these individuals further is canceled.  Why is this data not welcome?

Now, today, I am being told that we dare not tell people about hormesis, even though no knowledgeable scientist I know would argue against it.  Why do we try to hide this open secret?  I don’t find, in talking with people in various circumstances, that they find this concept hard to understand or hard to accept.  We can’t stop people from looking at the data, though we seem to be trying awfully hard.  Google will tell anyone who asks that natural radiation levels are high in mountain resorts, where the cancer level is low.  Radon spas brag about their high radioactivity and many governments pay for their hormetic effects.  How long can we hide such information?  Why would we want to?

 

Ted Rockwell

 

 

 

 

China to Drop Solar & Wind to Focus on Nuclear Power

In a government report published March 5, 2012, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao announced that China will "put an end to blind expansion in industries such as solar energy and wind power in 2012."

The most interesting part of the report to me was the last two sentences, that deserve careful reading, in view of some of the glowing promises and predictions that have been written about solar and wind during the past several decades.  A great deal of important information is revealed in just these few words:

"The operating hours of wind power generating units plunged by 144 hours in 2011, despite an increase of 48% in on-grid wind power output."

"The operating hours of solar power generating units also declined, in spite of the tripling of installed capacity of solar PV power."

How about THAT?!

Ted Rockwell

Windpower Can Not Add to Our Energy Supply

There is a lot of chatter about how fast windpower is growing.  We're told that windpower is the fastest growing source of electricity, and that we could live on nothing but breezes and sunshine forever, if we really wanted to.  

But let’s not get so involved in the various specifics as to lose the basic truth here: windpower needs spinning backup, ready to leap in at any instant.  Therefore, the only way that windpower can sell electricity is to replace a source that was already reliably doing the job, and make that reliable source less efficient.  This is true whether that reliable source is coal, gas, hydro or nuclear.  Windpower can never add to our energy supply.

Five myths about green energy

A Washington Post column in the Sunday, April  25, 2010 "Outlook" Section, stirred up a lot of discussion among its readers.  One can take issue with almost any claims about energy these days, but I thought the points the columnist raised were worth thinking about.  I commend them to your attention and consideration:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042302220.html?referrer=emailarticle

Ted Rockwell

Radiation is not THAT special!

Despite our detailed knowledge of the subject, nuclear technology still suffers from a belief that it is more dangerous than anything else--by an immeasurable amount.  This provides extra income for workers in the field, but it loads an unreasonable burden on its economic future.  This problem is well illustrated by a few paragraphs in the book, "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees, on the discharge of radioactive materials from power plants.  Tom has agreed to let me quote those words here.  I commend them to your thoughtful consideration.  This is an exact quote, but I won't encumber each paragraph below with quote marks.

• A typical power plant annually releases 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of fissile U-235...and 12.8 tons of thorium) 
• Total U.S. releases for 1982 came to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of U-235) and 1971 tons of thorium.
• Worldwide releases totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of (U-235) and 8960 tons of thorium...

By the year 2040, cumulative releases of radioactive materials from these plants will have reached the following levels:

• U.S. releases: 145,230 tons of uranium ( including 1031 tons of U-235) and 357,491 tons of thorium.
• World releases: 828,632 tons of uranium (including 5883 tons of U-235) and over two million tons of thorium.
• "Daughter products" produced by the decay of these isotopes include radium, radon, polonium, bismuth and lead.

Why is this not splashed all over the front pages?  Who in their right mind can consider this acceptable?

[And then Blees springs his punchline, citing a well-known report by Alex Gabbard of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory  (Feb 5, 2008)] : These are the radioactive release figures for coal-fired power plants!

Population exposure to radiation from coal-burning power plants is over a hundred times higher than anything conceivably coming out of nuclear power plants...[and then Blees quotes Gabbard:]

"Large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste.  These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities.  Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner.  Collected nuclear wastes that accumulate on [coal-fired] electric utility sites are not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes through air and water movement and the food chain."

[Blees continues:]  If this isn't crazy enough for you, ponder this little factoid: The energy content of the nuclear materials released into the environment in the course of coal combustion is greater than the energy of the coal that is being consumed.  In other words, coal consumption actually wastes more energy than it produces...[End of Blees quote.]

The important point here is NOT that the radiation from coal combustion is a public health problem.  It is not.  (Inhalation of the soot particles, production of acid rain, release of mercury, etc. are another story) But radiation from burning coal is not a hazard.  And thus, treating radiation released from nuclear plants, which is at least 100 times lower, as a problem, is not scientifically defensible, and concern over radiation release from nuclear plants is not rational.

How to Avoid Haggling

A Great Truth just dawned on me, and I can't wait to pass it on.  I hate haggling, especially over something as important as energy policy.  When you're trying to convince someone, you're supposed to start by giving a little, to show you're reasonable and not dogmatic.  But I would not feel honest, starting a conversation by trying to say something nice about windmills.  I hate the damn things!

(Oh, now you're showing that you're biased.  Gotcha!)  No, I never claimed that I could look at all those facts and not come to a conclusion.  I'm  not a zombie.  But here's the Great Truth (and I've just recently come to see this.):  Suppose the next time a guy comes up and wants to argue about energy sources, you say something like this:  "Aw, I'm too tired to argue right now.  I'm working on a Facts Report.  Not worrying about convincing anybody about anything.  Just trying to identify all the relevant facts.  You have a different view of these things.  Maybe you could help.  If we could agree on what the relevant facts are, it ought to help make a better argument later, no?  Take a look at what I've got, and see if you see any facts I've left out.  Or maybe you don't agree with some I've got.  If you've got better, or later, info, we'll put it in."

Now, I expect few people will argue against trying to line up relevant facts.  And, freed of the obligation to half-heartedly "agree" to something you don't really believe, discussing facts is less apt to get heated.  In that situation, your "opponent" is more likely to learn a thing or two that you could never beat into him in an argument.  And YOU might even learn something yourself.  What a concept!

Try it.  You'll like it!

       

How to deal with "Perceived Dangers"

In talking about the Nuclear Facts Report, I'm sometimes told: "But it's not the scientific facts that count; it's the perceived facts as seen by a nervous public."  My answer is: that's a perfect situation to use the Facts Report.

If we confine our discussions to working within the context of the Facts Report, we encounter the following facts:  The public has been more fearful than the facts seem to justify.  So the policy-makers have responded by "appeasing the public" by providing much more “protection” than otherwise necessary.  Next fact: The public has not been appeased.  Instead, looking at the immensity of the “solution,” the public has (reasonably, in my opinion) concluded that the problem must actually be must worse than they had perceived, to require such a response.  This course of history has continued until we have policy-makers claiming that if we can just complete the extreme “solution” of Yucca Mountain, the public will conclude that their previous concerns have now been met.  I see no factual basis in science or history to support that hope, and much historical data to deny it.

We also have the Fact that a large majority of the people tell pollsters they favor building more nuclear power plants.  Why don’t we base our measure of the public attitude on that, instead of reinforcing unreasonable fears by acting as if they were real?   As long as we treat those fears as if they were realistically justified, why should the public see them any less so?   The experts should provide the protection they considered needed, and then explain to the public why that policy is appropriate.  At that time, reasonable questions, getting reasonable answers, should provide the best way to build public confidence. 

Of course, the persons profiting from this outlay of money have a strong incentive to maintain it.  That's another fact to be dealt with.

Ted Rockwell

Is Reducing Energy Usage a Worthy Goal?

This week, I received a link to an excited discussion of "zero energy houses."  After extensive research and  development, a series of demonstration houses have been produced that are claimed to enable the owner to live comfortably with no expenditure of energy..  

This was accomplished by developing new, high tech materials, instrumentation, and requirements for the owner to modify his behavior to minimize energy usage. New developments include:

• Icynene foam insulation;
• Rooftop solar panels;
• Low-flow plumbing fixtures;
• Energy Star lights and appliances;
• Tankless water heaters;
• Abundant natural light and daylighting;
• High performance fiberglass windows; and
• Bamboo floors and fiber cement siding. 

The paper is at: http://www.jetsongreen.com/2009/07/modern-affordable-living-zero-home-tour.html

The friend who sent me the link was surprised that I was not delighted with these developments.   

The Need for Reliable Power.

My previous blogpost noted that some utilities argue that the real value of unpredictable power—power that varies with the wind or the sun, regardless of demand—is negative.  That is, it’s like someone forcing you to take a gift “right now,” when your hands are full.  The gift might be something you’d like under different circumstances, but you just can’t take it “right now.”  Let me explain why that’s so.

A working electrical network has little “give” to it.  There’s not much capacity to store energy.  Each time a user shuts off a light or flushes the toilet, the energy input to the network must be changed.  To accommodate this quivering demand, the network must always have some “spinning reserve”—generators that can instantaneously increase or decrease their output as required. 

Once you have that spinning reserve in place—a nuclear or coal-fired plant that can reliably deliver power when needed, even to replace a large generator that may suddenly drop off the line unexpectedly—once that capability is in place, then the “gift” of unreliable power is of no value. 

The wind or solar plant cannot provide that spinning reserve; reliability is the key requirement there.  Spinning reserve is like insurance.  Would you accept an insurance policy from a company that says it may not be able to pay you when you need it?  The typical wind farm operates at only 20-30%  of nameplate capacity.  That’s not like saying there may be occasional extraordinary circumstances when they cannot pay.  It’s saying that there are only occasional times when it can deliver rated power and even those times will be short-lived.

There is talk of plans to decrease this unavailability through the use of hydrogen, or pumped storage, or fuel cells or other untested stratagems.  But wouldn’t it make more sense to just build another nuclear plant?  We know how to do that.

How Many Different Energy Sources is Enough?

It seems only common sense not to "put all our energy eggs in one basket."  What if the one we bet on goes sour?  But there's more to this question than meets the eye.  Let's look into it.

First, we don't have to worry about any one or two energy sources taking over.  Even if everything favored one source, it is not possible for any one or two energy sources to take over the market.  Each is constrained by its own particular limitations, so we are not going to see any near-future domination of the energy field. 

Nuclear is the one source in a position to greatly expand its production.  Between 1970 and 1990, the U.S. built about 100 new nuclear plants.  We could build another hundred in the next 20 years, and there is a bill in the Congress to do just that.  That would raise nuclear's share of the market from 20% to 40%.  It would still be outranked by coal at 50% or more.

There are many obstacles to doubling nuclear, but there are no technological questions or uncertainties.  That has been proven, year after year, over the past several decades.  No other energy option is even close.  We could double wind or solar or biofuel, but that would be doubling only a very small output.  The doubled electrical output would still be trivial.

There is another factor, fundamental but often overlooked or dismissed,  We are used to comparing things that are all about the same order of magnitude.  All combustion fuels, from gasoline to switchgrass, have about the same energy density per pound, within an order of magnitude.  These we can reasonably compare. 

All commercial aircraft have about the same cruising speed.  But if you offer to supplement an airline's fleet with trains, you'd get some complaints.  The cruising speeds of trains and planes are only one order of magnitude apart, perhaps 55 mph vs, 550.  Suppose, for the sake of diversity, you also supplied some skateboards--another order of magnitude less.  You'd get some pretty strong objections, saying that these "substitutes" are not even in the same class as airplanes.

In this context, recognize that any nuclear process is at least ten million times more energy dense than any non-nuclear process like combustion.  And solar or wind sources are even more dilute, as well as being unpredictable. Nuclear is in a class by itself.

So, even if the uncertainties and problems of other fuel sources are eventually solved, we have to ask:  wouldn't it be easier to just build another nuclear plant?  That's something we've proved we know how to do.  Nothing else is in that position.