home
Welcome to the NoNukes VideoConference site
Use this site or some other means, if needed, to get up to speed on nuclear power, then find the conference terminal location nearest you. Onward and upward! Mark
“I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.” President Dwight Eisenhower Preface about this website – it’s all about avoiding overwhelm This subject is overwhelming!! Nuclear technology is profoundly complex. This website attempts to provide a format for citizens to get up to speed as quickly as possible without overwhelm; when overwhelm happens people walk away. This home page is oriented to Idaho but the website in general is oriented nationally. It primarily cites references to four detailed works (as well as many others) and from author Mark Hanawalt. If wording is not cited or is in [ ] it is mine. Please read these books if possible.
Nuclear Power is not the answer by Helen Caldicott, 2006 (a)
The New Press, New York, NY, usa
Insurmountable Risks by Brice Smith, 2006 (b)
IEER Press: a report of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, MD and RDR Books, MI, usa
Nuclear Power - the energy balance by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, 2005 (c)
Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding by the Keystone Center, 2007 (d)
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy by Arjun Makhijani, 2007 (e)
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf
Our current situation in Idaho and the U.S.
The U.S. began building nuclear reactor power plants in the 1950s soon after developing the nuclear bomb. By the 1970s it was becoming clearer of the dangers of generating electricity this way, the intractable problem of wastes, and of potential nuclear proliferation from the by-products of all reactors. The anti-nuke movement of the 70s and 80s was able to freeze the nuclear power trend but was unable to tear down the work and damage already done. Now a generation later with clean-up efforts that will carry well into this century, the pro-nuclear community is surging ahead with another wave of activity. Some are actually coming up with plans to build thousands of new plants in the world by 2050. There are about 20 new plants being fast-tracked for construction in the U.S.
At the outset it is important to understand the nature of our situation in Idaho. Energy is all-important in all ways, that is, in a physical sense; it impacts everything, socially, culturally, economically, politically, and even religiously (church leaders for/against political agendas). In a conservative and Republican climate such as Idaho, changing the nature of energy production, to adopt new energy technologies, is going to be conservative in nature. It will be very difficult to change from the old to something new. The proof is in the pudding. For example, the 2006 Idaho Power IRP put together twelve energy portfolios for analysis. Not one, not even one of those scenarios included solar energy in it. When we consider what’s being done elsewhere, and when we consider that solar is the ONLY form of energy production where peak energy production is directly proportional to peak energy need (seasonally and daily), we can only be left standing dumbstruck. There is a bias and blind spot here that must be dealt with.
The federal government does not take an impartial view on nuclear technology. The nature of politics is to emphasize strength, sometimes at any cost. The current political climate is overwhelmingly in favor of nuclear technology (power generation and weapons), but most citizens do not want nuclear power. This must be a citizen’s movement; in fact, it will only succeed IF it is a citizen’s movement. Given the overwhelm of this subject coupled with the over-stress most Americans already experience in daily life we have no choice but to make the subject accessible to the common citizen. Hence, this website coupled with videoconferencing. We need knowledge to fight it intelligently; we need knowledge to fight it with confidence; we need arguments to fight it with dignity, not with violence.
This means providing completeness of information, condensing that information, making it concise and comprehendible, then, and most importantly, applying it to effective actions in the social, cultural, economic, spiritual, military, and political realms. If we can hold off the nuclear community and pro-nuclear governmental agencies until mid-century, if not before then, it is very likely energy alternatives will have caught up in technological competence to provide all our needs, thereby making nuclear power moot. Think conservation (waste not, want not). Think renewable. Think efficiency. Think Wind – Solar – Hydro – Geothermal – Co-generation – Micro-generation – Tidal – Wave – Ocean-differential. Think energy storage technologies. Think Local.
This will also be the time when world population will plateau and provide some relief from the strain of growing populations. If we have not yet blown ourselves up by then, we may have the wherewithal to deal with apocalyptic terrorism and the wastes we have accumulated up to that point.
WARNING!! Do not be taken in by claims that new nuclear reactor power plants are “emissions free.” These claims only refer to CO2 output (carbon dioxide gas). This in itself is false information on closer examination. These claims do not include solid wastes (spent fuel, transuranic, high level, low level), CFCs, radioactive releases, irradiated cooling water, or massive amounts of toxic liquid wastes! And all this does not include the water vapor from cooling towers (the worst greenhouse gas), and massive thermal waste heat generated from nuclear, which has been equated to using a chain saw to cut butter. The proposed EPR for Idaho is the big daddy waste heat producer of them all, the largest in the country, whether that heat goes to the water or air! The standard ratio of heat to electricity production for a plant like this is about 3/1 [4,400MWh/1,600MWe - www.areva.com]. Considering many renewables produce virtually no heat, this is incredible – the heat of 44,000,000 one-hundred watt bulbs or three million 1,500 watt space heaters, sheesh!! If the CHP (combined heat and power) scenario isn't fully utilized as the builder claims it will be (which it probably won't) that's a lot of waste heat, folks.
The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center is the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy, located at DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and includes the World Data Center for Atmospheric Trace Gases.
Visible radiation ranges from about 0.35 to about 0.75 micrometers in wavelength. Very little visible radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere. About 30-31 percent of incoming solar radiation is reflected and about 19 percent more is absorbed, mostly by clouds and particulate matter rather than by carbon dioxide and water vapor and oxygen. Those gases absorb a small amount of visible light, but not much. This is in contrast to the infrared (wavelengths greater than about 0.75 micrometer) radiation emitted by the earth's surface. This radiation has wavelengths mostly between about 2 and 20 micrometers and over 90% of it is absorbed by water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, fluorocarbons, and other radiatively active ("greenhouse") gases on the way up. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
Studies have shown that human-produced carbon dioxide emissions heat the Earth's surface and cause greater water evaporation. That leads to more water vapor in the air, which contributes to higher air temperatures. CO2, methane and N2O are the most common greenhouse gases after water vapor, according to WMO. [11/06] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15546201/
ABOUT IDAHO’S NUCLEAR – Idaho already has a huge nuclear complex near Idaho Falls called the Idaho National Laboratory. It has been declared a Superfund site, already has massive nuclear wastes stored from all parts of the country from reactors, military, and bomb material as well as the experimental wastes it generates, and all this over a half century of nuclear activity. Millions of cubic feet of radioactive waste has contaminated tens of millions of cubic feet of soil and the Snake River Aquifer itself 600 feet below.
*the EPR Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. focuses primarily on the purchase, optimization, and construction of nuclear power plants. They are applying for building the largest single nuclear reactor power plant in the U.S. near Bruneau, forty miles from Boise called the www.IdahoEnergyComplex.com. This must not happen!! The Evolutionary Pressurized Reactor is the largest design currently made. see [ EPR ] link
The strategy is simple
A) Take an overview - if you don’t get the big stuff right the details won’t matter (do all the research you want, but you’ve done a good part of it in the previous paragraphs)
B) Ask the right questions – if you don’t, you sure aren’t going to get the right answers
C) Get educated in the local energy situation using this website or other means
D) Get educated in nuclear technology using this website or other means
E) Freeze and push back the current nuclear activity by exposing untruths (waste, safety, economic, moral, environmental, and proliferation issues are always played down by nuclear advocates). Don’t take my word for it, merely watch and observe.
F) Eliminate nuclear technology by getting educated and offering something better and tangible; promoting its renewable alternatives and energy conservation/efficiency using this website or other means
Ga) Get thoughtful - use personal arguments and passion that can contribute to collective power. Without critical thinking, critical things don’t get done. Are we dealing with causes or symptoms here? Is this part of a larger problem? What exactly are we afraid of? If we solve it here will just create a problem for someone else? Are the views being considered incorrect because they are wrong or because they are incomplete? Think about the dynamics of information flow. Think about the necessity of collective thinking in a citizen’s movement.
Gb) Study history to avoid wasting energy re-inventing old wheels; find out what worked and failed in the past anti-nuke movement. see [ HISTORY ] link
Hb) Get in the dialog to avoid duplicating the work
I) Use grassroots movement as much as possible, but also acknowledge we live in a culture of celebrity influence – use both to confront pro-nuke celebrity; support anti-nuke celebrity in all areas: political/legislative/lobby, economic/corporate, entertainment/media/arts, civic, religious, education, environmental/health/medical/safety, military, banking/investment, technology/engineering, and sports by using this website or other means.
J) Promote videoconferencing first to provide access for anti-nuke activists that would otherwise have problems participating at the state and national level; it promotes connections and dialog between the people, celebrities, and the powers-that-be by using this website or other means. Second, let’s face it, to be human means a need for eye contact, hearing the human voice; and to be real means to do it in real time. We cannot sustain this battle without real human interaction on a large scale to sustain motivation for it.
K) Get it done by planning and strategizing – short, medium, and long term, by using this website or other means. If not, this issue will threaten to overtake us time and time again until mid-century. Ultimately, cooperation for good will only win out over cooperation by evil to the degree of involvement of the total global population.
L) Get healed and whole by eliminating the life-negating attitude of nuclear technology, then integrating and expanding the life-affirming and renewing attitude of renewable energy into a larger community lifestyle for the betterment of all. Repairing and healing the planet is a proactive and collective endeavor that includes all humanity.
M) DO NOT waste energy on in-fighting; get clear on who the real opponents are. There is no defense against an evolving cooperation. There is no defense against persistence. There is no defense against truth, only delays.
#B Ask the right questions
When making decisions about nuclear reactor power plants one must learn about the “nuclear fuel cycle,” it is the chain of different aspects of making the electricity from start to finish. It is generally made up of basic aspects like uranium demand, availability, mining, milling, power generation, plant designs, transportation, storage, wastes, safety and health, security, environmental impact, and alternative options. And because nuclear is such a deadly technology we must add its morality as part of our questioning. Formulate your own questions on the best way to investigate nuclear technology for generating electricity but these may be good starters (from Arjun Makijani in Insurmountable Risks):
1 How much will nuclear energy cost relative to other means of getting rid of carbon dioxide emissions?
2 What kind of subsides will be required, given that Wall Street is skittish about nuclear power?
3 What will be the risks of catastrophic accidents if we build reactors at the rate of one a week or more, cookie-cutter style around the world?
4 What will happen to the security of power supply in case of terrorist attacks or disastrous accidents on the scale of Chernobyl?
5 What about all the plutonium in the waste?([1-5] b,vi) And the 200 radioactive isotopes created in the process? (Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years and is radioactive for 500,000 years.)
6 Can nuclear power plants operate separately from nuclear weapons issues and nuclear war?
#C Get educated in the local energy situation
a – annual, k – kilo (thousand), M – mega (million), W – watt (measure of power), h – hour, yr – year
2007 Idaho Energy Plan
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2007/energy_plan_draft0119.pdf
45% Share of Idaho’s 2005 electricity supply that was imported from out of state
48% Share of Idaho’s 2005 electricity supply that came from hydroelectricity
42% Share of Idaho’s 2005 electricity supply that came from coal-fired power plants
1% Share of Idaho’s 2005 electricity supply that came from non-hydro renewable energy sources ….
8% Share of Idaho’s 2015 electricity supply that is expected to come from non-hydro renewable energy sources, based on current Idaho utility resource plans p10
Idaho is served by three investor-owned electric utilities (“IOUs”), eleven municipal utilities, and seventeen rural electric cooperatives. The three IOUs serve 88 percent of the state’s load. The remainder is served by municipals and cooperative utilities. p17 [Idaho IOUs are Avista covering the northern part of the state, Idaho Power covering the central and southwest, Rocky Mountain Power covering the southeast]
[p17–28 is a complex explanation of service stats for various Idaho utilities and energy systems including investor-owned utilities, electric coops, municipalities, natural gas sources, transportation fuel sources, and other Idaho energy resources]
[Diagram of Idaho’s 2005 electricity mix (total Idaho load 2,693 aMW)] - Hydro 48%, Coal 42%, Natural gas 8%, Nuclear 1.4%, Non-hydro renewables 1% p30
Idaho’s domestic resource base consists largely of renewable energy sources such as hydro, wind and geothermal energy. Idaho is home to 136 hydroelectric dams, which combined produce 1,300 aMW of low-cost energy each year. Aside from a few co-generation projects, hydro power has been the only resource of any significance that has been developed in Idaho until very recently. Recent years have seen the development of geothermal and wind sites, however, and there are a number of plans to develop additional sites or to expand capacity at existing sites. p32
Idaho does not have a cabinet-level agency focusing on energy issues. Energy responsibilities are carried out principally by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and the Energy Division of the Idaho Department of Water Resources. In addition, Idaho is a member of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a multi-state compact that develops power plans and fish and wildlife mitigation plans that guide BPA’s expenditures in these areas. Finally, the Idaho Legislature in 2005 created the Idaho Energy Resources authority to promote the development of generation and transmission resources in Idaho. p34
Idaho’s electric utilities have historically relied on coal and hydroelectricity as their predominant energy sources. New investments in these two resources are becoming problematic, however, as the large hydro resources are mostly developed and coal is increasingly associated with the impacts of global climate change. Moreover, these existing resources are now themselves sources of risk due to hydro relicensing and possible carbon regulation. Idaho utility resource plans have focused on developing a diverse resource base and include wind, geothermal and new, small hydro resources as well as new baseload coal resources. In addition, Idaho utilities have placed an increasing emphasis on conservation in recent years, as growth of Idaho loads has accelerated and the cost of developing new resources has risen. p37
* * * *
Idaho Power 2006 Integrated Resource Plan
http://www.idahopower.com/energycenter/irp/2006/2006IRPFinal.htm
In July 2006, Idaho Power set a new peak-hour load record of 3,084 MW. p1
The number of households in Idaho Power’s service area is expected to increase from around 455,000 in 2005 to over 680,000 by the end of the planning period in 2025. Population growth in southern Idaho is an inescapable fact, and Idaho Power will need to add physical resources to meet the electrical energy demands of its growing customer base. p2
Table 1-1. 2006 Preferred Portfolio Summary and Timeline
Summary Timeline
Resource MW Year Resource MW
Wind........................................................ 250 2008 Wind (2005 RFP) ..................... 100
Geothermal (Binary)................................ 150 2009 Geothermal (2006 RFP)........... 50
CHP ........................................................ 150 2010 CHP ......................................... 50
Transmission........................................... 285 2012 Wind......................................... 150
Coal......................................................... 250 2012 Transmission McNary–Boise ... 225
Regional IGCC Coal................................ 250 2013 Wyoming Pulverized Coal ........ 250 (scrapped)
Nuclear.................................................... 250 2017 Regional IGCC Coal................. 250
Total Nameplate 1,585 2019 Transmission Lolo–IPC ............ 60
DSM Peak............................................. 187 2021 Geothermal .........……................... 50
Energy (aMW).................................... 1,089 2022 Geothermal .........……................... 50
Transmission.......................................... 285 2023 INL Nuclear ..........……................ 250
Peak.................................................... 1,250 Total Nameplate 1,585 p5
Year Total generation Peak firm load Average firm load Customers
2005 3,085 MW 2,961MW 1,660 MW 456,104 p11
[2005] Hydro 36%, Thermal 42%(coal, natural gas, diesel), Purchased 22% p20
*Idaho Power’s average load is expected to grow at a rate of 1.9% annually throughout the planning period.
*The number of residential customers in Idaho Power’s service area is expected to increase from around 381,000 at the end of 2005 to nearly 571,000 by the end of the planning period in 2025.
*Based on recent history, Snake River streamflows are expected to continue to decline by approximately 53 cfs per year which results in a loss of hydroelectric generation of 25–30 aMW annually.
*Hydrologic conditions were worse than the 90th percentile in 2001 and worse than the 70th percentile from 2001–2005. p27
Long-term summer deficiencies begin in July 2009 at 15 aMW and are expected to grow to 859 aMW by July 2025. p38
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes funds to be appropriated for the development of a “next generation” nuclear power project at the INL. The project would consist of the research and development, design, construction, and operation of a prototype plant, including a nuclear reactor used to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, or both. The target completion date for the prototype nuclear reactor is September 2021. For fiscal years 2006–2015, $1.25 billion has been authorized for appropriation. In addition, the Act authorizes additional appropriations deemed necessary between fiscal years 2016–2021 to complete the project. Whether funds will actually be appropriated to develop the project is unknown at the present time. p56
Four finalist portfolios were selected from the initial portfolios for additional qualitative and quantitative risk analyses.
Quantitative risk factors analyzed include the implementation of a CO2 tax, the price of natural gas, the variability of hydrologic conditions, cost of construction, and capital and market risk.
Qualitative risk factors analyzed include regulatory risk, declining Snake River base flows, FERC relicensing risk, resource commitment and siting risks, and fuel, implementation, and technology risks. p75
* * * *
WIND POTENTIAL FOR IDAHO
Idaho Energy Division - 18,000MW [ 24x365=8,760hr x 18,000MW = 157,680,000MWh/yr ]
http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/energy/
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West, Idaho edition – 5,600MW (49,000,000 MWh/yr)
(TrueWind/NWSEED 2002, POWERmap, powermap.platts.com US Census Bureau)
http://www.energyatlas.org/downloads/ID_booklet.pdf
Idaho Wind Projects
http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/energy/wind/wind_projects.htm
SOLAR POTENTIAL FOR IDAHO
Idaho Energy Division – no info listed!?
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West, Idaho edition – 6,850MW ( 60,000,000 MWh/yr)
#D Get educated in nuclear technology
The primary links to learn about nuclear power are:
[ POWER, (the EPR) PLANTS, FUEL CYCLES ]
[ DEMAND, AVAILABILITY, MINING ]
[ MILLING, PROCESSING ]
[ WASTES; the deal breaker ]
#E Freeze and push back the current nuclear activity by exposing untruths
Regardless what government or agency source you use to inform yourself about nuclear technology you will find all issues of danger played down, without exception. Government agencies can be stunningly deceptive in their dissemination of information. Lying by omission seems to be standard practice here and especially in the nuclear industry. Again, do not take my word for it, merely watch and observe.
To begin breaking the cycle of secrecy and deception; and to begin the process in the opposite direction, that of promoting truth, the true nonviolent practitioner openly and honestly volunteers information and intentions. My intention is to abolish all nuclear technology from the U.S. and the world except for medical uses.
To expose untruths means also to expose truth. But to live in a culture where truth holds little popular value, we need lots and lots of inspiration. Here are some short writings by masters of nonviolence should you desire it.
George Lakey http://trainingforchange.org/content/view/208/33/
More to follow
Ultimately there are only two methods to shake people up. One, by setting an example that is so different that the behavior itself stands out as truth. Two, by effective agitation that shakes up the acceptance of untruth and the denial of truth (commonly known as apathy).
#F Eliminate nuclear technology by getting educated and offering something better
Regarding wind energy, the Idaho Department of Water Resources of all places, could not have stated it better:“The amount of available wind power far exceeds all of the developed hydro generation in the state. Idaho is ranked 13th in the nation as far as wind potential while California is ranked 17th in potential for wind generation. Nonetheless, California has over 2,000 MW of installed capacity representing around $2 billion of total capital investments and serious power generation capacity. Idaho as of the summer of 2005 had just over 10 MW total developments. Idaho thus has an incredibly large, virtually untapped potential to generate meaningful amounts of energy with this renewable resource, much as the renewable hydroelectric generation projects were developed in the last century.” Permitting of Small and Medium Sized Wind Turbine Projects in Idaho – Energy Division 2005, p43. Fortunately, judging by the new Idaho Power IRP, wind power and geothermal are at least getting some minimal attention.
Now for solar. Here we want the most powerful arguments we can make. That would mean steering away from hypotheticals such as feasibility reports and projections of scenarios that do not exist as much as possible. (It is impossible to avoid this completely since we are in a transition phase.) There is no substitute for experience. That would mean making comparisons with projects that are already built and working and providing needs elsewhere that Idaho needs. We want to use other places that either have equal or less sunshine than Idaho. Also consider these points about solar photovoltaic or solar thermal:
- seasonal rates go up 10% in June, July, August, the most productive solar months.
- daily afternoons in hot weather are the most productive solar hours.
- doesn’t need cooling water to operate in heat like nuclear power and other thermal power generation.
- solar PV panels provide automatic shade for cooling (parking lots, rooftops, etc.).
- solar PV is almost completely environmentally benign (re: greenhouse gases, wasted heat, wastes, and non-mechanical to boot)(solar panels produce typically 35-50 years)
- solar produces no water vapor, the worst greenhouse gas, to make electricity, unlike nuclear cooling towers. The debate on water vapor has recently and finally entered the debate on global warming.
Wind and solar and other renewables would also greatly reduce the massive subsidies that nuclear power now costs (“socialized energy”). The following current projects should fit the bill and should eliminate all the excuses currently being used to ignore solar potential, and to promote nuclear power in Idaho with all its deadly wastes, terrorist dangers, health risks, and economic and political risks.
1) Idaho has significantly more solar insolation per square meter than Germany
1a) Germany Leads Way on Renewables, Sets 45% Target by 2030 Germany's Ministry for the Environment and Nuclear Safety released a draft progress report on the country's Renewable Energy Sources Act. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5430
1b) Plattling / Holzkirchen, Germany: Carpevigo AG Brings 1.65 Megawatt Solar Power System on Line
The construction work was carried out in just three months. The PV system is located on a formerly agriculturally used area of 8.5 hectares on the edge of the industrial area of the city Plattling. Solar park Plattling has a rated power of 1,644 kilowatt peak and will produce 1,796 megawatt-hours electricity per year, complying with the annual electricity consumption of about 400 households.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/news/NewsEUPR425.htm
1c) World's Largest Solar Photovoltaic System Commissioned - Muehlhausen, Germany 10MW
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=34255
2) New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clarke announced New Zealand's intention to commit to 90% renewable electricity by 2025. The country already uses 70% renewable electricity, primarily hydro- and geothermal power and will continue to increase its use of renewables over the next 20 years. http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50075
[New Zealand has declared itself to be free of both nuclear weapons and nuclear power.]
3) While the U.S. is still a major player in solar research, it has fallen behind in reaping profits from solar cells. Japan is way ahead of every other country. In 2001, its annual capacity was nearly four times that of America's 167.8 Mwp -- the p means peak, or no cloudy days -- and Germany was a solid No. 2, with 260.6 Mwp. Last year, Japan generated half of all the world's solar power, built 44% of all new solar energy equipment, and installed five times as much new solar power capacity as the U.S. One company, Sharp Corp. (SHCAY ), accounted for 27% of all new solar panels, according to market researcher PV Energy Systems Inc. in Warrenton, Va. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/b3898119_mz018.htm
4) Imagine Boise as the next “energy Austin, TX” (Boise solar exposure is equal to Austin)
http://www.austinenergy.com/ http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg
On December 1st, 2003, Austin city leaders announced their intention to create an aggressive program to buy 100 megawatts of solar power a year by 2020. 100 megawatts represents almost half of the solar energy currently produced nationwide. The phased plan includes buying 15 megawatts by 2007, 30 megawatts by 2010, 50 megawatts by 2014 and 100 megawatts by 2020. The program creates the highest rebates in the nation for users of energy producing solar cells.
Austin Energy is driving towards this goal using rebates to the consumer. The rebate is six dollars and twenty-five cents per Watt if the solar power system is "made in Austin" and five dollars per Watt for solar power systems "made outside of Austin." The "made in Austin" label will likely be decided on a case-by-case basis with a rough metric that 1/3 of the value added to the system must be done within Austin City limits.
Austin Energy set a rebate cap of $15K or 80% of the total cost of the system; whichever is less. A rough calculation suggests that this set of incentives will drive "Austin optimal" systems to have a capacity of 3 KW and cost the consumer roughly $7,000. Basically Austin Energy will cover 2/3 the cost of the $21K solar system. These rebates have already started. http://www.learnaboutrobots.com/austin-solar.htm
Idaho ranges around 1400 kWh/sq.m-a (kilowatt-hours per square meter annually for solar radiation)
Germany ranges around 1100 kWh/sq.m-a
New Zealand ranges around 1400 kWh/sq.m-a
Japan ranges around 1300 kWh/sq.m-a
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/renewable-energy-resources/world/north-america/solar-north-america/index.shtml
Horse Hollow center is world's largest wind farm - Texas 735MW
http://www.sweetwaterreporter.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=140&Itemid=60
BLM Approves final wind power project – 200MW, in CASSIA County, ID 8/06
The Bureau of Land Management announced completion of an environmental review for the Cotterel Wind Power Project. It will be the largest wind energy project on Federal land in the last 25 years with up to 98 turbines on a ridge in south-central Idaho five miles east of Albion in Cassia County. The 200 megawatt project will generate enough electricity to supply approximately 50,000 homes. http://www.owyheecounty.net/docs/pzforms/Owyhee_County_Energy_Plan.pdf
The Stateline Wind Energy Center on Oregon-Washington border – 300MW On average the project is expected to receive enough wind to deliver 30 to 35 percent of its peak capacity year–round
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Largest-Wind-Farm.htm
IS INTERMITTENCY A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH RENEWABLES? …. NOT!!
Research at Oxford University shows that intermittent renewables, combined with domestic combined heat and power (dCHP) could dependably provide the bulk of Britain’s electricity.
Sinden initially looked at just three generation technologies: wind, solar and dCHP — in effect, hi-tech domestic boilers, which produce electricity as they heat water. He ran computer models of power output based on weather records going back up to 35 years, and found that electricity production could be optimised by creating a mixture of 65% wind, 25% dCHP, and 10% solar cells. Sinden's approach is remarkably effective in reducing the need for standby capacity. If offshore wind power alone were to provide an average 3,500MW of electricity — 10% of electricity demand in England and Wales — it would need to be backed up by an extra standby generating capacity of 3,135MW — 90% of average production. But using Sinden's proposed mix of technologies, only 400MW of new standby capacity would be needed — just 11%.
http://guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/12/energy.comment
AND STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES
Energy storage uses different criteria than energy production. For example, for stationary power generation, solar cells may actually end up saving the planet. But for portable, movable power generation and for energy storage they are currently irrelevant.
Currently the best bets for storing energy are hydro, solar thermal, and hydrogen (until energy utilities get designs in place for base-load renewables to supply all needs). Hydro uses excess electricity from non-hydro sources not being used in real time to pump water back into a reservoir for peak needs. Solar thermal from concentrators stores heat for using during peak needs or off hours. Hydrogen would use excess electricity to produce stored hydrogen for burning in generators during peak needs – with contained water vapor. Biomass and biofuels combustion should only be used as back up storage, being sure to use state-of-the-art scrubbers for exhausts.
Solar Parabolic Trough Thermal Energy Storage Technology [NREL is with DOE]
One advantage of parabolic trough power plants is their potential for storing solar thermal energy to use during non-solar periods and to dispatch when it's needed most. As a result, thermal energy storage (TES) allows parabolic trough power plants to achieve higher annual capacity factors—from 25% without thermal storage up to 70% or more with it. http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/thermal_energy_storage.html
The most misunderstood aspect of energy is the heat associated with it. No matter what kind of energy we use, or how we use it, global warming will not be addressed until we use less of it. That is simply the nature of energy.
the more we trap or burn for use, the more is trapped
OTHER RELEVANT INFO AND MODELS FOR IDAHO
Idaho Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/map2.cfm?CurrentPageID=1&State=ID&RE=1&EE=1
Energy efficiency in your home and business
http://www.idahopower.com/energycenter/energyefficiency/yourhome/default.cfm
Berkeley could pay upfront for solar
"You are borrowing money from the city, and the city is getting repaid through property taxes; that's how you would experience it as a homeowner," DeVries said. "Our goal is to make putting solar on your house as cost-effective as paying your utility bill." Dan Kammen, director of UC Berkeley's Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, which does analysis and research in renewable energy, called the Berkeley plan "incredibly clever." http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_7266437?source=email
SMUD seeks bids for shared solar generation - Customers can lock in power prices by investing in projects
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/07/09/story4.html?from_rss=1
Hoku Breaks Ground on Polysilicon Facility in Pocatello, Idaho
http://www.shareholder.hokuscientific.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=235544
Honolulu's Sopogy says it plans to subject its solar thermal technology to a northern climate, announcing that it would build a 50 kilowatt test plant in Idaho.
http://media.cleantech.com/1643/sopogy-plans-idaho-solar-thermal-plant
Pocatello, ID: Hoku and Solarfun Sign $306 Million Polysilicon Supply Contract
Start up polysilicon manufacturer, Hoku Scientific, Inc., and Solarfun Power Hong Kong Limited, a subsidiary of Solarfun Power Holdings Co., Ltd. a Chinese cells and modules manufacturer have signed a definitive contract for Hoku's sale and delivery of polysilicon to Solarfun over an eight-year period beginning in mid-2009. http://www.solarbuzz.com/news/NewsNACO659.htm
#G Get thoughtful - use personal power that can contribute to collective power.
Don’t waste energy reinventing old wheels; think about what works and what doesn’t in the anti-nuke battle. see [ HISTORY ] link
Think about the dynamics of information flow, power follows power. Most American enterprises are profit-seeking corporate and capitalistic endeavors, including the media. The common good is irrelevant here; information will follow power needs, not necessarily human needs. Regardless of how the media thinks of themselves, ultimately their bottom line is what must justify their actions. We are forced to do our own intentional inquiry to obtain accurate information. Let’s face it, without accurate information, we have nothing. But even then, all the accurate information in the world is worthless if we don't know how to process it! And then it must be translated into action!
An open letter to all anti-nuke activists about personal wants versus collective needs
Dear Friends,
Would you like to see more cohesion in the anti-nuke movement? Are you frustrated with activist movements re-inventing the same wheel over and over again instead of building on successes with dialog? Are you tired of watching some activists who are more interested in expressing their anger than dealing with the problem at hand? Have you come to see how mind-boggling the pro-nuke forces are and the necessity of a massive worldwide movement to overcome them, and how that will just not happen with our current strategy? You are not alone. After all, we have limited energy, resources, and time. What to do?
I appeal to you to first adopt these six arguments as a beginning, to get us on the same page, for preventing new plants and to undo existing ones. If we all can’t rally around these let us find others. Why? Because these particular arguments, on evidence or principle, are the most difficult to rebut. As examples, the tobacco industry provided rebuttals for decades on health issues simply by buying off doctors and executives to manipulate health data. The willingness of the government and nuclear industry to manipulate information has left me stunned. So health concerns over nuclear power may not be a good approach. Another ineffective approach is asserting that nuclear power may lead to proliferation of nuclear terrorism. The fact is there has not been an incident large enough to startle the populace out of apathy about that.
However, calling nuclear power unpatriotic because it increases the risk of proliferation during a war on terror (while troops are killing and dying to fight terror) is an argument that the other side cannot effectively argue against; because it actually adds danger to, and work of, the troops. Even health concerns over using depleted uranium-238 in armor and munitions in Iraq is apparently having little effect, much like second-hand smoke in the old days. Even economic concerns over nuclear will likely be ineffective, much like concerns over the savings and loan scandal, abandoning the balanced budget amendment, or the cost of the Iraq war.
Mind you, they are completely valid arguments, and in fact I do use them because they add weight overall. They just won’t get the job done by themselves in the current situation because we live in a society that is crisis driven, not driven by thoughtful prevention and intervention. Each of these six arguments was specifically designed to stand on its own as a single argument. Staving off the anticipated rebuttals was built into the comment that follows it; in some of them it is an emotional appeal. The bottom line is, if we can’t limit our arguments around the most effective ones, other arguments will dilute all, rendering them ineffective.
The first four are meant to show the contradictory nature of pursuing nuclear power to solve our problems, to act as “punches to the brain.” The last two appeal to reason in the most forceful way possible. (But even then, we humans are emotional creatures, not reasonable ones; yes, even the most macho men, who can only respond to fear and nothing else.) These arguments are elaborated on my home page at nonukes.mysite.com. I appeal to everyone to unify behind them and join forces to undo the nuclear madness we find ourselves engulfed in. Please give me feedback. “Renewables” here refers to: refuse to use; conservation; efficiency; solar; wind; hydro; geothermal; intermediate biomass; and other appropriate technologies.
The simpler the arguments are, the more likely they will be used, because that’s how the world works.
Sincerely, Mark
1 Nuclear power is unpatriotic because its wastes thumbs its nose at posterity and violates the spirit of the Preamble! …establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the U.S. of America.Washington, the Father of our country used the word "posterity" nine times in one speech. Renewables are patriotic!
Extra notes: Historian Henry Steele Commager called our founding fathers "the wisest men politically in recorded history." They were men who "couldn't give a speech or write a letter without talking about posterity." Wastes are simply an intractable burden we saddle future generations with that constrains their Liberty. This makes us a generation that is literally willing to “feed off” of our children, especially in light of so many alternatives making nuclear power unnecessary. We are governed by a generation absent of a sense of accountability to the future at all. We only have the capacity to consider the future four years ahead.
2 Nuclear power is unpatriotic because it increases opportunities for nuclear terrorism while we are at war with terrorism! People are killing and dying here. Nuclear power is a direct betrayal to all those suffering and sacrificing to prevent terrorism. Renewables are much more patriotic!
Extra notes: Future generations will gain no benefit from its power generation. A benefit for us today leaves a burden for ALL the future of humanity, ALL of posterity, FOREVER. The radioactive life for some of the many by-products of enriching uranium are over 500,000 years. (The span of recorded human history is 6,000 years whether one is a creationist or evolutionist.)
So-called “recycling” and reprocessing creates a new set of problems with transportation, wastes, danger, and expense. GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) feels they can “attach” undesirable materials to plutonium to make it undesirable, but a terrorist will then see them as that much more desirable for making dirty bombs! GNEP requires massive intra- and inter-national transportation of uranium and plutonium materials … what part of roadside bomb don’t you understand?
3 Nuclear power is immoral because it violates the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Would you like it if past generations left you radioactive wastes to deal with because they didn’t? Are you the kind of person who would leave intractable wastes for your children and their children? This waste left for eternity is an act of the devil, it is "the devil's shit," whether from the once-through cycle, reprocessing, or fast/breeder reactors. IT'S IMMORAL! But one must have a conscience to see it. GET A CONSCIENCE! Renewables are the right thing to do!
Extra notes: The Golden Rule is included in some form in all major world religions (Luke 6:31). Mosaic Law (to which all three of the Jews, Christians and Muslims subscribe in principle) says: "Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person." Would you want wastes forced on you like our government wants to do with the Shoshone Tribe at Yucca Mountain on sacred ground in Nevada? Burying nuclear waste is like sweeping it under the rug and walking away; when did it become okay to leave our messes for our children to clean up?
4 Nuclear power is unnecessary because renewables are growing by leaps and bounds. Our employment situation would be better served by labor-intensive jobs rather than nuclear capital-intensive jobs with comparably no risks. Nuclear energy is not clean, all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to reprocessing, contribute to the creation of long-lived radioactive wastes and greenhouse gases. Renewables are necessary for sustainable energy and jobs!
5 Nuclear power is uneconomical because its accounting cycle can never be closed just as the nuclear fuel cycle can never be closed. Do you like to keep clean books? Can’t be done here. The nuclear fuel cycle CANNOT EVER be contained or financially accounted for because the wastes cannot be accounted for, EVER. All wastes have to be stored, isolated, monitored, and protected, an expense that will go on FOREVER. Renewables make for clean books!
6 Nuclear power does not provide energy independence. More independence comes from more safety and less risk, not more risk and less safety. The U.S. has about 5% of uranium reserves we need. We are rated last place in the world (least independent) for the U production vs. U requirements balance. Renewables are the ONLY way to go for local power and control. Renewables are less risk, more safety, and more independent!
Extra notes: We cannot genuinely increase our energy independence while at the same time actively producing bomb material for potential terrorism or accidents and waste for poisoning our earth. More independence comes from more health and less risk, not more risk and less health. The output of CO2 (from fossil fuels) to mine, process, transport, clean up, dispose, decommission, and protection makes nuclear reactor power far from emission free; and that will increase as weaker uranium ores must be utilized. Only a small % of the uranium reserves we need are located in the U.S. and much American Indian land has already been desecrated from mining and milling. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_uranium_mines
The World Information Service on Energy has rated the usa LAST place (as in LEAST independent) for the uranium production vs. uranium requirements balance. 2005 (#64th (minus 21,836 Mtons U)(OECD 2006, WNA 2007) http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html?set=anrq
“There’ll be no learning period with nuclear weapons. You make one mistake and you’re going to destroy nations…. I want to say, and this is very important; at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today.” Robert McNamara [Secretary of Defense 1961-8, referring to the Cuban missile crisis] The Fog of War – film by Errol Morris, 2003
#H Get dialog; use collective power to empower a movement
It will take 1/100th the energy to shut down this EPR rather than waiting until they start building it. Let’s get mobilized using our brains rather than brawn. An excellent source for further study is The National Coalition for Dialog and Deliberation www.thataway.org
#I Use grassroots movement as much as possible, but also acknowledge we live in a culture of celebrity influence
One way to trigger interest is by getting celebrity involved at the front end of a movement, but only if there is a commitment to sustaining it. Confront pro-nuke celebrity; support anti-nuke celebrity in all areas: political/legislative/lobby, economic/corporate, entertainment/media/arts, civic, religious, education, environmental/health/medical/safety, military, banking/investment, technology/engineering, and sports by using this website or other means.
#J Promote videoconferencing
The Internet itself can only be a tool in the end. TV news, newspapers, newsletters, phone trees, emails, text messaging, personal video spaces, and cyber storage cannot sustain real-time interests and needs. see [ ACTIONS TO TAKE ] link
#K Get it done by planning and strategizing – short, medium, and long term, by using this website or other means. If not, this issue will threaten to overtake us time and time again until mid-century. see [ ACTIONS TO TAKE ] link
#L Get healed and whole by eliminating the life-negating attitude of nuclear technology, then integrating and expanding the life-affirming and renewing attitude of renewable energy into a larger community lifestyle for the betterment of all. Repairing and healing the planet is a proactive and collective endeavor that includes all humanity.
#M DO NOT waste energy on in-fighting; get clear on who the real opponents are. I am especially struck by the American Civil Rights movement. Even though King and Gandhi had spectacular successes in their nonviolent campaigns, many civil rights leaders openly defied their strategies and effectively sabotaged efforts toward social change. Let us learn from these mistakes! In-fighting results from general immaturity and inability to order priorities.
More bad news
Two trends of humanity in the world WILL NEVER CHANGE. One is that technology will ALWAYS be cumulative in nature, that is, it will ONLY get easier to build nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The other trend is that it will CONTINUALLY TAKE FEWER AND FEWER persons to implement the same of amount of given destruction as it presently does.
The good news
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden have all made official commitments to prohibit or phase out nuclear power. In addition, the MIT study notes that the opposition to nuclear power is growing in other industrialized countries like Japan and Taiwan as well. Adding to this list, we note that New Zealand has declared itself to be free of both nuclear weapons and nuclear power.(IEA 2001b p155, 228, 246 and MIT 2003 p21)(b,201) also see [ CURRENT GOOD NEWS ] link
Some local numbers and links
Snake River Alliance – www.snakeriveralliance.org
Owyhee County Energy Plan – http://www.owyheecounty.net/docs/pzforms/Owyhee_County_Energy_Plan.pdf
Local Sierra Club – http://idaho.sierraclub.org/coolboise/
Idaho Cleanup Project – https://idahocleanupproject.com/
INL Oversight Monitor – www.deq.idaho.gov/inl_oversight/index.cfm
Some quick facts about nuclear technology
However, since 1979, U.S. nuclear plants have had to shut down 46 times for a year or more, in most cases to fix equipment problems that accumulated over time and that regulators should have ordered repaired earlier, according to the UCS, which compiled the data from the NRC and other research. And the number of equipment failings that increase the risk of an accident is up since 2001, compared with the previous five-year period, NRC figures show. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-12-11-nuclear-plant-safety_N.htm
Nuclear, oil, coal, and natural gas cannot renew themselves. Renewability is the very definition of sustainability. Solar is renewable because the sun comes up every morning and its materials can be recycled, wind and hydropower are renewable because weather patterns are perpetual (though changeable). Biomass is somewhat renewable because its contents can be readily replaced (and growing them absorbs CO2, but this concept is somewhat tricky). Geothermal is renewable because heat from the inner earth is essentially perpetual. This effort by the nuclear industry to claim sustainability is insulting to one’s common sense. Future generations will not appreciate it.
A hydrogen economy presents another set of problems, especially for cars. First and foremost, separation of hydrogen is an extremely energy intensive process, much of its convenience is offset at the front end. With an output of water as the by-product, evaporation on hot days and hot roads produces water vapor, the worst of all greenhouse gases. In freezing winters, ice formation on roads adds great danger. This applies for fuel cells, liquid, or gaseous forms. The problems it creates may not be any better than the problems at hand. (Could this vapor be contained?) Burning hydrogen also sucks oxygen out of the air for combustion just like any fossil fuel, the road will continue to be an oxygen starved wasteland as it is now. However, hydrogen may be useful in stationary, centralized energy storage.
“No matter how brilliant our attempts to inform it is our ability to inspire that will turn the tides.” Jan Phillips
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke