Renewables Can Turn the Tide on Global Warming

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The American Solar Energy Association (ASES), with the backing of several U.S. representatives and a senator, released its new nuts and bolts approach to reducing carbon emissions with a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

The report comes at an opportune time: the release of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest climate change report is expected to finally clear up any lingering uncertainty about the role fossil fuel burning and other human activities have in changing the Earth's climate. As the deniers and obstructionists lose all credibility, the debate now turns to solutions.

....

The ASES report was presented at a press briefing in the Capitol with the support of Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chair of the Senate Energy and Resources Committee, Representative Henry Waxman, Representative Chris Shays, Sierra Club president Carl Pope, and NASA's chief climate change scientist, Dr. James Hansen.

Hansen's backing is especially important because the report is aimed at meeting a target for emissions reductions that he and other scientists agree is the minimum necessary to preserve a habitable planet. The target is to keep the global average temperature from rising by more than one degree Celsius, and to do that, it will be necessary to limit atmospheric CO2 levels to 450 to 500 ppm. That means reducing U.S. emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by mid-century.

Over the past several years, as the dimensions of the energy and climate crisis have unfolded, the press, the public and politicians have embraced various "silver bullet" solutions one after another according to the fad of the day: at one moment it's hydrogen, then ethanol, then nuclear power, then wind. Today there is a growing recognition that no single energy technology can replace fossil fuels, but there is still no recipe that tells us how to combine energy technologies into a healthful brew that can save our planet and our civilization.

The ASES report takes a unique approach. Instead of turning to the systems analysts who normally tackle such problems, ASES asked the experts in each technology to estimate how much carbon-emitting energy their technologies could displace. Each technology is conceived of as a "wedge" in a stack of wedges that add up to a replacement for fossil fuels. The report consists of separate papers on each technology, including energy efficiency, concentrating solar power, photovoltaics, windpower, biofuels and geothermal.

....

Despite its conservative assumptions, the ASES report concludes that renewables and efficiency alone can meet the goal of a 60 to 80 percent emissions reduction by mid-century while the economy continues to grow. Energy efficiency accounts for 57 percent of the reductions, and the renewable energy technologies provide the other 43 percent.

....

Representative Henry Waxman reiterated the need for a price on carbon: "Unless we put a price on carbon emissions I don't see how we can avoid them continuing to emit carbon from other sources. I mean people are already starting to go to the Rocky Mountains and try to cook oil out of the tar shale there, which you can do, but that's an indication of just how addicted we are to oil."

The report presents a serious challenge to the policy makers who have assumed that the U.S. would need to increase its use of carbon-intensive coal, oil shale and tar sands to meet energy needs. It also challenges the idea that we need to ramp up nuclear power to provide carbon-free energy.

Although President Bush often refers to nuclear power as "renewable energy," the ASES report did not assume any nuclear expansion. A group of more than 100 businesses and organizations recently took Bush to task over his misleading statements about nuclear power in a letter, saying: "Please be advised that nuclear power is neither a renewable nor a clean source of energy. For that matter, oil, coal, and natural gas are also not renewable or clean sources of energy."

The groups believe that Bush is defining nuclear energy as "renewable" so that it might be included in a future federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard or supported by federal tax incentives or R&D programs specifically designed to promote renewable energy technologies.

The nuclear issue exposed a difference of opinion among the ASES report's supporters at the press briefing last Thursday. Senator Bingaman expressed his support for new reactors and his view that nuclear power is a viable carbon-free energy source, saying, "Nuclear power, I think, is almost certain to be emphasized to a greater extent if a cap and trade system is put in place."

Bingaman is currently drafting a bill for a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard that would require utilities to provide a certain percentage of power generation from renewables, and he may add support for nuclear power to that bill.

Representative Waxman appeared more cautious about nuclear power, pointing out that it requires subsidies and "therefore, may be more costly" than the renewable technologies.

Carl Pope of the Sierra Club was more specific: "With present technology, without massive government subsidies, nuclear power does not appear to be competitive with [increased] efficiency or wind ... I think what this report reveals, however, is that even if nuclear power never becomes competitive, and it isn't today, we can still solve our global warming problem. And that means we should not be artificially forcing nuclear power into the market mix as some of the current proposals would do."

Pope also addressed an important question about the feasibility of the ASES report's renewable energy scenario. He said: "One of the reactions it's very easy to have when you read a report like this is, it's too good to be true. If all these things were possible, why aren't they already being done? And the unfortunate answer to that question is they are not being done because we have massive examples of policy failure and market failure in our energy sector."

Pope cited a number of problems, like building codes that don't allow white, reflective roofs to reduce summertime cooling loads, grid regulations that limit solar and wind production, and builders who have no incentive to build energy efficient buildings because they don't have to pay the energy bills. Pope vowed that the Sierra Club would aggressively pursue solutions to these problems. He promised that "This is not a report that will be sitting on a shelf."

Interestingly, the ASES report was released just as Exxon Mobil was about to announce the largest annual profits of any corporation in history. The company has topped its 2005 record by 9 percent, for a total profit of $39.5 billion in 2006.

Representative Edward J. Markey blamed the Bush administration and the previous Republican Congress for passing "energy bills full of goodies." No doubt the Sierra Club's Carl Pope would agree that continued subsidies and tax breaks for the oil industry are another instance of "policy failure and market failure in our energy sector."

Download a copy of the American Solar Energy Society report.

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry. She is the author of Primal Tears, an eco-thriller about a hybrid human-bonobo girl. Greg Bear, author of Darwin's Radio, says: "Primal Tears is primal storytelling, thoughtful and passionate. Kelpie Wilson wonderfully expands our definitions of human and family."

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The idea that nuclear power will combat climate change is quite analogous to the claim that "a lawn produces more oxygen than the same leafage area of trees" (which I've actually seen on a fertiliser-service ad).

The analogy: Nuclear plants are typically constructed using a number of large machines which consume fuel (and chemical fertiliser is manufactured through a process which invariably consumes oxygen; then, the frequent cutting--almost invariably with an AC-motored or petrol-powered mower--will certainly consume considerably more). Plus, powerplants ALWAYS need a large-area concrete base (which means you CANNOT use it for "carbon sinking").

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Steven, I'm open minded about renewable energy. Why are you so closed minded about clean nuclear energy? Don't you really want to do something about global warming? I guess people fear what they don't understand.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The idea that nuclear power will combat climate change is quite analogous to the claim that "a lawn produces more oxygen than the same leafage area of trees" (which I've actually seen on a fertiliser-service ad).

The analogy: Nuclear plants are typically constructed using a number of large machines which consume fuel (and chemical fertiliser is manufactured through a process which invariably consumes oxygen; then, the frequent cutting--almost invariably with an AC-motored or petrol-powered mower--will certainly consume considerably more). Plus, powerplants ALWAYS need a large-area concrete base (which means you CANNOT use it for "carbon sinking").

The same applies to solar, wind and hydro. Machines use fuel to construct those too. How much fuel does Green Peace use to stop whaling?

We need energy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, I'm open minded about renewable energy. Why are you so closed minded about clean nuclear energy? Don't you really want to do something about global warming? I guess people fear what they don't understand.

I suppose your right, but there are several key factors that concern me about nuclear power. I remember Chernobyl - there is potential risk with nuclear power that one cannot deny.

What happenened in Chernobyl?

The operating crew was planning to test whether the turbines could produce sufficient energy to keep the coolant pumps running in the event of a loss of power until the emergency diesel generator was activated.

To prevent any interruptions to the power of the reactor, the safety systems were deliberately switched off. To conduct the test, the reactor had to be powered down to 25 percent of its capacity. This procedure did not go according to plan and the reactor power level fell to less than 1 percent. The power therefore had to be slowly increased. But 30 seconds after the start of the test, there was an unexpected power surge. The reactor's emergency shutdown (which should have halted a chain reaction) failed.

The reactor's fuel elements ruptured and there was a violent explosion. The 1000-tonne sealing cap on the reactor building was blown off. At temperatures of over 2000°C, the fuel rods melted. The graphite covering of the reactor then ignited. The graphite burned for nine days, churning huge quantities of radiation into the environment. The accident released more radiation than the deliberate dropping of a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, Japan in August 1945.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ca...ed-in-chernobyl

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Steven, I'm open minded about renewable energy. Why are you so closed minded about clean nuclear energy? Don't you really want to do something about global warming? I guess people fear what they don't understand.

I suppose your right, but there are several key factors that concern me about nuclear power. I remember Chernobyl - there is potential risk with nuclear power that one cannot deny.

What happenened in Chernobyl?

The operating crew was planning to test whether the turbines could produce sufficient energy to keep the coolant pumps running in the event of a loss of power until the emergency diesel generator was activated.

To prevent any interruptions to the power of the reactor, the safety systems were deliberately switched off. To conduct the test, the reactor had to be powered down to 25 percent of its capacity. This procedure did not go according to plan and the reactor power level fell to less than 1 percent. The power therefore had to be slowly increased. But 30 seconds after the start of the test, there was an unexpected power surge. The reactor's emergency shutdown (which should have halted a chain reaction) failed.

The reactor's fuel elements ruptured and there was a violent explosion. The 1000-tonne sealing cap on the reactor building was blown off. At temperatures of over 2000°C, the fuel rods melted. The graphite covering of the reactor then ignited. The graphite burned for nine days, churning huge quantities of radiation into the environment. The accident released more radiation than the deliberate dropping of a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, Japan in August 1945.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ca...ed-in-chernobyl

Chernobyl was a graphite reactor. Graphite was used versus water here is the US. We don't have a single commercial graphite reactor in the US. Water moderated reactors are intrinsically safe. As the temperature of the water increases the water becomes less dense and fewer neutrons are slowed (moderated) and power decreases. Pretty much only slow (aka thermal) neutrons will cause fission.

Three Mile Island was our worst accident and no one was hurt or died. The system worked.

"In the RBMK, the moderator is solid graphite and the water coolant acts as a poison. That means that the presence of water absorbs neutrons and slows the reaction. If coolant is lost or is converted to steam, reactor power may increase. This is known as a positive void coefficient and it represents a serious design flaw. Under certain operating conditions, the power can increase uncontrollably until the reactor disintegrates. This is what happened at Chernobyl. No power reactor in the U.S. can be licensed for construction or operation if it possesses this feature.

The graphite blocks are also flammable at high temperatures. A number of Soviet citizens died in the process of putting out the fire caused by the explosion.

In addition to the shielding, LWR's have an even thicker wall of steel- reinforced concrete surrounding the reactor structure. This structure, called a containment vessel, prevents radioactive release in the event of an accident. Because of this feature, no member of the public was injured or killed when the reactor core melted at Three Mile Island in 1979. The Soviet RBMK does not possess a containment vessel.

In addition to these fundamental differences in design, U.S. reactors are operated under strict regulations. Unlike Chernobyl, U.S. reactor operators are unable to disable the safety systems which prevent dangerous situations from developing. Although equipment can malfunction and operators can make errors, the design of U.S. light-water reactors prevents these mishaps from leading to dangerous releases of radiation.

What is arguably the most significant difference between what was the Soviet nuclear industry and that of the U.S. is the culture of safety that exists here. "

Chernobyl, could it happen here?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In addition to these fundamental differences in design, U.S. reactors are operated under strict regulations. Unlike Chernobyl, U.S. reactor operators are unable to disable the safety systems which prevent dangerous situations from developing. Although equipment can malfunction and operators can make errors, the design of U.S. light-water reactors prevents these mishaps from leading to dangerous releases of radiation.

What is arguably the most significant difference between what was the Soviet nuclear industry and that of the U.S. is the culture of safety that exists here. "

Chernobyl, could it happen here?

That's good for now, but we have people in this country who want to deregulate everything. The rolling blackouts that California experienced were made possible from Gov. Pete Wilson's deregulation of California's electric power plants. Can you imagine the potential breakdown of safety or even security issues should Nuclear Power ever become deregulated?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will make sure they stay regulated.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will make sure they stay regulated.

If I had my choice, I'd stop subsidizing coal, oil and nuclear and invest that money in solar energy. It's potential is widely ignored.

Can Ohio Harness the Sun?

If solar panels covered one half of one percent of the entire State of Ohio, these photovoltaic arrays converting sunlight into electricity could supply Ohio's yearly residential electricity load (43,280 million kWh).(1)

More realistically, this "sunpowered" tract of Ohio land 14.6 miles on a side (or 214 square miles) could also be dispersed across the Buckeye State (40,953 square miles) with smaller PV systems sited near or on building rooftops as distributed generation.

(1) Calculation by John Thornton, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) based on statistics from the Electric Power Annual 1997, Vol. 1, DOE/EIA-0346(97)/1, Energy Information Administration, July 1998; Solar Radiation Data for Flat-Plate and Concentrating Collectors, NREL/TP-463-5607, NREL, April 1994. Using commercially available, 12% efficient modules with not storage, typical system design parameters, corrected for operating temperatures, and inverting the electricity to AC; an acre of land optimally covered with PV around Dayton, Ohio could be expected to produce an estimated 325,000 kWh annually.

http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageID=55

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Chernobyl was a graphite reactor. Graphite was used versus water here is the US. We don't have a single commercial graphite reactor in the US. Water moderated reactors are intrinsically safe. As the temperature of the water increases the water becomes less dense and fewer neutrons are slowed (moderated) and power decreases. Pretty much only slow (aka thermal) neutrons will cause fission.

However, there HAVE been graphite-moderated reactors (IDENTICAL in design, except for size, to Chernobyl) in US--the one at Hanford for example.

Also, Sellafield (aka "Windscale") in UK--which suffered a radiation-release accident in 1967.

"In the RBMK, the moderator is solid graphite and the water coolant acts as a poison. That means that the presence of water absorbs neutrons and slows the reaction. If coolant is lost or is converted to steam, reactor power may increase. This is known as a positive void coefficient and it represents a serious design flaw. Under certain operating conditions, the power can increase uncontrollably until the reactor disintegrates. This is what happened at Chernobyl. No power reactor in the U.S. can be licensed for construction or operation if it possesses this feature.

The graphite blocks are also flammable at high temperatures. A number of Soviet citizens died in the process of putting out the fire caused by the explosion.

That restriction is not applied to mil-only reactors.

In addition to the shielding, LWR's have an even thicker wall of steel- reinforced concrete surrounding the reactor structure. This structure, called a containment vessel, prevents radioactive release in the event of an accident. Because of this feature, no member of the public was injured or killed when the reactor core melted at Three Mile Island in 1979. The Soviet RBMK does not possess a containment vessel.

This part is true, both about civilian LWR's (common in US) and HWR's (used more in Canada and India).

In addition to these fundamental differences in design, U.S. reactors are operated under strict regulations. Unlike Chernobyl, U.S. reactor operators are unable to disable the safety systems which prevent dangerous situations from developing. Although equipment can malfunction and operators can make errors, the design of U.S. light-water reactors prevents these mishaps from leading to dangerous releases of radiation.

What is arguably the most significant difference between what was the Soviet nuclear industry and that of the U.S. is the culture of safety that exists here. "

Chernobyl, could it happen here?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

However, there HAVE been graphite-moderated reactors (IDENTICAL in design, except for size, to Chernobyl) in US--the one at Hanford for example.

The one at Hanford is not commercial. Hanford is one F##### up place. Highly contaminated from the Manhattan project (blame the government). But it is being cleaned up now. See.. I'm actually honest.

Commercial nuclear power is very safe. Fossil plants dump waste into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants have to bury it. You choose.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

However, there HAVE been graphite-moderated reactors (IDENTICAL in design, except for size, to Chernobyl) in US--the one at Hanford for example.

The one at Hanford is not commercial. Hanford is one F##### up place. Highly contaminated from the Manhattan project (blame the government). But it is being cleaned up now. See.. I'm actually honest.

Commercial nuclear power is very safe. Fossil plants dump waste into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants have to bury it. You choose.

Photovoltaic power releases zero pollutants, and it's completely free.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

However, there HAVE been graphite-moderated reactors (IDENTICAL in design, except for size, to Chernobyl) in US--the one at Hanford for example.

The one at Hanford is not commercial. Hanford is one F##### up place. Highly contaminated from the Manhattan project (blame the government). But it is being cleaned up now. See.. I'm actually honest.

Commercial nuclear power is very safe. Fossil plants dump waste into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants have to bury it. You choose.

Photovoltaic power releases zero pollutants, and it's completely free.

Not free to build (you know). I'm all for solar. The price is dropping every year. The problem is that coal is relatively cheap and we have a lot of it.

My father started loving solar and wanted an electric car back in the 80s. We never had enough money for that stuff since we were just middle class.