Conservation Law Center: Maine Decision to Replace Nuclear With Fossil Fuels Causing Difficulties.

[NNadir]

In 1997, the Yankee Maine Nuclear Plant was shut. At the time, Maine produced more than half of it's energy by Greenhouse Gas Free methods, if you believe that the Greenhouse gas cost of chain sawing and trucking of wood is trivial and doesn't count.

After the nuclear power plant was shut, the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity claimed to 66%, primarily natural gas.

Fossil fuels produce dangerous fossil fuel waste, primarily carbon dioxide, for which no permanent repository exists, and for which no permanent repository is planned, and for which no permanent repository is proposed. Dangerous fossil fuel wastes remain hazardous for billions of years.

Now the big talk in Maine is about how they are going to get more dangerous fossil fuels with which to generate more dangerous fossil fuel waste.

Already 1/4 of New England's power generation was shut for a lack of fuel

According to the Conservation Law Center, the problem is intractable, and extremely difficult to solve:

Late last month 250 people from across Maine converged on Bowdoin College for a public conversation about Maine's future and liquefied natural gas, or LNG. Experts from across the nation discussed with us the importance of natural gas in New England's energy supply picture, the operation of LNG terminals and the companies that operate them, their economic impacts, safety and environmental issues, and the federal and state regulations for their siting.

The sponsors (with whom we are associated) organized this day-long symposium in the belief that more proposals for LNG plants in Maine are likely...

...The presenters told us that a crisis in electric energy supply looms in Maine's and New England's near future; that government's response to this has been reactive and inadequate to now...We found no easy answers to these questions, only the need for a larger and more productive dialogue around them...

And if anyone doubts what has happened, here is the Maine Energy Director telling us explicitly that this is exactly what happened.

Maine's energy director, Beth Nagusky, pointed out that some 20 new electric generating plants have been built in New England in the past decade, all fueled by natural gas. As a result, Maine has gone from zero-dependency on this source in our electric generating mix to 40 percent today. We have gone natural gas in a very big way. One way to think of it is that we have replaced 700 megawatts of nuclear power supply from Maine Yankee with 1000 megawatts of natural gas-fired capacity in the last five to seven years.

This dramatic supply shift was at first greeted warmly by environmental and business interests, alike, because natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel...

Note that I do not agree that natural gas is the "cleanest" fuel, and neither does anyone who has studied the external cost of energy. Dangerous natural gas is a dangerous filthy fuel that is going to contribute to the vast tragedy now being experienced because of global climate change.

Natural gas moves to users from its source either in pipes or in ships. Given the unexpected decline in output of the Sable Island deposits off Nova Scotia, there is currently unused capacity in the pipeline carrying natural gas from that source to New England via Maine. And given the overall decline in North American supplies, there is widespread agreement within the energy industry and government that LNG, which super-cools and compresses the methane molecule in size for transport by 600 times, is the only thing available right now to increase supplies and avert the impending shortfall...

Unexpected? Unexpected by whom?

You may read all about the Maine struggle with NIMBY and dangerous and disgusting fossil fuels here:

http://clf.org/programs/cases.asp?id=367

The cleanest and safest exajoule scale fuel is the one that was foolishly, one might safely say, stupidly, abandoned in Maine, uranium.

Maine is another failure by reflexive antinuclear dunderheads, an example of stupidity that kills.

Another place where antinuclear stupidity prevailed was on Long Island, at the Shoreham Nuclear Plant, where I was on the stupid antinuclear side. It is a matter of no small irony that one of the places where a dangerous natural gas terminal is being proposed for Long Island is right there, at Shoreham.

There is no evidence, of course, that even if these dangerous natural gas terminals are built in Maine or on Long Island that there will be anyone willing to ship dangerous fossil fuels to them. And of course, the disposal of dangerous fossil fuel wastes is ignored in these conversations. The strategy for disposing of dangerous fossil fuel waste is to dump it indiscriminately into the atmosphere.

All of the so called "wastes" from the Yankee Maine period remain on the Yankee Maine site where they continue to prove harmless. In the meantime a dangerous coal plant has been proposed on those very grounds.

[glowing]

1. I don't understand why nuclear energy is now the cool in thing,

unless we plan on making more military weapons with DU... When I got my degree 8yrs ago it was decided among scientists that nuclear plants were not the way to go. I'm not sure where this re-surgence in nuclear options is coming from now. There is no way to dispose of the waste. All of these shut down plants are not supposed to keep the rods, they just don't have a place to put them (or a way to make them non-radioactive). On top of that there are significant increases in cancer among people who live near nuc plants. Also, nuc plants take a natural river or lake and turn it completely into something else. It takes a lot of water to in the cooling process, and then that cooling water is dispelled into an ecosytem, the dynamic of the ecosystem is essentially killed off.

Before we go spending billions of tax payers dollars to generate nuc plants, lets fund some serious alt. energy technology. Also, CO2 emmissions are countered with trees. I know that this sounds silly, but plants use CO2 to survive. Pine trees actually grow faster within a CO2 environment. The sulfur is a problem... but with scrubbers, the sulfur emmitions are reduced quite significantly.

I support real changes and real funding for these changes, not a chance to pollute our children 400,000yrs from now with our radioactive waste.

[phantom power]

2. nuclear is becoming more "cool" because...

of this chain of reasoning:

1) The single biggest threat to our survival in the next century or two is climate change, caused by CO2, which is caused by burning fossil fuels.
2) All other threats, including any threats from spent nuclear fuel, are a distant second to the threat of CO2.
3) Nuclear power is the only CO2 free energy source that has been proven on scale (i.e. in the exa-joule per year scale), and which can provide base-load power. It is a lot cheaper than solar, and cheaper than wind, if you account for the need to add massive storage facilities for energy when the wind is not blowing.

[NNadir]

3. This is pure nonsense.

It is easy to retain and use spent nuclear fuel. It is in fact the easiest energy "waste" with which to deal. If you can identify one single person on this planet who has been injured by the storage of spent nuclear fuel, you will be the first person to do this in all the years I have been issuing this challenge.

"Scientists" did not determine that nuclear energy was "not the way to go," obviating that you did not get a degree in "science."

Your "400,000 year" number is made up. I note that every single time some one offers one of these types of numbers - and I've heard hundreds of different numbers - it differs.

No dangerous fossil fuel waste repository will ever be built. However if someone were to propose one they would need to prove that it will last for eternity, because unlike spent nuclear fuel, there is no decay equilibrium for dangerous fossil fuel waste, primarily carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is forever.

If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

[glowing]

4. I did get a degree in science.

And CO2 is changed into Oxygen by plants. Also, I did not say I was for more coal plants. If Bush took his $150billion dollars for nucs and put it into alt. energy sources, don't you think we could come up with something better.

And 8yrs ago it wasn't the way to go. I'm not sure about the resurgence in this need for energy that ends up producing radioactive isotopes. Also, it isn't the electric companies that would be footing the bill on these nuc plants, it would be us the tax payers... we would subsidize the billions it takes. And believe me they won't be building these next to the million dollar mansions... they will hit the poor towns who take the money.

And if you would like to see my degree I'll fax it to you... It happens to be in Environmental science and Marine science.

Of course, twisting my words makes people feel better... go ahead make your day.

[NNadir]

6. Oh. Oh. On many levels that's worse.

I really don't need you to fax me your degree.

I'd rather not develop a poor view of your institution.

I would hope that whatever the institution, the degree in Environmental and Marine Science did not require a course involving nuclear physics. I would hate to think that you got through the course dishonestly.

[GliderGuider]

5. Here's a gentle challenge

You say, "The carbon dioxide is forever."

Not quite. Carbon dioxide is emitted into a dynamic, biologically active system - one of whose primary actions is breaking the carbon-oxygen bond.

The Bern carbon cycle is given by the following equation:

CO2 (t) = 18 + 14 exp (-t/420) + 18 exp (-t/70) + 24 exp (-t/21) + 26 exp (-t/3.4)

This equation gives the pulse-response function for anthropogenic CO2 emissions, i.e., it is expected to be a reasonable approximation for the portion (percent) of CO2 that remains airborne t years following an emission pulse. This equation implies that one-third of anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere after 100 years and one-fifth after 1000 years.

The above was taken from Dr. James Hansen's recent paper Implications of “peak oil” for atmospheric CO2 and climate (PDF warning).

If you are going to effectively slag off your opponents for scientific inaccuracies over odd claims like polluting our children with high-level fission waste after 400,000 years, you must not commit similar inaccuracies yourself.

[NNadir]

7. Without knowing the derivation of the equation, I would like to suggest

that the equation hardly is likely to hold over a broad set of conditions. I'm quite sure, for instance that the pH of the ocean will influence many of the factors that go into an equation. Thus we have little information as to whether the equation is <em>correct</em>. I would suspect it would be less accurate if say, the pH of the ocean fell to 6, or North American forests disappeared along with tropical forests, or if the albedo of the earth changed significantly.

The history of science is filled with equations that held validity locally but not globally. The Rayleigh-Jeans law, modeling a very simple system and hardly something as complex as the atmosphere, broke down when moving beyond a localized set of frequencies.

I'm not sure that the equation would hold at 450 ppm carbon dioxide. Thus it is reasonable to assume that carbon dioxide needs to be sequestered for all time.

[Vogon_Glory]

16. Speaking of the Ph Levels of the Oceans

Speaking of the Ph levels of the oceans, the rising carbon dioxide levels of the seas appears to be altering the oceans' chemistry from the alkaline to the acidic. This transformation is already beginning to raise hob with the shell-making processes of corals, shell fish, and plankton.

I am genuinely concerned that continuing the carbon dioxide buildup will set off massive ocean die-offs. While there may be some dying offs, I think that the effects can hopefully be lessened if human civilization moves away from petroleum and other carbon-based fossil fuels.

We may fail, but damnit, we really ought to try anyway!

I had had quietly pro-nuclear opinions for some years. I joined many other environmentalists during the 1970s in silencing my support of nuclear power while the anti-nuclear zealots reform the movement's opinions concerning nuclear power in the late 1970's. This was a mistake on my part, as I've realized first by the acid rain problem, then as I watched the mounting evidence for man-made global warming, and now with what's happening in the seas.

[NNadir]

18. Welcome to the club. n/t.

[jpak]

9. Carbon dioxide is NOT forever.

Crustal weathering, dissolution in the ocean and burial in marine sediments remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

The mean lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 is 30,000 years - not forever.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/

[bananas]

11. Waxman explained it while Al Gore was testifying before congress

It's some kind of weird cult:

Around 9:10 am PST during Gore's testimony, Waxman said,
"I also hear people say, well they've got a magic solution, nuclear power, <snip>
Nuclear power is an option, you don't want to rule it out, but it's certainly no magic solution.
It almost becomes a theological expression whenever I hear discussion of these environmental issues."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x88649

[NNadir]

13. Well, whenever people shut nuclear plants, they burn more fossil fuels.

Maybe Henry Waxman should look at what happened in Maine.

Whattyathink? Can he read numbers or not?

Romania is putting two new nuclear power plants on line - small ones too - this year, one this month, and they will produce 1/3 the energy of all of Germany's renewable energy.

Germany, nuclear phase out land, is building 26 new coal plants. Twenty six? Got that? Oh, I forgot you don't do numbers. Instead you interpret oracles.

Coal kills. Chanting Al Gore's name will not stop the killing. Neither will chanting Waxman's name.

Maine shut nuclear and started burning more fossil fuels.

Got it?

No?

Let me help you: Maine shut nuclear and started burning more fossil fuels.

Got it yet?

No?

Let me help you again: Maine shut nuclear and started burning more fossil fuels.

This is why the world is heaving reflexive anti-nuclear trust fund brats on the waste heap. They are irrational. They can't do numbers.

[bananas]

14. Moore Spin: Or, How Reporters Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Front Groups

discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x88094

Moore Spin: Or, How Reporters Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Front Groups
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0316-24.htm
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5833

Published on Friday, March 16, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Moore Spin:
Or, How Reporters Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Front Groups
by Diane Farsetta


"We just find it maddening that Hill & Knowlton, which has an $8 million account with the nuclear industry, should have such an easy time working the press," concluded the Columbia Journalism Review in an editorial in its July / August 2006 issue.

The magazine was rightly bemoaning the tendency of news outlets to present former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore and former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman as environmentalists who support nuclear power, without noting that both are paid spokespeople for a group bankrolled by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NEI represents nuclear power plant operators, plant designers, fuel suppliers and other sectors of the nuclear power industry. Hill & Knowlton is NEI's public relations firm, though it's not the only firm working to build support for nuclear power.

Thanks in part to an ongoing, multifaceted PR push -- along with very real concerns about energy prices, rising energy demand, aging infrastructure, sustainability and global warming -- nuclear power is attracting serious attention from reporters and policymakers alike. The question is whether a vital public debate over energy choices is being skewed by deep-pocketed interests with a dog in the fight.

The dangers of such distortions are especially acute at the state and local levels. That's where efforts to extend the licenses of existing nuclear power plants, to maintain or expand nuclear waste storage facilities, and to site new proposed nuclear power plants, are made or broken. And that's where pro-nuclear campaigners appear to be focusing, adopting the mantle and tactics of community groups while steadfastly refusing to provide details on their operations.

<snip>

[Dogmudgeon]

17. Damn those PR-using nuclear groups!

Why can't they just be like solar, wind, and biofuel corporations? They would never use a PR firm or an ad agency! And they're all non-profit organizations, besides.

How DARE the pro-nuclearists try to present their case. Only the anti-nuclear case deserves to be presented! It is pro-nuclear money that is dirty while anti-nuclear money represents the Will of the People.

Next thing you know, the Nukes First types will be quoting hip movie titles for their shameless lies and propaganda. But everybody knows that nuclear energy is about as UN-hip as it is possible to be. Do we really want un-hip sources of energy?

We don't need nuclear energy. It would only require 2.5 million windplants to totally replace half of the nukes in this country.

And by the way, Al Gore agrees with me.

--p!

[Nihil]

19. Don't do that to me!

:spray: :rofl:

[NNadir]

20. Actually, given the weakness of reporters, who have repeated mindlessly anti-nuke

propaganda for about 30 years, it would be useful for reporters to begin speaking to nuclear professionals.

Or is the latest dunderhead antinuke position that reporters on medicine should talk to faith healers and scientologists?

Nuclear engineering is a difficult disipline, involving thousands of hours of study of high level sciences and mathematics. "Journalism" is well, "Niger uranium."

Most everything I read from journalists on nuclear energy is abysmally poor in quality, and is picked up and repeated - here as in many other places - by people equally as ignorant.

In fact, I have seen just one, one article where a reporter didn't get his nuclear reporting from the Church of Greenpeace in recent years. Here it is:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/article_1687775.php

Imagine that, a reporter actually going inside the reactor rather than simply passing on an idiotic, illiterate passage from the Gospel According to Helen Candicott.

I note, that not one of our "nuclear sucks" activists has bothered to review the report of the Sago Mine disaster...

...any comments on dead coal miners in Russia?

Don't give a fuck?

New York coal plant shut for persistent failure over the last ten years to even try to meet pollution regulations?

No interest?

The cause of the destruction of our planet is ignornace and it is the sort of ignorance that spits in the face of professionals.

When you shut nuclear power plants, you burn fossil fuels. There is no other option. Fossil fuels kill.

[jpak]

8. Reality check

The people of Maine voted *not* to shut down Maine Yankee in three referendums in 1980, 1982 and 1987.

Maine Yankee was shut down by its owners - not the people of Maine.

Why did the owners of Maine Yankee shut it down - well before its license expiration (in 2012)??

Because the steam generators developed extensive cracking and had to be repaired or replaced.

The owners of Maine Yankee declared this was too expensive and shut the plant in 1997. It is nearly completely decommissioned but the spent fuel remains on-site.

Maine's two natural gas power plants and three paper mill natural gas CHP plants were built or under development *before* the owners of Maine Yankee shut it down.

The decision to build these plants had absolutely nothing to do with Maine Yankee.

The decision by the paper mills to build and operate natural gas CHP plants was driven by the price of oil, the recent availability of natural gas from Canada and electricity deregulation.

Same with Maine's 2 natural gas plants.

It had nothing to do with Maine Yankee - at all.

Maine does not need its 2 natural gas plants as Maine exports 40% more electricity than it consumes.

Maine currently produces 40%+ of its electricity from renewable sources (small hydroelectric dams and trash-to-energy and biomass plants) - more than any other state.

Maine just commissioned New England's first wind large wind farm (42 MW) and has another 650-1100 MW of wind power in development.

Three Maine rivers are also under study for large scale tidal power development - there is a potential for hundreds of MW of new power capacity at each site.

Maine leads the nation in the percentage of renewable electricity it produces and will dramatically increase its share of renewable power in the next 10 years.

Maine does not need new natural gas or coal or nuclear power plants or LNG terminals...





...but New Jersey does.

Dirigo

[Zenlitened]

12. Oh, you and your... your... FACTS all the time!

Can't you just sit back and bask in the, er... glow... of the nuclearapture that will make everything all nice an' perfect?

:D :hi:

[jpak]

15. ...

:hi:

[NNadir]

10. Kick.