Actuality Dog

100% Clean Part 2: The Nuclear Side of the Equation

2010-08-17T22:33:00.001-07:00

Producing large quantities of hydrogen from water requires large amounts of electricity. In order for hydrogen to be a viable medium for clean energy storage and transportation there must be a source of inexpensive, abundant, clean and safe electricity. The facts clearly show that nuclear-generated electricity outpaces any other option in each of these categories.

Inexpensive
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nuclear reactors are the second largest source of electricity produced in America. The World Nuclear Association found in an April, 2010 report that as of 2008, average production costs for methane-produced electricity were over three times higher than average production costs for nuclear power worldwide. "Production costs" are the sum of operations and maintenance costs plus costs for fuel. They do not take into account indirect costs such as environmental, social and health costs, nor do "production costs" account for capital investment (designing and building the plant, for example). If ALL costs are taken into account "the economics of nuclear power are outstanding" according to the report. While capital costs are much higher for nuclear power plants, these costs are offset by substantially lower operating costs over the life of the plant. Nuclear is the only electricity generation method that includes all costs (including environmental) in the price of electricity. This cost averages out to about 1 cent per KWh to the customer. When looked at from a long-term, holistic perspective, nuclear power is the most economically viable method of producing electricity that humans are currently capable of.

Abundant
One pound of uranium contains as much energy as 2 million pounds of oil. This scientific fact was calculated by Rod Adams, publisher of the online journal Atomic Insights. Because the energy in uranium is so densely packed, the supply of fuel for nuclear reactors is essentially unlimited. Using the current price of Uranium as a cap for determining what Uranium is economically extractable, there is close to 1000 years supply of known reserves on Earth.

Clean
Releasing the energy from one pound of uranium (equivalent to 2 million pounds of oil) results in less than one pound of waste material as calculated by Rod Adams. This waste can be stored in a simple container for decades with no effect on the environment. By contrast, burning 2 million pounds of oil will require releasing several thousand tons of carbon dioxide, and varying amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere.

The contrast between the environmental impact of our current energy infrastructure and the prospects of a nuclear-hydrogen system is astounding. Producing electricity from a nuclear reactor releases nothing whatsoever into the environment. The nuclear industry is the only energy industry that takes responsibility for all of its waste. Contrast this with the pollution and environmental harm we have done by using coal as our major source of electricity and it is easy to see why nuclear power is a much more environmentally friendly choice.

Major hype surrounds any talk of storage of nuclear reactor waste. This hype largely misses several eye-opening truths about nuclear waste. The weight of nuclear waste produced by all nuclear power plants in the U.S. each year is equivalent to the weight of solid waste produced by a single coal-powered electricity plant in just one day. Unlike the coal plant's waste, much of which is injected directly into the environment causing incalculable harm, the nation's nuclear power plant waste has never touched the environment and never harmed anyone. Additionally, only a small fraction of the energy available in the nuclear waste has been extracted. This means that as the technology of nuclear reactors improves, this "waste" can be reused as fuel. There are many options for safely and permanently storing the final waste product that will result from our nuclear activity. No such options currently exist for the waste produced by fossil fuel power plants.

Safe
The World Nuclear Association did an analysis of deaths caused by generating power from the four major sources of electricity – coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear. The analysts took data on deaths that were directly caused by power generation between 1970-1992 and divided by the amount of power generated per year (terra watt years or TWy) from each source. Amazingly, nuclear power generation resulted in only 31 fatalities over the entire period averaging to 8 deaths per TWy generated. By comparison, producing electricity from coal produced 6400 fatalities over the examined period and 342 deaths per TWy. Based on this historical data, producing electricity from coal is over 200 times more dangerous than electricity from nuclear reactors.

Much of the concern about nuclear power centers on radiation exposure. This is another area where hype has overshadowed reality. The simple and eye opening reality is that people who live near coal power plants are exposed to 100 times more radiation than those living next to nuclear plants (click here for the data). That this is not widely discussed in public debate is almost as shocking as the fact itself.

Our Most Viable Option
Using nuclear reactors to produce the electricity for a clean hydrogen-based economy is the only method that can fulfill the promise of a 100% clean energy infrastructure. Nuclear technology can accomplish this goal economically and much more safely than any other option. Anyone who is serious about completely eliminating the release of pollutants into our environment while moving our economy towards safer and more viable energy alternatives must consider these facts with an open mind.

A 100% Clean Replacement for Fossil Fuels is At Hand (Part 1)

2010-08-12T23:08:00.001-07:00

Today there are two well-established technologies in our society that, if combined, could bring about 100% emission-free transportation within the next decade. The synergy of nuclear energy and hydrogen fuel cell power has potential to replace gasoline and diesel forever and catapult America into the forefront of game-changing innovation for the next century. Perhaps some will stop reading here, having dismissed nuclear technology as dirty and dangerous and hydrogen as too expensive and dangerous. I encourage you to read on through this series of posts with an open mind. The facts will reveal a world-changing opportunity right at our doorstep.

When the combination of parts produces something that is better than the sum of what each could do individually, the phenomenon is known as synergy. Wheat and yeast combine to make light, fluffy, moist bread. Families can raise children capable of greater achievements than the parents. In business, the word synergy is often used to describe what happens when a group of people coalesce into a team that produces something revolutionary. For example, the early '80s team at Apple that produced the Macintosh computer is studied by college students as an example of great synergy.

Game changing synergy - here's how it works: Hydrogen would be produced from water by a nuclear power plant through one of two processes. The hydrogen would then be transported via similar methods currently used for delivering methane (natural gas) and gasoline. Pipelines and tanker trucks would bring the hydrogen to filling stations were it would go into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles such as the Honda FCX Clarity. As Hydrogen becomes more readily available, fuel cell vehicles would come to replace conventional vehicles in both consumer and commercial sectors.

A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle uses hydrogen to produce electricity, which is fed to motors that produce horsepower and torque in the same manner as battery powered car motors. Unlike a battery powered car, however, a fuel cell car is not range limited and can be refueled quickly over and over again.
The synergy of nuclear and fuel cell technologies working together can fuel all of our transportation needs while producing only two waste products: The nuclear power plant would produce waste that is densely packed, reusable, and emits nothing into the environment, while the fuel cell vehicles that use the hydrogen would emit nothing but heat and 100% pure water.

This is the only technologically and economically viable option that is available to us now or in the next 50 years that has any hope of completely replacing fossil fuels. Over the next few weeks I will post a few short papers proving that this is true. It is time for those of us who are environmentally conscious to wake up and realize that the long-sought goal of 100% clean energy is at hand now.

Peace Can Come to Afghanistan Soon

2010-07-15T14:55:00.001-07:00

Conditions in Afghanistan and around the world are creating a chance to rapidly bring peace to Afghanistan in the near future – faster than conventional wisdom thinks is possible. The people of both America and Afghanistan are tired of war. Even many lower-level insurgents are tired of fighting. Historically, many insurgencies have begun resolving themselves after around eight years. Given these realities, the U.S. should state a clear goal of leaving as soon as morally possible and make an official (if not public) call for negotiations to begin. Doing this will open the door to peace.

Update 9/15/2010: NPR story - Petraeus on "reconciliation" and a "more nuanced" approach
Update 7/31/2010: A NY Times article showing some movement in the right direction

The U.S. mission in Afghanistan has fundamentally changed. We no longer face a credible threat to our homeland from Afghanistan. However, if western forces left the country the way it is now, Afghanistan would descend into violence and oppression that would be as bad or worse than when America invaded. If this happened, it would be seen as a strategic defeat for America and would be morally reprehensible.

Our mission in Afghanistan should be publicly redirected towards leaving as soon as it is morally possible to do so. We must work towards a solution that leaves all legitimate stakeholders with a say in the future of Afghanistan. Doing this officially would defeat many of the lies told by insurgents in Afghanistan to the people. It would place morally superior political pressure on the Afghan government to find a solution. It would open the door to meaningful negotiations with all parties currently vying for power in Afghanistan, which is the only possible way this conflict can end favorably for the U.S.

We have to accept that the end state will likely not be a strong centrally governed democracy. It will be a distinctly Afghan solution. America will be the catylist for this process and must act from a position of military and political strength, keeping pressure on both the Taliban and the Afghan government. But the point is that peace can happen now.

Borrowing to Cover Interest--Who Would Do That?

2006-01-30T10:19:00.000-08:00

Recent economic reports put economic growth at a strong 3.5% for 2005. However, the annual budget deficit will reach 400+ billion dollars or around 16% of expenditures. The annual interest paid on our accumulated national debt will end up being around 350 billion dollars for 2005—almost as much as we are borrowing each year!

I can’t help but wonder: What is the benefit of a “strong” economy if it is funded by higher and higher levels of deficit spending? Isn’t this strength a sham based on spending subsidized by borrowings from foreign governments? Can borrowing to cover our annual interest payments produce long-term economic vibrancy?

Our government spends much more than it makes each year. In many ways our government’s fiscal practices mirror those of its citizens. Personal debt is at record highs in America as is personal bankruptcy. One particularly cutthroat source of borrowed money is the rapidly growing payday loan business. I’m sure you’ve seen these “quick cash” stands that are pervasive in urban areas and on the Internet.

These businesses profit by loaning money to people who need cash so badly that they can’t wait till payday. The catch is that they take a cut, which can be as high as 20 percent. These businesses are successful partly because people have not learned how to control their spending. People get into financial trouble in the 15 days between paychecks and must turn to the payday loan to bail them out no matter the cost.

Likewise America doesn’t have the fiscal discipline to control spending. Citizens have not yet demanded that the government operate within its Constitutional limits. Congress has more than proven that it cannot control spending. So we turn to the international “quick loan” to cover our lack of discipline and foresight.

As it turns out, countries like China are more than willing to oblige. In fact, China owns nearly 1 trillion dollars of American debt and continues to buy more. One might (and should) ask why China is so willing to loan more and more money to a country that has demonstrated it can’t keep its fiscal house in order. What bank would loan money, with no collateral, to such a person? The answer may be more devious than you think (more to come on this theory).

The bottom line is that relying on foreign investors and governments to finance our own policies makes us vulnerable, especially when most of the borrowing goes to pay the interest on past debts. I am not suggesting financial isolationism from the world economy. But we as responsible citizens should demand more far-sighted leadership.

I would like to see candidates who will make the tough choices that are necessary to bring discipline back to American fiscal policy.

Do the Kurds Hold a Key to Peace?

2006-01-22T19:41:00.000-08:00

It is possible that the key to the multiple crises of anarchy and civil war in Iraq, potential nuclear weapons in Iran, and the promotion of Islamic terrorism by many Middle Eastern states lies with the Kurds.

To explain this idea further it is necessary to consider some (brief) history. Since being conquered in the 7th century by the Ottoman Empire the Kurds have had no place to call their own. The global struggles that shaped the Middle East and Africa from colonialism through World War I resulted the in allocation of old Kurdish lands to the four modern countries of Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq.

Many failed uprisings later, the Kurds are trapped as pawns in the game of nation-states not their own. These states use the Kurdish desire for independence against one another, knowing how to raise hopes just enough to spurn an uprising here or a riot there. But there is no intention of seeing it through.

In reality each of the states involved thinks there is much to loose from the realization of an independent Kurdistan in their midst. It is indeed one of the things that the governments of all four fear the most. This is why spawning Kurdish uprisings is such an effective tool to be used against one another.

Enter the United States (and allies) who dove headlong into the Middle East without fully understanding it. The would-be “liberators” are now faced with an unraveling equilibrium and a loss of strategic initiative that threatens to unleash regional war.

An independent Kurdish state as a close ally of the United States would begin a new equilibrium. The U.S. and the Kurds could reclaim the initiative by aligning the heroic efforts of American troops with a people who share the same vision. The Kurds do not want an all-powerful theocracy. They do not want to dominate the Middle East. And, most importantly, the scourge of Islamic terrorism has not infected their society. They only want a safe place to call home; a place where they are free. If the U.S. could help create such a place, it would earn an ally as loyal as Kuwait, as powerful as Israel, and as strategically important as S. Korea.

In Iraq, the insurgency would loose steam as the focus shifts from American “occupation” to Kurdish independence. Iran would find its Kurds, the largest minority population, empowered to follow their dream. The youthful Iranian majority might soon follow suit, wanting some liberty of their own. Strategic leverage gained against Syria might finally be enough to force that government to renounce terrorism and join the modern world—with a new Kurdistan as its main trading partner.

This idea is not without potentially grave risks. For example, Turkey would be severely alienated by any move to establish a Kurdish state. Also, the Kurds themselves may not be capable of uniting so quickly. However, a bold new approach is needed. Perhaps this is the vision that leads to long-term resolution in the Middle East.