I know that Halloween is today and this may find some of you a little late, but as a light and fun holiday article, I thought we could discuss “Green” Halloween ideas.  Here are some fun Halloween ideas that will help you have an eco-friendly holiday.

1) Reuse or make your own Halloween costume:

Okay, so I know this sounds cheesy but how easy, cheap and fun would it be to make your own costume?  Be a little creative.  Some of the most memorable costumes I had as a little kid were ones my mom made.  One year my mom took a clear trash bag, cut holes for legs and arms, blew up a bunch of colorful balloons and stuffed my sister and the balloons in the trash bad.  She was a bag of jelly beans.  It was hilarious and definitely won best costume on the street.  If you don’t feel like being creative, ask a friend if you could borrow an old costume they might not be using.

2) Decorate with nature:

So who doesn’t love the colorful changing of the leaves, or the brownish color corn stalks, or acorns falling off the trees?  Use these items to decorate your home for this fall holiday instead of purchasing a bunch of expensive decorations that you could have probably made yourself.

3) Walk…Don’t Drive:

Now I hope that none of you do this but walk, don’t drive your kids from house to house trick-or-treating.  Driving takes all the fun out of trick-or treating.  Not only is it good exercise but it is a time that you can spend with your children.

4) Take a reusable bag:

Take and old pillow case that you don’t use anymore (which I am sure you all have) and let your kids paint them to make their trick or treat bag?  It would be a creative, fun activity for your child to do plus you can store it away with the rest of your Halloween decorations and use it for years to come!

5) Purchase candy that has the least amount of wrapping:

So I know a lot of you are going to be passing out the candy instead of getting the candy (unless you pick at your own candy bowl…which I am sure is what I will be doing) so one way to been a little more environmentally friendly is when you go candy shopping, try to buy candy that has less wrapping and packaging.

I hope everyone has a fun filled and safe Halloween!!!  If you get a last minute party invite or are still debating on what to wear, check out the Mother Nature Network for some easy eco-friendly costume ideas.

Don’t forget, the cleanest energy is the energy you don’t waste.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

TGIF!  Time to reveal another way to save energy.  To piggy back on what we discussed last week, properly installing and using a programmable thermostat in your home is an easy way to save energy and money!  Remember that the cleanest energy is the energy you don’t waste.

Programmable Thermostat

By using a programmable thermostat in your home, it is easy to pre-program settings to regulate your home’s temperature.  Depending on your family’s schedule, the thermostat can be set to properly adjust your homes temperature as to deliver savings without sacrificing comfort.  According to the US Department of Energy, each household can save approximately 10% a year on heating and cooling bills by turning back the thermostat 10°–15° for eight hours.   By using a programmable thermostat, you can pre-set a schedule and adjust when you want to turn on and off  your heating or air-conditioning based on when you are sleeping or not in your home.

Energy star qualified programmable thermostats come with pre-programmed set-points as a guide to help setup your thermostat.

Courtesy: EnergyStar.gov

Effort: Medium

Time Required: 2 Hours

Materials Needed: Energy Star Programmable Thermostat and manual that comes with it.

Instructions:

1) Choose the right programmable thermostat

2) Have your thermostat properly installed

3) Properly set and use your thermostat

4) If you would rather not purchase a new thermostat you can still save with your manual thermostat.  You can manually adjust your thermostat before you go to bed or leave your home.

Helpful Reminder:

Turning your heating or cooling system way up or down with not heat or cool your home any faster.  It will however make your system work harder…using more energy.

Read the rest of this entry »

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Our nation has a continued dysfunction in regard to paying attention to and solving real problems.  Tunnel vision and osmosis must be the source of some of our nation’s prioritization because all of the problems that get attention have the same attributes.  They are within arms reach or are right in front of our collective faces.  This is the only way I can explain the reason why the vast majority of regulation and laws passed for air pollution control up to this point are for automotive emissions.   All this attention when only 20 percent of our nation’s air pollution is from car exhaust and 80 percent of air pollution comes from electricity generation by fossil fuels.

I’m not particularly for or against car exhaust regulation, I’m just puzzled by our nation’s constant attention being drawn to it just because we are around cars all of the time.  Are we unable to use data to make decisions anymore?  Do we really have an attention span that short or is our congress that dense?

Our nation has real problems in many areas, some we can see with data and some we see because we are staring at it every day.  I think our nation needs a better ability to prioritize problems on an absolute scale.  It is no secret that Clean Energy Insight is for nuclear electricity generation because it solves the 80% part of the air pollution problem while simultaneously creating jobs here in the USA.

Congress appears to have renewed some attention to the climate bill this week. Let me make a few suggestions that may help reduce the tension in the air.  Number one, if you don’t want any more coal plants to be built then just write a law that says that (or restricts it to a small number) and stop this increase in costs of production nonsense that would be immediately passed onto the citizens.  Number two, make nuclear power the preferred source of base load power and pass loan guarantees for about $20 billion per year over the next 15 or so years.  This creates many thousands of jobs, solves the clean energy problem, and does not spend any federal money (just co-signing the loans).  Number three, put any other kind of non-base load renewable feel good power generation in there you want.   We all know solar, wind et al. won’t make a difference to the big picture overall power consumed, but apparently we have to spend money on it to feel good about ourselves.

Let’s get smart America and use data to solve the right problems the best way and reject the continued dysfunctional short attention span that is spending us into the poor house, gaining us little progress on pollution control, and no job creation during the worst recession in 75 years.

Now take a deep breath and sigh admittedly to yourself…..”nuclear is the solution”.

[Approx. Read Time 6 minutes]

The US Chamber of Commerce has been making major news lately, and I’d like to make an attempt to analyze what the fuss is all about.  Hopefully, by asking a few questions and doing a little research, you will be able to better understand what you may be reading in the news.

The pro-Nuclear United States Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation.  It’s self-proclaimed goal is:

“To advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility.”

According to a Harris Interactive Poll (2008), the Chamber was ranked 5th most familiar and 5th most trustworthy organization in the United States.  However, the Chamber has gotten a lot of harsh criticism lately from many of its members even leading to some companies dropping their memberships.

Recently, the Chamber of Commerce has come out in opposition to the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill that passed the House during late summer.  Since the Chamber has made their opposition publicly known, several major public energy utilities that have heavy stakes in Nuclear power have left the Chamber.  These include Pacific Gas & Electric and Exelon (See here).  Surprisingly, even leading coal power generating utilities like Appalachian Electric Power and Duke Power have come out in support of the Waxman-Markey legislation.  Here is what PG&E Chairman and Chief Executive Peter Darbee had to say about their decision to split from the Chamber:

“We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.”

After reading PG&E’s comments, you may find yourself taking sides against the Chamber of Commerce.  I can certainly understand their support for this legislation.  But before you get hopping mad, take a cool head over to the Chamber’s website to see what they have to say about the situation.  In their explanation for their stance against Cap-and-Trade, they explicitly state that they believe the legislation doesn’t do enough to rollback emissions and implement renewable energy technology.  See below for an excerpt from the Chamber’s website:

Five Positions on Energy and the Environment

Also see our Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future with 88 concrete recommendations and detailed timelines which form a comprehensive, long-term energy strategy that if adopted, will put America on a path for a more secure, prosperous and clean energy future.

1. The Chamber’s position on climate change

The Chamber has in its public documents, Hill letters and testimony, supported efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. Our position is simple: There should be a comprehensive legislative solution that does not harm the economy, recognizes that the problem is international in scope, and aggressively promotes new technologies and efficiency. Protecting our economy and the environment for future generations are mutually achievable goals.

2. The Chamber’s position on Waxman-Markey

We opposed this specific legislation because it would not reduce the global level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It is neither comprehensive nor international, and it falls short on moving renewable and alternative technologies into the marketplace and enabling our transition to a lower carbon future. It would also impose carbon tariffs on goods imported into the U.S., a move that would almost certainly spur retaliation from global trading partners.

3. The Chamber’s position on EPA’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act:

The Clean Air Act is not the appropriate vehicle for regulating climate change. Even though EPA is only addressing motor vehicles, the Clean Air Act is structured so that once EPA regulates greenhouse gases in any manner; the Act regulates all emitters of the gases which includes stationary sources that have never been subject to EPA Air regulation. To quote Congressman John Dingell, this will be a “glorious mess.” Our economy does not need a glorious regulatory mess, especially now. Reason needs to prevail and Congress needs to enact a comprehensive climate change law.

4. The Chamber’s position on alternative/renewable energy sources:

The Chamber has vigorously supported the production and use of renewable energy and we have consistently called for additional funding for renewable and other clean energy technology advancements. The Chamber’s website contains all of our letters of support to Congress and comments to agencies, and our reports on the status of funding for new energy technologies. In addition, we have sent dozens of concrete policy recommendations to the Administration and Congress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere while keeping our economy healthy. We are currently leading the fight to clear the regulatory, legal, and Not-In-My-Backyard roadblocks that are delaying promising wind, solar, nuclear and other clean energy projects across the nation.

5. The Chamber’s position on the role of technology in addressing these challenging issues:

American business is the single biggest investor in clean technology. The Chamber has routinely supported tax incentives and credits, appropriations and stimulus funding to promote the accelerated development of these technologies.  Our Institute for 21stCentury Energy dedicated an entire chapter of its Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future to increasing sources of renewable energy in our transportation and electricity sectors. We supported all of the technology provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and has promoted their funding since the passage of these laws

PG&E’s Peter Darbee also claimed that he fears that the Chamber of Commerce “has forfeited an incredible chance to play a constructive leadership role on one of the most important issues our country may ever face.”

See the Chamber’s Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future in which the Chamber notably came out in favor of an expansion of Nuclear power in America (page 21).

The Chamber’s official nuclear stances include the following:

• Increase the amount of federally stored uranium for use in domestic nuclear power.
• Expeditiously establish a program to recycle nuclear waste.
• Develop centrally located storage facilities for used nuclear fuel.
• Request that the current Administration must make a formal decision on Yucca Mountain.
• Mandate that the Federal Gov’t pay back Waste Fund payments to utility rate-payers ($27 Billion) if the Yucca Mountain plan is disregarded.
• Improve the DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program for nuclear power.
• Improve the NRC licensing review process with additional resources and more efficient processes.

Wading through this back-and-forth between the US Chamber of Commerce and public energy utilities may leave you feeling dizzy.  It left me wondering why the utilities were so hard on the Chamber for stances it really doesn’t seem to take.

The answer may lie in a statement or series of statements by one Chamber official in which he called for a “Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st Century” in order to reportedly test the scientific theory of man-made global warming.  William Kovacs, a VP at the Chamber, immediately came out and retracted his statement. Claiming that he was misunderstood and didn’t effectively relay the Chamber’s position on the issue.

This all stemmed from the Chamber’s opposition to an EPA ruling that CO2 has a direct harmful effect on human health and welfare, which allows the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to more strongly regulate emissions on industry and business. (See here.)

However, other than this single statement/issue, the Chamber has been pro-climate change solutions.  The Chamber explicitly states that it’s mutually achievable goal is to protect the economy and the environment.  One of the main reasons the Chamber doesn’t think this is achievable with the Waxman-Markey bill can be seen in the graph below (Click graph for large size).

(Note - This graph was provided by Alex Flint, Senior VP of Governmental Affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, in a presentation he gave to NA-YGN members during this past summer.  Although, Flint and NEI came out in support of Waxman-Markey’s pro-nuclear provisions, his point by showing this data was that in order to reduce costs the final legislation must be more pro-nuclear.  This is currently being seen with the Boxer-Kerry legislation making its way through the Senate, although Waxman-Markey wasn’t as openly pro-nuclear.)

Regardless of your stance on climate change and climate change legislation–In it’s current form, the Waxman-Markey bill is a bottom-line price-increase on energy consumers, as shown above by NEI.

Furthermore, regardless of your stance on this legislation, public energy utilities are profit-seeking businesses, and a profit-seeking business would not go out of its way on principle alone to support something that would harm its profits.  Utilities like Exelon with a considerable number of operating nuclear power plants are naturally supporting the legislation because nuclear power emits zero greenhouse gases.  Exelon CEO John Rowe commented on this yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.

WSJ: You’re outspoken about the need for carbon-emission reductions. You dropped out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because it opposed legislation. But you own 17 nuclear reactors that would benefit.

Mr. Rowe: We don’t flinch from the charge that, yes, some of our motivation and enthusiasm comes from the fact that we should make money on it if it happens. I started dealing with this problem more than a decade ago, long before I had a sense of how much money I could make for Exelon. A good solution to a societal problem is one where the winners help solve the problem.

With the current Waxman-Markey bill not putting much stake in nuclear power, energy prices will rise.  But why are utilities that produce power using fossil fuels also fervently on board with the legislation?

In an attempt to explain, the demand for energy is for all intents and purposes perfectly inelastic.  A product that has inelastic demand has few substitutes.  Examples of inelastic goods include gasoline, medicine, Super Bowl tickets, and electricity.  In the case of energy, this is exhibited by the fact that energy consumers basically have no choice in who they purchase their electricity from or whether they need to use electricity at all.

Another characteristic of a perfectly inelastic good is that when a tax or price-increase is introduced, the producer is able to pass 100% of the increase on to the consumer.  That is the cost to produce electricity will be passed directly onto energy consumers by public utilities who emit a lot of greenhouse gases.  Hopefully, knowing these economic facts will help you understand why even coal-heavy public energy utilities with seemingly so much to lose are supporting Waxman-Markey.

In fact, if you do an internet search on “Chamber of Commerce Cap and Trade” you will find countless news articles that state the Chamber’s official position to be anti-climate change, anti-emissions reductions, anti-cap-and-trade, anti-renewable energy, etc.  All running contrary to the Chamber’s explicitly stated positions.

Personally, I’m not sure that the public energy utilities can be held completely responsible for the Chamber’s true message apparently getting lost in translation. Unless you do the necessary research, you will find that many ”credible” news-outlets are getting the story wrong.  All because of one statement that was immediately retracted.

Maybe the Chamber of Commerce is right when it states that current legislation isn’t doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create a competitive renewable and clean energy sector in the United States?  But the next time you hear a news-release pronouncing that the Chamber of Commerce has decided to support climate legislation in Congress, you can bet that it will be because Congress has actually decided to take further and more effective steps in the direction of competitively reducing emissions and creating a strong renewable energy portfolio.  An energy future that includes nuclear power.  Until then, it just looks like business as usual.

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

NEI Nuclear Notes covered President Obama’s comments on nuclear power late last week during his trip to New Orleans.  Here they are:

“There’s no reason why technologically we can’t employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way.  Japan does it and France does it and it doesn’t have greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be stupid for us not to do that in a much more effective way.”

Sounds good.

As you are probably already aware, Senators Kerry and Boxer are currently working with their colleagues on the Senate version of the climate bill.  With important promises to make nuclear power a player in the bill, the progress has been refreshing.

Yesterday, the National Journal Online has started a debate between key players from both sides of the nuclear power aisle.  The question is whether or not nuclear should have a place in the Boxer-Kerry Bill.  There are currently eight responses from the following people:

• Carl Pope, President - Sierra Club
• Rep. Joe Pitts, R-PA - Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S. House Of Representatives
• Marvin Fertel, President and CEO - Nuclear Energy Institute
• Frank O’Brien-Bernini, Chief Sustainability Officer - Owens Corning
• Arjun Makhijani, President - Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
• Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX - Ranking Member, Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S. House Of Representatives
• Bill Snape, Senior Counsel - Center For Biological Diversity
• Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK - Ranking Republican, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Why don’t you head over to the National Journal, check out the responses and submit your vote on who you agree with the most.  Link here.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Does Nuclear Fit The Bill?

Recent endorsements by key senators, such as John Kerry, D-Mass., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., (in their joint op-ed) and Tom Carper, D-Del., could be early signs nuclear energy is gaining traction as an indispensable part of the recently introduced Senate climate change legislation. Still, lawmakers and experts alike cite obstacles, including high construction costs and lengthy license processes, that the industry will need to overcome.

What obstacles do you think are holding up nuclear development? Should the climate bill include provisions to help revitalize the industry, such as streamlining the process of getting new plants built? And if so, how? Would nuclear provisions help Senate leaders win 60 votes? Alternatively, why do you think nuclear energy should not be an integral part of Kerry-Boxer?

– Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

We have covered the nuclear power issue in the United Kingdom previously, here and here.  Lord Philip Hunt (center), Minister of the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the United Kingdom, offered the following pro-nuclear letter in the Guardian today.  Very well written and interesting to see the statistics from Britain on nuclear power that are very similar in proportion to those in the United States.

It seems as though certain leaders in the United Kingdom are realizing the role that nuclear power should play in their energy portfolio.  In a country like the United Kingdom with limited land resources, nuclear power is a perfect fit.  As we showed last week, nuclear power is the most dense form of energy; meaning that nuclear power uses the least amount of land of any power source to create power.  I also saw some anti-nuclear commentary from Britain today about the high costs of nuclear power.  True, nuclear power has high upfront costs.  Nonetheless, reports from the United States show that nuclear power is one of the cheapest forms of energy available.  This can be seen in the following graph compiled recently with information from the United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

Since we do get so many visitors from across the pond, I am tempted to offer a “What Does Renewable Energy Look Like?” (Part I, Part II) article for the UK.  Those of you from the UK, let me know what you think about that in the comments section, and I will try to get that done before I leave for an outage next week.

‘Britain an ideal location for new nuclear power’

Lord Hunt, a minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, gives his verdict on Britain’s nuclear power projects.

Monday, October 19, 2009

A nuclear renaissance in the UK presents a tremendous opportunity. It has the potential to supply us with substantial amounts of home-grown, low-carbon, reliable and relatively cheap energy. That is why the government is facilitating a new generation of nuclear power: removing regulatory barriers, making the planning system fairer and faster, and creating more certainty for communities and industry.

Climate change and the need to replace ageing power stations mean this is the right thing to do. It is in our long-term national interest. We need to transform our energy sector, replacing old infrastructure with high-tech, low-carbon energy sources. Nuclear energy, alongside a tenfold increase in renewables and investing in clean coal, will be central.

Already the energy industry has announced plans for new reactors to generate 12GW of new nuclear power, more than currently exists. The first of these new plants is on course to start feeding into the grid by 2018, which would usher in a new era of secure clean energy, driven by a rejuvenated industry and workforce.

The civil nuclear industry currently generates 11GW of power from 10 nuclear power stations and provides employment for 44,000 people in the core industry and the direct supply chain. We estimate that a new nuclear power station has the potential to provide 9,000 jobs during construction and 1,000 jobs during operation, with many more created across the supply chain. The estimated economic benefit would be £2.8bn for each new plant.

While the government fully supports a new generation of new nuclear power, we recognise that there are legitimate concerns amongst the public. We are the first administration to take serious action to address Britain’s nuclear legacy. I recently visited the site at Dounreay, where workers are completing, ahead of schedule, the decommissioning of the site.

It’s exactly this sort of achievement that makes Britain an ideal location for new nuclear power. We have the skills, ingenuity and experience needed, coupled with a strong safety record. Ours is a world-class, rigorous, and transparent regulatory system, ensuring we maintain the highest standards of safety.

The government will announce shortly a rigorously assessed list of sites suitable for new nuclear development, alongside a clear statement of national need. We are determined that this entire process is conducted in partnership with local communities. We have already conducted extensive consultation to hear people’s views and address their concerns and will continue to do so.

Putting nuclear energy at the very heart of our low-carbon economy is part of our credibility going into the climate summit in Copenhagen. We need to demonstrate how we intend to reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050. We need to show real action and real leadership, and that is why we need new nuclear energy.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

HSBC Private Bank has begun recommending clients to invest between 1-5% of their wealth in nuclear power.  According to the head of global strategy for HSBC, Fredrik Nerbrand, nuclear power is the only sustainable means of electricity.  Nerbrand is also recommending to steer clear of other renewable energy stocks such as solar because of their dependence on government subsidies in a time when budgets are stretched.  Advice from financial experts and recent utility stock market performance is helping to rebuke the long standing myth that any company that builds a new nuclear plant will be penalized by Wall Street and investors.

HSBC Private Bank Goes Nuclear

By Chris Vellacott

LONDON (Reuters) - HSBC Private Bank is recommending weightings of 1-5 percent in nuclear power to clients without ethical objections, as subsidy-dependent renewable energy stocks are too exposed to political risk.

Fredrik Nerbrand, head of global strategy at HSBC’s private banking arm, said nuclear power was the “only sustainable” means of electricity generation.

“We are buying nuclear energy in all its forms,” he said, adding he did not favour sectors such as solar energy on account of their dependence on government subsidies at a time when state budgets are stretched, rendering them exposed to political risk.

Nerbrand also has reservations about gold, which has returned more than 21 percent this year to trade above $1,000 an ounce.

“I fail to see the long-term value of gold from an investment perspective,” he said, adding the commodity should be viewed as a hedge against downside risk to dollar-denominated investments.

Nerbrand is advising wealthy clients that the recovery in the world economy is gathering momentum and the time is right to move into “riskier assets” such as corporate credit, hedge funds and emerging markets.

But he remains particular about which emerging markets are worth a punt, favouring China and Brazil over Russia, which is beset with political risk, and India, which he says has overheated.

“Russia is basically related to oil and I’d rather just buy oil,” he said.

The risk of rising consumer prices in the medium term is low because high unemployment rules out a wage-price spiral, but money printing by governments is likely to lead to higher asset prices favouring real estate and commodities, he said.

In contrast, liquid assets and cash are expected to underperform with central banks maintaining interest rates at record lows. “Central banks will talk tough but act soft with regards to inflation,” he said.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Ceiling fans used in addition to your air conditioning can save energy by allowing a higher thermostat temperature setting. In the summer or warmer months, use the ceiling fan in the counterclockwise direction. While standing directly under the ceiling fan you should feel a cool breeze.  Air movement from the fan evaporates moisture on the skin and makes a person feel cooler. Therefore, you can raise the thermostat and feel just as comfortable. For every degree you raise the air conditioning thermostat, you can save approximately 3 % - 5 % in cooling costs. There is no energy savings if you use a ceiling fan and forget to raise the thermostat.

To get the full effect of your ceiling fan, in the winter or cooler months, reverse the motor and operate the ceiling fan in the clockwise direction. This causes the warm air circulating near the ceiling to produces a gentle updraft, forcing the warm air down into the room without blowing any cool air.

How Much Energy Do Ceiling Fans Use?

(Here is some useful information on ceiling fans from Progress Energy)

Fans use no more electricity than light bulbs. Typical wattage for various ceiling fan sizes are:

• 36″ = 55 watts
• 48″ = 75 watts
• 52″ = 90 watts
• 56″ = 100 watts

For example, a 48″, 75-watt fan used 10 hours a day at half speed or less would cost $.50 to $.90 a month to operate. For a 1,500-square-foot house with air conditioning using two ceiling fans and raising the thermostat setting could save about $70 to $200 over a six-month cooling season.

Effort: Low if already have ceiling fans, Medium to High if installing Ceiling Fans

Time Required: 5 minutes if already have ceiling fans, 2 hours if installing ceiling fans

Materials Needed: Ceiling Fans (preferably Energy Star) and directions and materials that come with it

Instructions:

1) How to select a ceiling fan: Fan sizes typically range from 34″ to 56″ in diameter. The size of the fan depends of the room dimensions.  Below gives a general idea of the size ceiling fan for the size room it is located in.

• 36″ fan for rooms that measure up to 9′ X 12′
• 48″ fan for rooms up to 12′ X 15′
• 56″ fan for rooms larger than 12′ X 15′

2) Installing a ceiling fan: Follow the directions that come with the fan.  The following Do-it-Yourself website is also a helpful tool.

Helpful Reminder:

Adjust your thermostat when you have your ceiling fans running.  For each degree you lower or raise your thermostat (depending on the season and which direction your fan is rotating), you’ll reduce heating or cooling costs 3 % to 5 %.

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

Things may be slowing down a bit here at Clean Energy Insight over the next month or two.  Currently, it is outage season for the nuclear power industry.  Many of our contributors will be supporting outage work on-site at nuclear power plants.

In the nuclear power industry, an “outage” does not primarily refer to a power outage or blackout.  Every Spring and Fall, when power demand is at its lowest, the nuclear industry shuts down some of their plants for maintenance and repair.

This could mean packing up and going to a nuclear power plant for the next three months, or staying at their home office and working the night shift.  We will try our best to keep you updated on nuclear news and interesting nuclear power facts.  However, all of our focus will be on our work in order to be as safe as possible and as productive as possible during these critical outages.  Plus, working on an outage can help an engineer gain priceless experience in the field and in the industry, which will make Clean Energy Insight better equipped to bring you voices of experience.  So…

What is an “Outage?”

In the nuclear power industry, an “outage” is a period of time in which a nuclear power plant shuts down (stops producing power)  in order to perform routine maintenance, replacements, and/or re-fuel the reactor.  During this time, the power utility ramps up power production at other plants, or purchases additional electricity from neighboring utilities to make up for the power production from a reactor that is scheduled for an outage.

Depending on the type of outage, it can last from one and a half to two months.  Additionally, outage staff works in 12 hour shifts in order to keep things moving and to provide 24 hour support.

A nuclear plant would be able to tout a 100% capacity factor if it weren’t for these scheduled outages.  Because of these necessary outages, nuclear power plants achieved an energy industry best capacity factor of 91.8% in 2008.

Some of the components that are replaced or maintenanced include but are not limited to: reactor heads, steam generators, pumps, motors, turbines and fuel.

Re-Fueling

Re-fueling outages average about 35 days in length, some have been done in 15-20 days, and are done every 18-24 months.  This means that a nuclear reactor doesn’t need to be re-fueled but every 18-24 months, setting nuclear power apart from other energy sources such as coal that need to be refueled on a daily basis.

Fuel Rods

Pumps and Motors

Pumps and motors must also be replaced or maintenanced during outages in order to service the plant and lengthen its service-life.

Baby Pump

Reactor coolant pump motors are the largest pump/motor assembly in a nuclear power plant.  These can be about 28 feet in height, weigh over 100,000 lbs, roll at 9,000-12,000 horsepower, and spit out 88,000 gallons of water per minute.

Reactor Coolant Pump for the Westinghouse AP-1000 Reactor

Turbines

Here’s a great video from National Geographic on the turbine replacement at Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant.

Reactor Heads

Reactor vessel closure heads must be replaced at a plant periodically as well.  These are pretty heavy components as well.  Usually around 200,000 lbs.  It’s quite a feat to be able to move an object this heavy so precisely.  Here’s a great document from Bechtel on the process they use to replace reactor heads in a safe and efficient manner. Link: Bechtel Detail Design.

Reactor Head

Reactor Head being put into place

Steam Generators

Steam generators are one of the biggest components in a nuclear power plant and can weigh around one million pounds.  Moving these things is big business.  It is also an art. The coordination and precision of this type of operation is impressive and intricate.  The only way to give it justice is to see it in person.  Although, I hope these images will help you understand the scope of this type of project.

Steam Generator

Here is a news clip from Lancaster Online showing two steam generators moving through rural Pennsylvania a couple of weeks ago on their way to Three Mile Island for the outage there slated to start October 26th.  The generators will be installed and the reactors will be back online by January 1st.

The delivery route must go through multiple levels of planning including coordination with local law enforcement and structural qualification of roads and bridges along the route since the steam generators are so heavy.  The steam generators that are currently running at Three Mile Island will be removed and placed in a building called an Original Steam Generator Storage Facility (OSGSF).  This facility is designed and rated to prevent the release of low-level radiation to the public and environment.

These aren’t the only activities that are performed during outages.  Some include modifications that will increase the life and power output of existing plants.  Others may include increasing fire protection safety measures in the plant.  There are many different modifications that a utility performs during outages that will increase quality and performance at their nuclear plants.  Hopefully, this post provides a high-level overview of a nuclear power industry outage.  For more detailed information, feel free to ask any questions in the comment section below.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

The prospect of building a new nuclear power plant in Inglis, Fl has local residents excited. Current economic conditions in surrounding Levy county are dismal with unemployment topping 12% and per capita income reaching only $15,000.  Progress Energy estimated the number of jobs that would be created in constructing and operating the  plant in a recent news article:

“Progress spokeswoman Cherie Jacobs said about 3,000 workers would build the plant when construction starts, perhaps in 2012. About 800 full-time positions would be created to staff the two generators when they open.”

Property for sale  in the area has seen a speculative increase in asking price in anticipation of the plant being built. A local real estate agent had the following to say:

“There’s lot of anticipation as far as the property owners go in what they might be able to get for their property. People want more for their property than it’s worth. They say, ‘Well, the power plant is coming.’”

Opposition to the plant has come  mostly from environmental groups and anti-nuclear groups outside of  the planned build site in Levy county. The anti-nukes concerned about local waterways and spent fuel storage are outnumbered though by locals in favor of the plants.

“The waterways - some of the state’s most pristine - provide recreational opportunities, and some nuclear plant opponents are worried about marshlands and wildlife. Others are concerned about the company’s plan to store spent nuclear fuel onsite. But they are in the minority - most see the reactors as an economic boon.”

Environmentalist may find some  solace in the fact that Progress plans on shutting down two coal fired power plants in Citrus County FL if they get the final okay to operate the new Levy County nuclear plant.  The new nuclear plant in Levy County would provide a reliable CO2 free power source large enough to replace the two coal plants.

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

In a country that has been seemingly anti-nuclear across the board in the past, the idea of relying on nuclear power for baseload electricity in Australia is gaining steam.  In a recent Australian poll, 49 percent of Australians support nuclear power, whereas just three years ago only 38 percent of Aussies supported the energy source.  It seems a bit ironic for Australians to be anti-nuclear with all of the uranium mining activity that goes on there.  We’ll be keeping up with the nuclear climate down under in the future.

(On a side note, here’s an interesting blog I found this past weekend written by a young pro-nuclear Australian.  Clean Energy Insight wishes Mr. Weston the best, and we hope that he comes up with some more of his interesting posts for us to enjoy.)

Australians warm to nuclear power

Ian Munro and Geoff Strong

October 13, 2009

AUSTRALIANS are warming to the idea of nuclear power, with almost one in two saying it should be considered as an alternative source of energy to help combat global warming.

An Age/Nielson poll found 49 per cent of Australians believed nuclear should be on the nation’s list of potential power options, while 43 per cent were opposed outright.

The finding marks a big shift of public opinion from 2006, when a Newspoll showed just 38 per cent in favour of nuclear power and 51 per cent opposed.

The survey came as political haggling in Canberra over emissions trading drew a sharp rebuke from former government climate adviser Ross Garnaut.

”This whole process of policymaking … has been one of the worst examples of policymaking we’ve seen on major issues in Australia,” he said.

Despite the poll findings showing more support for nuclear power, the Rudd Government yesterday restated its total opposition to it as an option to help Australia meet its future carbon reduction targets.

During the 2007 election campaign, after prime minister John Howard put nuclear power on the agenda, then opposition leader Kevin Rudd said: ”If you elect a Labor government, there will be no nuclear reactors in Australia, full stop.”

Supporters of nuclear power say it is the only practical low-emissions alternative to coal for generating baseload electricity - the minimum required by industry and residential users.

Arguments against focus on safety - the risk of accidents and the fact that radioactive waste must be stored securely for thousands of years. Opponents also say it would take too long develop a nuclear power industry.

Ziggy Switkowski, who chairs the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, said: ”[We must] provide for the next generation of baseload electricity generation with clean energy. The only way to do that is with nuclear power.”

Support for considering nuclear was strongest among Coalition supporters (58 per cent), and opposition was strongest among Greens voters (62 per cent). ALP voters were evenly divided, with 46 per cent in favour and 46 per cent opposed.

Survey respondents were told: ”The introduction of nuclear power has been suggested as one means to address climate change”, and then asked: ”Do you support or oppose the Federal Government considering the introduction of nuclear power in Australia?”

Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson restated the Government’s opposition to nuclear power. He also cast doubt on the viability of photovoltaic solar power as a future energy resource. He said the renewable sector kept falsely insisting it could be an alternative to coal as baseload power.

But he believed solar thermal technology, which uses the sun’s heat to boil liquids to power turbines, was a more likely answer.

Victorian Energy Minister Peter Batchelor dismissed nuclear power as an option for the state. He said increased reliance on lower-emitting gas, clean coal and renewable energy sources were the way ahead.

However, hopes for a cleaner future for Victoria’s power industry received a setback last month with the abandonment of a ”carbon capture” project at a proposed power station near Morwell, which instead is to become a gas-fired station. In another setback for the renewables sector, Solar Systems, which was to have developed a 154-megawatt solar photovoltaic power station near Mildura, was put into administration.

Meanwhile, the annual Lowy Institute poll has found that climate change is dropping as a priority for Australians.

The poll, released today, found Australians have gone from ranking climate change in 2007 as the equal most important foreign policy goal to putting it seventh out of 10 possible goals. The issue fell 10 points since last year and 19 points from 2007.

But Lowy executive director Michael Wesley said 76 per cent rated climate change a problem and those who felt this way viewed getting a solution as increasingly urgent.

As the Opposition prepared to put a package of amendments on emissions trading to Parliament next week, political sparring continued over the costs of curbing emissions.

Frontier Economics and independent senator Nick Xenophon hit back at Treasury’s claim that Frontier’s blueprint, commissioned by the Opposition (and Senator Xenophon), had a $3.2 billion hole.

They accused Treasury of misunderstanding the ”credit and baseline” approach to emissions trading and getting its sums wrong.

Senator Xenophon said Treasury was acting politically. He said he could not support the Government’s scheme unless it included changes to the way the electricity sector was treated. There was a risk the Government’s model would cause energy security problems, including blackouts.

The Seven Network reported an analysis commissioned by the NSW Government from Frontier last year on the Rudd Government scheme said that in the long term it could lead to real wages 8 per cent below the level they would otherwise reach, if long-run unemployment was to be avoided.

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

I once read an article by William Tucker that included some interesting facts about nuclear energy.  You can read it here.  One statistic from Tucker’s letter that I’ve kept with me is that uranium is 2 million times more energy dense than coal.  Hopefully, by representing this fact visually it will stick with most of you.  Let’s get started…

Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given volume or mass of a certain substance or material.  If an energy source has a high energy density, then you’ll need less material or resources to create the same, if not more, amounts of power than energy sources with lower energy densities.  I’ve tabulated the energy density of various energy sources below.  These numbers are easily accessible on the internet from various reliable sources.  I started with a wonderfully informative website named “What Is Nuclear?” linked here.

*Tucker explains in his piece that solar energy is 10-50 times less dense than wood.  I’d like to use this, but I had a hard time justifying that you can consider solar energy in terms of mass (kg) when solar energy density is usually measured per square meter.  I included solar in the table as a matter of perspective.

I will be the first to admit that if you don’t have a scientific background, you cannot fully appreciate this data unless it is put into perspective.  So, how can you put these numbers into perspective?  I will first represent this data with graphs.  Then I will represent these numbers in terms of feet, and then in miles.

Represented Graphically

First, the energy densities of wood and ethanol, both directly derived from plants, are shown in the below graph.

Next, the energy densities for wood, ethanol, coal, crude oil, diesel, and natural gas are graphically displayed.

Next, natural uranium and reactor-grade uranium are included in the graph.  They completely dwarf the other energy sources.

You can see that other than natural and reactor-grade uranium the other energy sources don’t even show up on the graph.  This is because nuclear energy is just that energy dense!  In fact, if I were to stretch this graph out to where natural gas, coal, and oil would begin to show up, this graph would be almost one mile long!

Represented in Feet

Wood - 10 ft

This can be compared the height of a basketball goal, or the career average passing yards per attempt of Ryan Leaf (3.6 yards).  Leaf is often referred to as the worst quarterback in NFL history.

Coal - 33 ft

This can be compared the career average passing yards per completion of Brett Favre (11.4 yards).

Crude Oil - 42 ft

Compare this to the distance that a football punter stands behind the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped to him for a punt.  Virginia Tech’s football program has proven that 42 feet (14 yards) isn’t very far.  They have led all NCAA football teams in blocked kicks over the past two decades.  It takes about 3 seconds from the snap to the blocked punt.

Natural Uranium - 570,000 ft (108 mi)

This is approximately the distance from Washington DC to Richmond, VA on I-95.  It takes 2 hours to get there with no traffic.

DC to Richmond

Reactor-grade Uranium - 3,700,000 ft (700 mi)

This is the approximate distance from Washington, DC to Chicago, IL via interstate travel.  This trip takes 11 hours without traffic or bathroom breaks; and although some may argue otherwise, I would be willing to bet that Brett Favre cannot throw a ball this far.

Represented in Miles

Coal - 33 miles

This is equal to the average round-trip daily commuting distance for Americans (ABC News/Time Magazine/Washington Post Poll).

Commute

Natural Uranium - 570,000 miles

This is equal to traveling around the equator 23 times.  Or making one trip to the Moon and back.  Hardly a daily commute.

Reactor-grade Uranium - 3,700,000 miles

This is equal to traveling around the equator 149 times.  Or you could make 15.5 round-trips to the moon, but you would have to stay there because you’re one-half a round-trip short.

One Leg Short of a Round-trip

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

It’s Friday again and we’re back to talk about consumption conservation! The days are getting shorter, the air is getting colder, and we’re going to be spending more time indoors flipping on lights, cranking up the heat, and doing what we do best… consuming energy!

Making the Switch to Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs

One of the easiest ways to reduce our energy bills is by making improvements to our household lighting. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nearly 11% of our energy bill is from lighting. An Energy Star qualified compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) uses 75% less energy than a standard incandescent bulb and lasts approximately 10 times longer! That equates to about $30 in savings over the lifetime of a single CFL. (www.energystar.gov)

Courtesy of Energystar.gov

How to Upgrade your Lighting:

Effort: Low
Time Required: 1-2 minutes
Materials Needed:

• Lamp, light fixture, etc.
• EnergyStar rated CFL Bulb
• EnergyStar rated Fluorescent Fixture (Optional)

Steps:

1. Determine the most effective room to upgrade. Since CFL’s are most efficient in fixtures used continuously, try starting with a community room such as the kitchen.
2. Select the proper bulb size/power for your fixture. (Visit www.energystar.gov for guidance in choosing the right light)
3. As an optional step, consider upgrading your permanent lighting fixture to an Energy Star qualified fluorescent fixture.

Purchase, install, flip the switch, and SAVE!!!

So remember, next time you flip the switch… Energy Is Our Future –Don’t Waste It!

(Photo Courtesy of IBD Editorials and Pulitzer Prize winning Cartoonist Michael Ramirez)

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

I realize that Clean Energy Insight hasn’t come out and voiced our opinion on the Senate version of the Cap-and-Trade Bill, otherwise known as the Boxer-Kerry Bill.  But don’t get your hopes up.  Personally, some of us feel that it isn’t appropriate, sensible, or productive for a nuclear power advocacy website to come out in support of the entire bill since it has such a large scope.  In fact, the Cap-and-Trade bill going through Congress is one of the largest bills in United States history.

So from now on, we will offer our opinions on the nuclear section of the bill, and at the moment we like what we see; however, currently the bill has nothing but a nuclear-friendly foundation with promises to build.

Mark Flanagan at NEI Nuclear Notes has been following the bill here and here.  Mark has described the bill as a “Christmas tree without ornaments” with regard to nuclear energy policy, and we agree.  Hopefully, those ornaments will decorate our tree with:

• More Loan Guarantees
• Tax breaks for nuclear job creation, manufacturing, and construction
• Licensing process changes that reduce time and create an efficient process
• Action to get the ball rolling on this “blue-ribbon commission” that will re-examine options for nuclear fuel

Currently, Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain have been offering strong criticism of the bill when it comes to nuclear power.  To me, this seems more like political posturing and gamesmanship than anything.  Although, I appreciate their aggressiveness in support of nuclear power, both Senators know that additions to the bill are coming.  If positive additions promised by Sen. Kerry don’t come, then they can open up the flood gates of constructive criticism.

Although it seems to be unpopular in America today, if you actually read the current bill here (beginning on page 107), you will see that the Boxer-Kerry Bill actually opens up to nuclear power a lot more than the House version (Waxman-Markey).  And when I say “open up,” I mean that it takes a big step in openly acknowledging that nuclear power will have to be a part of America’s energy solution.

On a more personal note, I am very pleased to see the focus on nuclear job creation in the bill.  Especially with respect to trade jobs such as skilled craftsmen, welders, etc.– a big issue for the nuclear industry as current nuclear tradesmen present an aging workforce.  Even if it is obvious that this comes simply as a result of Senators Boxer and Kerry fulfilling their legislative favors for the trade Unions.

We will see what happens with respect to nuclear power in the coming days.  Each of you can make a difference by calling, emailing, or writing your Senator and telling them that you support nuclear power’s role in America’s energy future.  Make them accountable for delivering those ornaments for our Nuclear power Christmas tree.