Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[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: 1 minute]

I was disappointed to read in the news that recent attempts to overturn explicit or effective nuclear power bans failed in six states. West Virginia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Wisconsin upheld new nuclear power plant bans in 2009. This comes at a time when the NRC is considering licensing applications for new plants in 14 states. West Virginia has an effective ban under which certain conditions have to be met in order to begin construction on a new nuclear power plant. The following West Virginia stipulation is taken from an article discussing nuclear plant bans:

“The code requires at least 24 months’ prior operation of a national facility which safely, successfully and permanently disposes of any and all radioactive wastes associated with operating any such nuclear power plant, nuclear factory or nuclear electric power generating plant.”

Of course now that Yucca Mountain has lost federal support the development of such a repository seems unlikely in the near future.

The first ban on new nuclear plants was instated in California. Twelve states now ban the construction of new nuclear plants. Many bans were developed shortly after Three Mile Island. Improvements in operation and reliability in existing plants have since proven that nuclear power provides safe, clean, CO2 free energy. These bans come despite the increasing support shown by the general public for nuclear power as reported in an earlier blog post.

Residents in states with new nuclear power bans need to make their legislators aware that they support nuclear as a clean baseload power alternative to greenhouse gas emitting energy sources such as coal and natural gas.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Despite the death of Senator Kennedy on Wednesday, I was able to stumble upon some positive political news. Democratic Senator Mark Udall from Colorado has recently voiced his support for Nuclear Power. Together with John McCain, Senator Udall plans to push for the bipartisan support of nuclear power to address climate change.

Udall has seen the negative effects of climate change in his home state where the spread of pine beetles due to warmer temperatures has devastated 2.5million acres of Ponderosa and pine trees. In the article, Udall had the following to say about climate change and nuclear power:

“It is clear that if we want to respond to climate change, nuclear power has to be part of the solution.”

Rod Adams over at Atomic Insights put together a great blog about how some environmentalist are reacting to Udall’s support of Nuclear, and in a separate editorial written in support of Senator Udall to the Denver Post I found a fascinating quick fact about the waste generated by nuclear power that I have to share:

“Uranium, for example, could power one person’s electrical needs for a lifetime and leave a volume of waste only the size of a soda can, says Gwyneth Cravens, author of “Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy.”

That seems like a relatively small amount of waste to me for a lifetime worth of power. Especially considering the fact that reprocessing the spent fuel could help further reduce the amount of waste that needs to be stored.  Do our environment a favor and let your senator know that you support Nuclear Power!

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Myth: People don’t want Nuclear power plants in their backyards

Where do I even start? This is an enormous myth. I was pleased last week to find that Bisconti Research Inc. made public their Nuclear Plant Neighbor Survey results because it makes my job in disproving this myth embarrassingly easy.

The Nuclear Plant Neighbor Survey used a sample of 1,100 adults living within 10 miles of one of our nation’s 64 nuclear plant sites. Plant employees living within ten miles of a site were not surveyed. Below are some of the results worth highlighting:

• 84% of Americans living near nuclear power plants favor nuclear energy!
• 90% view the local nuclear power station positively!
• 76% would support the construction of a new reactor near them!
• 72% associate nuclear energy “a lot” with reliability!
• 71% have heard or read about the clean-air benefits of nuclear energy!
• 58% strongly support nuclear energy whereas only 5% strongly oppose!
• 83% believe that companies that own sites are involved in the community!

Wow! Nuclear plant neighbors are not only happy with the plants, but they wouldn’t even mind more reactors being constructed on site. These survey results really point out what great stewards domestic nuclear sites are within their respective communities. It doesn’t hurt that no member of the general public has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power plant operation something even wind turbines can’t claim.

Separate from the survey, I also wanted to take a more in depth look at another argument made by the “not in my backyard” crowd. Some residents have expressed worry that nuclear power plants could drive down home prices and hurt nearby communities. I decided to take a look at home prices directly next to McGuire Nuclear Station outside of Charlotte, NC where the median home price is $169,000. Using Zillow.com, I scanned prices of homes that have recently sold or are for sale near McGuire Nuclear Power Station. I found that there are several houses within less than ten miles of the power plant that have recently sold for over $1 million. Some of Charlotte’s most wealthy residents are choosing to live near the plant. When people that can afford to live just about anywhere invest in a home that close to a plant it makes you wonder if the “driving down home prices and hurting communities” fear really carries any weight. And the answer is no.

I dug deeper and found a 2006 study by Roger Bedzek and Robert Wendling that specifically studied the impact of 7 nuclear sites on property values. The results of this study can be summed up in one excerpt:

“The taxes and fees the facilities pay often fund over half of the county and school district budgets and provide levels of public and educational services that are far above those of surrounding counties and greater than the state averages. In each of the seven regions, housing and real estate values have benefited from the operations of the nuclear facilities.”

If nuclear power plants make for better schools and higher property values you can put one in my backyard today!

____________________________________________________________________

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

In my last blog for CEI I looked at the safety record of wind turbines compared to the safety record of domestic nuclear power plants as reported by the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum. Now I want to examine some research conducted by Dr. Nina Pierpont, a leading pediatrician from New York, that may reveal a newly discovered wind turbine related illness dubbed WTS or wind turbine syndrome. Dr. Pierpont spent five years studying WTS symptoms displayed by residents near wind farms around the world.

The Independent describes WTS symptoms:

“This is the disruption or abnormal stimulation of the inner ear’s vestibular system by turbine infrasound and low-frequency noise, the most distinctive feature of which is a group of symptoms which she calls visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance, or VVVD. They cause problems ranging from internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness and tachycardia – increased heart rate. Turbine noise can also trigger nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm cognitive development in the young, she claims.”

The root of Dr. Pierpont’s study is that bones within the human ear are affected by the low frequency sounds and vibrations typically found near windfarms. This belief counters assumptions acoustic engineers designing wind turbines use when measuring noise produced near windfarms. Other research groups at Manchester University and New South Wales support Dr. Pierpont’s stance on acoustic effects on the inner ear bones. Opposition to WTS research has come from the wind energy industry as Dr. Pierpont relates:

“The wind industry will try to discredit me and disparage me, but I can cope with that. This is not unlike the tobacco industry dismissing health issues from smoking. The wind industry, however, is not composed of clinicians, nor is it made up of people suffering from wind turbines.”

I for one am thankful that Dr. Pierpont and others are looking into the health effects wind turbines can have on the general public. As a commenter on Carrington’s post on land requirements for wind energy indicated, the Obama administration has mentioned that the US could eventually have as much as 1TW of our energy generated using turbines. If Dr. Pierpont is right that could be one large American headache (another WTS symptom)! We need to challenge our leaders to consider all of the risks associated with developing an energy policy that relies heavily on technologies that may be more harmful than they are commonly portrayed.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

We talk a lot about how safe domestic nuclear power plants are, but this point really hit home for me when I saw the following in a blog post comparing wind turbine safety to nuclear power plant safety.

“How about wind power? How does it fare compared to the perfect record of the American nuclear power industry?  Believe it or not, there is an organization, the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, that keeps data on wind-power-related accidents and/or design problems. Caithness is based in Great Britain, where homeowners have already grown tired of the noise and other wind-turbine-generated problems. Their “Summary of Wind Turbine Accident Data to 31 December 2008” reports 41 worker fatalities.  Most, not unexpectedly, were from falling, as they are typically working on turbines some thirty stories above the ground. In addition, Caithness attributed the deaths of 16 members of the public to wind-turbine accidents.”

As this blog details, wind power is especially unreliable in freezing temperatures, where the threat of ice formation on the turbine blades can cause operational problems and the dangerous phenomenon known as ice throw. Nuclear power isn’t a seasonal technology. Nuclear power plants provide safe CO2 free energy year round, even in harsh winter climates.

While it can’t be denied that wind turbines need to be a part of our domestic energy solution, it is clear that the industry still has several issues to overcome. This New York Times report outlines how the transportation of wind turbine parts to their assembly areas has caused numerous problems. One of the issues is that the oversized wind turbine loads are causing “alligator cracking” of roadways. Repairs to damaged roadways are, of course, left up to the taxpayers.

( By Tyler Moses )

It appears that the Climate Bill will not escape the Senate without confronting the future of domestic Nuclear power.  Nuclear power’s inclusion in the Climate Bill is becoming a make or break issue for many Senators. During the first day of Senate hearings on the bill, Obama’s Nobel Prize winning Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, openly supported nuclear power.  Chu provides some refreshing rhetoric for those of us who realize that nuclear power is the only viable option for CO2 free base load energy generation. Hopefully, Senators such as Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Tom Carper (D-Del) will be successful in convincing the senate to include key concessions for Nuclear power in the Climate Bill.