Lost On The Shore

The Big Waste Disposal Problem

Opponents of nuclear energy frequently cite the problem of 'waste disposal' as their rationale for opposing this energy source.  And it's true that, for various reasons, including political infighting, this problem has not been completely solved.  But the primary alternative to nuclear power doesn't look so good either.

The recent spill of coal ash at Kingston, Tennessee may have finally focused the attention of some on the problems of disposing of the waste from coal-burning power plants.  The spill, which released some 300 million gallons of coal ash sludge and water into the surrounding area and a tributary of the Tennessee river is a disaster for the community, for the environment and for those living downstream who depend on the river for their water supply.

Federal studies have long shown coal ash to contain significant quantities of heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and selenium, which can cause cancer and neurological problems.  The Tennessee Valley Authority, which operates the power plant and is responsible for the coal ash predicably denied there was any problem. 

Yet a 2006 study by the EPA showed that coal ash does contain significant amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals.  The report found that concentrations of arsenic in the coal ash could enter drinking water and increase the risk of cancer several hundredfold. 

United States coal plants produce some 130 million tons of coal ash a year - the second highest waste stream in the country after municipal waste.  A second report by the EPA said that at least 67 towns had their groundwater contaminated by heavy waste from coal ash dumps.  Safe disposal of coal ash is a national problem that needs a solution now. 

But you don't have to travel across the country to find communities impacted by coal ash.  There are problems right here in Maryland an on the Eastern Shore.  In Anne Arundel County in Maryland, residentlal drinking water wells have been polluted by heavy metals, including cadmium, thalium and arsenic, which leached from a sand-and-gravel pit used to dispose of coal ash from a plant run by BG&E.  Right here in Delmarva, the Indian River Power Plant in Millsboro disposes of some 140,000 tons of coal ash in its 144 acre disposal pit on the shores of Indian River - an environmentally sensitive area.  This coal ash contains significant quantities of arsenic and mercury.

The operators of the power plant - NRG Corporation, of course deny that there is any problem, but it's clear that heavy metals from the ash can leach into the ground water and Indian River Bay.  Further, there is epidemiological evidence of a cancer cluster in the area.  While there is no hard evidence linking this cancer cluster to the presence of millions of tons of coal ash here, it's hard not see a potential connection.

The solid waste from coal combustion is not the only problem, of course.  The stuff that goes up the smokestack, primarily carbon dioxide but also small amounts of other chemicals, posses just as intractable a problem.  It's becoming more and more apparent that disposing of huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might just be a big mistake.

And, of course, it's not just when coal is burned that it creates a mess.  Mining companies dump huge amounts of waste in to streams and valleys.  Open pit mines are 'reclaimed' leaving behind something that resembles the surface of the moon.  After the mining is finished, the mines are abandoned.  Communities all over Appalachia are dealing with the hazards of abandoned mines including acid mine drainage, long-lasting underground fires, collapsing terrain and other problems. 

Then, of course, there is the physcial damage to the miners.  Coal mining is one of the most dangerous occupations there is.  Each year hudnreds of miners are killed or seriously injured.  And the miners are in danger even after they stop mining.  Between 2000 and 2004 more than 4,000 coal miners in the United States died from black lung disease, a disease caused by breathing coal dust.  Many more are disabled.

It should be clear that there is no such thing as 'clean coal'.  Coal is dangerous and dirty to mine and transport and there is no current safe solution to the disposal of the waste products from the combustion of coal. We need to move as quickly as possible to stop the large-scale use of coal to generate electricity in this country.

Yet coal is our number one fuel for electricity generation.  How can we replace it?  Many point to renewable sources such as solar, wind energy and hydropower.  But there is only limited additional hyrdropower potential in this country.  Wind and solar energy are promising but they share one major problem and that is their high variability.  The sun shines only during the day and the wind doesn't blow all the time.  The 'capacity ratings' that you hear when people talk about these sources refer to their maximum capacity, which they reach only a small portion of the time.  

The only feasible replacement for the hundreds of coal plants which are progressively contaminating our country and the atmosphere is nuclear power.  True, nuclear has its problems, but it's much, much cleaner than coal, is efficient and cost effective.  It's the only choice we have.

[The photo at the top is of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant]  

Winter Is Coming

We know both from the calendar and from the changes in the weather that winter is on the way.  On top of the economic problems we already face, the Energy Information Administration has already issued warnings that the cost of many heating fuels will be higher this winter than the last.  Homeowners that heat with oil will face bills that will be about $450 higher than last year and those who heat with electricity, natural gas or propane will also face increases.  On top of that, there are indications that this winter could be colder than last winter, particularly in the east.

We should begin planning now to prepare our homes for the winter so that we can keep our bills within reason and do what we can to conserve energy.  But many Marylanders lack the resources to weatherize their homes and may be faced with heating bills this winter that they cannot manage.

  Fortunately the state Office of Home Energy Programs offers assistance in a number of ways for low-income Marylanders.  The Maryland Energy Assistance Program offers assistance with home heating bills.  They also offer limited assistance in repairing or replacing broken furnaces.  The Electric Universal Service Program offers assistance to low income customers with electric bills.  The Weatherization Assistance Program offers help to certain low income residents for things such as weather stripping, caulking, plastic window covers, etc. 

Information on all these programs can be found here.  On the Lower Shore you can contact your local Shore Up! office.  Shore Up! is the coordinator of home energy programs for the Lower Shore.  You can also find information and apply for these programs at your county social services office. 

The economy is bad; lots of people are without work and energy costs are high.  But these shouldn't be a reason for going without heat this winter.  If it looks like you or your neighbor might not be able to afford to heat your house this winter, contact the Energy Assistance Program now.  Help is available.

[The painting was done in 1839 by Andreas Achenbach and is in the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg]

The Race Goes On

With just about a month until election day, there are a few things that seem clear.

In the Presidential race, Obama/Biden will win in Maryland and win big.  Of course, this was a foregone conclusion from the beginning and neither party has mounted a presidential campaign here because of that.  Obama's lead seems to be growing, though and he seems to be doing well in the neighboring states of Pennsylvania and Virginia.  He has a solid lead in Delaware.  West Virginia could go to McCain, but much depends on the economy.

On a congressional level, seven of Maryland's eight seats seem to be safe for incumbents.  The only question is in the First District.  Here Frank Kratovil and Andy Harris are campaigning hard to succeed Wayne Gilchrest.  At this point, it looks as though Kratovil will do well on the Eastern Shore, but Andy Harris will do well in the portion of the district on the Western Shore.  Polling seems to be very close.  The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has put a lot of money into the race and we'll see if that makes a difference in the home stretch.

Both parties are working actively to register voters and provide grass-roots support.  It's instructive to look at voter registration numbers.  As of October 2, there were 193,223 registered Democrats and 189,858 registered Republicans in the District.  Another 67,155 were either unafilliated or registered to a smaller party.   In the past six days (since 9/26) 669 voters had newly registered as Democrats in the district while 471 had newly registered as Republicans.  Voter turnout is expected to be high - more than 80% of registered voters.  Last minute registrations and get out the vote efforts might prove to be crucial in this race.  The registration deadline to vote in the general election is October 14 at 9:00 pm.

The big question on the ballot this year will be a referendum on approving the licensing of slot machines in Maryland.   Lately the opponents have been waging a shrill campaign against the question (I get two or three e-mails a day from them).  Supporters have been relatively quiet.  It will be interesting to see if the fiscal problems in Maryland at both the state and local levels brings out more support in the next month.  It's amusing to see former Governor Bob Ehrlich, who strongly supported slots when he was governor try to justify his opposition to them now as something other than raw political jealousy.  At this point I'm betting (wagering? gambling? venturing?) that the question will pass, but it won't be as easy as it looked six months ago. 

Some Good Things Happening In Maryland

I just got back from some travel and ran across these items in the news. 

Energy  Governor O'Malley has recognized that the solution to Maryland's energy problems lie not just in conservation but also in the construction of new generating facilities in the state.  With brownouts or rolling blackouts projected for portions of the state (including the Eastern Shore) as soon as 2011, trying to persuade homeowners and businesses to reduce consumption simply isn't going to cut the mustard.  We need both new generating capacity and improved transmission facility.  The sooner the state begins to take an active role in supporting both, the better off we will be.

Pollution  Attorney General Doug Gansler has announced plans to sue the Defense Department to force them to clean up groundwater and soil contamination at Fort Meade.  The Defense Department has been trying to dodge responsibility for this for quite a while.  The fort has been on EPA's superfund list for quite a while but the Army has been dragging its feet in the cleanup effort.  It's worth noting that they don't seem to have any shortage of funds when it comes to building a big new golf course at the fort.  Now let's see if we have the gumption to take legal action against some of our neighboring states - Pennsylvania in particular - to force them to stop sending their filth down the rivers into the Chesapeake Bay. 

Transportation  The O'Malley Administration has announced plans to fast track the procurement of additional railroad cars to supplement the MARC fleet. The 13 double-deck cars will be purchased from the Virginia Railway Express and will be refurbished before being placed into service.  When they are placed into service in November, they will increase the MARC fleet by more than ten percent.  Together with the new locomotives expected in February, these will reduce delays and allow for expansion of MARC service, giving many Marylanders a meaningfull choice of how to commute in these times of high gas prices. 

Jurisprudence  Governor O'Malley has appointed Judge Mary Ellen Barbera to the Maryland Court of Appeals.  She is an excellent choice.  Judge Barbera didn't have the luxury of being able to go directly from college to law school.  Instead, she attended the University of Maryland School of Law at night while teaching in Baltimore public schools.  Undoubtedly she learned a lot both while teaching and at law school.  Her real-world experiences and background in addition to her sharp legal mind will give her excellent perspective as she takes on her new responsibilities.  We wish her well.

What Can We Do?

In the last post we looked at the issue of global warming and discussed the factors that contribute to the phenomenonand potential effects.  Today we'll look at some actions that we can take on an everyday basis to help combat global warming.  I want to focus on actions the average person can take.  There are lots of recommendations to replace your air-conditioning and heating unit, re-insulate your entire house, get rid of your car, etc. that are effective but not within reach of many.

Looking at the above graph, we can see that the largest shares of carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of coal and petroleum.  Natural gas contributes a smaller but growing share and other factors, particularly cement production, contribute a small but significant amount.  So our search for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

A significant portion of greenhouse gases are emitted during the generation of electricity - primarily from coal, but a significant and growing amount come from natural gas-fueled generating facilities.  So reducing electricity use will not only save us money but will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Here are some things you can do to reduce your electricity consumption:

• Install CFL bulbs wherever possible.  They're considerably more expensive initially, but they do save electricity and they last considerably longer than incandescent bulbs.  Many electricity suppliers in Maryland offer discounts to their customers on the purchase of CFL bulbs, so check with your electricity supplier.  After all, you're paying for the discount in your electricity bill so you should take advantage of it.  If you can't afford to change all of your lightbulbs to CFL immediately, start with those you use the most.
• Turn off the lights when you leave the room.  This is a no-brainer.  Some think that turning lights back on again uses more electricity than is saved by turning them off.  This isn't true - even for fluorescents.  While they do use a surge of electricity to fire up, the surge lasts for only half a cycle, or 1/120th of a second and is equivalent to the energy used in just a few seconds of use.  So turn them off.
• Try to reduce use of your heater and air conditioner.  Turn your thermostat down a bit in the winter and up a bit in the summer.  Consider closing off parts of the house that aren't used.  Be sure your furnace filter is changed or cleaned regularly.  Caulk and weatherstip your doors and windows.
• When you need to replace an appliance, replace it with an Energy Star rated appliance.  The increased efficiency will offset the increased cost and you will use less electricity. 
• If your hot water heater is nearing the end of its useful life, consider replacing it with a solar hot water heater.  This can be quite cost effective.  There are state and Federal tax credits available.  Look here for a good calculator. 
• Switch off computers, speakers, TVs, battery chargers, etc. when they're not in use.  Keep in mind that, even while switched off, some of these draw power.  Consider investing a few bucks in a power strip that allows you to switch off several at a time or a remote-control power strip that makes it even easier.

A lot of greenhouse gases are generated by transportation.  Here are some options you can consider to cut down on both greenhouse gases and costs.

• Combine several short trips if possible.
• Use mass transit, carpool or, if possible, telecommute.
• When it's time to replace your current vehicle, consider one which is more fuel-efficient. On the other hand, don't rush out now to trade in your gas-guzzling SUV or truck for a very high mileage car. You'll lose money on the trade-in and you'll pay more for the car. Unless you need a new car now, wait until there are more high-mileage cars available and until the current glut of SUVs and light trucks on the market is reduced.
• If most of your trips are 40 miles or less, consider waiting a few years until plug-in electric cars are available. Both GM and Toyota expect to introduce models soon.
• Keep your engine tuned, your wheels aligned and your tires inflated properly.
• Try to order things to be delivered by mail (such as Netflix) rather than driving to the movie rental shop to get one. One more piece of mail won't make a big difference to the postal service.

There are other things you can do.

• Avoid products with lots of packaging.  Reducing your trash by ten percent can save 1200 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
• buy refillable items where possible.  Refilling a spray bottle is preferable to throwing it away and buying a new one.
• Reduce the amount of junk mail you receive.  About half of all junk mail is discarded without being opened.  There are some good tools here to stop junk mail.
• Pay bills online where possible.  Save a stamp, a trip to the mailbox and some unnecessary paper.
• Buy and use reusable shopping bags in lieu of plastic or paper.

Note that I haven't recommended solar electric panels - the cost is too high for most people and the return on investment is not very good, even with the tax credits that are offered.  I also haven't recommended things like buying 'carbon offsets' where you pay someone to supposedly take carbon out of the air.  It's very trendy, but not very effective if you use it just to continue a wasteful lifestyle.  Many of the supposed 'offsets' aren't really offsets anyway.

Probably the most effective thing you can do is to urge your legislators to deal with the problem instead of ignoring it.  If you've been reading this blog for a while you know that I support nuclear energy.  It's not that I think it's a wonderful technology - there are unresolved problems with waste disposal and there are some dangers.  It's the only realistic technology, though, for replacing our large, coal-fired generating plants.  We haven't solved the waste disposal problem for coal, either - just dumping the waste in the atmosphere turns out to be very dangerous.  And many more people have been killed in providing electricity from coal than from nuclear energy. 

Renewable energy is great and I support it.  We need to address the cost and variablity issues, however, if we are to rely on it for a substantial portion of our energy needs. 

So let's all do what we can, and demand that our legislators address the problem instead of ducking it.  The issue is not going to go away and the solutions won't get easier.

[Note: I apologize for the delay in posting.  Things have been very busy.  I hope to get back on schedul e next week.]

 

Hot Enough For You?

The Baltimore Sun carries this article today on the predicted effects of climate change on Maryland.  The article describes a report by a group of scientists who have compiled the first comprehensive report on the potential effects of climate change on Maryland.  The report was prepared for the state by a committee of 19 scientists from five Maryland campuses, the U.S. Geological Survey and two environmental groups.  Among the findings:

• An increase in the average temperature in Maryland by about 3 degrees fahrenheit by midcentury is probably unavoidable.
• Many hardwood species in Maryland are likely to 'fade away' while pine trees more common in the south become more common here.
• A significant area will be inundated by the combination of rising sea levels and continuing land subsidence. Significant areas of wetland would be lost.
• Cool water species in the Chesapeake Bay such as soft-shelled clams, sturgeon and eelgrass will disappear, while warm water species, such as croaker, will become more prevalent.

Coincidentally, another article on climate change was published in the Washington Post today.  The article addresses the tendency of many to blame every hurricane, drought, heat wave, flood, frost or large cloud on global warming.  This, of course, just confuses the issue because weather is naturally variable.  If you attribute strong hurricanes to global warming then, when a year comes along without any strong hurricanes, people will logically say that global warming doesn't exist!

So let's look at some facts.  This graph [prepared by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration] shows the difference between the global average surface temperature from 1880 to 2006 and the average temperature during the period.

 

Note that the data displayed here have been quality controlled to remove the effects of urbanization at reporting stations in and around cities. The average surface temperature has increased by about one degree fahrenheit since 1970 and, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is now increasing by about 3.2 degrees fahrenheit each century.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 - approximately a 36% increase according to NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory. They also publish this nice graph.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase at a rate of about 1.9 ppm per year.  According to the IPCC's 2007 report, all of this increase is due to human activity. 

Methane is more abundant in the atmosphere now than at any time in the last 650,000 years according to the IPCC report and are now 148% above pre-industrial levels.

Nitrous oxide levels have increased approximately 18% in the past 200 years and continue to increase.  Increases in nitrous oxide are primarily due to agricultural activity and the use of artificial fertilizers.

These gases contribute to the increase in the temperature of the earth's surface and lower atmosphere through a process called the 'greenhouse effect', which was first described by Joseph Fourier in 1824.  Without the greehouse effect, the earth would be a cold and barren planet unable to support life. But there can be too much of a good thing.  The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased the greenhouse effect and caused the average surface temperature to begin rising.  Water vapor is also a major contributor to the greenhouse effect.

There are a variety of feedback mechanisms which have either a positive or negative effect on the increase in global temperature.  Increased evaporation due to higher temperatures increase water vapor in the air which increases the greenhouse effect.  On the other hand, clouds reflect solar energy back into space thus reducing the heating of the earth.  It's uncertain how much the increase in water vapor will effect cloud formation.  Reduced amounts of ice and snow increase absorption of solar energy by the earth's surface contributing to the increase in temperature.

One of the most pernicious effects of global warming is the increase in the mean sea level.  Water, like most substances, expands slightly as it becomes warmer.  In Maryland, and particularly on the Eastern Shore, this effect is increased by the slow subsidence of the land over a period of thousands of years.  Here is a graph of sea level changes at Baltimore.  It is prepared by the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSML) at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory.

While there are significant year-to-year variations, the trend is unmistakable.  Much of Maryland, and particularly the Eastern Shore, is at a very low elevation and is very susceptible to inundation during periods of high tides and during storms.  The photo above shows storm surge flooding caused by Hurricane Isabel in Bowleys Quarters, MD in September of 2003.  With continued increases in sea level we can expect many more episodes like that.  Many of the islands that existed in the Chesapeake Bay at the time of the explorations by Captain John Smith are now gone, victims of rising sea levels.  We can expect more of the same. 

For barrier islands like Assateague and Ocean City, the prognosis is also grim.  The combination of rising sea levels and stronger storms made possible by increased ocean temperatures will make it increasingly difficult to maintain these islands in their current locations.  This photo of barrier islands in North Carolina breached by Hurricane Isabel is a good example of what to expect.

(photo by the US Geological Survey)

So what can we do?  I'll talk about that in my next post. 

Blowin' in the Wind?

It seems that the project proposed by Bluewater Wind to place wind turbines off the Delaware coast is heading toward approval and may well be expanded and extended to the Maryland coast off of Ocean City.  Governor Martin O'Malley expressed his support for the Delaware project yesterday and indicated he would not be opposed to extending the project to Maryland.

The project would certainly be good for the Shore, which suffers from a lack of generation and transmission facilities.  The electricity, while costly compared to existing generating facilities might be comparable in cost to that from a new coal plant. 

The one problem with wind energy, which I have referred to before, is the inherent variability of wind energy as a dependable power source.  Most wind turbines generate electricity at full capacity only when the wind is blowing at about 15 mph or more.  Wind itself is highly variable on an hourly, daily and seasonal basis.

  The graph at left shows the actual energy generated by the wind turbine at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Bourne over the last month.  The variability is clear.  You can see real time data for this installation on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis here.  A wind farm of the size proposed would almost certainly require a backup natural gas generation facility at a substantial additional cost to provide power on the days when the wind doesn't blow hard enough.

Another factor, of course, is that the peak electricity demand in Maryland and neighboring states is in the summer while the wind here is stronger and more consistent in the winter.

Despite these issues, though, the proposal is a welcome one and I'm glad to see it getting support from the Governor.  While some might complain that the turbines, which would be barely visible from the beach, are unsightly, They would certainly be better than the sight of oil derricks and the associated environmental problems that President Bush favors.  I look forward to seeing more progress like this.

Some Nuclear Issues

'TJH' has added an excellent comment to my recent post on nuclear energy options and raised some issues which I think need to be explored a bit more.  Basically, he makes three points:

• The nuclear waste disposal problem is not being solved,
• the cost of new nuclear generation is not competitive with coal without massive government subsidies, and
• the comparison of deaths due to nuclear energy to deaths due to coal is not a valid measure of nuclear safety.

He also asserts that carbon sequestration is likely to be available before the solution to nuclear waste disposal problem.  Let's look at each of these.

Nuclear Waste It's true the nuclear waste disposal problem has not been solved - at least in the United States.  The problem seems to be as much a political problem as an engineering problem.  Currently the standard which the engineers are supposed to meet would limit radiation exposure to 350 millirem for ONE MILLION YEARS taking into account the effects of climate change, earthquakes, volcanos, asteroids falling from the sky and other, unknowable, factors.  It's worth noting in this context that the entire recorded history of the human race is about four thousand years.  If such a standard were applied to other kinds of industrial waste, including carbon dioxide, most modern industry would shut down immediately.

Other countries seem to have solved the problem.  Canada has developed a system for burying nuclear wastes in batholiths some 500 to 1000 meters beneath the surface within the Canadian Shield - one of the most geologically stable formations on Earth.  The batholiths were formed some one to two billion years ago and have been stable since then.  Sweden has developed a method called KBS-3 which, after some interim storage during which the radioactivity is sharply reduced, buries the waste in bentonite clay some 500 meters beneath the surface.  The Finnish government has begun building a similar site.  France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Russia reprocess spent fuel.

Cost What will be the cost of electricity from a new generation of nuclear plants?  No one can say for certain.  The primary difficulty in estimating the cost is that a large part of the eventual costs are the up-front capital costs of the plant, and that depends largely on how long it takes the plant to be built.  The nuclear power industry does not have a good record in this regard.  They argue, however, that with standardized designs which are pre-approved, the time required to build new nuclear plants will be shorter and more predictable. 

The evidence is mixed.  A plant being built in Finland is significantly behind schedule and over budget.  Several others under construction in Japan, however, are both on time and under budget.  A study completed by MIT in 2003 found that nuclear power would be about 60 percent more costly than coal or natural gas power.  Another, by the Royal Acadamy of Engineering in 2005 put the cost of new nuclear energy at 2.26 pence per kilowatt-hour vs. 3.64 for natural gas power and 3.33 for coal.  This report has been disputed by many, though who argue it doesn't account for government subsidies to the nuclear industry and understimates disposal costs.  Nuclear power does receive some subsidy from the government.  Of course, coal, natural gas and renewables all receive signifianct government subsidies.

I believe that with experience, problems with the construction of nuclear plants will be resolved and the construction period will become shorter and more predictable leading to a cost per kilowatt that is competitive with coal.  Of course I have no data to back that up, but neither do those who say the cost will be much higher.  We won't know until we build a few plants.

Safety Of course, the number of deaths is only a rough indicator of the relative safety of nuclear power vs. coal.  And certainly, as TJH points out, the accident at Chernobyl devastated a significant amount of land.  But coal mining devastates a significant amount of land every year.  And coal is not only unsafe to mine, it's unsafe to burn.  Coal-fired power plants spew out an amazing amount of pollutants - 59% of total US sulfur dioxide pollution, 18% of total nitrogen oxides, 50% of total particulate pollution and 40% of total US carbon dioxide emissions.  These pollutants contribute to smog that threatens the health of tens of millions. According to the Sierra Club, particle pollution from power plants alone causes some 30,000 deaths a year in the US.  Coal-fired power plants are the largest single man-made source of mercury pollution.

There's lots else I could say about coal.  Sure, nuclear power has safety issues but they pale in comparison to what we're doing now.  We need to stop building new coal plants and get rid of the ones we have.  The only feasible alternative at the moment is nuclear.  Effective carbon sequestration from coal plants is making little progress- the Department of Energy recently pulled the plug on the FUTUREGEN demonstration project saying it did not make fiscal sense.

Sure, nuclear power is dangerous.  The eventual costs are only rough estimates and the waste disposal problem has not been resolved.  But where are the alternatives to generating the reliable quantities of electricity we need to allow us to retire the coal plants that are killing us.

[The photo is of the Bruce Nuclear Plant in Canada - the second largest in the world]

Those Pesky Nukes

This is the second part of my two-part post examining energy options for reducing Maryland's greenhouse gas emissions.  In my previous post we looked at a variety of energy alternatives available to replace the large, base-load coal plants that generate so much greenhouse gas (and other pollution) in Maryland.  We looked at 'clean coal' natural gas and fuel oil generation.  In addition, we looked at renewable technologies such as wind, photovoltaic, solar thermal, hydro and biomass.  Today we're going to look at nuclear energy.

The map above shows the location of nuclear generating facilities in France, which generates about 80 percent of its electricity at nuclear facilities.  France is also the world's largest exporter of electricity, due, in part, to it's relatively low cost.  Japan is another country with a large nuclear generating capacity with some 55 units generating around 30 percent of Japan's electricity.  Five new plants are under construction in Japan.  Nuclear power accounts for about 19 percent of the electricity generation in the United States.  In Maryland, the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Lusby accounts for about 14 percent of the state's generating capacity (but a higher percentage of the total electricity generated because it operates for a higher percentage of the time.)

Like every other source of power, nuclear energy has its problems and concerns.  Let's take a look at them.

Many people believe nuclear energy is inherently dangerous, that is an accurate assessment.  There are a number of things that can go wrong and lead to release of radiation or much worse. Since commercial generation of nuclear power began in the 1950's there have been twenty or so significant accidents.  Three of those are well known.

1. In March of 1979 near Middletown, Pennsylvania, equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.  The reactor was extensively damaged, but on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (about one year's natural exposure) and some two million people in the vicinity received about 1 millrem.  There were no reported fatalities although statistical estimates indicate that there may be one fatality due to the excess radiation.
2. In April of 1986 near Pripiat, Ukraine, worker error led to an uncontrolled power excursion, a steam explosion, partial core meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.  There were approximately 50 fatalities during and immediately after the disaster.  The explosion and subsequent burning of the graphite core reactor spread radioactive material over much of Europe.  Hundreds of thousands were evacuated from the immediate vicinity and downwind.  While estimates vary widely, the UN has estimated that some 4,000 additional premature deaths will result from radiation exposure.
3. In September of 1999 at Ibaraki prefecture in Japan, workers at a reprocessing facility accidentally added enough uranium solution to a precipitation tank to achieve a critical mass.  The resulting radiation killed two workers and exposed more than 100 others to higher than normal radiation.

These are the only civilian nuclear power accidents I've been able to find which led to fatalities.  Let's contrast this briefly with the safety of coal power.  Since the 1950's when commercial nuclear generation of electricity began, there have been several thousand fatalities in coal mines.  In addition, around twenty thousand miners are injured each year.  Further, tens of thousands have been crippled and or had their lives markedly shortened by black lung disease.  Worldwide, the number of deaths and injuries is staggering.  In China alone, more than 4,000 were killed in 2006.  Thousands more fatalities can reliably be attributed to the environmental effects of buring coal to produce electricity.

Critics of nuclear power point rightly to the fact that our country has been unable to come up with a method for the long term disposal of high level nuclear wastes.  High level nuclear wastes amount to 5 percent or less of the total radioactive wastes produced by commercial nuclear reactors.  Low level and mid level nuclear wastes have been disposed of safely without a problem.  High level nuclear wastes are the products of the fission of uranium which include radioisotopes which can emit ionizing radiation.  Some of the fission products can remain dangerously radioactive for thousands or millions of years.

In the United States geologic disposal is the disposal method which has gained the most favor.  This involves sealing the wastes into very strong casks and burying it deep underground.  The Department of Energy has been developing a waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.  It is not operational yet, however due to a variety of engineering and political issues. 

Geological disposal, however, is not the only option for disposal.  It is worth noting that other countries have made much more progress on the issue.  Sweden and Finland, for example are well advanced with geologic disposal and Canada is seriously considering a similar options.  Other countries such as France, UK, Japan, Russia and, recently, India, have nuclear fuel reprocessing plants which reprocess the spent fuel into new nuclear fuel.  Another option, which has not been used involves mixing the nuclear waste with tailings from uranium mines down to the level of radioactivity of the original uranium and then reburying it in the mines.

Disposal of waste from nuclear power plants is a problem that is being solved.  Disposal of waste from coal power plants, on the other hand, remains problematic.  The biggest waste product - carbon dioxide - is accumulating in our atmosphere and has the potential to create a global disaster in time on a scale unprecendented.

So, yes.  Nuclear power has its problems, but, to me at least, it looks like the least bad of all the options for electric power generation.  Governor O'Malley seems to have recognized this with his recent support for the additional plant that Constellation Energy proposes for Lusby.  The 4,000 megawatts of power that will be generated by this plant could replace all the electricity generated by the Chalk Point and Brandon Shores coal plants.  Together these two plants emit more than 14 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.  Another nuclear plant, perhaps located in Central Maryland, would allow the closure of all coal-fired plants in Maryland.

Nuclear power is already competitive with coal power on a cost basis.  With a modest carbon tax, nuclear power could easily displace the dirty coal plants that are polluting our air and water.  There would be no cost to Maryland consumers since all the proceeds from the carbon tax could be distributed to Maryland consumers on a regular basis.  Clean air, clean water, no cost...what more could we want? 

New Crab Regulations

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has released new crabbing rules for 2008.  In response to comments received on their original proposals, these rules are somewhat less restrictive.  They still could have a significant impact on Maryland watermen, particularly those on the Lower Shore.

There are three main elements to the proposed new regulations:

- A ban on taking female crabs (except for peelers) by recreational crabbers,

- A ban on harvesting female crabs after October 23, and

- limits on the quantities of females that commercial watermen may harvest during September and October.

The goal has been to reduce the harvest of female crabs by around 30 percent to allow more females to reproduce.  By September and October, most females have reached maturity and mated and are headed for the lower Bay to spawn.  Female crabs can account for 80 - 100 percent of the harvest in October and November by watermen in Dorchester and Somerset counties.  The proposed restrictions will have a significant impact on these watermen.

Of course, the Maryland regulations will have no impact unless Virginia also adopts strict regulations.  The blue crab, perversely, has no respect for state lines.  It will do no good to keep the Smith Islander from catching the crab in Maryland if the Tangierman scoops it up as it crosses the state line into Virginia as it migrates south. 

Of course, the impact of these restrictions falls primarily on the commercial watermen.  Some would like to blame them for overharvesting the crabs for the past several years.  But the reality is that the declining water quality in the Bay is having a significant impact on the crabs and other species.  Decreasing water clarity and higher water temperatures reduce the amount of submerged aquatic vegetation that is so important to the young crabs.  Excess nutrients flowing into the Bay trigger algae blooms that then decay, depleting oxygen levels to a point that marine life cannot survive. 

But no new restrictions on polluting the Bay were announced along with the crab harvest restrictions.  The watermen are a small group with little political clout and who mostly live on the Eastern Shore.  The Republicans they elect to represent them in Annapolis are vastly outnumbered by Democrats from the Western Shore and have little influence. 

Better to cause a little pain to the watermen than to risk offending those who are responsible for polluting the Bay.  Because requiring people to cut back on the artificial fertilizer they dump on their bright green lawns or to do something about the runoff from their houses, driveways, sidewalks and streets that carries excess nutrients and pollutants into the Bay might be bad politics.

We have this myth that we can help the Bay by placing all sorts of restrictions on new development - by requiring denser development in existing developed areas or by requiring better handling of storm water.  But it's those of us that are already here that have polluted the Bay so much already.  We need to address the fact that it's us that are polluting the Bay.  Then fix it.