Time to Count the Carbon: Guest Post by Donb

Pandora's Promise

Yesterday's CNN presentation of Pandora's Promise went very well, with lots of great pro-nuclear comments around the Internet.  I was particularly pleased to see so many pro-nuclear comments on the #pandoraspromise Twitter stream.

Cumberland Power Station
From Wikipedia

One of the fundamental messages of Pandora's Promise is that nuclear power can help to slow climate change.  Nuclear power is the  only abundant, reliable, low-carbon source of electricity.

Counting the Carbon

With that prologue, I go back to the guest posts I promised. There were wonderful comments on We are not Spock: Emotion and Nuclear Power. I am using some of these comments as guest posts on this blog.

Donb's comment was short and to-the-point.

Meredith-
On the day that VY shuts down, you need to start a counter on the ‘Yes VY’ website that shows the extra tons of CO2 being generated because the VY plant is not making its megawatts.

Donb
-------
Don B frequently comments on energy blogs.  He always has something relevant and cogent to say.
-----

Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues has a carbon counter on his blog. Actually, he has several. Steve and I are among the few pro-nuclear bloggers that cover just one geographic area.  (Or at least, most of the time we blog about one geographical area.)

I am stealing a screen shot from Canadian Energy Issues to use on my blog. Okay, Steve?  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all that?

Meanwhile, all my readers---visit Canadian Energy Issues!

Power, Carbon and Costs: Peter Lothes Guest Post

Petition Urging Granting a Certificate of Public Good to Vermont Yankee

Peter Lothes, Engineer and Business Manager
Queechee

My name is Peter Lothes.  I live in Quechee Vermont, and I am here to urge the granting of a Certificate of Public Good to Vermont Yankee so it may continue to operate.  As a retired engineer and business manager, I believe closing Vermont Yankee would result in a terribly negative  impact upon the state’s economy, the well being of its residents, and our mutual goal of reducing carbon in the atmosphere.

We need Vermont Yankee for a number of reasons:

First:  We need the power capacity

Over time, the need for power will grow in Vermont, and the rest of the northeast grid which Vermont Yankee supports. Without Vermont Yankee, the additional power will have to come from new construction of fossil plants.  This will be costly, and will increase carbon emissions. Obtaining power from Hydro Quebec (which itself includes nuclear power) may seem in the short term to solve Vermont’s problem, but  buying their power does nothing for the rest of the area that  Vermont Yankee serves, and relying on a power source from outside of the US has its own very considerable risks.    Every knowledgeable expert I have read agrees that other low/no carbon generators (wind, solar, thermal etc.) cannot provide the base load of electrical power that will be needed in the future.  Dr. James Hansen of the Columbia Earth Institute (on the world’s most respected environmentalists) makes this case persuasively in his Storms of my Grandchildren among other writings.

Second: We need it to contribute to the world’s control of carbon emission.

Dr. Hansen and others (e.g. Dr. Robert Hargraves, Dartmouth Professor, PhD physics)  argue persuasively that only the development of nuclear power  for base load,  can keep China, India,  and the United States from burning the huge coal resources each of these countries has.   This is because only nuclear power can generate electricity cheaper, significantly cheaper, than coal.  They will all burn the cheapest fuel, and if they do so, nothing else that the rest of us do will matter, and carbon emissions will grow dramatically

Third:  We need it to maintain our expertise in the nuclear power technology

We have, in Vermont Yankee,  solid nuclear power technology and experience, upon which we can build in the future, as nuclear power becomes an important industry.   This is an industry which can grow dramatically, providing technology driven manufacturing, scientific , clerical and administrative businesses and employment.  It could be a significant export opportunity for the US, and will provide jobs and economic growth that would not be outsourced.  In the 70’s’s and 80’s, we lost our nuclear technology leadership base, and now the next generation of power reactors are being built in France and China. They ultimately will generate electricity at about 4 to 5 cents per kWh.  If  we continue to lose this technology, we will be importing, in addition to plastic toys and clothing, nuclear power plants built in China.

The nuclear industry will have  good paying, reliable businesses and jobs, and we need to grow them here in Vermont.


Lastly:  We need it to contain the cost of electricity in this state to keep and attract new businesses, and citizens.

Vermont is a very unfriendly  cost environment for businesses and individuals, largely due to our tax  and distribution structure.  Electrical power cost has been one of the few areas where the price to consumers, while not advantageous, is not excessive.  It has been kept that way in the past due to the very low cost of Vermont Yankee power.

I understand the following to be the costs distribution utilities here now pay for power from various sources (data from memory, and could be off somewhat)

Solar:  27 cents per  kwh Wind  15 cents      Vermont Yankee  6.1  cents, plus revenue sharing

Quebec Hydro:  5.9 cents Coal: 12 to 13 cents ( in China 6 to 8)

The wrong selection of power sources would drive our electricity costs ever higher, and drive businesses like GE and IBM out of the state.  It will make it impossible to attract new industry, or even attract retirees. They are a considerable asset to the state, and they struggle under the tax burden.

If we fail to participate in this energy transition, our  Vermont economy will stagnate or worse, and we will suffer  significantly more  carbon emissions than would be the case with Vermont Yankee operating.

Respectfully,

Peter B. Lothes

Quechee, VT 05059

-----------

This is the 15th in a series of posts which share statements made in favor of Vermont Yankee at the Public Service Board hearing on November 7, 2012.

Global Warming and Vermont Yankee: Ellen Cota Guest Post

Ellen Cota
Vermont Yankee employee

I am Ellen Cota.  I am a mother of two active kids.  I live in the Emergency Plan Zone, am an active community member, a board member and a consumer of local goods.

I am also a proud employee at VY.  I work about ½ a football field away from the reactor.  I am the Operating Experience Coordinator at Vermont Yankee and I am responsible for reviewing events and issues at other nuclear facilities so we can learn from them and implement best practices.

This is critical time in history.  Like many, super storm Sandy has really frightened me.  The reality of climate change is becoming more real with each storm.  I am proud of the work at VY and know that this facility is not contributing to climate change.  Nuclear energy is the only clean-air source of electricity generation that provides large amounts of power 24/7.  We as a nation, not only VT need to embrace nuclear.

The facts are that coal and natural gas power plants not only pollute more, they also have a lower capacity factor or amount of electricity produced compare to the maximum it could produce.  Coal is 61%.  Natural gas is 46%.  Nuclear is around 90%.  Nuclear is more reliable and cleaner.  Vermont Yankee historically is one of the most reliable nuclear generating facilities of its type.

For my kids sake and the generations to come, please approve the Certificate of Public Good.

----------

This is the twelfth in a series of posts which share statements made in favor of Vermont Yankee at the Public Service Board hearing on November 7, 2012.

What Determines the Comment Stream? One Post, Two Sets of Comments

Carbon dioxide and nuclear energy

Recently I wrote a post about carbon dioxide and nuclear energy. Specifically, I posted about why people concerned with climate change seldom talk about nuclear power (though it is a VERY low-carbon source of electricity) and why pro-nuclear people like myself rarely mention climate change.

The simple answer for both groups (climate-change activists and pro-nuclear activists) is that we are both afraid of losing our core supporters.  Pro-nuclear people are often conservative and do not believe climate change is a major issue.  Climate change activists are often liberal and don't approve of nuclear power.  If a speaker crosses the line to say: "we need nuclear" (in front of a climate change group) or "nuclear will help prevent accelerated global warming" (in front of a pro-nuclear group)...well, that speaker will probably lose half of her audience.

My original post appeared in my blog, Carbon Dioxide and Nuclear Energy: The Great Divide and How to Cross It. It was syndicated by The Energy Collective and appeared on their site, also.  The post received a lot of comments both places...as a matter of fact, 34 comments on both sites. The Energy Collective recently sent their contributors an email that contained a  Leaderboard (part of the Leaderboard is at the upper left). From that board, I learned I had written the top-commented post for July.  I decided I would look a little more closely at all the comments.

Before I talking about the comments, however, I want to note that my friend Suzy Hobbs Baker has written an excellent post on the same subject at ANS Nuclear Cafe today. Climate Change and Nuclear Energy: We Need to Talk.

The Comments and the Numbers


The Energy Collective is a much bigger site than Yes Vermont Yankee, and that is reflected in the number of people who read the post on the two sites. As of this writing, 710 people have read my post at The Energy Collective, and 392 have read it at my own blog.

The comment streams on the two posts were so different that they might as well have been about different posts.

The Energy Collective comments started with a discussion of renewables but quickly moved to  the idea that nuclear was not implemented safely, and then went on to a discussion of thermodynamics and Ocean Thermal Energy (OTEC).  Rod Adams, Paul O, Aggie Engineer and I were sticking up for classical thermodynamics and heat transfer, while others argued against what the second law tells us about the requirements of heat engines.  My favorite quote was from Aggie Engineer. He said I should think of myself as "grief counselor"  as people came to terms with the second law.

OTEC Diagram from Wikipedia

The Yes Vermont Yankee comments riffed from my statement that nuclear had many advantages over fossil fuels, besides the global warming argument. The main discussion was about the advantages (or not) of nuclear power.  People quoted article after article, source after source, to make their points.  Kit P has had a guest post on my blog and commented extensively on this post. He had many references about the way fossil fuels have been cleaned up, but Aaron Rizzio and Gwyneth Cravens had rebuttals. Naturally, Kit P had rebuttals to them, also.

The comments also included references to Vermont energy sources and the effects of thermal pollution and pumped storage on the Connecticut River.  In other words, many of the comments on my blog were more detailed and closer to home than the comments on The Energy Collective blog.   I am sorry to say there was also more snideness on my blog, crossing the border to ad hominem attacks.


Vermont is a Small Town,  and so is Yes Vermont Yankee

Most of the posts, on both boards, were about the science: thermodynamics, OTEC, ocean acidification, coal plant clean-up.  There were very few comments about the politics: who speaks about global warming, and in what context.  This is probably because both blogs are technology-oriented.

My blog was more like a small town discussion, getting right down to talking about Connecticut River issues and getting snide.  The Energy Collective comments took a wider view.

I guess that is what would be expected.

I am grateful for everyone who commented on either of the posts!  Thank you all!

Carbon Dioxide and Nuclear Energy: The Great Divide and How to Cross It

"Cult Versus Cult" on Global Warming

The Whole Earth Catalog

William Tucker, author of Terrestrial Energy,  has a provocative posting in Nuclear Townhall: When it Comes to Nuclear and Global Warming, It's Cult vs Cult.  Basically, many nuclear supporters believe that global warming is not happening. Meanwhile, people who are eager to prevent global warming are often anti-nuclear.

To some extent, these attitudes show logical disconnects.

Nuclear is a low-carbon choice. If a person claims to be very concerned with global warming and is also against nuclear energy---that person is showing a logical disconnect, in my opinion.

Nuclear is preferable to fossil. Even without considering global warming, there are many reasons to prefer nuclear to fossil power. I moved into nuclear energy in the early 80s. (I had been working in renewables and fossil.) In those days, people were not concerned about global warming.  I still saw many advantages of nuclear over fossil fuels.

An Interview with an Environmentalist

Carbon Dioxide Chart
Wikipedia

In the "Cult Versus Cult" article, Tucker quotes William McKibben, a well-known author and Scholar in Residence at Middlebury College in Vermont.  McKibben is very active in fighting global warming. He founded 350.org,  which describes itself as a "global movement to solve the climate crisis." (I am happy to note that the 350.org website doesn't bash nuclear.)

In the article, Tucker describes a scene at a solar festival.  McKibben had just addressed the group. Tucker notes that many of McKibben's followers are wearing "Close VY" buttons, and Tucker asks McKibben why he doesn't support nuclear power. Tucker wrote:

McKibben looked wistfully at the hillside filled with long-haired hippies.  "I understand what you're saying," he said.  "But supporting nuclear right now would split this movement in half."


UPDATE: Bill McKibben has emailed me to say that this quote does not reflect his opinions.  He has also commented on this post.  You can read his comment below. The major thrust of the comment is that this story about him is not accurate, and he has been opposed to Vermont Yankee for a long time.  Please see his entire comment at the end of this blog.


Founding a Movement

With 350.org, McKibben founded a global movement to solve the climate crisis.  In the quote above, he says that supporting nuclear would hurt that movement.  To me, this implies that he is more interested in the growth of his movement than in carbon dioxide results for the planet.

But what about me?  There's an old saying that when you point a finger at someone else, look where the other fingers are pointing.

I just pointed at McKibben, and the other fingers are pointing back at me.  I'm trying to encourage people to support the continued operation of Vermont Yankee.  It's a smaller scale movement than "solving the climate crisis," but Howard Shaffer and I are growing a pro-nuclear, pro-Vermont Yankee movement.  What are we willing to do to support it? Well, among other things, in order to support the pro-Vermont Yankee movement, I rarely talk about global warming.

The Divide

I personally think the world-wide carbon dioxide increase is mostly man-made and causes some level of global warming. I think global warming is a threat to human life and health, but it is not the most over-arching threat we face.

In the past few years, many environmentalists have embraced nuclear power because of their concern with global warming. However, a significant portion of the people who support Vermont Yankee do not think global warming is a threat.

This divide is not just an issue for Vermont.  It's a bigger issue. Global warming divides people in many areas, and it divides the pro-nuclear community. For example, one pro-nuclear discussion board has banned discussion of global warming because people were getting too acrimonious.

For myself, I rarely talk about global warming in context of Vermont Yankee.  I know the discussion could get too acrimonious, and I could alienate some of the plant's supporters. Apparently, McKibben doesn't talk about nuclear power in his "solve climate change" movement. He probably has the same reasons: talking about nuclear power could get too acrimonious, and he could alienate some of his supporters.

Are McKibben and I birds of a feather? At one level, yes.  We are two people, dealing with the huge climate-change divide and trying to keep our supporters . At another level, our strategies are quite different.

Though McKibben and I seem to be good illustrations for the problem, I don't want to keep writing only about the two of us. "How people speak about global warming" is a more  general issue.

The Difference

Census map of Vermont

If a pro-nuclear speaker decided to talk about nuclear energy as helping to prevent global warming, that person would gain some supporters and lose some.  If an environmentalist admitted that nuclear energy could help prevent global warming, that person would also gain some supporters and lose some.  So far, the situations seem parallel.

However, these strategies are not actually parallel.

If the nuclear supporter decides not to talk about global warming, that person is choosing her rhetoric, not her technology. I can make several arguments in favor of nuclear power. Global warming is one pro-nuclear argument, but I rarely use it. In other words, I select my rhetoric: global warming is very controversial, and it pulls the discussion into directions which are not relevant to Vermont Yankee.

However, if an environmentalist decides not to talk about nuclear for fear of losing followers, that person is  selecting technologies based on what the followers will accept. That is more than a rhetorical choice. The choice of technologies will affect the results of climate change strategies.

Another Environmentalist (maybe) for Nuclear Power

Stewart Brand 

Some environmentalists have embraced nuclear energy, but others have not.  I am cheered by the ones (like Stewart Brand, George Monbiot and Gwyneth Cravens) who endorse nuclear power.  I hope that McKibben may someday bridge the great climate-change divide and join them.

Still, in the bottom line, this is not about McKibben, and it's not about me.  The problem is the great Climate Change Divide. It's almost impossible for anyone to have  a truthful conversation amidst so much acrimony and hatred.

-------------
I started this post with the Whole Earth Catalog cover from 1969.  Steward Brand was the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog. For this cover, Brand  initiated a public campaign to have NASA release the then-rumored satellite photo of the sphere of Earth as seen from space, the first image of the "Whole Earth." He thought the image might be a powerful symbol, evoking a sense of shared destiny and adaptive strategies from people. As mentioned above, Stewart Brand is a supporter of nuclear energy.

------
Small update: I was pleased that blog post was cross-posted by The Energy Collective.  I am always delighted when they chose one of my posts for their site.  The Energy Collective version was also listed among Best of the Blogs at Nuclear Townhall.