Nuclear energy has environmental pluses; safety remains an issue

I thought nuclear reactors were an absolute no-go for environmentalists. But I keep hearing them touted as a clean energy source. What are nuclear energy's green credentials?

Some environmentalists are indeed coming around to nuclear energy. That's because the nuclear fission process produces virtually no greenhouse gas emissions, unlike the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. (Those two fossil fuels accounted for about 70 percent of U.S. electricity in 2008. Nukes made 20 percent.) Also, fission produces neither sulfur dioxide nor nitrogen oxides, the fossil-fuel pollutants that cause acid rain.

Advocates are fond of noting that nuclear power provides 70 percent of the country's "carbon-free" energy. But nuclear energy isn't really a zero-carbon system, since you still have to build power plants, mine and enrich uranium, and transport processed fuel, all of which typically rely on CO2-emitting fuel sources. Even when the entire life cycle is taken into account, however, nuclear energy warms the planet much less than coal or natural gas. The comparison with renewables such as wind and solar (which also generate emissions in the manufacturing phase) is less cut and dried.

While it's commonly accepted that nuclear energy has a relatively dainty footprint, the question of whether new reactors would be the most cost-effective way to lower electricity-related emissions is still hotly debated. The fuel itself is relatively inexpensive, at least for the time being. But as noted in Time, recent price estimates for a large plant in Florida came in at $12 billion to $18 billion, and that's before you consider the nuclear industry's history of major cost overruns.

Some analysts say alternative methods would yield much more climate-saving bang for our buck than nuclear power. For example, Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute argues that we should be investing in general efficiency measures and "micropower," a catchall term that includes cogeneration of heat and electricity, plus renewables other than big hydropower operations.

What about safety concerns? Admittedly, there's a fright factor with nuclear power. But in the 31 years since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, there haven't been any emergencies in the United States that remotely approached the severity of that incident, though there have been some close calls.

The government's Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a set safety goal for every reactor in the country: The chance of an accident that results in radioactivity being released to the environment must be no more than one in a million, as determined by probabilistic risk assessment. But even the longest of odds will never satisfy everyone, especially after the cataclysmic drilling accident in the Gulf of Mexico. In recent years, a number of leaks of radioactive water have stoked environmentalist ire, although nearby residents were not exposed to dangerous doses of radiation.

Meanwhile, nuclear proliferation risks remain a prohibitive concern for many experts. And many environmentalists continue to give nukes the stink eye because, as the Lantern noted in an earlier column, after 50 years we still don't have a long-term plan for storing high-level commercial nuclear waste.

But long-term disposal is a problem we're saddled with no matter what: Whether we ramp up nuclear energy production or shut down all our plants tomorrow, we'll have at least 62,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel to deal with.

Atomic energy also generates other environmental concerns. Like conventional power plants, a nuclear site cranks out electricity using steam-driven turbines. Cooling those operations often requires a whole lot of water, the drawing and releasing of which can affect aquatic wildlife.

Uranium mining can also damage the environment. Mining and milling operators must deal with mill tailings, the radioactive material left over after the uranium has been extracted from the ore, as well as waste rock and radiologically contaminated equipment.

For all this, it's worth noting that uranium is a very efficient energy source: One ton of natural uranium can produce the same number of kilowatt-hours as 16,000 tons of coal or 80,000 barrels of oil.

The Lantern doesn't find herself particularly freaked out by atomic energy. The long-term waste conundrum seems more pressing: After all, isn't the notion that you don't bequeath problems to your descendants a major tenet of environmentalism? At the same time, global warming is itself a dire legacy, and every energy technology has its pitfalls. So if nuclear power can play a role in cooling our planet, the Lantern thinks it deserves to stay on the table.

Is there an environmental quandary that's been keeping you up at night? Send it to ask.the.lantern@gmail.com. Read previous Green Lantern columns here.

View the original article here

Read More

Great Plains oil pipeline plan sparks grass-roots activism, high-stakes lobbying

A massive feat of engineering by any measure, the Keystone pipeline expansion project would transport crude oil close to 1,700 miles from "oil sands" in the icy reaches of Hardisty, Alberta, down through the Great Plains to the refineries of Port Arthur, Tex. In doing so, the giant pipe also promises to allay some fears about U.S. energy security: The oil will come from a trusted ally, and its cross-continental path avoids visions of another deep-sea drilling disaster.

But the decision on whether to issue a permit to the project, opposed by environmental groups, rests with the State Department, which has little expertise in engineering or environmental matters. And reflecting the chaos of U.S. energy and environmental policy, the proposed pipeline is pitting Montana landowners against pipe fitters in Nebraska and creating unlikely allies of Nebraska ranchers and chieftains from Alberta's indigenous communities.

On one hand the move to extend TransCanada's existing pipeline - which runs from Hardisty to the Illinois towns of Wood River and Patoka and has a daily capacity of 435,000 barrels - offers obvious benefits. The extension will generate 13,000 construction and 7,000 manufacturing jobs in the United States over roughly two years, according to the company, and could transport as much as 500,000 additional barrels of oil a day. It also could help stabilize electricity prices for several rural co-ops along the route.

"Everyone's saying we've got to get less dependent on Middle East oil, and this is a perfect opportunity to bring this oil in," said William Hite, general president of the United Association, the union for plumbers and pipe fitters.

But the crude comes from an area known as "tar sands" or "oil sands," where operators extract a viscous oil called "bitumen" from formations of sand, clay and water. The process consumes more energy and water than most conventional drilling methods, can require clear-cuts of forests and creates tailings that can pollute nearby waterways. Canada has the world's third-largest reserve of heavy crude after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and accounts for 20 percent of U.S. crude imports.

At least 65 lawmakers - nearly all Democrats - have written the State Department raising questions about the pipeline, while 40 Republicans have written letters backing it.

"When I think of the State Department I think of many things they do well," said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). "But I would tell you, siting pipelines is not anything I would think of when I think of State Department expertise."

Environmental issues

The National Wildlife Federation's senior vice president, Jeremy Symons, said the Obama administration cannot claim to be fighting global warming while signing off on oil imports from such an energy-intensive operation. "What does it mean when the U.S. bellies up to the trough and says, 'Give me your dirty energy?' " Symons said.

Symons also noted that TransCanada submitted a 2009 market assessment in its Canadian permit application suggesting the extension will raise heavy crude prices in the United States by removing the "oversupply" in the Midwest, where the price has been discounted. The analysis said that by extending the pipeline to the Gulf Coast, with many more refineries and buyers, the Canadian heavy crude price could be expected to increase by around $3 a barrel, giving the Canadian oil industry at least $2 billion in additional revenue each year.

But the pipeline will traverse environmentally sensitive areas such as Nebraska's Sand Hills and the Ogalalla Aquifer, which provides drinking water for 2 million people. Local ranchers and farmers have questioned why the pipeline needs to pass through an area where the aquifer runs just a few feet below the ground and the sandy soil makes it harder for vegetation to regrow once it's been disturbed.

"We know what it takes to try to maintain the land in a productive state," said Teri Taylor, who runs a cow-calf operation with her husband and son that would have miles of pipeline laid across it. "We are unable to even fathom what it would take to reclaim the land."

Oil pipelines are not uncommon in the United States. There are nearly 147,000 miles of them already, according to the Transportation Department's 2008 statistics, with 50,000 miles devoted to transporting crude.

An Energy Department-commissioned analysis, which has not been released but has been obtained by The Washington Post, provides some fodder to both sides' arguments. The report says the United States can obtain the Canadian crude it needs for the next decade without the Keystone extension, but it suggests that increasing oil-sands imports and reducing overall U.S. oil demand would "have the potential to very substantially reduce U.S. dependency on non-Canadian foreign oil, including from the Middle East." It also concludes that a decision to block the pipeline would not affect Canadian oil sands production, since the heavy crude would go to Asia instead.

TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling said his company "has done a rigorous review of the rerouting to make sure that it has the least environmental impact," adding that "we will leave the environment in exactly the same condition where we found it."

The Nebraska Farmers Union has passed a resolution demanding the pipeline project be relocated or blocked. Relocation would entail the running the pipeline through more populated areas as well as wetlands, and it could delay the process by another six months.

TransCanada said it will employ extra precautions that are usually reserved for a high-pressure operation. But Nebraska state Sen. Tony Fulton (R), a former engineer who chairs the legislative sportsmen's forum, said he would be more comfortable with the pipeline if another Canadian company, Enbridge, could explain why its pipeline in Michigan ruptured and released more than 800,000 gallons of oil last summer into the and a nearby creek.

"Why are we so hellbent on moving this so quickly?" Fulton said.

At the State Department

The State Department is under pressure to reach a conclusion this year on the permit application, which was filed in September 2008. The draft Environmental Impact Statement it issued in April sparked an unusually high number of comments. The Environmental Protection Agency sharply criticized it, saying it did not fully explore the potential environmental impact or the prospect of a more rapid transition to alternative energy that would make the imports unnecessary.

Daniel Clune, the principal deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, said State Department officials have "been engaged in very serious discussions with" the EPA and other relevant agencies.

Lobbying on both sides has been intense. TransCanada has run television and radio ads in Nebraska and Washington, D.C., and Laborers' Local 1140 in Nebraska has made more than 600,000 robo-calls to Nebraskans. More than 100 activists demonstrated outside Nebraska's capitol early this month, and the Texas-based Stop Tarsands Oil Pipelines has gotten local politicians to demand a more-detailed environmental analysis.

Opponents such as Bold Nebraska director Jane Kleeb are using e-mail, Facebook and monthly conference calls to strategize with others along the pipeline's route - in states including Montana, South Dakota, Kansas and Texas. They have also forged connections with Canadian First Nations activists through the Indigenous Environmental Network, which has sent speakers to Nebraska to help mobilize opposition there.

While Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton prompted an uproar in mid-October when she declared that the department was "inclined" to grant the permit, officials now say they will not release a final environmental analysis before next month. Once that process is complete, the state has another 90 days to make a "national interest determination" that focuses on economic and security considerations.

"All other things being equal, there would be an advantage in getting our oil from a close ally like Canada," Clune said. "What we're trying to do is make the best decision for the country."

View the original article here

Read More

Calif.'s Prop 23 battle pits Big Oil against environmental concerns

Mix together a couple of big oil refiners, an arch-conservative oil tycoon, "green tech" venture capitalists, a former secretary of state and California's far-reaching climate legislation, and stir.

The result is one of the most volatile and expensive political battles of the year.

The issue is Proposition 23, a California referendum that would shelve the state's four-year-old climate legislation until unemployment there falls to 5.5 percent - more than half the current level - which economists agree could take many years. The delay would upend a myriad of solar, wind and low-emission automobile projects.

The referendum has also become a test case about the power of corporate money - mostly from two Texas-based firms - and a measure of how much climate change is sucking wind as a political cause. Fresh off their defeat on a climate bill in Congress, environmentalists and their allies are fighting to prevent their biggest policy success from being rolled back in the country's most "green"-friendly state.

The California legislation would slash greenhouse emissions by 30 percent, limit tailpipe emissions and set targets for utilities' renewable energy use.

A game of big money

One indicator of the emotional charge surrounding the debate was the language Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) used to attack Prop 23 supporters.

"Does anyone really believe that these companies, out of the goodness of their black oil hearts, are spending millions and millions of dollars to protect jobs?" Schwarzenegger said recently. "This is like Eva Braun writing a kosher cookbook. It's not about jobs at all, ladies and gentlemen. It's about their ability to pollute and thus protect their profits."

The proposition held a slight lead at one point, according to polls, but is now narrowly trailing.

The measure was the brain child of a state legislator, a Sacramento lobbyist who has represented tobacco companies and two oil refiners.

By early October, Valero Energy, the nation's biggest refiner, had poured $4 million into an ad campaign, public records show. Tesoro, the other refiner, has matched that, a company official said. The Koch brothers, who have supported the tea party movement and other conservative causes, added more than $1 million. Other donors brought the total to $16 million.

But Big Oil isn't the only big money in California.

Lined up against the refiners are a group of wealthy fund managers, clean technology investors, environmental groups and onetime Reagan secretary of state George Shultz, who believes that "climate issues are very real" and that Proposition 23 is "a very bad thing."

View the original article here

Read More

'Culture of complacency' at BP set stage for oil spill, commission chief says

Monday was a relatively good day for BP in the glare of oil spill inquiries. Tuesday was a bad day.

Drilling experts and corporate rivals testifying before a presidential oil spill commission blasted BP Tuesday for decisions about the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that might have removed obstacles to the April 20 blowout that led to the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

BP's final well designs were "deficient in detail," said Steve Lewis, a drilling engineer with Seldovia Marine Services, who later added that the "the operational detail in my mind was totally deficient" and "totally inadequate."

Shell Oil's chief well scientist Charlie Williams said his company typically uses three to five plugs when temporarily abandoning a well. BP used one. And John Rogers Smith, associate professor of petroleum engineering at Louisiana State University, said the way BP replaced drilling mud with seawater was "not prudent."

The commission's co-chairman William K. Reilly opened the day saying that a "suite of bad decisions" revealed "a culture of complacency" at BP as well as its main contractors Transocean and Halliburton. He concluded the day saying that the deepwater drilling disaster was the result of systemic problems, not isolated ones.

The renewed criticism of BP came one day after Fred H. Bartlit Jr., the general counsel of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, seemed to absolve BP of allegations that it let cost worries trump safety concerns. Bartlit said Monday that "to date, we have not seen a single instance where a human being made a conscious decision to favor dollars over safety."

The commission members backpedaled from that assessment and even Bartlit sought to explain himself. Reilly said that the commission staff "did not ascribe motive to any of those decisions." Bartlit said the commission was still investigating and could draw inferences about whether time- and money-saving measures had increased risks on the Deepwater Horizon, where 11 workers died in the April 20 explosion.

But the question of motive - whether BP was rushing to finish a costly and tardy well - hung over the entire day. A representative of a plaintiffs' attorney group noted that several lawyers at Bartlit's firm are doing work for Halliburton.

Lewis said he had seen copies of internal BP communications suggesting that the London-based oil giant was worried about finishing the Macondo oil well and moving the drilling rig to Kaskida, another Gulf of Mexico location, where a BP lease would expire by May 16 if certain work weren't done there.

"They had commitments to wells, regulatory commitments, that were required to maintain in the one case a viable lease that required well work," Lewis said.

Commission staff attempted to rebut Lewis later. Bartlit said that "we have more facts than Mr. Lewis" and that "it does not appear to us that there was a rush to get to another lease."

Commission sources and those close to BP later added that by early April BP had weighed the option of dropping a plan for work that was originally to have been done after Macondo but before Kaskida. That intermediate job would have permanently plugged the Nile well, not far from Macondo, and would have taken about a month.

View the original article here

Read More

Passkey Lite 8.2.0.9

Quickly remove some DVD/Blu-ray protections. Passkey Lite, a free version of Passkey, is a simple combination of Passkey for DVD and Passkey for Blu-ray. It can remove some DVD/Blu-ray protections, watch any DVD freely, and work with other software to access unprotected DVD/Blu-ray content.

Passkey Lite is a free and a simple two-in-one version of Passkey for DVD and Passkey for Blu-ray, and supports part of the functions they have. It can decrypt some protected DVD and Blu-ray, freely watch any DVD with no region limit. What adds punch to Passkey Lite is it can work with all the software that Passkey for DVD and Passkey for Blu-ray works with. You are enabled to use these apps to play/copy/rip the unprotected DVD/Blu-ray discs.

Passkey for Blu-ray is the most easy-to-use software to ... deal with unprotected content with the help of Passkey for Blu-ray. Feature: 1. Passkey for Blu-ray can ... Passkey for DVD is a great DVD decrypter which ... the movie content as you like. Feature: 1. Passkey for DVD helps users to decrypt any DVD ... VCD Menu Lite is a free Video CD / DVD menu page generation program for Windows. Add this utility to ... VideoSpirit Lite is a Freeware. You can convert video files among VCD SVCD DVD MPEG AVI DivX ASF DAT SWF ... ... quality and unique user experience. Download free Splash Lite and simply enjoy! Watch your HD recordings and movies ... Machete Video Editor Lite is a free software for easy and lossless ... individual pieces. This means that Machete Video Editor Lite combines functionality of both a video splitter (cutter, ... StarCodec is a Codec Pack. It is an installation program to install codecs for playing a movie and music and is ... DVDLogic EasyBD is simple semi-professional BD authoring solution for home and studio using. It contains all necessary functions for compilation separate ... PowerVideoPoint Lite (freeware) is a comprehensive and efficient free conversion tool that helps you to easily burn your professional looking ... BDFix - a great reauthoring tool which can directly edit unencrypted BD titles (HDMV or BD-J) as you like. User can ...
You have not saved any software.
Click "Save" next to each software.

Would you like to receive announcements of new versions of your software by email or by RSS reader?
FREE Registration Here!

View the original article here

Read More