Continuing Problems with San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant

We live within the evacuation radius of the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in San Clemente. We’re basically straight downwind from there. The plant has been shut down since summer due to leaks that they can’t identify and therefore not correct.

It is now shut down indefinitely per this article in CNN.

Gary Headrick, founder of the group San Clemente Green, said that public pressure was needed in order to guard against a nuclear crisis along the lines of what happened last year at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant.

“If we were to let things go as they’ve gone in the past, it’s very likely that we’d experience a Fukushima right here in Southern California,” Headrick said at the rally. “And that’s why we’re here today.”

If we had to evacuate Southern California, it would displace 20 million people. Oh, sure, we would be told that Los Angeles and San Diego were safe. Would you believe it?

Looking at the picture above, I also wonder if the plant is tsunami-safe? It would not take a very big wave to flood the entire compound.

Price of Gas

What a difference three years makes. The pundits all say that gas was less than two dollars when Obama took office. That seems impossible, when I drive by my gas station every day and I read $4.37 for the cheapest grade.

Less than two dollars?

Then I checked Consumer Reports:

My memory is selective.

This almost looks like an optical illusion. Were my gas prices in California really $2.10 when Obama took office, less than half of what they are now?

This is NOT GOOD. Obama and Chu better wake up!

 

Secretary of Energy on Lower Gas Prices

Forget lower gas prices. Our Secretary of Energy does not really want them lower.

We’ll all have to put Nutella into our gas tanks soon. And stop taking showers.

NakedDC does a nice job outlining our gas future based on Barack Obama and Steven Chu.

Supply of Fossil Fuels

The most common fossil fuels we are using are oil, coal and natural gas. We started using them in earnest about 125 years ago, when combustion engines were invented. Of course, it started small and gradually increased, and today we are burning more fossil fuels than ever.

Estimates range widely on how much we have left. Some experts say there is only a 30 year supply of oil left. Others peg it at about 100 years. For the sake of making this simple, let’s say we have only used up half of all the fossil fuels in the world by now, and to make it even simpler, let’s say that our use is the same daily, from 125 years ago to 125 years in the future.

This would mean that mankind is using up all of coal, gas and oil on earth over a 250 year span.

It took nature to create this fossil fuel 450 million years. 250 years has 91,250 days.

Roughly every day we are using up as much fuel as it took nature 5,000 years to create.  5,000 years ago is about the time the pyramids were built. All the composting of wood and all other organic matter since then has made enough oil for a single day’s use.

I am writing this in the cabin of a jet plane on my way to an important meeting.

Solyndra Boondoggle

What is a boondoggle?

Boondoggle – a wasteful or impractical project or activity

The Obama Administration loaned Solyndra $535 million as part of the 2009 stimulus package. Obama visited Solyndra in California in May 2010.

He said: “It is here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter, more prosperous future.” Praising the green jobs loan guarantee program, he went on: “We can see the positive impacts right here at Solyndra.”

Solyndra recently filed for bankruptcy. Auditors found afterwards that Solyndra has suffered recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows since inception. They had concerns about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

If the government, when loaning the money, had audited the company like an investment banker or venture capitalist would have done, it is likely they would have come to this conclusion and stayed away. As it was, Solyndra and its management were strong contributors to Obama’s campaign.

None of  this means that there is any wrongdoing by Obama. There was nothing illegal or unethical. As a matter of fact, there were, and still are, other green energy loan guarantees ongoing right now, some of which may also eventually fail.

The stimulus didn’t work here. The government may lose all of its $535 million. I can only suspect that some of it may have ended up in the CEO’s pocket before the ship sank. The government did search his home, if that’s an indication.

In contrast, the bailout package worked with General Motors. The money has been paid back and the company is roaring forward now. As a result, we have an auto industry in America now – thank goodness.

But make no mistake, Solyndra was a boondoggle, a very large one with $535 million of taxpayer money lost.

Or was it?

In the Sierra Magazine of Jan/Feb 2012, Paul Rauber puts things into perspective for us on page 20, showing the Solyndra affair and comparing it, in size, to what the New York Times calls “the Pentagon’s biggest boondoggles.”

Make your judgment.

The Tortoise Stops the Power Plant

The article in Forbes Magazine of June 27, 2011, titled Spot the Tortoise discusses  the plans for the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, the first large-scale solar thermal power plant project to be built in the United States in 20 years.

The green spot on the right upper side of the image is a golf course. To the right of it, you can’t quite see it here, would be I-15, and in the distance, about 40 miles away, in the right upper corner of the image would be Las Vegas. When you drive from the Southern California to Las Vegas you drive right by this project. Have you ever noticed it?

There is endless Mojave Desert along this stretch of freeway. If you stop your car and walk a few paces into the desert, it becomes quiet and seemingly completely dead. Other than an occasional insect, you will probably not see a creature stir, not even a mouse. Yet, we know that the desert is the home of millions of desert critters, little rodents, spiders, tarantulas, rattle snakes, turtles, coyotes, all kinds of birds, and billions of insects. They all live there.

The 370 megawatt Ivanpah Power Plant, heralded as the harbinger of a clean, green energy future, is imperiled by a tortoise. Years of surveys during the planning estimated that there would be at most 32 of the iconic animals roaming the 5.6 square mile site. Now construction has been temporarily halted until a new environmental review can be completed, since government biologists now predict that there will be between 86 and 162 adult tortoises and 608 juveniles on the site.

I am a member of the Nature Conservancy. I pack every scrap of trash out of miles of wilderness. I believe strongly in our national park system and in the protection of nature. I have strong opinions on oil drilling, logging, air pollution and protection of endangered species.

Yet I think this is insane!

If the 162 adult tortoises don’t like it under the mirrors, they can amble right out of the bright lights and into the desert, which stretches for hundreds of miles in all directions. Next to the 5.6 square miles of the power plant are thousands of square miles of desert habitat, with lots of the tortoises’ cousins living on them, at an approximate population density of 162 adults per 5.6 square mile. Yes, young tortoises suffer a high mortality rate and may not begin reproducing until age 25. Yes, some of the juveniles may not make it away from the concrete trucks.

If we cannot build a power plant in the endless, forsaken, empty, seemingly dead, vast, hot, uninhabitable Mojave Desert because of 162 animals, we might as well give up. There is not a square foot left in the entire United States where we can build an outhouse lest we destroy the habitat of some worm. Let’s just stop building altogether.

30 years from now we will import all fossil fuels, if the earth still has any left, from Canada, Mexico, South America and the Middle East. All our nuclear powerplants will be decommissioned, and since building a nuclear plant takes 10 to 20 years, we won’t have time to build any, and we won’t have any expertise. We’ll have to hire French and Chinese firms to come in and build them for us. We won’t have solar plants because there are tortoises, snakes and tarantulas that need to procreate on those sites. I hope Hoover Dam keeps churning out hydroelectric power for many years to go.

Sustainable, renewable and clean energy appears impossible to create and maintain in our country. I think I had better start building a stable for the horse and buggy, and a shed for firewood.

The Price of Gas – Take Four

Price of a gallon of gas per country as of March 2011:

Country Price 
Norway $6.82
Hong Kong $6.25
Belgium $6.16
United Kingdom $5.96
Italy $5.80
Canada $5.36
Japan $5.25
Brazil $4.42
India $3.71
Australia $3.42
South Africa $3.39
Mexico $2.22
Argentina $2.09
Saudi Arabia $0.09
Kuwait $0.08
Venezuela $0.12

Largest Oil Producing Nations as of 2009:

Country Production Share of World %
Russia 10,120,000 12.01
Saudi Arabia 9,764,000 11.59
United States 9,056,000 10.75
Iran 4,172,000 4.95
China 3,991,000 4.74
Canada 3,289,000 3.90
Mexico 3,001,000 3.56
United Arab Emirates 2,798,000 3.32
Brazil 2,572,000 3.05
Kuwait 2,494,000 2.96
Venezuela 2,472,000 2.93

Would you not think that the United States, being the third largest oil producer in the world, would have prices at the pump that are a little closer to those of Saudi Arabia?

Oil and Iraq

In March of 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq, and today we still don’t entirely know why this decision was made. There are many opinions out there. Besides the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist, I remember thinking often at the time that it must have something to do with oil. Iraq was known, at the time, to have the world’s second largest resources of oil, right after Saudi Arabia. After many years of sanctions against Iraq, and its oil off-limits to the U.S. and its Big Oil companies, it only made sense to go after a country like Iraq and virtually “own” the oil.

I also remember thinking that no matter what the administration was telling us: It’s the oil, stupid.

After all, this was the situation with gas prices in March 2003:

We paid a whopping $1.72 a gallon, close to the highest in history in 2003.

It is now April 2011. Eight years have gone by, a TRILLION dollars has been spent on Iraq, the country is a mess, young Americans are still dying, and we are paying $4.20 a gallon for the cheapest grade of gas in California.

What happened to the cheap oil from Iraq that we paid all this money for and that so many American soldiers lost their lives for?

Breakfast Anyone?

On my way to work the other day I was in need of picking up a bite for breakfast. Feeling like some pastry, I stopped at a Panera. I bought a bear claw and a cinnamon roll (yes, pastry sugar shock). I expected to get a little paper bag, but instead the attendant put it into a nice box, added four napkins and topped it off with two plastic forks and knives, assuming there would be two different eaters.

This is what it looked like when I opened it at my desk.

I put the plastic utensils aside and enjoyed the pastry.

All the while I was dismayed about how much trash I generated with a little breakfast snack. A carboard box (trees) with a see-through cellophane cover (oil, manufacturing), four plastic utensils (oil, manufacturing, shipping) that I didn’t even use, four napkins (trees, albeit recycled material) of which I used one.

The pastry was great.

Gas at 4 Dollars

Today, for the first time ever, I filled up my tank with regular gasoline and I paid more than 4 dollars per gallon. Filling my tank took over 70 dollars. I remember it was not too long ago that I was stunned when I broke the 60 dollar barrier.

When I first drove in America in 1977, a gallon of gas cost 62 cents. I drove a huge, V-8 powered 1973 Ford LTD that got 10 miles to the gallon. I liked that car. It cost me over 10 dollars to fill it up, and I remember how that hurt.

I predict that we’re not far away from needing 100 dollars to fill up a car.

Yes, the oil companies are making record profits, and did so during the hard years of 2007, 2008 and 2009. They are raking it in while they can, because they know the gravy train is coming to an end. The International Energy Agency announced in 2006 that the world had hit “Peak Oil” meaning that oil production worldwide had hit the maximum. Going forward from Peak Oil, it will be harder and more expensive to extract and deliver oil, and new supplies will lag behind new demand.

There is a lot of controversy about the Peak Oil theory. People argue that the Peak Oil crowd does not know what they are talking about. So, for a moment, let’s put aside all studies and all science, and especially all American politics.

It took about 500 million years to make all the oil in the world. Oil is basically the end-result of millions of years of sunshine (solar energy) being trapped in organic material, mostly plants. The earth is not making any more of the stuff at an appreciable rate. About a hundred years ago we started using it up by burning it and as ingredients for manufacturing, and we have made a measurable dent in our supply. If you trust the doom-sayers, we have about 20 years of oil left at the current consumption. Some say 20 to 50 years. Wild and crazy optimists say 100 years. But it’s limited, very limited, and we will run out.

The question is not if Peak Oil is real. The only question we may ask is if it really happened in 2006, or if it’s still off in the future, perhaps in 2016 or 2026.

However: We. Will. Run. Out. Of. Oil.

Only when a gallon of gas costs 10 or 20 dollars will we start realizing that we had better figure out what to do. Because we won’t be able to pump gas into our trucks, trains, planes and automobiles anymore. Or, heaven forbid, into our tanks.

We will then yearn for the good old days of gas at 4 dollars.

The Plastic Shopping Bag

“Paper or Plastic?”

“Plastic is fine” has been my answer in the last twenty years. It seemed like a better solution than killing trees to make paper. Yet, I always liked paper bags better. They are sturdier. You can use them for other purposes later. They hold more.

I always wondered what the point was of putting a single carton of eggs into a plastic bag. Or one head of lettuce. Or one bottle of cleaner, lest the cleaner touch a grocery item.

I also always found it ludicrous to go to a card store and buy a birthday card,  a single card, and  then walk out with one of  these small, flimsy plastic bags with the single card in it. What’s the point? Am I embarrassed about carrying out a naked card in my hand? Either I put the flimsy bag into some other carrying container, like a larger shopping bag, or a briefcase or a pocket, or I lay it on the car seat next to me. For all those solutions, I don’t need the flimsy, pointless bag.

Five trillion plastic bags are produced each year in the world. They are used for a few minutes, they slide around in the trunks of cars, and then they are discarded to pollute the earth for hundreds of years, before they decompose. If they end up in oceans, they float around and get eaten by birds, whales and fish. A sufficient quantity of plastic in an animal’s stomach will eventually kill the animal. When the animal is decomposed, the plastic bags are freed and kill again. If a scavenger eats the carcass, the bag may eventually kill the scavenger.

Five trillion bags, that’s over 700 bags per person for every person in the world every year. That’s two bags a day for each man, woman and child in the world. Every day.

Bags are made out of crude oil. 0.2 percent of the world’s oil is used to make bags – about 60 million barrels a year.

There is no solution to this other than every one of us consuming less or no bags. We need to refuse to allow merchants to put single items, books, cards, toothpaste, candy bars, magazines, newspapers into single bags. We need to bring reusable bags to the supermarket. They are sturdier anyway. We need to keep a stock of them in the trunk of our cars.

“Paper or plastic?”

“Neither.”

The Plastic Fork

To celebrate birthdays of team members at the office, we sometimes bring in a sheet cake. After the party, the cake stays out on the table in the kitchen and when I need an afternoon pick-me-up with my coffee, a piece of cake does the trick.

There is a stack of paper plates in the cupboard next to the table. There is also a drawer full of plastic “silver” ware.

I scoop a little cube of cake on a paper plate, grab a plastic fork and a paper napkin and walk to my office. Depending on how much I need that sugar fix and how big the piece of cake is, I might eat the whole thing in three to six bites. It’s all over in less than a minute.

Then I toss plate, napkin and plastic fork into the trash can next to my desk.

The other day I looked at the fork more closely before I threw it out. It’s amazing how well it is constructed. I wondered how much it cost to make that one fork, to ship it to this country, to stock it at Costco, to deliver it to my office, just so I can use it for a few seconds and three to six bites of cake? Oil is used to make plastic forks.

I use a plastic fork for three bites of cake.

There is a perfectly good silver ware fork in my right desk drawer for just that occasional opportunity to eat, that I do not throw away, but somehow I didn’t think about that when I picked up the plastic fork.

Plastic forks should not even exist on this planet. But they do, because I continue to use them.

Geoengineering to Solve Global Warming?

USA Today released an article on February 25 titled Can Geoengineering put the Freeze on Global Warming. Its companion article online is here.

The article suggests that massive engineering projects like sunshades, stratospheric sulfur, agri-engineering and ocean fertilization could make enough of a dent in the purported global warning, like lowering the earth’s temperature by one or two degrees, to make enough of a difference to be considered.

USA Today is doing the country no favor by such articles. It makes it sound like  these are viable options considered seriously by anyone. Let’s just talk about a few of those mentioned:

  • Sunshades: Launching three-foot wide dark strips into a cloud 62,000 miles in diameter to be suspended within a gravitational balancing point between sun and earth. The dark strips would absorb sunlight, presumably radiate the heat back to space, effectively putting sunglasses on the sun and cooling the earth. It could be done with today’s technology for a few trillion dollars.
  • Stratospheric Sulfur: Releasing millions of tons of sulfur into the atmosphere through cannons, balloon releases or planes to absorb greenhouse gases. Of course, this increases air pollution, acid rain and ozone absorption.
  • Agri-engineering: Design crops that reflect sunlight. Plant lots of trees to absorb carbon in atmosphere.
  • Ocean Fertilization: Fertilizing oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton blooms, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and export carbon to the deep sea.

The article does not really discuss the fact that any one of those measures by itself would be phenomenally expensive, mostly based on technology we don’t yet have or know much about, would have massive side effects that we can’t even begin to consider and don’t produce enough results to make any significant dent in the problem in the first place.

By the existence of the article we’re first presuming that we actually have a global warming problem. We’re also presuming that we know what causes it. Both are currently still shaky presumptions. But we’re proposing preposterous solutions. It’s like suggesting a hysterectomy to a 16-year-old girl that’s asking for birth control. Get real.

We have a dirty and cluttered house. How about we get a dumpster, throw out the trash, steam-clean the carpets, bring in a maid service to clean the kitchens and baths, and see what that does? If that does not work, we can still drop poison gas to get the vermin out of the carpets or come in with flame throwers to get rid of the trash, never mind the risk of  burning down the whole place in the process. But hey, the dirt will be gone.

It will be infinitely easier to stop burning coal for electricity, stop building cars with gasoline engines and develop airplane engines that don’t use gasoline than it would be to implement any single one of these measures. Why don’t we try those changes first, in the next couple of years. They will be cheaper, certainly more effective, and I can’t see any adverse side effects. Let’s make sure that China, India, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia all go along with us. But that’s only political maneuvering, right? That can’t be that hard.

After attacking the obvious first, spending a fraction of the proposed money for the Sunshade project, let’s measure how we did, and go from there to more drastic  geoengineering efforts.