One of the things that's bugged me for some time is that the the environmental groups are often picking the wrong things to tackle. The causes that they pick are often the wrong ones. Lawsuits often piss off more people than they actual accomplish anything. Sometimes they choose to oppose things on estupido reasons that have little or nothing to do with the science of it, frex, nuclear power.
If you really want to deploy a technology now (not tens years, not twenty years from now) that's as clean as any of the others, including solar, then the new reactors are it. People choke at the idea that the nuclear reactors are cleaner than solar power. The fact of the matter is if you take into account the end to end environmental costs of solar, its far messier than nuclear power. The byproducts of manufacturing solar panels are nasty, nasty stuff and when the panels breakdown they stiff have to be disposed of ...and they're nasty poisonous things themselves that last a long, long time. They don't suddenly flush out of the biosphere any faster than nuclear material does and even at the best projected efficiencies the solar panels will have more nastiness laying about the biosphere per kilowatt produced than nuclear power will.
Another one that really bothers me is the global warming problem. It's happening, no doubt about it now. While I agree that more efficient cars and, frankly, getting out of our oil addiction is a good thing, there are somethings that can be done that are helpful in environmental restoration and carbon sequestrian. One of these is reforestation. There are a few projects for reforestation being done in the US already:
From here.
I have fond spot for redwood forests. They're, frankly, amazingly tranquil and beautiful places. Some of the worst tragedies was when the redwoods were cleared out of the American West. 5% of the redwood forest that existed 150 years ago now remains. Interestingly, an acre of mature redwood forest sequesters 1800 tons of carbon. If the redwood forest were to be automagically restored, it would sequester 3,427,200,000 tons of carbon from the atmopshere. That's the equivalent of over 30 thousand times what was done in the example report for the 100k cars. That's the equivalent of all the cars emissions in the US over 5 years.
Automagically restoring the redwoods would merely cover the US' CO2 production for energy of 2004 (here) for 1.29 years. It normally takes a few hundred years for that growth (not one) and sequestrian, so at best you'd be getting a percent or two if you replanted the entire redwoods at once. It's not really a feasible thing to do. To say the least. Except that there are now large areas of the US that were once farms or clear cut that can be returned to their previous state...if people are willing to pony up the money.
Marin County, almost as radical as Berkeley hotbed, was once nothing but redwoods. It was close to clearcut in the late 1800s. It's a pretty rich place. It covers an area of 521 square miles or 333,440 acres. Fully grown that would sequester 600,192,000 tons of CO2. However, there are 247,289 residents in Marin County as of 2000's census. If the average of one car for two people for the US were true, Marin would need to replant about 38 square miles of redwood forest to completely negate their CO2 emissions assuming that it would sequester .3 percent of the final amount (1800 tons/acre). Or whatever the equivalent of automagically reforesting and sequestering 74 acres per year is.
Interestingly, I've not heard of anything even discussed about this by the 'Think Globally, Act Locally' crowd. I'll have to play around to see what the costs are. That'd be the telling bit. I suspect it'd not be as expensive as the list price would be though.
If you really want to deploy a technology now (not tens years, not twenty years from now) that's as clean as any of the others, including solar, then the new reactors are it. People choke at the idea that the nuclear reactors are cleaner than solar power. The fact of the matter is if you take into account the end to end environmental costs of solar, its far messier than nuclear power. The byproducts of manufacturing solar panels are nasty, nasty stuff and when the panels breakdown they stiff have to be disposed of ...and they're nasty poisonous things themselves that last a long, long time. They don't suddenly flush out of the biosphere any faster than nuclear material does and even at the best projected efficiencies the solar panels will have more nastiness laying about the biosphere per kilowatt produced than nuclear power will.
Another one that really bothers me is the global warming problem. It's happening, no doubt about it now. While I agree that more efficient cars and, frankly, getting out of our oil addiction is a good thing, there are somethings that can be done that are helpful in environmental restoration and carbon sequestrian. One of these is reforestation. There are a few projects for reforestation being done in the US already:
Of the sequestration projects reported for 2000, 342 (69 percent) involved either afforestation or reforestation. The carbon sequestration and emission reductions reported for these projects totaled 627,902 metric tons carbon dioxide, representing 7 percent of the total sequestration reported for 2000. All the afforestation and reforestation projects reported for 2000 were domestic.
American Forests, a nonprofit conservation organization, and American Electric Power, Inc. (AEP), a large investor-owned utility, together accounted for more than one-half (56 percent) of the 342 afforestation and reforestation projects reported for 2000. American Forests reported a total of 164 projects under its Global ReLeaf Forests program, 30 of which were initiated in 2000. Global ReLeaf supports the restoration of U.S. forest ecosystems that have been damaged by natural events or human actions. American Forests reported that, through 2000, it has planted a total of 14.4 million trees, which sequestered 108,880 metric tons carbon dioxide in 2000—enough to offset carbon dioxide emissions from more than 100,000 automobiles. All but 6 of the Global ReLeaf projects involved reforestation. AEP reported 26 afforestation projects on land owned by its operating companies, which sequestered a reported 90,204 metric tons carbon dioxide in 2000. Two of the projects were initiated in 2000.
From here.
I have fond spot for redwood forests. They're, frankly, amazingly tranquil and beautiful places. Some of the worst tragedies was when the redwoods were cleared out of the American West. 5% of the redwood forest that existed 150 years ago now remains. Interestingly, an acre of mature redwood forest sequesters 1800 tons of carbon. If the redwood forest were to be automagically restored, it would sequester 3,427,200,000 tons of carbon from the atmopshere. That's the equivalent of over 30 thousand times what was done in the example report for the 100k cars. That's the equivalent of all the cars emissions in the US over 5 years.
Automagically restoring the redwoods would merely cover the US' CO2 production for energy of 2004 (here) for 1.29 years. It normally takes a few hundred years for that growth (not one) and sequestrian, so at best you'd be getting a percent or two if you replanted the entire redwoods at once. It's not really a feasible thing to do. To say the least. Except that there are now large areas of the US that were once farms or clear cut that can be returned to their previous state...if people are willing to pony up the money.
Marin County, almost as radical as Berkeley hotbed, was once nothing but redwoods. It was close to clearcut in the late 1800s. It's a pretty rich place. It covers an area of 521 square miles or 333,440 acres. Fully grown that would sequester 600,192,000 tons of CO2. However, there are 247,289 residents in Marin County as of 2000's census. If the average of one car for two people for the US were true, Marin would need to replant about 38 square miles of redwood forest to completely negate their CO2 emissions assuming that it would sequester .3 percent of the final amount (1800 tons/acre). Or whatever the equivalent of automagically reforesting and sequestering 74 acres per year is.
Interestingly, I've not heard of anything even discussed about this by the 'Think Globally, Act Locally' crowd. I'll have to play around to see what the costs are. That'd be the telling bit. I suspect it'd not be as expensive as the list price would be though.
You might be interested to know there's an entertaining and easy way to learn more about the pros and cons of nuclear power. "Rad Decision" is a new techno-thriller novel about the American nuclear power industry, written by a longtime nuclear engineer (me). This book provides an entertaining and accurate portrait of the nuclear industry today and how a nuclear accident would be handled. It is at RadDecision.blogspot.com. There is no cost to readers. Take a look - and if you enjoy it, please pass the word.
ReplyDelete"I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." - Stewart Brand, futurist and founder of The Whole Earth Catalog
http://RadDecision.blogspot.com