ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Energy and Environmental News for June 12th 2009: nuclear disaster avoided by pure chance; Partnership develops first deep-sea floating turbine

Sizewell nuclear disaster averted by dirty laundry, says official report

A nuclear leak, which could have caused a major disaster, was only averted by a chance decision to wash some dirty clothes, according to a newly obtained official report.

On the morning of Sunday 7 January 2007, one of the contractors working on decommissioning the Sizewell A nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast was in the laundry room when he noticed cooling water leaking on to the floor from the pond that holds the reactor’s highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel.

As much as 40,000 gallons of radioactive water spilled out of a 15ft long split in a pipe, some leaking into the North Sea. The pond water level had dropped by more than a foot (330mm) – yet none of the sophisticated alarms in the plant sounded in the main control room.

By the time of the next scheduled safety patrol, the pond level would have dipped far enough to expose the nuclear fuel rods – potentially causing them to overheat and catch fire sending a plume of radioactive contamination along the coastline.

US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama’s climate change bill

America’s nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress have moved to hijack Barack Obama’s agenda for greening the economy by producing a rival plan to build 100 new reactors in 20 years, and staking a claim for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank.

Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats’ climate change bill this week, calling for a doubling of the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030. The 152-page Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change, and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants.

In the Senate, Republican leaders, including the former presidential candidate John McCain, also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18.5bn (£11.2bn) to $38bn. Other Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors, whose applications are now under review by the department of energy.

Spain facing key decision on use of nuclear power

The Spanish government will have to take a clear stand for or against nuclear power in the coming weeks when it decides whether to renew the operating licence of the oldest of the country’s six nuclear plants.

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose socialist government has backed the development renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, has said he wants to phase out nuclear energy in the country when the life span of its six nuclear plants expires.

But on Monday the five-member board of the country’s nuclear watchdog unanimously agreed to recommend that the Garona nuclear plant in northern Spain should get a new 10-year operating licence if it upgrades its safety equipment.

As Wind Power Grows, a Push to Tear Down Dams

For decades, most of the nation’s renewable power has come from dams, which supplied cheap electricity without requiring fossil fuels. But the federal agencies running the dams often compiled woeful track records on other environmental issues.

Now, with the focus in Washington on clean power, some dam agencies are starting to go green, embracing wind power and energy conservation. The most aggressive is the Bonneville Power Administration, whose power lines carry much of the electricity in the Pacific Northwest. The agency also provides a third of the region’s power supply, drawn mostly from generators inside big dams.

“¦Yet the shift of emphasis at the dam agencies is proving far from simple. It could end up pitting one environmental goal against another, a tension that is emerging in renewable-power projects across the country.

Partnership develops first deep-sea floating turbine

Winds are stronger and steadier in the high seas, but until now, renewable power developers have kept to shallow waters to avoid the high cost of mooring turbines into deep seabeds.

That may change after StatoilHydro of Norway and Siemens of Germany installed what they say is the world’s first commercial-scale floating wind turbine.

Tata to bring Nano to U.S.

Indian automaker Tata Motors is planning to sell its tiny, inexpensive Nano automobile in the U.S. within a few years, a company spokesman said.

The car, which sells at a base price of $2,500 in India, would need to comply with U.S. safety and emission standards and would require a distributor to sell it.

Obama admin announces new mountaintop restrictions

The Obama administration announced a plan today for curbing the use of streamlined federal permitting for mountaintop coal mining and boosting efforts to protect rivers and streams from mining debris.

The administration stopped short of prohibiting mountaintop operations, opting instead to curb what it considers the mining technique’s most environmentally damaging aspects with an agreement among the Interior Department, the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. EPA.

Supplemental conference provides dollars for ‘clunkers’ program, wildfires

House and Senate appropriators approved a war supplemental spending bill last night that would provide $250 million for wildfire prevention and authorize a $1 billion “cash for clunkers” program.

The conference committee was delayed as lawmakers sparred over the handling of photos of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, an issue that has led some senators to threaten to shut down the chamber. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters earlier in the day that he expected both the House and Senate would clear the supplemental bill by the end of next week.

Senate energy bill on tight timeline

Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she expects to mark up climate and energy legislation before the August recess, with hopes of a bill reaching the full Senate in the fall.

The Senate legislation will be based on the bill currently making its way through the House but is likely to include tougher short-term targets for capping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The House legislation proposes a cut of 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.

The tight timeline could help the bill gain support in the House, where Democrats from rural and conservative states have raised concerns about casting a tough vote for climate and energy legislation without any promise that the Senate will act on the bill.

Little progress seen as climate talks head for wrap

A fresh round of talks on forging a new agreement to tackle climate change headed for a close on Friday after amassing hundreds of proposals but little sign of consensus emerging.

With just six months left to conclude the pact under a deadline set in 2007, delegates said they saw little common ground at the talks in the German city of Bonn, held under the 192-nation UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“¦Compared with previous sessions, “the attitudes have been more constructive but the level of ambition is lower,” France’s climate ambassador, Brice Lalonde told AFP.

With Highway Bill on the Distant Horizon, Reformers Eye Climate Measure to Make a Splash

Transportation advocates, environmentalists and like-minded lawmakers see the upcoming highway and transit reauthorization bill as a vehicle to deliver Washington’s promise to overhaul the nation’s transportation system, complete with a focus on curbing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fuel consumption.

But with little visible progress on that front, they are looking elsewhere — particularly the House Democrats’ energy and climate change bill — for more immediate victories to set the stage for reform.

U.S. climate bill needs improvements: USDA’s Vilsack

The climate change bill being drafted in the U.S. House is ripe for improvement, said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on Thursday, but he vowed farms and forests will play a central role in controlling greenhouse gases despite skepticism among lawmakers.

U.S. farm groups, along with Democrats and Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee, have been sharply critical of the bill they say threatens to leave farmers in the lurch.

For Greening Aviation, Are Biofuels The Right Stuff? [Report]

As global economies strive to wean themselves off fossil fuels, one of the most daunting challenges is to find a replacement for the liquid fuels that power the world’s aircraft. Biofuels made from algae and non-food plants are now the leading contenders. While homes, cars, and offices can be powered by electricity produced from such renewable sources as solar, wind, and hydropower, there is little likelihood in the near future that battery power will be lifting a jumbo jet into the sky. And the global aviation industry uses an enormous amount of jet fuel “” energy-dense kerosene “” frequently referred to as Jet A or JP-8: The U.S. commercial airlines alone burn 240 million gallons of jet fuel every day, at a cost of roughly $720 million.

Hybrid Vehicles That Are Even More Efficient

The proposal is based on one of the problems of conventional vehicles: the loss of kinetic energy during braking. This waste of energy leads to very high fuel consumption and, consequently, to an increase in CO2emissions. Under the supervision of Ramon Costa, lecturer at the Department of Automatic Control (ESAII), Toni Font has focused on solving this problem. According to Ramon Costa, “The project modifies the structure of conventional cars to introduce elements that help to recover lost energy and reinject it into the system. It is made up of two parts: one related to hardware components, and one to software components”.

US climate envoy: China seeks top US technology

China wants the United States to deliver top of the line technology as part of a new global warming agreement, the chief U.S. climate negotiator said Thursday.

Jonathan Pershing, who was part of a U.S. delegation that returned this week from Beijing, said the Chinese are looking to the U.S. for ideas and technology to retool its high-carbon industry.

“They want from us technology, and we want from them action,” Pershing said on the sidelines of U.N. climate talks. “There’s room for agreement there.”

But the Chinese “don’t want any technology. They want some of the advanced technologies which are part of our own intellectual capital,” Pershing told Public Radio International’s Living on Earth program.

U.S. has passed its peak gasoline demand — BP CEO

BP Plc CEO Tony Hayward says demand in the U.S. for oil from the gasoline market has maxed out as ethanol blending continues to gain ground and more efficient cars replace gas-guzzlers on the roads.

“¦”We probably sold as much gasoline into the U.S. as we’ll ever sell” in the first half of last year, Hayward said. The U.S. “is not a growth market. Markets with growth in products are China, India”

‘Boom and bust’ of deforestation

A study of 286 Amazon municipalities found that deforestation brought quick benefits that were soon reversed.

Writing in the journal Science, the researchers say the deforestation cycle helps neither people nor nature.

They suggest that mechanisms to reward people in poorer countries for conserving $rainforest could change this “lose-lose-lose” situation.

India to tackle climate change in its own way, says Ramesh

Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh on Thursday emphasised that India would not be told which path to take for tackling climate change. Speaking to ‘The Indian Express’, Ramesh said: “We are not going to take any legal commitments or binding, mandatory restrictions on climate change as set by others. India has set her own path on climate change through the National Action Plan for climate change. We have set our own eight missions which we will continue to focus on.”

Reiterating the “development” paradigm, Ramesh said, “The Prime Minister has said that under no circumstance will India’s per capita emission exceed that of the developed world. This is something we stick to. At the same time, we also have our own growth needs to take care of.”

Abrupt Global Warming Could Shift Monsoon Patterns, Hurt Agriculture

At times in the distant past, an abrupt change in climate has been associated with a shift of seasonal monsoons to the south, a new study concludes, causing more rain to fall over the oceans than in the Earth’s tropical regions, and leading to a dramatic drop in global vegetation growth.

If similar changes were to happen to the Earth’s climate today as a result of global warming – as scientists believe is possible – this might lead to drier tropics, more wildfires and declines in agricultural production in some of the world’s most heavily populated regions.

Humanitarian Angle Key to Climate Deal

The humanitarian impact of global warming must be addressed in the next major global treaty on climate change — to be negotiated in Copenhagen in December, urged 18 aid organizations during climate talks in Bonn, Germany.

Compiled by: Austin Davis

19 Responses to Energy and Environmental News for June 12th 2009: nuclear disaster avoided by pure chance; Partnership develops first deep-sea floating turbine

  1. ClaudeB says:

    Re: Tearing down dams

    Yeah, Mr. Obama, tear down these dams (not!).

    I really fail to see the point of tearing down 3,000 MW of cheap and renewable hydro capacity on the Snake river, with an average load factor in the 60-70% and an useful life of 100 years to replace it with 6,000 MW of more expensive wind power, with a 30-35% load factor and a useful life of 20-25 years.

    No wonder why the BPA stated they would do no such thing!

  2. ecostew says:

    The dam removal issue is complex and salmon are ESA-listed: http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/salmon-scuffle

  3. ecostew says:

    And Snake River salmon: Judge James Redden, who has been hearing a series of cases challenging dam operations in the Snake and Upper Columbia River basins, issued a letter to the parties in National Wildlife Federation v. NMFS, the latest in that series. The letter makes it quite clear that Judge Redden views the latest biological opinion, which concluded that none of 13 endangered species are jeopardized by those operations, as arbitrary and capricious. Judge Redden urged the federal defendants to:develop a contingency plan to study specific, alternative hydro actions, such as flow augmentation and/or reservoir drawdowns, as well as what it will take to breach the lower Snake River dams if all other measures fail.

  4. Dan says:

    Per the USDA article:

    So while the USDA wants to administer their GHG program over the EPA, they say “USDA has not conducted a cost estimate. It awaits a report from the Environmental Protection Agency.” I may be reading a bit too much into that, but that sounds kind of funny! Is this Vilsack just trying to give more power to the USDA in order to weaken the EPA’s role or is this a legitimate role they can play. I’m sure he’d like to have that new power. From my friends at the EPA I hear that Vilsack got rebuked by the WH on this type of issue. Is that so?

  5. paulm says:

    Nuclear hangs it’s dirty washing out on the line.

    US festering in own mess….the green revolution can’t wait.

    Coal Ash Spills Too Dangerous To Reveal To Public
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/coal-ash-spills-too-dange_n_214739.html

  6. paulm says:

    Note worthy….

    Canadian isotopes fiasco foreshadows troubles for nuclear industry everywhere
    http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/06/canadian_isotopes_fiasco_fores.php#more
    The problem is, according to one survey, it will take 338 new reactors to replace the ones scheduled to be taken offline over the next 20 years. Unless the reactor-construction business expands dramatically, there’s no way that’s going to happen.

    So that leaves those in charge facing the realization that trying to keep existing reactors going as long as possible is the least-bad option. And that means there will be break-downs. And sooner or later, release of radioactivity to the immediate environs will occur. Politicians won’t like that. But unless we can learn to reduce our demand for electricity — it’s expected to grow by 44% by 2030 — there’s no way around the need to keep as many nukes running as we can.

  7. Jim Beacon says:

    Given the need to replace the 24/7 baseload of dirty coal plants, it is obvious that we are going to have to build *more* dams. It just that they should not be located where they do things like interfere with the life cycle of salmon. This is not a problem in most of the country. We should be making man-made lakes far inland as we used to do, which not only provide clean hydro power but provide additional fresh water resevoirs which we will badly need in the warming future. The only real objection to dams is the fact that some people can’t stand the thought of a couple thousand acres upstream being flooded, supposedly “destroying the ecosystem”. That’s reactionary bunk, of course, as the new lake provides a new ecosystem — one more valuable and productive to both man and wildlife — than the one it replaces.

    Besides, a whole lot more acreage will be destroyed if we don’t get this CO2 emission thing under control and new hydro power is clearly far preferable to building 100 new nuke plants. The only reason the power companies backed away from new dams was because of the high construction cost and endless delays caused by so-called enviornmental protestors, which made it much cheaper and easier to simply build coal plants.

    I can’t believe that building new hydro plants (and upgrading older ones with more capacity) isn’t at the top of the Waxman-Markey plan. Yet another example of how poor a bill it really is.

  8. David B. Benson says:

    Jim Beacon — In at least the Pacfic Northwest, (almost) all suitable dam sites are already exploited.

  9. Leland Palmer says:

    Keep the dams, of course.

    Add small scale hydro capacity, too.

    About the China story – what technology do they want? Classified technology, like supercomputers and advanced milling machines to make submarine propellers?

    What technology?

    About the hybrid vehicle story, good for them. Supercapacitors to store and release bursts of electricity seem very useful. Another option that he Reagan era Star Wars people were looking into were rapid discharge alternators. Which brings up the subject of carbon fiber flywheel energy storage – another good idea, IMO, languishing on the vine for decades. Combine some of these new hybrid ideas with cheap carbon fiber for cars, like ORNL is working on, and we might have super efficient cars soon.

  10. hapa says:

    wow. what a news day.

  11. MikeN says:

    >The problem is, according to one survey, it will take 338 new reactors to replace the ones scheduled to be taken offline over the next 20 years.

    Oh my, what a big problem. That’s because most of the current reactors are scheduled to be taken offline. Whether they will or not remains to be seen.
    In the meantime, other countries are building plenty of reactors, and we are going to end up at the low end technology-wise.

  12. James Newberry says:

    There are many unused or underused hydro sites in New England. We should attempt to use all renewable energy flows along with consumption reduction strategies since we need to stop hydrocarbon burning asap. With what we have learned about environmental impacts, we can do this in a careful way. Besides, if we don’t stop our carbon contamination of the ecosphere, all higher life forms are imperiled.

    Gov. Palin calls for a $26 billion fossil fuel pipe and the GOP hijacks democracy with an outrageous plan to bring back the nuclear dead and call it “clean.” You’ve got to love theater, Maybe Rocky Horror! It’s the 60″s all over again with clean, safe, cheap ATOMIC FISSION. No one with any intelligence need apply, except to the $100 billion and rising waste depot. Bring your anti-radioactivity slippers, gas masks and barf bags.

  13. ecostew says:

    A 2003 National Energy Renewable Laboratory Study reports:
    average thermoelectric consumptive water use – 0.47 gal/kWh
    average hydroelectric consumptive water use – 18 gal/kWh

    as another comparison:
    wind – 0.001 gal/kWh
    concentrated solar – 1 gal/kWh

  14. hapa says:

    i love when people use the word “plenty” to talk about very large expensive things. it shows they care. what’s “plenty”? is it “enough”? is it — “more than enough”? no. it is “i don’t like you, i don’t have to tell you any numbers, and anyway i don’t know them,” in order of importance. what an inspiration.

    100GW? 200GW? and like said, that’s gross, before closures. between CO2 and peak oil, we’re talking about more than 10x that amount of fossil fuel application to retire in the US in very short order.

    why doesn’t the right want to be part of the solution here? sour grapes?

  15. ecostew says:

    A significant issues when it comes to using hatchery fish to mitigate dam impacts: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610091224.htm

  16. dhogaza says:

    Oh my, what a big problem. That’s because most of the current reactors are scheduled to be taken offline.

    Let’s reword this – that’s because most of the current reactors are wearing out, reaching the end of their useful lifespan.

    It’s not an arbitrary thing.

    Extending lifespan beyond the typical 30-40 year assumed by their design involves considerable engineering effort, is largely virgin territory, and does not mean “extending lifespan indefinitely”. They’re talking about tacking on a decade or two of life AFAIK.

  17. dhogaza says:

    It just that they should not be located where they do things like interfere with the life cycle of salmon.

    Fair enough.

    This is not a problem in most of the country. We should be making man-made lakes far inland as we used to do, which not only provide clean hydro power but provide additional fresh water resevoirs which we will badly need in the warming future. The only real objection to dams is the fact that some people can’t stand the thought of a couple thousand acres upstream being flooded, supposedly “destroying the ecosystem”. That’s reactionary bunk

    Interestingly, given your first statement, you’ve just describe a major problem with dams negatively impacting salmon as “reactionary bunk”.

    What makes you think it’s just “reactionary bunk” in watersheds without salmon (especially given that those watersheds on the eastern seaboard are “without salmon” because we’ve already extirpated them, along with nearly doing the same with alewife, etc)?

    We have hard choices ahead of us. Don’t dismiss people who are concerned about the negative environmental effects of dam building to be guilty of “reactionary bunk”. It’s not. The concerns are real and the impact of a dam extends far beyond the reservoir behind it, changing the seasonal timing and variation of the water flowing in the river below it (damming the Colorado River has had a huge impact on SW ecosystems due to this), instream water temps, etc.

    Is it a price that we need to pay to help avoid even more damage from global warming? That’s a good question (though as pointed out above, most of the reasonable sites in the PNW are already damned, also true in the SW).

    But don’t pretend for a moment that there’s anything close to a cost-free choice here.

ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up