“Clean tech is always in a boom-and-bust cycle,’’ said Matt Moscardi, manager of investor programs at Ceres, a green investment coalition based in Boston. “Without a price on carbon, or some other mechanism by which you measure pollutants and emissions, the playing field will not be level.’’ [Reference: Boston Globe article, 9-Mar10]

The ’tilted playing field’ or unfair advantage alluded to by Ceres is also referred to as clean energy’s “competitive conundrum”.  Since clean energy costs are higher than those available from conventional sources, what is going to convince a typical consumer to pay that higher price?  And, are those lower prices from conventional sources truly reflective of the true ‘price‘ of their service, including emissions?  It’s not easy or convenient for consumers to think of it this way, but when they ’save’ money on low energy costs, they’re paying for it later in tax dollars and cleanup efforts that result from the dirtier sources of power – not to mention the ‘intangible’ loss in ‘quality of life’ for this and future generations.  I know… it sounds a little preachy, but it’s true.

This is a followup to my post about whether or not nuclear power is considered green power and Vermont, the Green Mountain State’s issue with the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant license renewal.  I was channel surfing today and because of my “connection” with Vermont, the power plant in Vernon, and the refusal of by Vermont’s legislature to renew the plant’s license to operate, a segment on Varney & Company caught my ear.

On Monday Stuart Varney interviewed State Senator Peter Shumlin (D) Vermont, about the power plant license renewal.  A question asked by Mr. Varney was about what Vermont was going to do when the power plant was shutdown in 2012.  Where were they going to get their power?  Senator Shumlin’s answer was a little vague saying that they would buy some from Canada and encourage more renewable energy like solar, after all, “Germany was getting 30% of their power from solar energy”.

Well, after some research by Mr. Varney, and shared on Tuesday’s show, it was discovered that Germany’s solar power provides less than 1% of its power requirement, quite a difference, don’t you think.  Solar energy can help, but using it on a large scale is still quite a ways off, especially to replace 1/3 of the power requirements for Vermont now provided by the Vermont Yankee plant.  This kind of misstatement really hurts our cause and the lack of knowledge by people who are making these decisions is disconcerting to say the least.

I wish that politicians would concentrate on getting us a good, fair, and balanced energy policy, that will protect as well as efficiently utilize our resources and provide for alternative energies.  I want them to think, yes think hard about alternatives and consequences before they make a decision.  Maybe there should be more project managers running the country.  Risk management and contingency planning are part of our DNA.

Evidently, the whole Climate Change thing (say some folks) is just vaporware.  Pun intended.

Today’s Boston Globe has a very telling article (read the whole thing here), with some poll statistics showing that people are backing off their belief in climate change.

To us, the most revealing statistic is this one: Just since 2008, the number of people who do not think “that global warming is happening” has doubled. It’s still an (ignorant, in our opinion) minority of 20%, but it’s 20% now, when it was 10% in 2008.   see the chart below.

And, according to the surveys, done by Yale and George Mason Universities,

Sixteen percent are considered “dismissive’’ – believing that global warming isn’t happening and is probably a hoax – up from 7 percent in 2008. So the number who actually think this is a hoax, has MORE than doubled.

Here’s a quote from the article:

“This issue is so politically sensitive, scientists need to be careful they [focus] on the science and not advocacy. . . . The science is robust and can speak for itself,’’ said Adil Najam, a lead author of two Intergovernmental Panel assessments and director of Boston University’s Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. He said the recent errors do not undermine the fact that man is significantly contributing to global warming, “but the review process needs to be strengthened’’ for future reports.

Dyslexia is not equal to a hoax

One of the issues providing fuel (again, pun intended) for the cynics, is the fact that some of the scientific reporting has been sloppy.  Not good, ladies and gentlemen, please tighten up on this. Turns out that when one report cited the ice on the Himalayas would melt by 2035, they reversed a couple of numbers – it should have read 2350.  In scientific terms, of course, that’s a blink of the eye.  In talk-show host language, though, this is ammunition, baby.  It shows bias.  It proves that this is a hoax.  Damn lying scientists!  Proving their points with false facts! Give the talk show hosts a little nub like this and they will hang their hats on it.  Again, to quote the Globe, “the errors went beyond sloppiness and were troubling to scientists because advocacy group reports, no matter how robust, can give the perception of bias and are often not peer-reviewed – meaning they have not been vetted by independent scientists, as are studies published in scientific journals.”

More than one way to be wrong

The article also points out – quite correctly – that errors have probably also been made which underestimate the problem.  And even without errors, are we 100% sure that we have all of the effects in hand?  We may be missing an “accelerator” factor that actually would either increase the intensity or speed of some of the changes that have been detected, and may not even have detected or predicted other changes at all.

Have a look at the detailed poll below.

Your comments wanted

What do YOU think? If you’re a cynic, where are you getting your energy (pun)? And if you are in the camp that thinks that there is a change to the climate initiated by millions of tons of GHGs (greenhouse gasses) produced by humankind, what’s keeping your belief level high despite the dyslexic and dumb dabbling of some of our scientists?

Is a nuclear power plant a green way to provide energy?  There seems to be quite a division in thinking on this one.  President Obama thinks that nuclear power is a good thing and his administration is promising $8+ billion of federal loan guarantees to build two new plants.  But the 800 pound gorilla continues to lurk in the foreground.  The problem with nuclear waste plagues the industry.  After all these years, and billions of dollars, there still isn’t a good solution.  In spite of a good solution to the nuclear waste problem, our European counterparts are on-board with nuclear power.  France now generates 80% of its power that way.  We produce about 20% of our power.

I read recently that Vermont has voted to block the license renewal for the Vermont Yankee (VTY) plant in Vernon, Vermont.  That has some nostalgic significance to me because I worked for the “project managers” (utility engineers) during construction of the plant in 1970.  Commissioned in August 1966 and given its operating license in March 1972, Vermont Yankee is one of the older plants in the American inventory of 104 power reactors. The oldest still running is Oyster Creek, near Toms River, N.J., which is of a similar design and opened in December 1969.  I happened to have investigated a fish kill the Oyster River plant site in the mid-‘70’s when I was doing some reporting for a local paper.  They shut down the plant for maintenance in mid-winter without giving the fish life around the plant ample time to acclimate, a no-no, but that’s another story.

A couple of things stand out about my time at VTY.  Working in what amounted to a big freezer (a concrete enclosure) during one of the coldest Vermont winters is hard to forget.  But even harder to forget were the people I met during the construction.  We were basically the quality control group for the construction, X-raying welds, checking welder qualifications, inspecting critical welds, checking installation against design blueprints, etc.   The inspectors as well as the welders were top notch and realized, even then, the potential for disaster if things weren’t done well.  The protection of the environment, especially the water quality of the mighty Connecticut River, was considered very important by the regulators and the plant designers.

As of a couple of years ago, when I had some contact with plant engineers, the VTY plant is continually being upgraded with the latest safety measures and operating well and efficiently.  As a matter of fact, VTY sells power to Vermont utilities for about 4 cents/kWh, half the national average, making it one of the least expensive power alternatives.   I know, there is the little issue of tritium.  Recently, test wells around the VTY property showed unusually high quantities of tritium.  To find all the facts about tritium, see http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.html .  The plant is located on the banks of the Connecticut River, so not only area wells could be affected, but also the river itself.  Whether or not they can find the leak, and whether or not finding and correcting the issue will placate the detractors is another story.  But I know that whether tritium is fuel (excuse the pun) for the fire, or the fire to abandon nuclear power is just too out of control; nuclear energy may be one of our best “green” alternatives.  You think?