Maine energy official contemplates new nuclear power in Maine.

This article is about 9 months old, when Maine's government was discussing their reliance on fossil fuels.



http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/2113396.shtml

I actually only knew in my lifetime one person from Maine. I think he was some kind of trust fund kid from a long line of Maine landowners - and this, I think, isolated him from reality. Whenever I tried to discuss Maine's increasing reliance on fossil fuels, he generally cursed, said I was lying, and went on describing Maine as a renewable paradise and offered other forms of denial. Rich kids can be like that; they can be totally oblivious to the real world. Happily, I don't hear from him any more, but it would be fun to hear his reaction to this bit of news.

Apparently even if he isn't concerned about Maine's reliance on fossil fuels, the government of Maine is. It would seem that even if there are some people from Maine who never developed the sense of a mule, there are people in the Government there who can look reality straight in the eye and say what needs to be said in order to solve problems. Why it appears that as recently as ten months ago people in the halls of power in Maine were saying that terrible word "nuclear."

.. a nuclear power plant in Maine, or the eleven new lignite fueled plants that
are going to be built in Texas. Ugghhh.

When you dismiss coal plants, dams and offshore wind power as environmentally unfriendly ( actually offshore wind power isn't really enviromentally unfriendly but it bothers the rich progressives in the north-east most of who should know better.) There are not a lot of choices left. Global Warming advocates tend to be pro-nuclear. Not by choice but by a lack of decent alternatives available right now.

off his beach where he goes sailing.

Most environmentalists and global warming advocates are not pro-nuclear.
There are some vocal pro-nuclear people, and an aggressive marketing campaign by the nuclear power industry, but in general, I don't think your statement is true at all. Most environmentalists want sustainable renewable energy, which might include fusion in the future.

Some global warming advocates who are not pro-nuclear:

Stephen Pacala, co-author of the famous MIT "CO2 Wedges" study:
"I personally think nuclear is a non-starter."
http://www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=549

Al Gore, in a recent interview:
"I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now."
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html

Right now.... what would environmentalists like to put in Maine.

A new Dam (Think of the fishes)

Wind turbines (Angers rich democratic donors and Senator Kennedy)

Nuclear Power (I still have my no new nukes shirt from '79)

Coal/gas/garbage burning plant? ( Global Warming will kill us all)

Solar? (This is Maine not Arizona)

Fusion (sure no problem we will take the deuterium-tritium (D-T) mixture admit it to the evacuated reactor chamber and there ionize and heat it to thermonuclear temperatures. Then after some magnetic field stuff the neutrons themselves ultimately enter into nuclear reactions with lithium to generate tritium which is separated and fed back into the reactor as a fuel. We should have that up and running by next tuesday)

Of course many of the people who are most into solar products are rich kids looking to assuage their guilt about conspicuous consumption.

What'dya think, 4000 square feet?

I clicked on the link, and I wonder about the fuel costs associated with all the people who drove there - some with lots of audio-visual equipment - to be photographed in front of the house. It behooves me to note that if this house were not some esoteric exercise in patting one's self on the back, the media would feel no impetus to come out and film. Everyone would say, "I have all that stuff, what's the big deal?"

Of course, in that case, we wouldn't have the obvious public struggle in Maine to figure out what the fuck they should do about the fact that they have replaced their nuclear plant with fossil fuels.

If, of course, your strategy is deal with the matter by changing the subject, the solar house is very useful and functional. It is an excellent tool for avoiding reality, reality being the both the fraction and the absolute value of power in Maine that is generated by fossil fuels.

There might be controversy about building wind farms in the western mountains, but none about building new nuclear power plants there.

It ain't gonna happen.

On edit: that "McMansion" is 2900 sq ft - not 4000 - when one actually reads what's posted on that website, one might see this.

It cost $325,000 to build in 1995 (without any federal or state tax credits or rebates).

The PV and solar hot water systems were ~15% of the total cost of the house.

And it works, in Maine, in the winter.

I'm sure the billions of dead from global warming will be pleased to see that the remaining few rich nations still have power.

"In the future" has become a buzzword for "let's pretend the problem can actually wait a few more decades." The truth is that we are AT THIS VERY MOMENT passing the point of no return on climate change. If we wait for new technology miracles "in the future" billions will DIE over the next 50 years.

You mean global climate change is happening now?

Who knew?

I'm impressed.

You write, "global warming advocates are not pro-nuclear."

I agree. People who think that global warming is a good thing are not likely to favor nuclear power.

By the way, Stephen Pacala is at Princeton, not MIT. No biggie, I already know about your skill with reading. I do note that being from either prestigious institute makes you right.

It would appear that, based on the number of new nuclear power plants being announced in recent times, the statement "nuclear power is a non-starter," has not been believed by people willing to put hundreds of billions of dollars where their mouths are.

I guess the nuclear industry might not wait for Dr. Pacala's stamp of approval before producing a full stabilization wedge all by itself.

Here is Stephen Pacala's website:

http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/FACULTY/Pacala/Pacala.html

In no place in his CV, which is here: http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/FACULTY/Pacala/cv.pdf do I see any expertise that would make him an expert in terrorism, or for that matter, nuclear engineering, although he cites "terrorism," as a reason that "nuclear power is a non-starter."

As a biologist he is, however, an expert in carbon dynamics in the ecosystem, and, not that I would want to trouble you with anything like context, includes nuclear power as an option in the famous science paper. However the Science paper must meet more rigorous stances than an interview published on a website.

Here is some context:



As for the one wedge, with 220 reactors now either under construction, ordered or proposed, and 440 operating, doubling doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

Now, I know that many people regard a Princeton professorship as oracular, that it is almost against the law to disagree with someone who is a professor at Princeton, but I do disagree with Dr. Pacala all the same. I would disagree with him if he was at Harvard. I would disagree with him if was at Stanford. I would disagree with him if he was at the South Dakota School of Mining and Engineering. I would disagree with him if he was at Mercer Community College or at the University of South Florida.

I support nuclear reactors in Sudan, in Afghanistan, the United States - so long as they are all operated under the auspices of the IAEA. I don't think that people in the Sudan are less human than I am, for instance.

Of course, we should examine this claim about the Sudan on a deeper level. The electrical demand of the Sudan can be found here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table62.xls

The electrical energy consumed in the Sudan was 3.58 billion kilowatt-hours, or 0.013 exajoules in 2004. This is a continous average power of 407 Megawatts, or less than 1/3 the output of one modern EPR nuclear reactor. Now, I don't know Dr. Pacala's view of the situation, but from my perspective this is not an inordinately huge demand. I believe that the people of the Sudan, being human, deserve more energy. I suspect that the tragedy of Sudan has something to do with poverty you see. If poverty were eliminated, I suspect that the problems of Dafur - including the war there - would be mitigated if not gone.

I think that Sudanese being human - at least in my opinion - a single nuclear reactor in Sudan, or maybe nearby is not too much to ask, especially given that the number of nuclear terrorist or for that matter nuclear wars, at least since 1945, remains at zero.

As for your opinion of what environmentalists think, I would question whether you even know what an environmentalist is. Environmentalism doesn't involve praying and chanting. Let me help you further with this: An environmentalist is not simply someone who buys the Sierra club calendar printed on recycled paper.

An environmetalist is someone who believes in doing something to stop the wholesale degradation of our environment which is happening on an unprecedented scale. If you have a greenhouse gas fighting strategy that is now planned on a multi-exajoule scale, something on the scale of nuclear power, produce it. Produce it now dammit because climate change is happening now.

If you can't produce it, well then...I'm very impressed by your Sierra club calendar on recycled paper, but it's really not about environmentalism.

(It does happen sometimes!) There's a lot of people, probably the majority, who are anti-nuclear (in terms of numbers, not IQ point :D). They're the same ones who talk enthusiastically about getiing x percent of renewable power by 2050 while carefully avoiding what's happening now...

I think James Hansen summed it up nicely : "Next generation nuclear power, if acceptable to the public, could be an important contributor." (Emph. Mine).

Unfortunatly, as Camus said, "Stupidity has a knack of getting its way". :(

like "We have been screwed by the oil companies for a century, so let's turn to another source of energy that is also polluting and extremely vulnerable to being monopolized, so we can be blackmailed with power outages."

The rest of the OP is a thinly veiled personal attack and not worthy of a response.

Finally, Maine's air quality is often severely degraded due to the influx of polluted air from New Jersey and the urban Northeast Corridor.

People in glass houses, etc...

"this, I think, isolated him from reality"
If you only knew one person from Maine, you're the one who's been isolated
from reality.

Maine is the most important state in the Union?

In what way? Population? Economic importance?

Do you suppose that people from France who have never even thought about Maine are divorced from reality?

What about people from Chad?

You think there is no reality in Bangladesh because in Bangladesh they don't give a flying fuck about the trust fund sensibility of Mainers who burn natural gas while lecturing on the pure wholesome grand renewable future?

I do know this: The entire nation of Bangladesh, all 100 million people, could go underwater, and you would still think that Chernobyl is the most important thing that ever happened.

Many people are concerned about Bangladesh and global climate change even if you think it's not real:

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/33.htm

Bangladesh is real to me, even though I've only known one person from Maine well.

Now, I'm sure that there are many bright and smart people in Maine, including some who work in the Maine Department of Energy, as referenced in the OP. But the only person with whom I have had direct experience - the only person I know well from Maine - was a complete fool.

:evilgrin:

Of course, we have to solve our storage problem. But that is a problem that actually can be solved later.

regional spent fuel dump.

That would entail trucking out-of-state nuclear waste into Maine and storing it there indefinitely.

Back in the 70's, the DOE wanted to investigate sites in northern Maine for a national spent fuel repository (i.e., a Yankee Yucca Mountain).

Mount Katahdin would be the ideal site for a national spent fuel dump (a large remote granite pluton in a sparsely populated area).

Want a nuke dump in Mt. Katahdin???

Keep on generating spent fuel and it might just happen.

And * can try to do that if he pleases, but he does not have the political muscle to pull that little trick off.

Look what they got (Yucca Mountain).

Yucca mountain is and was federal land that I do not recommend wandering around in (being The Nevada Test Site and all).
Katahdin is heavy trafficed and highly visible (politically and otherwise) wilderness park.
Yucca mountain is not part of a major watershed.
Katahdin is a major watershed source.

That, and * would have to fight two powerful moderate(*cough*) Republican senators who would loose their jobs if that happened to place that in Maine.

That, and the government has already found their hidey-hole.

Katahdin wasn't the only site in northern Maine the DOE had its sights on.

and Yucca Mountain was foisted on the people of Nevada against their will.

Do you really want Wiscasset to become an interim (lol) spent fuel dump???

If you think they have traffic problems now...

Here's a recent editorial in the KJ that puts this in perspective...

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/columns/2939598.shtml

Can we trust the feds on nuclear waste?

<snip>

Now, there's a Bush administration plan making its way in a spending bill through Congress with the support of Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.Mex., to have the feds gather up all the spent fuel at various sites, reprocess it and then send it back to not-yet-designated consolidation centers for the next 25 years, or until Yucca Mountain is opened -- whichever comes first. Perhaps we should also add "a cold day in purgatory" to that list of timeframes?

The legislation would deprive states of any ability to say "yes" or "no" to becoming consolidation centers, which we think is just a fancy word for "dumps." The dumps would be built on private land purchased by the government, or land in federal hands already, and only in states that already have nuclear power plants.

But you can bet it's the states with already existing nuclear waste storage areas -- including Maine -- that will be top on the list of potential sites if the bill passes, which could very well mean Maine might become an attractive alternative for storage of the region's waste. After all, compared to states to the south of us, we don't have too many voters, our population is spread out, and our two very independent Republican senators may need to be punished by the administration for not toeing the party line as strongly as the faithful. Oh, and Maine voted for Kerry in the last presidential election.

<snip>

It doesn't do anything at all except decay towards lower radioactivity.

Eventually the price of uranium will rise enough that people will recognize it for what it is: A valuable resource. At that point, those who own spent fuel will probably be able to sell it. I'd estimate that that point is 40 or 50 years off, but it will come.

http://www.clf.org/programs/cases.asp?id=367

I am learning that my low opinion of the Mainer I know, notwithstanding, many Mainers are in fact alert and aware of the sleight of hand involving the "shut a nuclear plant and go solar" scam. The answer was not renewable energy; it was natural gas, a fossil fuel.

Here is a slide presented to the working group of the Maine EPA and the Wood and Paper Pulp Association:

http://maineghg.raabassociates.org/Articles/1.28.04%20ME%20EW%20Final.pdf

Check out what they put in red on page 17.

From the minutes of the meeting we have the following statement:



CCAP is the Center for Clean Air Policy.

Finally there is this document from the Maine EPA which expressly identifies nuclear power plants in other states being relicensed so that GHG emissions can be kept down:

http://maineghg.raabassociates.org/Articles/EW_Ass_1_28_Final.doc

Scroll down to section 3.3 under the heading "Other Supply Efficiency Measures"
where we read in the table form:



and in section 3.4:

.

Not in my backyard, but please, please, please, please uprate in New Hampshire.

It gives me great pleasure to inform the people of Maine that Unit 2 at Seabrook is unfinished. Maybe the people of New Hampshire can look into finishing it to help the people of Maine out of the terrible bind in which they've put themselves.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/seabrook.html

The decision to shut down Maine Yankee was made by the owners - there was no "plan" to replace it with gas-fired power plants.

The two ~500 MW plants (in Westbrook and Penobscot) were under development at the time the owners of Maine Yankee made the surprise decision to shut it down.

Maine Yankee closed about 15 years shy of its license expiration. If it were operating today, the two gas-fired plants would have built anyway.

Twisting the truth as usual...

Sounding a little frustrated and pissed off, Ms. Nagusky writes the newspaper:



Correction Ms Nagusky: Some Maine people recognize that there is no free lunch.

http://www.iepm.org/sebasticook.htm

Actually this was written before Ms. Nagusky joined the Maine Energy Department.

It will open up the entire Sabasticook drainage to anadromous fish.

The only ones that want to keep this dam are (mostly republican) landowners upstream of the dam.

And that group is planning to sue the (Dem) governor of Maine to stop it.

He wants nuclear power back in Maine:



http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/columns/2127608.shtml

This column was written late last year, November 2005.

His, IMHO, the biggest asshole in the state of Maine (and I'm not the only one who thinks this - just read the responses to his columns).

Furthermore, SAM members are exclusively right wing Republican NRA types.

God, Gut piles and Nukes...

what a fucking joke