Ridgeline wind continues to be controversial, and offshore wind comes with its own set of siting issues, including a much higher installation cost. If we are ever going to replace fossil fuels with clean alternatives, wind has to be part of the mix.

Some innovative designers and engineers have come up with a solution worthy of Jules Verne: floating turbines.  

Nanuq netted this one off the web, and you just gotta love the whimsy as well as the practicality of the idea.  

An enormous helium-filled wind turbine will soon float over the city of Fairbanks, Alaska to produce enough electricity for more than a dozen families living off the grid. Designed and built by MIT startup Altaeros Energies, the turbine known as BAT-Buoyant Airborne Turbine will hover at an altitude of 1,000 feet for 18 months, catching air currents that are five to eight times more powerful than winds on the ground.

The tethered turbines are capable of generating exponentially greater volumes of  energy than their earthbound cousins due to the greater wind velocity at the high altitudes where they would be deployed.

There are a lot of questions to be answered about durability and maintenance, sky congestion etc., but the concept has a lot of advantages.  

Portability and low installation cost are two great pluses, making it more doable to relocate the turbines if it is discovered that they have been located where they pose a hazard either to aviation or wildlife.  The turbines seem ideal for deployment to emergency situations.

Will we one day see private turbines hovering over electric car dealerships and advertising big sales while keeping the lights on down below?  Perhaps not my favorite scenario, but it’s almost inevitable.

Meanwhile,Deep Water Wind has just introduced a different kind of floating wind farm.  In the first ever off-shore wind project to locate in the Pacific Ocean, Deep Water Wind plans to deploy five floating platforms, each supporting a single operating turbine, fifteen miles off the coast at Coos Bay, Oregon.

It is hoped that this solution will make it practical to locate wind farms far offshore in the Pacific Ocean where ocean depths make it impossible to anchor stationary turbines as is possible along the much shallower Atlantic coastline.  Similar technology is apparently already in use in experiments off the coast of Portugal.

Despite all the effort to keep the U.S. dependent on dirty and dangerous energy sources, it’s nice to be reminded from time to time that those industries are fighting a losing battle against advancing clean technologies.

Whether or not the U.S. is on the losing end of that battle depends very much on whether or not we, as a nation, continue to reward ignorance and graft with Congressional privileges. ‘Not much sign that that’s going to change in this election.

The U.S. seems on a trajectory to reinforce its footprint as an energy “bad boy” with new pipelines, expanded drilling and fracking.

You can add to that ill-advised mix the relicensing of Limerick Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 in Pennsylvania, which the NRC has just delivered to Exelon.

This, despite the fact that there were still ten more years of service on the plant’s previous licenses.

… Lewis Cuthbert from the Alliance for a Clean Environment, which has steadfastly fought Limerick’s licensing renewal… said he still does not understand why its necessary to renew the license when there is still 10 more years of wear and tear from operations on the plant to analyze, before tacking on another 20 years, a decision based on 10-year-old data.”It’s as if you bought a car in 1980 and expecting it to run without problems until 2049,” he said. “It’s regulatory malpractice by the NRC.”

A lot can happen in ten years.  I would hazard a guess  that Exelon is certain that they wouldn’t get that renewal ten years from now.

Renewal of the Limerick licenses brings to 75 the number of commercial nuclear power reactors with renewed licenses. Applications for an additional 17 renewals are currently under review.

With the Limerick decision the NRC continues its record of never having refused to renew any license it has been asked to consider.  

As efforts in the U.S. continue to add twenty more years of operation to nuclear power plants designed more than half a century ago,  the most nuclear dependent nation, France is committing to a 25% reduction in its use of nuclear over the next eleven years.  The goal is to eventually rely entirely on clean renewables.

Vive la difference?

I’ll close with a recent clip of Fairewinds Energy Education’s Arnie Gundersen offering the definitive answer to the question,

” Is nuclear power a sustainable or safe solution to ongoing energy demands around the world?”

At the WAVE Conference – Arnie Gundersen’s Presentation from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.

Note: As regular readers of GMD know, I am a non-technical member of the Fairewinds Energy Education team.

The Vermont Worker’s Center hosted a  public forum on Human Rights and the Economy at the Franklin County Senior Center last Thursday.  All candidates for the house and senate were invited to participate.

It was disappointing, if not particularly surprising, that no Republican candidates made it to the event, but the Democratic and Progressive representation was impressive.  

For the House, sitting reps, Kathy Keenan, Cindy Weed and Mike McCarthy were joined by Franklin 5 candidate Bob Irish.  Even the two Democratic senate candidates, Sara Kittell and Bill Roberts were there for the first part of the forum, though they had to leave early to fulfill another commitment.

This was not a setting for stump speeches, but rather an opportunity for the candidates to hear the issues and concerns of veterans, seniors, the disabled and the economically disenfranchised.

Someone asked me if, in the complete void of Republican candidates, the forum had resolved itself into a “love feast.”  I assured them that it had not.

Members of the audience represented the folks in our county with the greatest challenges, and they asked tough questions that reflected the difficulty of their individual situations.

To their credit, all of the candidates listened with respect and provided thoughtful answers.

Most impressive was the engagement of sitting House members, Keenan, McCarthy and Weed.  

They clearly understood the special responsibility each holds for actions of the legislature as a whole.  Soberly and with humility, each rep owned the need for a proactive legislature and outlined not just what had been accomplished in the past, but where opportunities lie in the future.

The strength of their experience and common sense was clearly evident.

It was a mid-week evening, toward the end of a tiring campaign schedule, but these women and men cared enough to make themselves available to the least powerful of their constituents.

Either all of the Republican candidates had better things to do that night or they had no interest in hearing from constituents who have actual…you, know…needs.

I can understand that they might have little to say to these people.  The only answer the GOP ever has is to cut taxes and give big business another helping hand.  

How is that going to pay for a working class mother’s tooth extraction or insulate a working class family’s home?

I proudly serve on the board of the Vermont Conservation Voters which today announced its endorsement of Dean Corren for Lieutenant Governor.

“Dean Corren’s career-long commitment to creatively and aggressively tackling environmental challenges like climate change would bring a refreshing new focus to these issues from the Lieutenant Governor’s office,” said Lauren Hierl, political director for Vermont Conservation Voters.

If Vermont aims to be the vanguard of environmental initiative and innovation, doesn’t it make more sense to have a Lieutenant Governor who actually walks the walk?

“With Corren’s expertise on renewable energy – including his development of new technologies to capture clean energy from natural water flows – he understands that Vermont can position itself to lead on solutions to climate change. These solutions represent a `win-win’ for our planet and our economy,” she said, “and no-one knows that better than Dean Corren.”

Phil Scott may be a “nice guy,” but he’s built his popularity by burning gas (on the race track) rather than conserving it.  

If Corren is elected we may finally be able to answer the perennial question, “but what exactly does the Lieutenant Governor do?”

Fun fact: According to the Center for Disease Control, as of 2005, Texas had the highest  percentage of uninsured residents of any state. That ranking hadn’t changed as of March 2013, when the Texas Legislative Study Group laid out a lot of pretty disturbing statistics about the state.  It’s definitely worth a read.

Ebola couldn’t have found a more accommodating host for its accidental introduction to the U.S.



_____________________________________________________________

For anyone who has ever wondered out loud why we even need a federal government, the current Ebola scare provides a mighty compelling answer.

When all we have to worry about is our financial security, the Feds are “them,” who pick our pockets to finance programs that only benefit other people.   Industries should “self-regulate,” and federal mandates only serve to inhibit growth and prosperity.

The Federal government ought to keep its nose out of everyone’s business.

Then a bridge collapses or a tornado scours Oklahoma and the whole complexion of our relationship with federal government changes.

When things go wrong…when things go very, very wrong…Americans automatically expect protection from on high.

Then, when the dust clears, they assume total amnesia and march obediently to the polls to reelect the blockheads who brought us sequestration and promise that trickle-down economics will somehow miraculously elevate the underprivileged after decades of non-delivery.

It is perhaps the cruel hand of poetic justice that brought the first Ebola patient to be diagnosed in the U.S. to Texas, the most deliberately under-regulated state in the union.

Due to inadequate protocols, not only was he sent home with a 103-degree fever; even after he was finally diagnosed several days later, his family was confined in close quarters with his contaminated linens for four more days!

Now we learn that, again due to protocol failures, one of the patient’s care-givers has been infected.

And how is that “market economy” doing with the job of providing drug treatment for Ebola victims?

Suddenly, the idea of a well-funded and federally coordinated response to the threat of this terrifying disease doesn’t sound like such a bad idea after all.

Suddenly, we want “our” government very much involved in our healthcare.

Vermont is looking at a whole new relationship with Entergy; one in which the town of Vernon will see diminished returns in the way of taxes, and the entire region must rely upon the word of the energy giant that it will live up to its safety and decommissioning commitments despite any temptation to cut and run.

With Entergy anticipating a 40% cutback in staff at VY; all in all, it’s looking more and more like a cup half-empty situation.

That’s why stories about Entergy’s treatment of its workforce in other locations should have significance for us.

A case in point is the company’s Indian Point facility, where one employee whistleblower is suing Entergy for sidelining him after he complained to authorities about security issues.

In his complaint, Clifton “Skip” Travis Jr. alleges that Entergy allowed financial considerations to override good practice in implementing a new perimeter monitoring system without adequate training for staff.

“I understand they’re in business to make money … but my job, my concern, my obligation is to defend that facility against radiological sabotage,” Travis said during an interview Wednesday, frequently repeating his belief that a terrorist attack on the plant is inevitable. “It was never my intention to hurt them. … This is not a vendetta. This is holding them accountable.”

In his lawsuit, Mr. Travis says that the company rushed installation of a new security system in 2011 in order to avoid hefty fines from the NRC, and neglected important training components.  He maintains that subsequent tests of the system under simulated terrorist attack, have resulted in consistent failure.

Apart from frequent system crashes, poor training and operational policy seem to be key issues.

Travis claims that the company encourages security staff to bring laptops so they can watch movies and play video games to keep from falling asleep during their shifts. He said that many staff members routinely remove the batteries from the lights on their weapons so they can use them in their personal electronic equipment and often don’t replace them.

Further details of the lawsuit are equally hair-raising.  Quite apart from the treatment meted out to an employee with the temerity to cry foul is the company’s alleged reluctance at Indian Point to invest in adequate training and personnel.

Once Vermont Yankee has been moth-balled, will the monitoring staff be similarly distracted, undertrained and under-deployed? We’ve already experienced maintenance neglect while the plant was still turning a profit.

In Entergy’s endgame at these geriatric reactor facilities we see the flaw in for-profit operation of nuclear reactors. When they were all shiny and new, accompanied by hefty government incentives and insurance guarantees, operators were already looking every year to improve yield for their shareholders.

Once a tipping point had been reached at which no more efficiencies could be introduced without bending the rules, the NRC became engaged as an accomplice in enabling the continued profitability of aging reactors.

Now, there are some serious failures in the for-profit model, and Entergy Vermont Yankee, still under corporate control, is expected to transition to what is essentially a not-for-profit model, while upholding its safety obligations in the presence of escalating outside menace.

To me, that seems like an unrealistic expectation.  I wish it were not, but fear that it is.

_________________________________________________________________________

I am very proud to be associated with Fairewinds Energy Education in a non-technical capacity.  As always, the opinions I share on Green Mountain Daily are my own alone and not those of Fairewinds.

With hunting season descending upon Vermont’s fields and woodlands,  something new could be added to the mix.

The Dept. of Fish and Wildlife is considering a petition to ban drone assisted hunting.

Petitioners Eric Nuse of Orion, the Hunter’s Institute and Tovar Cerulli of the New England chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers are registering their concern on behalf of the many hunters who feel that introduction of drones would represent an unsportsmanlike use of technology that would harm one of Vermont’s most dearly held traditions.

Montana, Alaska and Colorado have all introduced legislation to ban the practice; all in response to a  2013 YouTube video of a drone-assisted  moose hunt in Norway.

This is not the first potential civilian use of drones to raise public concern.  

In December of 2013, retail giant Amazon announced that it was developing a drone delivery system. While adolescents and hipsters got goosebumps at the very thought, there was a general reaction of alarm at the idea that fleets of flying robots could soon descend on neighborhood streets.

Amazon quickly re-tooled the story to reassure everyone that the concept was still in its infancy and not happening anytime soon.

The latest news on Amazon’s drone program is that they have applied to the FAA for an exemption to the rules that restrict commercial use of drones.  If granted, the exemption will allow Amazon expanded opportunity for research and development.  

A July 14 Forbes article very carefully insists that Amazon’s experimental flight plans are confined to their own “airports” and will not bring the drones into public streets.  There is much made of advancing GPS technology and abort features that reduce the chance of anything going wrong.  

After all, they insist,  hobbyists have been flying radio-controlled model aircraft for years.

That is all well and good for now, but we had that peek into Pandora’s box last December and know what inevitably is in store for us.  Already Amazon is threatening to locate its fledgling drone program overseas if the FAA doesn’t give the company what it is requesting.

If you think stationary wind turbines represent an intolerable threat to flying wildlife, imagine a sky alive with tiny Cuisinart blades, whirling through the air, bobbing and weaving to try and avoid obstacles and one another.  

What could possibly go wrong?

It won’t just be Amazon populating the airspace, either.  Once the elastic is let out of FAA rules and the technology is fully enabled, everyone from Walmart to e-Bay will be on board with their own tiny fleets.

Thanks to the hunters, we may be able to keep them out of the woods in hunting season, but soon that may be the least of our problems.

 

While the U.S. nuclear industry tries blowing sunshine up the skirts of its wary watchers, international members of that beleaguered brotherhood are finding it more and more difficult to make the nuclear argument believable.

Japan has been working overtime, against many experts’ better judgment, to restart its own nuclear program even while the Fukushima nightmare remains unresolved.  The problem is that the Japanese public are not going to be so easily led into believing it is in their best economic interests when there is so much real time evidence to the contrary.

Enter the oldest trick in the nuclear economics book:  allow operators to deflect some of the insurance obligation they normally would be required to absorb.  

The details have not been shared, but apparently the Japanese Diet will be considering a proposal to join an international pool of nuclear operators to spread the risk of loss from any future nuclear disaster:

Under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, contributions from member states will cover part of the damage payments in the event of a nuclear disaster. (U.S.Energy Secretary Ernest) Moniz welcomed Tokyo’s plan, saying Japanese ratification would help the pact come into force, Japanese officials said.

The Price-Anderson Act, passed in 1957 and updated several times since, provides just such a scheme for  U.S. nukes.  It allows operators of nuclear plants to compete unfairly in the market to replace fossil fuel, and keeps true renewables (which must cover their own liabilites unassisted) at an economic disadvantage.

Enacted by Congress many years ago, Price-Anderson limits the industry’s liability from any single accident and spreads the cost throughout the entire U.S. industry, who “share” a common insurance coverage by agreement with the entire insurance industry.

It’s business benefitting business in the great capitalistic embrace.  The only problem is that the American taxpayers get to take up the slack should a Fukushima-scale event ever happen on our soil.

Meanwhile, the success of the nuclear industry under this gerrymandered insurance system has meant that development of true renewables has been held back;  probably to the ultimate economic harm of U.S. interests.

It’s what we do.

When Price-Anderson was implemented, the U.S. nuclear reactor “fleet” was still young and sound.  As the International community considers a similar arrangement, they are in a very different situation.  

Saddled with aging and increasingly unprofitable reactors, the spectre of Fukushima and a growing realization that thousands of tons of nuclear waste has no where to go, it is an industry whose cup is half empty.

Of all nations, France is the largest generator of nuclear energy, which provides a whopping 85% of its electrical power.  The country’s nuclear power authority, EDF, estimates that the cost of necessary repairs and safety improvements in the wake of Fukushima will total $71 billion or more by 2025.

If any of those necessary repairs and safety improvements are delayed or neglected due to declining profitability, in a shared insurance model, everyone’s risk could increase intolerably.

Why would anyone want to buy into that?

While the U.S. nuclear industry tries blowing sunshine up the skirts of its wary watchers, international members of that beleaguered brotherhood are finding it more and more difficult to make the nuclear argument believable.

Japan has been working overtime, against many experts better judgement, to restart its own nuclear program even while the Fukushima nightmare remains unresolved.  The problem is that the Japanese public are not going to be so easily led into believing it is in their best economic interests when there is so much real time evidence to the contrary.

Enter the oldest trick in the nuclear economics book:  allow operators to deflect some of the insurance obligation they normally would be required to absorb.  

The details have not been shared, but apparently the Japanese Diet will be considering a proposal to join an international pool of nuclear operators to spread the risk of loss from any future nuclear disaster:

Under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, contributions from member states will cover part of the damage payments in the event of a nuclear disaster. (U.S.Energy Secretary Ernest) Moniz welcomed Tokyo’s plan, saying Japanese ratification would help the pact come into force, Japanese officials said.

The Price-Anderson Act, passed in 1957 and updated several times since, provides just such a scheme for  U.S. nukes.  It allows operators of nuclear plants to compete unfairly in the market to replace fossil fuel, and keeps true renewables (which must cover their own liabilites unassisted) at an economic disadvantage.

Enacted by Congress many years ago, Price-Anderson limits the industry’s liability from any single accident and spreads the cost throughout the entire U.S. industry, who “share” a common insurance coverage by agreement with the entire insurance industry.

It’s business benefitting business in the great capitalistic embrace.  The only problem is that the American taxpayers get to take up the slack should a Fukushima-scale event ever happen on our soil.

Meanwhile, the success of the nuclear industry under this gerrymandered insurance system has meant that development of true renewables has been held back;  probably to the ultimate economic harm of U.S. interests.

It’s what we do.

When Price-Anderson was implemented, the U.S. nuclear reactor “fleet” was still young and sound.  As the International community considers a similar arrangement, they are in a very different situation.  

Saddled with aging and increasingly unprofitable reactors, the spectre of Fukushima and a growing realization that thousands of tons of nuclear waste has no where to go, it is an industry whose cup is half empty.

Of all nations, France is the largest generator of nuclear energy, which provides a whopping 85% of its electrical power.  The country’s nuclear power authority, EDF, estimates that the cost of necessary repairs and safety improvements in the wake of Fukushima will total $71 billion or more by 2025.

If any of those necessary repairs and safety improvements are delayed or neglected due to declining profitability, in a shared insurance model, everyone’s risk could increase intolerably.

Why would anyone want to buy into that?

While the U.S. nuclear industry tries blowing sunshine up the skirts of its wary watchers, international members of that beleaguered brotherhood are finding it more and more difficult to make the nuclear argument believable.

Japan has been working overtime, against many experts better judgement, to restart its own nuclear program even while the Fukushima nightmare remains unresolved.  The problem is that the Japanese public are not going to be so easily led into believing it is in their best economic interests when there is so much real time evidence to the contrary.

Enter the oldest trick in the nuclear economics book:  allow operators to deflect some of the insurance obligation they normally would be required to absorb.  

The details have not been shared, but apparently the Japanese Diet will be considering a proposal to join an international pool of nuclear operators to spread the risk of loss from any future nuclear disaster:

Under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, contributions from member states will cover part of the damage payments in the event of a nuclear disaster. (U.S.Energy Secretary Ernest) Moniz welcomed Tokyo’s plan, saying Japanese ratification would help the pact come into force, Japanese officials said.

The Price-Anderson Act, passed in 1957 and updated several times since, provides just such a scheme for  U.S. nukes.  It allows operators of nuclear plants to compete unfairly in the market to replace fossil fuel, and keeps true renewables (which must cover their own liabilites unassisted) at an economic disadvantage.

Enacted by Congress many years ago, Price-Anderson limits the industry’s liability from any single accident and spreads the cost throughout the entire U.S. industry, who “share” a common insurance coverage by agreement with the entire insurance industry.

It’s business benefitting business in the great capitalistic embrace.  The only problem is that the American taxpayers get to take up the slack should a Fukushima-scale event ever happen on our soil.

Meanwhile, the success of the nuclear industry under this gerrymandered insurance system has meant that development of true renewables has been held back;  probably to the ultimate economic harm of U.S. interests.

It’s what we do.

When Price-Anderson was implemented, the U.S. nuclear reactor “fleet” was still young and sound.  As the International community considers a similar arrangement, they are in a very different situation.  

Saddled with aging and increasingly unprofitable reactors, the spectre of Fukushima and a growing realization that thousands of tons of nuclear waste has no where to go, it is an industry whose cup is half empty.

Of all nations, France is the largest generator of nuclear energy, which provides a whopping 85% of its electrical power.  The country’s nuclear power authority, EDF, estimates that the cost of necessary repairs and safety improvements in the wake of Fukushima will total $71 billion or more by 2025.

If any of those necessary repairs and safety improvements are delayed or neglected due to declining profitability, in a shared insurance model, everyone’s risk could increase intolerably.

Why would anyone want to buy into that?