Sustainable Loudoun Blog

Life in Post-Lightbulb efficiency standard America

2012-02-26T09:05:00.001-08:00

Today for the first time in 2012, I bought a new light bulb. Now, this may not seem significant, but it is the first time I had to select a bulb without the option of the standard 100W incandescent, which are no longer sold because they don't meet the minimum efficiency standards of the 2007 light bulb law. There has been some political posturing about this law and government interference in the free market. There have been some dubious 'facts' and scare tactics in the media as well (see: Right-Wing Media Continue To Mislead On Nonexistent Light Bulb "Ban") so I thought I would relate how it affected my life as a light bulb consumer today.

In this particular case, I was looking for a bulb for my laundry room, which has been lit by two 100W incandescent bulbs in simple 'bare bulb' fixtures on the ceiling. They are controlled by a motion sensor which I installed a few years ago, and which is only compatible with incandescent style bulbs. This limits the 'on time' to only when someone is in the room, and provides hands-free operation which is nice when you are carrying baskets full of clothes. Because of this, CFL bulbs were not an option. I also don't recommend them for applications where they are on only briefly, due to warm up time issues. Basically, you are finished with the laundry task by the time the bulb fully warms up. CFL lifetime is also known to be shortened by repeated on-off cycles. CFL's also contain a tiny bit of mercury which bothers some people, as it can be released if the bulb breaks. It also means you have to recycle CFL bulbs, which means taking them to Home Depot or other retailers that support recycling.

This left LED or halogen. LED bulbs are wonderful devices, I highly recommend them for uses such as recessed lighting in areas like kitchens which are used a lot. However in this case the 'on time' is so brief that an LED would probably take longer than my expected life time to pay back its cost. Also Giant doesn't stock a lot of LED bulbs yet. So I chose a 72W halogen bulb by Sylvania. These are also "Made in USA" according to the package, which appeals to me. Halogens have no mercury or special disposal requirements.

I replaced both bulbs with the 72W bulbs and can't tell any difference in the lighting, although according to the package they produce slightly less light (1490 vs 1690 lumens). The halogen bulbs do cost more than the old style bulbs, $2.50 each vs. $0.50 for the old bulbs. But since they use 28W less power, will they pay back that up front cost? Here are the calculations for total lifetime bulb cost for my laundry room:

First up, incandescent.
Incandescent: $0.50 cost per bulb with a 750 hr lifetime.
So for 1000 hrs of on-time I need to buy (1000/750)*2 = 2.66 bulbs
Bulb cost: 2.66 * $0.50 = $1.33
Electricity cost: My power costs roughly $0.12 per KWh
Power used over 1000 hr lifetime: 100W * 1000hrs * 2 bulbs = 200,000 watt/hrs = 200KWh
Lifetime power cost: 200 * $0.12 = $24

Total lifetime costs for incandescent bulbs: $1.33 + $24 = $25.33

Now let's see how well the 'more expensive' halogen bulbs do:
Halogen: $2.50 cost per bulb with a 1000 lifetime
So for 1000 hrs of on-time I need to buy (1000/1000)*2 = 2 bulbs
Bulb cost: 2 * $2.50 = $5.00 (uh oh, looks higher)
Electricity cost: As previously stated, $0.12 per KWh
Power used over 1000 hr lifetime: 72W * 1000hrs * 2 bulbs = 144,000 watt/hrs = 144KWh
Lifetime power cost: 144 * $0.12 = $17.28

Total lifetime costs for halogen bulbs: $5.00 + $17.28 = $22.28

So, halogen comes out slightly less ($3.05) in total lifetime costs! Okay, so this is not going to change my life in any appreciable way, but that is kind of the idea behind the law. I get the same light for less money. The real value is considering things like if we replaced all incandescent bulbs the country could save $18 billion per year and reduce power usage by the equivalent of 80 coal plants. I fully expect that by the time these halogen bulbs burn out LED bulbs will be cheap enough to make sense as a replacement.

So don't fret but embrace your new choices in lighting options, and enjoy all the money you'll be saving!

Tis the season - for new LED lightbulbs!

2011-12-26T08:45:00.000-08:00

Today is the day to use those gift cards you got to help save yourself some money and the planet too. Based on this morning's trip to Home Depot, I have updated my lifetime cost calculations for LED/CFL/Incandescent bulbs. The chart is based on recessed lights, 65-75W equivalent R-30 bulbs, 5 yrs use per day, $.12 kWh electricity price. These lights are very common in the houses in my neighborhood. The LED bulbs are down to $30 each, so get our there and replace those old bulbs!

On a related note, 40w equivalent LED bulbs in A-19 (standard bulb shape) are selling for only $10 a piece. This is a great deal - I got 5 of these today for a dimmable fixture and they work great! Anyone care to work the payback numbers for those? Please leave a comment if you do!


Total Lifetime costs of light bulbs

New report from Dr. Janette Sherman, MD

2011-12-22T16:41:00.000-08:00

PRESS RELEASE - Janette D. Sherman, MD
12-19-2011

This report, "An Unexpected Mortality Increase in the United States Follows Arrival of the Radioactive Plume from Fukushima: Is There a Correlation?" published in the Internat. J. of Health Sciences today, is not new science, but confirms research done over the decades as to adverse effects caused by radioisotopes to the unborn and the very young because of their rapidly developing cells, immature immunological systems and relatively small weight.

As background, in the 1950s, I worked for the Atomic Energy Commission (the forerunner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) at the Radiation Laboratory, University of California in Berkeley and the US Navy Radiation Laboratory at Hunter's Point in San Francisco. Near 60 years ago, we learned that radiation could damage animals and plants and cause cancer, genetic damage, and other problems.

The issue of the danger from nuclear power plants is not just the engineering, but biology and chemistry. We have understood for decades where and how radioisotopes interact with life systems.

Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 have half-lives of approx 30 years. It takes 10 half-lives for an isotope to fully decay, thus it will take 300 years or Three Centuries before radioactive cesium and strontium will be gone. Cs134, Cs-137 and Sr-90 continue to be released from Fukushima in tons of contaminated water that is making its' way across the Pacific Ocean. Cesium concentrates in soft tissue, strontium in bones and teeth, of the unborn and young.

Immediately after Chernobyl the level of thyroid disease increased. Given the large amounts of radioactive iodine (I-131) released from Fukushima, thyroid disease will develop in those exposed in Japan, as well as in those exposed to lesser amounts throughout the northern hemisphere. Public health officials need to anticipate and prepare for these findings.

The highest levels of I-131 measured by EPA in precipitation varied from a high of 390 pico Curies (pCi) in Boise to 92 in Boston, with intermediate levels in Kansas City, Salt Lake City, Jacksonville and Olympia, WA. (Normal is @ 2 pCi)

Not every system was evaluated after Chernobyl, but of those that were: wild and domestic animals, birds, fish, plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses - even humans - were altered by the radiation, often for generations. Birds in the 30-kilometer "exclusion zone" of Chernobyl display small brain size, alterations of normal coloration, poor survival of offspring, and poor adaptability to stress,

Recent, independent studies conducted in Scandinavia shows a decline on academic performance in children exposed during the Chernobyl fallout. 80% of children in Belarus are considered un-well by government standards.

Unless the earth stops tuning, and the laws of biology, chemistry and physics are rescinded, we will continue to see sickness and harm spread to the children of Fukushima, the same that occurred after Chernobyl. We ignore history at our peril.

More information available at:
www.janettesherman.com
www.radiation.org

Good videos on sustainability

2011-12-11T10:30:00.001-08:00

Recently I have watched a couple of good videos explaining some of what is going on in the world in relation to energy, economics, environment and sustainability in general.

If you have limited time, this video by Tom Murphy is only 23 minutes but provides a very good explanation of why continued exponential growth is simply impossible:

http://fora.tv/2011/10/26/Growth_Has_an_Expiration_Date

Tom Murphy is an associate professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego and he also blogs about sustainability issues at: Do The Math. Here you can read more of Tom's analysis which is backed up by his knowledge of physics and his calculations based on actual physics formulas and real data.

For a much longer but still very good video to watch (it's around 3 hrs but comes in 19 parts), I recommend the "Crash Course" by Chris Martenson. Chris is a gentleman who has a PhD in neurotoxicology, an MBA in Finance and has studied in great detail some of the current economic, environmental and energy issues the world is facing today.

This video is available from his website (Chris Martenson dot com), or Sustainable Loudoun has a DVD copy. Chris also allows people to make copies of his DVD, please contact me if you would like a copy of your own.

These examples are just two of many resources available to learn about this unique time in history that we live in. If anyone has more examples they would like to share, please reply or comment on this post and I will update it with more resources.

Note: Myself or Sustainable Loudoun are not associated with either of the above mentioned individuals, I just think they have made some very informative presentations.

Uranium mining forum Friday Nov 11 @6pm GW Univ, Ashburn

2011-11-08T16:36:00.000-08:00

On Friday, November 11th 2011, Sustainable Loudoun and Piedmont Environmental Council are hosting a free educational forum: “Uranium Mining in Virginia: Should We End the Moratorium?” at the George Washington University Ashburn Campus, 20101 Academic Way, Ashburn VA.

Doors will open at 6 pm and the speaker program begins at 7 pm. Light refreshments will be provided. Speakers will provide information on a number of aspects regarding uranium mining and nuclear power.

The featured speakers are:

Tony Noerpel - Sustainable Loudoun: Long-term viability of nuclear energy - supply, safety,
complexity, waste and cost.
Rob Marmet - Piedmont Environmental Council: Legal aspects of Virginia’s moratorium & impact of surface mining.
Linda Pentz Gunter - Beyond Nuclear: Uranium mining: health and environmental impacts.
Janette Sherman, M.D. - Health effects of nuclear power and Uranium mining.
Will Stewart - Sustainable Loudoun: Alternatives to nuclear power, and cost comparisons.

The event will be held at George Washington University – Virginia Campus: 20101 Academic Way, Ashburn, Virginia on Friday November 11th, 2011 at 6 pm.

Food provided by Harris Teeter.
Local businesses will be available to help you go green(er).

NOVACAN, Reston Nov. 12, 2011

2011-10-25T17:23:00.000-07:00

Dear friends of NOVACAN,

This is a critical year for Virginia's environment and those who want to protect it. Experts from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Virginia Conservation Network and others will describe air, water and climate problems facing Virginia and what actions the General Assembly and Congress need to take. Join us and the Virginia Conservation Network to learn what we can do to impact state legislation.

Protecting Virginia – the Fight for Clean Air and Water

Hear experts address Virginia air and water quality issues
Learn about barriers and solutions
Develop strategies to influence state legislation in 2012

When: November 12, 1:00 p.m-4:30 p.m.
Where: National Wildlife Federation, 11100 Wildlife Center Drive in Reston, VA 20190
Free
Register today at www.bit.ly/ProtectingVirginia
Check www.novacan.org for updates.
This event is sponsored by NOVACAN, the Northern Virginia Climate Action Network, a coalition of ten organizations representing over 25,000 people, and the Virginia Conservation Network.
NOVACAN partners are Greater Washington Interfaith Power & Light, Audubon Society of Northern Virginia, Sierra Club Great Falls and Mt. Vernon Groups, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Prince William Conservation Alliance, Sustainable Loudoun, Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment, Friends of Potomac River Refuges, Audubon Naturalist Society, and Friends of Dyke Marsh.
Northern Virginia Climate Action Networkwww.novacan.org
VirginiaClimateAction@gmail.com

Uranium Mining in Virginia

2011-10-14T15:07:00.000-07:00

By Tony Noerpel

On November 11, 2011, Friday evening starting at 6:00 PM, at George Washington University, Ashburn Campus off of Route 7, the Piedmont Environmental Council, George Washington University and Sustainable Loudoun are hosting a discussion forum on uranium mining in Virginia. A longer version of this article will be published by the Blue Ridge Leader.

In 1982, the Virginia state legislature passed what amounts to an effective moratorium on uranium mining in the state. Virginia Uranium is lobbying to have this moratorium lifted so that they can surface mine the uranium deposit at Coles Hill, in Pittsylvania County. The accompanying figure from the Piedmont Environmental Council, shows potential uranium resources in our area. The map is based on data published by the United States Geological Survey in 1998 which is a geochemical analysis of stream sediment and other solid samples. Note that there is a large blotch of red in Western Loudoun County under many of our homes and farms.

While nuclear power has several serious problems associated with cost, safety and waste the most obvious problem, and the one most relevant to the issue at hand, is the future supply of uranium. If there is not a huge reliable supply then nuclear power is not the solution to our energy problems. If the supply is very limited then it is not even a small part of the solution space. If humanity commits itself to nuclear power and the supply is limited then uranium mining may be extended beyond the proposed Coles Hill site into other parts of the state.

Virginia Uranium publishes the following exchange on their web site, under the heading “Myth and Fact”:

The Piedmont Environmental Council has circulated a map of Virginia entitled “Water supplies potentially impacted by uranium mining” that includes Fairfax, Town of Orange, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania, as well as Halifax, Clarksville and Mecklenburg. – Piedmont Environmental Council website, February 21, 2011

These water supplies are not threatened by Coles Hill or any other uranium deposit. As state regulators have testified, Coles Hill is the only deposit in Virginia worth mining. “With the exception of Coles Hill, none of the occurrences identified to date are presently considered economic deposits due to low grade and/or limited extent.” – William L. Lassetter, Jr., Economic Geology Manager, Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Division of Geology and Mineral Resources.

Virginia Uranium does not deny that mining Coles Hill threatens the water supply in Pittsylvania County and the quote from William Lassetter does not address the impact of uranium mining on local water supply. In a phone call, Lassetter assured me he has no opinion on the impact of mining on water supply. Lassetter’s use of the word presently specifically does not preclude uranium mining anywhere else in the state. Oil from Canadian tar sands deposits was considered uneconomical until shortages developed and prices rose.

This limits consideration to what the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) classifies as Reasonably Assured Resources or RAR uranium deposits, according to the IAEA and NEA Red Book. The Red Book is the most credible source for uranium deposit data and is cited by proponents and opponents of nuclear energy alike.

Uranium resources are described by four classes: Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR), Inferred Resources (IR), Speculative Resources (SR) and Prognosticated Resources (PR). IR, SR and PR are specifically “undiscovered”. Of the three classes IR have the highest probability and are “not yet discovered but believed to exist”. The table below lists the amount of uranium in metric kilo tonnes. Worldwide, we consume 70000 tonnes per year in our reactors. Using only RAR we have only 57 years worth of uranium supply at the current consumption rate and assuming we can recover 100% of the uranium in the ore. If we assume a 58% recovery rate (European historic) and assume nuclear power grows by 2% per year then we will run out of RAR within 23 years. Clearly we have considerable supply problems if we try to grow nuclear power much beyond the current level of consumption.


Class	2009 resources
RAR	4004000
IR	1879000
UPR	2815000
USR	6559000
Total	15257000

Table 1 - Resources per class in metric tons

When you read that we have over 200 years worth of uranium the writer is including all of the undiscovered speculative and prognosticated resources and assuming no growth and 100% recovery of “undiscovered” resources.

References:

http://www.virginiauranium.com/

http://www.pecva.org/anx/ass/library/19/potential-uranium-in-va.pdf

http://www.virginiauranium.com/pdf/VUI%20Myth%20Fact%20Flier%20Insert.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/RawMaterials/RTC-Ghana-2010/5.RedBook.pdf

Michael Dittmar, “The End of Cheap Uranium”, Institute of Particle Physics, ETH, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland, June 17, 2011 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.3617v2.pdf

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

2011-09-24T12:23:00.000-07:00

Uranium Mining in Virginia:

Should we end the moratorium?

An educational forum hosted by Sustainable Loudoun

and the Piedmont Environmental Council

at George Washington University’s Loudoun Campus

Friday, November 11th, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.

For 30 years Virginia has had a statewide moratorium on uranium mining. Now, a company called “Virginia Uranium” has asked the general assembly to lift the moratorium so they can begin mining operations in Pittsylvania County.

The state of Virginia Coal and Energy Commission (VCEC) has commissioned a study by the National Academies of Science to assist Virginia to determine whether uranium mining can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands and the health and well-being of its citizens. In addition, the VCEC commissioned a socioeconomic study on the impacts of uranium mining. Both studies are scheduled for completion prior to the 2012 General Assembly session.

Recent catastrophes such as the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the recent earthquake in Mineral and the recent record torrential rains from tropical storms Irene and Lee serve as reminders that we must consider many factors when deciding whether to permit potentially risky industries to operate within our state.

Sustainable Loudoun believes that all citizens of Virginia should have the opportunity to learn the facts not only about the safety of this uranium mine, but about nuclear power in general as a long term energy source and alternatives to it. Toward this end, we are hosting an educational forum on the topic of uranium mining in Virginia at George Washington University’s Loudoun campus on Friday, November 11th at 7:00 pm.

Speakers will include:

Tony Noerpel (Sustainable Loudoun)

The long term viability of nuclear energy given:

World total uranium reserves

Nuclear construction costs and subsidies
Potential for catastrophic failures
Lack of long term nuclear waste solutions
Complexity of the uranium mining, processing, enriching supply chain
Countries which are moving beyond nuclear

Janette Sherman, MD

Fukushima and Chernobyl: Health impacts

Rob Marmet (Piedmont Environmental Council)

Legal aspects of the moratorium
What is at stake.
Impact of surface mining on water supply and agriculture

Virginia Uranium or Nuclear Energy Institute spokesperson (TBD)

Uranium mining safety measures and economic benefits.

Will Stewart (Sustainable Loudoun)

Alternatives to nuclear
Cost comparison: Nuclear, wind, solar power

The speakers will be followed by a question and answer session with the panelists.

Offshore wind development will create more jobs in VA than uranium mining and coal combined

2011-09-13T18:06:00.000-07:00

When it comes to energy policy, governor McDonnell says he favors an 'all of the above' approach. That sounds fair and kind of OK if you don't think about it too much. But think about it. Do you do an 'all of the above' strategy in your own life? How about your investments - do you just buy a little of everything? No, hopefully you do some research or have a good financial adviser to tell you where to invest your limited funds to give you the risk/return balance that is best for you. Generally, you'll invest in companies that are growing, not shrinking.

Now which of these would you invest in: an industry that could add 10,000 jobs, a industry that could add 350 jobs, or an industry that is forecast to continue losing jobs? Would you just do 'all of the above'? Would you just invest in the industry that is shrinking? I wouldn't and I don't think my VA tax dollars should either.

If you find yourself in a political conversation, try bringing up the uranium mining ban and be sure to mention the following facts:

Offshore wind development is estimated to create 10,000 construction and 5,000 permanent jobs in VA.

The proposed uranium mine? 350 and 325 jobs respectively.

There are only 4,394 coal miners left in VA , a number that has dropped more than 50% since 1993.
So why are we subsidizing coal to the tune of $44.5 million dollars instead of wind? (That's over $10,000 per miner folks) A better use of that money might be to pay for free job training for coal miners to work in the offshore wind industry - heck it could probably pay for relocation as well if necessary. Just a thought.

Is there sufficient market to sustain planned mixed-used developments in Loudoun?

2011-08-05T18:45:00.000-07:00

Today's guest post is from Gem Bingol of the Piedmont Environmental Council.

Is there a sufficient market to sustain One Loudoun? Or for that matter, I’ll add—is there sufficient market to sustain the many mixed-use projects approved and under consideration?

First, a little background:
As residential development was revealed to be extremely costly to the county and taxpayers in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, and the notion of smart growth became increasingly popular, we at PEC noted a significant shift in the type of developer proposals that started coming into the County (aside from the unsuccessful Greenvest-led developer proposals to change the Transition Area from low density/rural-in-nature-transition area to suburban/mostly residential).

Mixed use developments, dubbed “town centers” were what developers touted as their response to the smart growth movement. And generally, it is true that mixed use developments offer somewhat more walkability within the confines of the parcel being developed, although at the acreage and scale of many of these projects, they are often spread over too large a distance to be truly walkable (understood to be generally ¼ mile to ½ mile in distance) from end to end. Without a planned transit component to tie them to the rest of the community, however, they function the same as any other development where people get into their cars to meet their needs.

With each project the developer has asserted that the residential component of these mixed use developments is needed to draw the office users and make them successful commercial projects. But the number and location of mixed use developments that have been approved in Loudoun is a major concern regarding viability. One Loudoun is only one of many mixed-use developments that Boards of Supervisors have approved over the past several years:

Rt 7 & Rt 28 intersection:
·         Dulles Town Center (latest section is town-center style development) (unbuilt) (Bus transit station planned)
·         Kincora (unbuilt) (Shuttle to metro proffered at some point during the development)
Rt 28 & Greenway (Rt 267):
·         Dulles World (approx 6 miles south of Dulles Town Center & Kincora and within 1 mile of the planned metro stop at Rt 606)
Rt 7 & Loudoun Cty Pkwy (Rt 772):
·         One Loudoun (within 3 miles of Dulles Town Center & Kincora)—no transit planned to serve it
Loudoun Cty Pkwy (Rt 772) & Greenway (Rt 267):
·         Moorefield Station--north side of proposed metro stop, within ¼ mile range
·         Loudoun Station--south side of proposed metro stop—within ¼ mile range approx. 5 miles away from One Loudoun to the north and 5 miles to Arcola Center to the south
Rt 50 and Loudoun Cty Pkwy (Rt 772)
·         Arcola Center—approx. 5 miles south of Moorefield Station and Loudoun Station with no nearby transit planned
Rt 50 & Tall Cedars Pkwy
·         Fox Gate—small residential component with 1 million + sq.ft. of commercial – approx 3 miles east of Arcola Center (shuttle proferred to Metro)
Rt 7 and Belmont Ridge Rd
·         Lansdowne Town Center—approx 3 miles to the west of One Loudoun—may be on the commuter bus route for West Falls Church, not sure
Rt. 7 & River Creek Pkwy
·         Village at Leesburg—approx 1 mile to the east of Lansdowne Town Center—in the Town of Leesburg, it may be on the 7-7on 7 bus route.
And there’s more in the pipeline for consideration…
Loudoun Cty Pkwy (Rt 772)
·         Loudoun Center—approximately 1 mile or so to the proposed metro station at Rt 772
·         Loudoun Metro—approximately ½ mile to the proposed metro station at Rt 772.

Both are proposed on parcels that have approved but unbuilt keynote office parks —with no residential component.

My answer is that there is not sufficient market to support One Loudoun or most of the other approved and pending mixed-use developments and there won’t be in any near-term time horizon.

Here is why:
Loudoun’s commercial market cannot sustain all of the development potential in suburban Loudoun, whether mixed-use, keynote employment-style office parks or flex/industrial. The further out you go from D.C., the more land there is to develop and it cannot all compete successfully. Loudoun currently has 39.3 million sq. ft. of approved and unbuilt office and flex industrial space. The current vacancy rates are 16% for office, 14% for flex and 12% for industrial (source-Jan 2011 Economic Indicators monthly report by Loudoun County Dept. of Economic Development) It’s not the style of development so much as our location on the outside edge of the Washington metropolitan region which determines our commercial real estate market.
It takes years for just one of these mixed use developments to build out and become revenue positive. Reston Town Center is an example of the 20 year + timeframe involved. With as many mixed-use developments so close to each other as we have in Loudoun, just like in the traditional commercial market, they will all have to compete with similar developments for their business users.

Location is still the prime draw for real estate. For businesses that do choose to locate in Loudoun and want a mixed use site, transit accessibility will probably be a key factor in picking a location. Internal walkability might contribute to the attractiveness of the site, but the ability to get there without a vehicle would provide an important difference. That gives Moorefield Station and Loudoun Station a real edge because businesses that locate there can draw internal residents, commuters from outside the county and other Loudoun residents with the least additional vehicle miles sooner than other mixed use developments. For employees in the future, alternative modes of travel will be increasingly important as congestion worsens and gas prices go up. Since Dulles Town Center has already seen substantial development and has plans for a bus transit center, it still has potential to develop effectively.

In a separate post I’ll make the case for why residents and taxpayers should beware of the potential fall-out of so many mixed use developments scattered across the suburban area, or elsewhere in Loudoun.

Gem Bingol
Loudoun & Clarke Field Officer
Piedmont Environmental Council

Does Glenn Beck understand "Peak Oil"?

2011-07-30T18:09:00.000-07:00

I just read this interesting article http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-07-30/crashing-bus-why-we-should-watch-tea-party which makes the case that the Tea Party at some level understands that continued growth is becoming a problem, and that is why they want to gut the federal government. Now I think they want to cut all the wrong things, but fundamentally if growth is slowing then we will have to cut back our expectations of what the government can do as well. The standard 'liberal' response - Keynesian stimulus to get growth to return is probably not going to help much this time.

The other evidence I offer up is on page 94 of Glenn Beck's book "An Inconvenient Book". Glenn Beck has been loosely associated with the Tea Party movement although I don't know if he officially considers himself a member. I don't normally watch Mr. Beck or read or buy his books, but this one was left in my house recently. Now this book which was copyright in 2007 has a worthless chapter on climate change. However, on page 94 the book states:

"It may not be a widely advertised fact, but US oil production peaked way back in 1970. Now attention has shifted to another, more important peak: the global one. Even the most optimistic among us believe that peak will happen within the next 25 years. Many of the, let's call them "less optimistic" people, believe it will happen within the next five years. Some even believe that it's already happened."

So Beck (or at least his ghostwriter) understands the Peak Oil problem and did in 2007 - way before I had ever heard of it. The whole chapter is about peak oil, and does a credible job of explaining it, even showing a Hubbert Peak graph, talks about the lack of available substitutes, the problems with ethanol, etc. He even says Jimmy Carter had the right idea way back in the 70's! I was astonished to see this in a "Tea Party" book. Now his proposed short-term solution is horrific - a crash 'coal to liquids' program which would effectively kill the planet via global warming, but Mr. Beck denies that particular problem.

The question is, can an understanding of peak oil be used in some way to forge a common ground between sustainability advocates and 'tea partiers' ? A lot of what we advocate is just good old frugalism, resilience, do-it-yourself kind of stuff which should have great appeal to the tea party as I understand it. If common ground can be found, might some be willing to listen to reason on other issues like climate change, sustainable living, etc. and not just think its all a giant UN plot to foist socialism on us?

Economics

2011-07-18T06:01:00.000-07:00

By Tony Noerpel

“Economics may make our recessions deeper, longer and more intractable, when the public is entitled to expect economics to have precisely the opposite effect.” Steve Keen, Debunking Economics [1].
Viewed from outside the economics discipline has three salient characteristics. First economics does not take into account energy flow through society. Second, after three centuries economics has not developed a single universally accepted theory within the discipline. Third economics cannot make successful predictions nor give useful advice. It would be difficult to claim economics is a science.
As to my first complaint, there have been several economists who have recognized the importance of energy flow within an economy including notably Frederick Soddy [2], Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen [3], Robert Costanza [4] and Herman Daly [5] and at least two schools of economic thought have evolved which concede the importance of entropy: ecological economics and biophysical economics. To be precise, the economy runs on exosomatic energy and is ultimately limited by low entropy sources as well as high entropy wastes. Economic schools which ignore energy flow (most of them apparently) cannot possibly be useful. Ecologists, anthropologists, climate physicists and scientists and engineers in other disciplines recognize that complex systems are chaotic, dynamic and non-linear. The human economy is a complex system. It cannot be modeled as a static linear system simply because that’s what economists know how to do.
The failure of modern economics is not limited to the resource side of the human economy but is evident on the output or waste side as well. Anthropologists such as Jared Diamond [6], William Catton [7] and Joseph Tainter [8] recognize the importance of the accumulation of high entropy waste as destructive to economies and society. Most economic schools turn a blind eye towards the profound environmental costs associated with unregulated free markets.
As to my second observation, there are not a plethora of diverse schools of physicists. There is not a school of physics which rejects Newtonian Mechanics or believe that gravity is repulsive or that things fall up. There are no biologists who doubt Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Your computer and your smart phone work because engineers universally accept Quantum Mechanics and Maxwell’s Equations, and these theories turn out to be exceptionally good models which we can use to predict how the real world works. Nothing of the sort exists in economics. Friedman has his followers, Marx his, Schumpeter his, and Keynes his and so on who apparently squabble amongst themselves while never understanding the big picture. This does not mean that there are not fundamental truths which might be applied to the human economy, just that economists as a group have not discovered them. Economics as a discipline has degenerated into collection of ideologies far outside the influence of the scientific method.
The most pervasive, notorious and destructive school of economics in the United States today is the extreme free-market school of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. In fact, the Ayn Randian economist Alan Greenspan was forced to concede “I made a mistake.” in testimony before Congress, October 23, 2008. The Wall Street Journal article continues: “In his prepared remarks to the committee, Mr Greenspan said he was in “a state of shocked disbelief” about the breakdown in the ability of banks to regulate themselves.” Skeptics were not shocked.
Before there is a misunderstanding, my targets are ideologies. Communist central planning and unregulated capitalism to a skeptical thinker are different variations of the same thing. To criticize the deficiencies of one is not to praise the other. It is possible to recognize the limitations of both of these extreme opinions. Specifically, the United States today does not have a problem with too many liberal ideologues nor is it in danger of falling into the hands of communists hordes. We are overrun with conservative ideologues. They are worse than stink bugs.
Regards my third observation, the exception which proves the rule is Nouriel Roubini’s forecast on September 7, 2006 of the recent economic collapse while addressing an International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington D. C. [9]. He predicted that the nation’s economy would soon suffer “a housing bust, a brutal oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence and an inevitable deep recession.” His speech was greeted by economists with shocked disbelief. Had he given the same talk even several years earlier to a gathering of the peak oil community (biophysical economists, scientists and engineers who all understand entropy), it would have been unremarkable except for the rich detail he provided. What puzzles me is not Roubini’s prediction which in my view was robust but the reaction of the economic community to this bit of reality revelation. Robert Shiller also accurately predicted the housing bubble [10] but by contrast the neo-classical economists Margaret and Gary Smith estimated that housing was cheap in 2006, just before the collapse [11]. Neo-classical economists of the Friedman/Rand ilk are shackled to their absurd ideology.
More revealing perhaps is John McCain’s economic advisor, economist and former senator Phil Gramm’s remarks in an interview with the Washington Times, July 9, 2008 “You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession …We have sort of become a nation of whiners” The recession officially began in the fourth quarter 2007. Not only cannot neo-classical economists make reliable forecasts, they cannot predict events which have already happened.
The economist Steve Keen writes, “economics would have us believe that it is a science, fully able to stand tall beside the more conventional physical sciences and mathematics…you may be inclined to doubt that belief.…The position I favor is that economics is a science, but a rather pathological one. I am particularly critical of what has occurred since 1950, but I still hold out hope of better behavior in the future.”
“But before better behavior can take widespread root, economics will have to wean itself from a methodological myth. This is the proposition first put forward by Milton Friedman that a theory cannot be judged by its assumptions but only by the accuracy of its predictions.”
This methodological myth is called the F-twist in Friedman’s honor. He first articulated this remarkable bit of logic in a 1953 paper when confronted with the fact that his assumptions underpinning his economic theories were wrong. In Standard English the F-twist logic is that it does not matter if one’s assumptions are invalid (which fact Freidman readily conceded) so long as one ends up with the correct result. How one is supposed to know that one’s results are correct when the assumptions are clearly wrong is left as an exercise for the skeptic. Free-market economists don’t ask questions.
Keen describes a battle that took place in the 50’s and 60’s between the economic heretics of Cambridge University and the economic true believers led by Paul Samuelson of MIT. Keen writes “Summing up the conflict in 1966, Paul Samuelson observed that the heretics ‘merit our gratitude’ for pointing out that the simple homilies of economic theory are not in general true.”
Keen quotes Samuelson: “If all this causes headaches for those nostalgic for the old time parables of neoclassical writing, we must remind ourselves that scholars are not born to live an easy existence, We must respect, and appraise, the facts of life.”
Keen’s book is well worth the read. With regard to my first complaint that economics ignores energy flow, Keen writes in his introduction that his aim is to debunk the discipline using economic arguments themselves and so prove that it is internally inconsistent. This he does masterfully. He does acknowledge in a footnote that any evolution of economics towards assimilating reality has to account for environmental degradation. I asked Keen privately why he excluded ecological economics from his list of alternative economic theories and he replied: “I was limited by space to comparing only the larger schools of thought in economics, and unfortunately ecological economics is still small compared to Post Keynesian, Austrian, etc.” And indeed he does cite several papers by Costanza, a biophysical economist. Keen is preparing a second edition to be published this fall.
During the 1970’s the biophysicist Carl Woese, discovered that what biologists once thought of as one domain of life, bacteria, was in fact two distinct domains of life, bacteria and archaea, while studying their RNA. This raised the hackles of biologists and taxonomists initially, but because he had the data, the biologists in short order got over the angst of being scooped by an outsider and now fully embrace Woese’s new tree of life. It took maybe a decade. During the same time period, the four authors of Limits to Growth, Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and William Behrens, systems analysts, scooped economists by applying dynamic modeling to economics. Economists reacted with vitriolic, nauseating and irrational jealousy and not just initially but to this day. If economics were a real science, they’d have capitulated within a decade just like the biologists. Instead, the economists’ assault was so effective, that even today, whenever I mention the Limits to Growth, I’m informed that the reason the Meadows et al got it wrong was that they didn’t take economics into account and ignored price signals, substitution and the law of supply and demand and so on. I’m amused. They got it right and specifically because they did ignore economics. And there is no substitution for low entropy.
One might better ask why a genius of the caliber of Friedman got it wrong. In The Believing Brain [12], the psychologist Michael Shermer writes “smart people believe weird things because they are skilled as defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons.” Keen explains that undergraduate economics text books are so bad that critical and skeptical thinkers are systematically weeded out by Econ 101. Only ideologues survive into graduate studies in economics. My own personal experience is with the neo-classical economist Gregory Mankiw’s unreliable and unverifiable text book [13]. This is the only text book I’ve seen which has no references. It is simply shoddy propaganda.
Unfortunately, for all of us, Keen may be forced to hold out hope economics gets its act together for a long time.
There is some good news. The physical chemist Ugo Bardi has just written Limits to Growth Revisited which covers the technical aspects of dynamic modeling as well as the “political reactions to the original, how it was demonized and misunderstood, and what is its relevance to the present situation of the world” [14]. And one of the original authors of Limits to Growth, Jorgen Randers, is preparing a sequel to be published sometime next year [15].
[1] Steve Keen, Debunking Economics, 2001. ON Keen’s web site there is indication that Keen is preparing an updated version to be released soon, so you may want to wait for that.
[2] Frederick Soddy, Wealth Virtual Wealth and Debt, 1926.
[3] Nicholas Georgescu Roegen, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, 1971, 1999.
[4] Robert Costanza, Lisa Graumlich, Will Steffen, eds., Sustainability or Collapse, 2005.
[5] Herman Daly, Beyond Growth, 1996.
[6] Jared Diamond, Collapse, 2004
[7] William Catton, Bottleneck, 2009.
[8] Joseph Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies, 1988.
[9] Nouriel Roubini and Stephen Mihm, Crisis Economics, 2010.
[10] Robert J. Shiller, “Long-Term Perspectives on the Current Boom in Home Prices,” Economists’ Voice www.bepress.com/ev March, 2006.
[11] Margaret Hwang Smith and Gary Smith, “Bubble, Bubble, Where’s the Housing Bubble?” Preliminary draft prepared for the Brookings Panel on Economic Activity, March 30-31, 2006.
[12] Michael Shermer, The Believing Brain, 2011.
[13] Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics, 2007
[14] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-06-26/new-book-limits-growth-revisited
[15] http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8103

Virginia Offshore Wind Energy

2011-07-10T17:38:00.000-07:00

Tony Noerpel

On June 22, I attended the Virginia Offshore Wind Conference in Virginia Beach sponsored by the Sierra Club in cooperation with industry, government and other NGOs. There is considerable momentum up and down the east coast of the United States to develop this technology. The amount of energy which could be generated is quite impressive. Jane Twitmyer wrote about this in a past Sustainable Planet article [1]. Indeed, it is estimated that Virginia offshore wind could produce up to 83 percent of current electricity consumption in the state by one study [2] eliminating all fossil fuel consumption for electricity generation and displace 29.6 million metric tons of atmospheric carbon emissions. Another study by George Hagerman, one of the plenary speakers and Patrick Hatcher, speaker at this year’s REHAU/Sustainable Loudoun awards ceremony for regional science and engineering fair winners, estimates that the total potential wind farm capacity on Virginia’s outer continental shelf between 3 and 50 nautical miles is about 48 GigaWatts [3].
Conservation however is still the most important and necessary strategy to address global warming, resource depletion and energy security. From Figure 1, if Americans reduce our exosomatic energy consumption by 65% we would be on par with current European usage and at the same time be able to increase our quality of life to European standards. And Europe already has plans to do even better than that. Since electricity and transportation each use about half of total energy consumption, 83 percent of electrical power is roughly 42 percent of total power. But if we can cut total consumption by 65 percent then in fact Virginia would export energy. If we only build out some offshore wind and increase consumption by that amount then it isn’t worth doing.
In fact all new energy must come from conservation in America and indeed our conservation strategy should be aggressive enough to allow us to retire old coal fired power plants and nuclear power plants. This is the cheapest form of energy but there is no market based mechanism to make this happen. Federal regulation, subsidy, carbon tax and mandate are required. This is one point on which the conservative Republican congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and I, a liberal progressive, completely agree. This agreement bridging extremes of the political spectrum does not in and of itself mean we are correct but it does suggest that maybe people should at least consider the concept. What makes our case compelling is that both of us are well informed and our shared opinion is verifiable, i.e., we reference the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Dominion, which dominates energy and climate policy in Virginia, has a senior vice president, Mary Doswell, responsible for alternative energy, and it is quite remarkable that the importance of alternatives has such a high level of visibility within the company. Doswell presented a rather complete list of technologies which the company is considering including offshore wind. Conservation, the most obvious and best solution, was absent from the list. There is simply no way that Dominion can make money selling less. Turning neo-classical economics on its head, clearly energy cooperatives would be a preferable organizational strategy to private enterprise at least in the energy distribution industry. Dominion, as with other private energy companies, is focused specifically on how to make more money, i.e., self interest, which is at odds with the public good. Dominion will support whatever technology makes them the most money so long as the public pays for externalities such as pollution and cancers, which means the scales are heavily tilted towards coal.
The keynote speaker was State Senator Frank Wagner. Wagner maintained that offshore wind energy might be good for jobs and contribute to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Wagner is a global warming denier and is unaware of America’s energy crises. He mentioned that fossil fuels will be the main source of energy for centuries. We most likely do not have enough fossil fuels for that to happen, and if we do, we will so utterly compromise the environment that Homo sapiens extinction becomes the likely outcome [4].
A few speakers did acknowledge Anthropogenic Global Warming, being nearly apologetic about it as if denial is actually a rational alternative position to take. Imagine a politician or policy lobbyist saying “The GPS satellite system is important even for those of us who do not accept the controversial science that suggests the Earth may not be flat…” or “even though the science supporting a heliocentric solar system is not settled we still need to teach our children about gravity so that they don’t fall down the steps.” Anthropogenic global warming is not a scientific controversy and denial is irrational. We need to demand that our elected officials tell the truth.
It was pointed out by several speakers that most of the manufacturing occurs in countries which have strong government commitments to alternative energy and available subsidy such as Denmark, Spain and Germany. So we will have to import most of the stuff to build these offshore wind generators from those countries. No speaker verbalized the obvious connection that these countries acknowledge global warming and resource depletion. While this conference was a step in the right direction, it is a step which should have been taken 40 years ago. The tone of politicians like Wagner suggests that we will continue to fall further behind until our economic situation is hopeless and the destruction of the biosphere is beyond several critical turning points. The alternative energy manufacturing which does occur in the United States takes place in the 35 states which have mandatory Renewable energy Portfolio Standards (RPSs). Virginia has a rather weak voluntary standard, which apparently you have to quickly apologize to Dominion every time you bring this up.
A “Smart from the Start” program was established in the Midwest [4] to ensure that land-based wind energy did not negatively impact the environment. Of particular concern was the preservation of leks, which are sites where migrating birds reproduce. Apparently we do not know how to artificially build these and so once they are destroyed they are gone for good as are the birds which now no longer reproduce [5]. This was conveyed to me by a biologist in the audience. I asked if most of these leks hadn’t already been destroyed by farming and strip mining. He didn’t know. Still we can site a wind tower pretty much anywhere and easily avoid more sensitive locations.
The “Smart from the start” program as applied to off-shore wind in Virginia was initiated by the Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar [6]. This program is intended to kickstart offshore wind energy. Money has been approved to conduct an audit of existing ocean species so that potential threats can be monitored and studied and more sensitive areas can be avoided. While such a study is required for countless other reasons, there appears to be no motivation to produce an estimate of the ocean ecosystem as it was before Europeans arrived, such as the survey performed by Heike Lotze [7] on several United States estuaries, so that we can determine how close to extirpation these species already are from current human misbehavior, such as factory farming, pollution, over fishing, over use of shipping lanes, fossil fuel extraction and military activity. There is no intent to regulate the practices which are already causing the sixth major extinction event [8], whether or not we ever build a single off-shore wind energy generator.
Lobbyists representing these destructive practices are campaigning to make sure wind energy does not “negatively” impact their misbehavior. This includes the military first of all but also fisheries. The fishery lobby was represented by a very slick and articulate lawyer who worried about the impact of wind plant where fishermen currently drag their destructive nets across the ocean floor, destroying every life form except perhaps jelly-fish and harmful bacteria. If wind energy interferes with this practice then it is worth building even if we never generate one kWhr.
It is remarkable that we are front loading a promising new technology with costs to preserve an environment which no longer exists and additional costs so as not to interfere with the very practices which destroyed that environment in the first place. Am I the only person who gets this profound irony?
Wouldn’t it be smart to have a similar “smart while it is not already too late” program for the human misbehavior which is the real problem, like mountaintop removal, drag line fishing, shipping, military activities, factory farming, fertilizing lawns and so on?
Two expert presenters described these smart from the start activities. Both worked with The Virginia Institute for Marine Studies (VIMS) neither had heard of Robert Condon [9], a recent graduate and his salient paper describing how we are transforming the oceans into a jellyfish-based ecosystem from the fish-based ecosystem with which we actually evolved and desperately need. I gave one of them a list of references which I’ve cited in my articles in the past including the Condon and Lotze papers.
These are my major top-down take-aways from the conference. Cost is a driver, the cost of borrowing is important, we need to think regionally not just per project, We need a mandatory RPS in Virginia, and clear regulation and federal and state support so that manufacturing companies are encouraged to locate their facilities and “jobs” in Virginia or the US. And we need government subsidy to kick start this nascent industry such as was done in UK, Germany Spain and Denmark where it is most impressively successful.
Is it possible to encourage Dominion to aggressively pursue conservation instead of the Wise county coal fired power plant? This would be feasable if Dominion were a cooperative since it would be owned by rate payers who would have every incentive to reduce costs the most effective way possible. This is one demonstration that private enterprise is not the best institutional mechanism for many human activities such as power distribution. Think about how much insulation and caulking that coal power plant would have paid for and how many jobs for energy auditors and installers. But there is no market based mechanism to enforce or encourage rational behavior. It is ironic that rational behavior is actually precluded by the inefficiencies of the market.
Another lesson is that we cannot continue to use the energy security excuse to encourage appropriate behavior. We have to accept global warming and resource depletion and agree to do something about those two very real problems or we will not get this done. We’ve been using the energy security argument for 40 years and it has failed utterly. We have to stop condoning lies. Our energy is not insecure simply because it comes from countries which do not like us because we’ve overthrown their constitutional governments in the past to protect our various industries, or because we have from time to time replaced their democratically elected governments with ruthless dictators. Our energy is insecure because we waste so much of it. And our future is insecure because of the way we treat the biosphere. Our military is not a “solution” but perhaps the largest part of the problem, as one speaker mentioned, the US military is the single largest user of energy in our nation and uses more energy than most countries so that downsizing the military would solve a host of problems, such as its presence would no longer interfere with viable solutions such as off-short wind energy generation.

Figure 1 annual per capita fossil fuel consumption in metric tonnes of carbon.

[1] Jane Twitmyer, Wind Energy, an Alternative to PATH, March 8, 2011, http://brleader.com/?p=2878
[2] Simon Mahan, Isaac Pearlman, Jacqueline Savitz, Untapped Wealth: Offshore wind can deliver cleaner, more affordable energy and more jobs than offshore oil, Oceana, September, 2010. http://na.oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf
[3] George Hagerman, Patrick Hatcher, Kenneth Newbold, Jonathan Miles, Virginia Offshore Wind Studies, July 2007 to March 2010, Final Report, Virginia Coastal energy Research Consortium, 20 April 2010. http://www.vcerc.org/VCERC_Final_Report_Offshore_Wind_Studies_Full_Report_new.pdf
[4] Tony Noerpel, http://brleader.com/?p=4639
[4] http://www.wildnevada.org/smartfromthestart-2.html
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lek_(biology)
[6] http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Launches-Smart-from-the-Start-Initiative-to-Speed-Offshore-Wind-Energy-Development-off-the-Atlantic-Coast.cfm
[7] Heike Lotze, “Historical reconstruction of human-induced changes in the U. S. Estuaries”, Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 2010, 48, 267-338.
[8] Anthony D. Barnosky, Nicholas Matzke, Susumu Tomiya, Guinevere O. U.Wogan, Brian Swartz, Tiago B. Quental, Charles Marshall, Jenny L. McGuire, Emily L. Lindsey, Kaitlin C. Maguire, Ben Mersey and Elizabeth A. Ferrer, Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?, Nature, Vol. 471, 3 March 2011.
[9] Robert H. Condon, Deborah K. Steinberg, Paul A. Del Giorgio, Thierry C. Bouvier, Deborah A. Bronk, William M. Graham, Hugh W. Ducklow, Jellyfish blooms result in a major microbial respiratory sink of carbon in marine systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1015782108. See also http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110606152158.htm

GOP wants Americans to pay more for light

2011-07-09T11:01:00.000-07:00

So Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) (of BP apology fame - he apologized to BP after the oil spill) has decided to save us all from the horrors of more efficient light bulbs. Yes folks, the GOP wants to make sure that you can continue to waste money buying light bulbs using technology from the 19th century. (Note to the GOP: We are in the 21st century now).

Some facts: There is no light bulb ban, just an efficiency standard. There are far more choices for light bulbs now than there were in 2007 when the standard was passed and signed by President George W. Bush. Major manufacturers are FOR the standard, so are environmental and consumer groups. It's a win-win-win. Apparently four years after it passed, GOP lawmakers are just realizing that they are against it? Apparently they think it is some kind of 'nanny state' issue where the big bad government is telling us what kind of light bulbs we can buy.

More facts: By reducing power use, efficient bulbs PAY FOR THEMSELVES in a very short time. People will spend less money and waste less power, leaving us all with a few more dollars to spend on something else. Wouldn't that be good for the economy and create jobs? Why is the GOP against job creation?

If you don't like CFLs, buy a 72W halogen bulb to replace your 100W Edison bulb. I have one in a lamp in the living room that has a dimmer control. CFLs are not dimmable (even the ones that are, really aren't). Until the 100W LED equivalent his the market next year, I'll use the halogen. Memo to GOP: The halogen bulb is exactly like the old Edison bulb, it costs more up front, but lasts longer and uses less power. A little algebra proves the lifetime cost is roughly the same (thanks to my very low electric rates), and will only get less as bulb costs go down and electricity prices go up.

Finally, it is worth pointing out the interdependence of our electric use. There is an argument that whatever kind of light bulb one person has doesn't affect anyone else. This is false. Energy efficiency lowers demand for power. This delays or eliminates the need for new power plants. When a utility needs a new power plant, they fund it by asking for a rate increase. In the long term one persons excessive energy use pushes rates up which effects everyone else. So the more efficient we all are, the lower our rates will be.

Uranium Mining in Viriginia?

2011-07-07T17:42:00.000-07:00

If you haven't heard, a company called "Virginia Uranium" is lobbying our state legislature to end the 30 year ban on uranium mining in Virginia.Although the mine will be located in southern Virginia, far from Loudoun County, this is a state decision that affects us all. There are arguments on both sides of the issue.

First, uranium is used to fuel nuclear reactors, which produce power without emitting greenhouse gases or any other noxious pollutants. This is much better for the climate than say, coal. We have a nuclear power station at Lake Anna which supplies a significant part of our electricity.

However nuclear power has it's own issues, as the recent disaster at Fukishima in Japan has reminded us. There is also the unsolved problem of nuclear waste. Uranium mining has its own risks, including tailings impoundments and the potential for water contamination. What you may not know is that, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, "Uranium comes in two forms, U-235 and U-238. As found in nature, uranium is more than 99 percent U-238; unfortunately U-235 is what is used in power plants." So, of all the uranium that is extracted, only 1% or so can actually be used to generate power! Perhaps we should ask Virginia Uranium Inc. where all the rest goes?

Sustainable Loudoun will be hosting a community forum on this important issue in the fall. We hope that all citizens will educate themselves on this important issue and let their representatives know what they think.

First Post

2011-07-05T17:52:00.000-07:00

Hello and welcome to Sustainable Loudoun's blog. Also know as the Loudoun County Committee for a Sustainable Society, we are a group of citizens in Loudoun County, Virginia USA who promote the development of a local community economy based on environmental stewardship and the sustainable use of resources.

That means we promote local actions towards sustainable living like supporting locally grown food, locally made products, local generated sustainable energy. We endeavor to act locally and think globally. If the words 'peak oil', 'overshoot' or 'climate change' mean anything to you, you're in the right place. Join us in making Loudoun County a leader as the world moves toward a sustainable future.