There is a wonderful ski area in Washington called Mt Baker. MB has been in business for over 70 years. They are off the grid. Every winter diesel / electric generators are trucked there and run 24/7 from November to May. Windmills and solar panels are not an option. The crowd there tends to lean left. Ironically they appear to accept these polluting generators. People are buying lift tickets.
I believe Mt Baker could use a small nuclear reactor. A power line could be run to Bellingham and MB could sell electricity to the grid in the summer. This project is not without risk. However MBs carbon footprint would be next to zero. Mini nuclear reactors are available today.
It seems likely the permit process and public opinion would kill this project before the first kilowatt will be produced at the competitive price of 5 cents per KWH. That is half the average American price.
How do you feel about a nuclear reactor at Mt Baker?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would hate to see such a pristine natural area endangered by the desire of a few people to have some fun. Many outdoorsmen take great care to "take pictures and leave nothing but footprints" when enjoying the wilderness. This attitude helps preserve a natural area for future generations, just as they had done for us. This is our generations' obligation to the future.
ReplyDeleteUntil nuclear power can be made safe throughout its product life cycle, we should not blindly start building potential time bombs for future generations.
Feb 10th headline in Oregonian Metro Section:
ReplyDelete"HANFORD'S THREAT TO LAST EONS"
"...contamination projections for the next 10,000years."
"Health risks...are long-term"
"It's now the nations most contaminated radioactive cleanup site."
"(GAO report)...cleanup..cost...could go as high as $100 billion"
Mark
ReplyDeleteI understand your safety concerns.
What type of electric power plant would you support building today?
You pose a question that suggests its own answer (power plant A or B ?). You must be a salesman ! "Will that be visa or mastercard?"
ReplyDeleteLOL
Well, our country has no money to spend on adding to the already existing 3200 power plants today- so I think we need to address the demand side of the equation.
There are enormous inefficiencies that can be addressed immediately. One study by the RMI estimates that we can save 30% of our current energy usage through conservation.
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/02/09/efficiency-alone-could-cut-us-electricity-use-30-percent-rmi-study
Simple ideas that come to mind:
Stop leaving all the lights on in cities 24/7
Gradually raise the price of electricity to encourage innovation and conservation
Educate people on the many household steps they can do to reduce usage
Price according to peak demand. Low to high wholesale prices vary as much as 10X in a day, but we are charge a fixed rate. The utilities buy & trade based on this differential. If the true cost was borne by the consumer , he would adapt. ( Do your laundry and dish washing at night, for example.) This pricing is already done with our phone bills. This should lower usage during peak hours and raise it during troughs.
Offer incentives for inefficient, old refridgerators and other appliances.
Encourage passive hot/cool building -- like using white shingles in hotter climates. Currently a material is being studied that changes color from light to dark, depending on the temperature.
Redisign our electrical grid, as Obama has pioneered. Include buy-back capabilities like Germany has for home solar / wind generation. Imagine getting an electric check instead of a bill !
Just a few ideas - there are many more. Dr. Steven Chu, our sec'y of energy, has some brilliant ideas at
http://www.energy.gov/energyefficiency/index.htm
** We are having similar problems with water, even more dire than energy. But still we water our lawns, flush our crap down with drinking water and run 2-3 gallons down the sink while we brush our teeth. **
Not to proselytize, but we humans have got to stop wasting our resources as if they were infinite. Lifestyles need to change and we need to stop breeding so much.
( The numbers are very daunting. We cannot conserve or build our way out of our energy crunch. In addition, 1.6 billion people worldwide have no electricity and they want it too. We are adding another billion people about every 10 years. We need to come up with a safe and reliable energy source. Unitil then- conserve what we got).
That was a long answer and you didn't answer the question. Have you considered running for a political office?
ReplyDeletePower plants are being built all over the country today.
As we drift off subject the diesel generators are still running at Mt Baker. Is there a replacement system that you would support?
Well, I may not be that smart, but our energy problem is too complex to fit on a bumper-sticker. Being a New Yorker, it is hard for me to be brief, under the best of circumstances--but I'll try !
ReplyDeleteI think our entire electrical grid needs to be revamped to encourage efficiency and innovation.
The century old system in place today is a near monopoly and encourages electrical waste and overuse.
"If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said 'a faster horse'." - Henry Ford
Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy, likes to say that rather than spend $ 7 billion on building a new nuclear plant, he would rather spend that amount on a smart transmission grid, solar panels on his customers roofs, smart energy management boxes in homes,smart batteries in cars,and grid-friendly chips in appliances.
We currently have an outdated, innefficient energy system that does not reward any innovation and where profits are based on wasting energy, not conserving it. The projected savings of a smart grid are enormous and are not currently being looked at by the energy conglomerates that like things to stay the way they are.
Don't take offense, but the question you propose implies "inside-the-box" thinking, and seeks a solution through an antiquated energy system that we've had in place for almost a century. We need a better, more inclusive system that does not stop at our home meter and simply look at the supply side.
As far as ENERGY SOURCES, I like solar, wind, geo-thermal,wave, water and perhaps gas. Coal has potential, IF they can make it clean.
I believe that the capitalist system is the best means to encourage innovation and efficiency. As is, the economic model earns more money by encouraging more use & waste of energy.The government needs to develop a structure of positive/negative incentives to encourage the development of clean / reliable / cheap technologies.
Currently, oil/coal/nuclear are cheap, because the true costs to society are not attached to the product. Not only do we give $ billions in tax credits and free leases to big oil, we ignore the pollution costs of acid rain, air-borne mercury, nitrogen,CO2 and methane; not to mention the 70,000 tons of radioactive-waste-time-bombs being stored at the 100 nuclear plants scattered around the United States to which we add 2000 tons a year.
So we need to encourage innovation into new technologies, via the free market system.
Simply increasing the size of supply in the old system is not an answer-- but that is the, albeit self-limiting, question that you asked.
Markeneret
ReplyDeleteAlways enjoy the passion you bring to the discussion.
The focus here is to improve a beautiful place. Mt. Baker Washington is one of the finest places to ski in the world.
I believe that diesel generators can be replaced with something better. Something better will have less environmental impact and increase profits.
By my very rough calculations Mt Baker needs a 3,000 kw/hr power plant. An on site power plant could sell power back to the grid during the off season. This would provide a year round revenue stream to Mt Baker.
Most ski areas face the same ugly reality of selling lift tickets for half the year or less.
http://www.mtbaker.us/