Speech on Peak Oil and US Energy Policy

UPDATE 2: June 11, 2011, I wrote below that OPEC took steps to bring the price of oil down to $80 per barrel to prevent the US from building coal-to-liquids plants and thus reduce imported oil quantities. However, it appears that OPEC now considers $100 per barrel an acceptable price for crude oil. This is approximately 25 percent greater than $80 that was their previous mark. This is likely due to 1) the USA's threat of a "Carbon tax" on new coal-fired power plants, or 2) new EPA requirements for mercury emissions on coal-fired power plants, or 3) any of the other costly environmental restrictions on coal-fired processes, or 4) the devaluation of the US dollar due to Obama's inflationary spending during his term of office ($800 billion stimulus spending, Quantitative Easing, huge budget deficits). Compared to 1980, a coal-to-liquids plant built in 2012 would very likely cost 25 percent more in real terms. This would allow OPEC to increase crude oil prices from $80 to $100, a 25 percent increase. OPEC met this week and held production steady, indicating the present prices are acceptable. -- RES

UPDATE 1: April 24, 2011, key slides from the presentation are now included. -- RES

On April 2, 2011, I was honored to speak at Tulane Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana, as one of three panelists discussing US Energy Policy and Peak Oil. While I don't have a recording of the speech, I have included below the prepared remarks. I will post the presentation slides showing the various graphs, soon. This was an excellent event, well-attended, and run extremely well. I enjoyed meeting everyone, and having discussions on many points. I want to extend a special thank you to Mr. Wesley Rosenfeld, Tulane second-year law student for inviting me and acting as my host, also Ms. Sarah Dawkins, Tulane law student and Treasurer of the Environmental Law Society. It was a pleasure to meet and talk to Professor Oliver Houck, who had many kind things to say about the Peak Oil session. It was also a pleasure to meet and exchange views with the other panelists, Mr. John Kaufman and Professor of Law Joshua Fershee. Finally, it was a pleasure to meet our panel's moderator, Dr. Geoffrey Parker, Professor of Economic Sciences and Director of Energy Policy at Tulane University. Thank you to all for making the Tulane Environmenal Law Summit a great success.

Figure 1

Speaking on 4-2-2011 at Tulane Law School, New Orleans

Prepared remarks:

Thank you, Mr. Rosenfeld for inviting me to speak today at the Tulane Law School Environmental Law Summit here in New Orleans. It’s a pleasure for me to return to New Orleans, where I worked some 30 years ago just up the river doing consulting engineering for Kaiser at the Gramercy plant.

Today, I want to address a very serious issue, the US Energy Policy with respect to Peak Oil. This speech today is but a small portion, an overview, of a much longer speech I give on the topic so I’ll just hit the high points.

The main points are divided into two sections, Peak Oil, and Energy Policy. Under Peak Oil, I will discuss why Peak Oil predictions fail and the false model used; Oil demand is not increasing at a compound growth rate; Oil Reserves are increasing; Oil price shocks are not catastrophic; and Many more options exist today.

Under Energy Policy, the main points are Take the Long View; Preserve our domestic resources; Maintain a vital oil industry; Develop Coal-to Liquids; Policy options to increase supply and decrease demand; and finally, OPEC’s new role.

First, Peak Oil has always been a false prediction. I first heard the term Peak Oil in 1972 as a freshman in engineering school. It has been predicted many times since the mid-1950s yet never comes true. The reason is that the model that is used to forecast peak oil is false; it is wrong. To paraphrase one of the US’s most brilliant scientists, Dr. Richard Feynman, when the predictions are wrong, you must get a new model. Dr. Feynman won the Nobel prize in physics for his work in QED, quantum electro-dynamics.

Second, Peak Oil proponents state that the world consumption of oil grows at an ever-increasing, compound annual growth rate or 2 or 3 percent per year. This is false, as the graph clearly shows (Figure 2). During the past 20 years or so, oil growth has been linear, at 1 million barrels per day per year. This chart shows world oil consumption by year, with two prominent peaks that coincide with OPEC oil supply disruptions in 1973 and again in 1979. The growth since 1985 has been very close to linear.

Figure 2: World Oil Production

(Click image for enlarged view)

This next chart (Figure 3) shows a closer view of just the data since 1985, with a linear trend line shown in black. The correlation coefficient is 0.98. The data is taken from BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2010, and is available on their website. Other sources show similar results.Thus, we can see that there is no escalating growth in oil consumption, indeed, the past 5 years have shown a flat or zero growth rate. This is very odd, considering the growing economies and oil demand in China and India.

Figure 3: World Oil Production since 1985

(Click image for enlarged view)

Next, looking only at the US oil consumption data (Figure 4), we see that oil use has stabilized and is steadily decreasing since 2004. Therefore, the Peak Oil claim of ever-increasing oil use is simply not true.

Figure 4: US Oil Consumption

(Click image for enlarged view)

Third, Oil reserves are increasing, not decreasing. Proven oil reserves are the most-cited number, and we must recognize that these numbers are very uncertain. No one knows how much oil is in the ground. We make our best estimates and that is all we can do. But, making those best estimates, we can see from this chart (Figure 5) that proven oil reserves are increasing each year at the rate of 20 billion barrels per year. How can that be? Mostly it is due to improved oil production technologies, which I really don’t have the time to explore in detail today.

Figure 5: World Oil Proved Reserves

(Click image for enlarged view)

Fourth, Oil price shocks are not catastrophic. The Peak Oil theory holds that all manner of calamity will occur when Peak Oil happens: economic ruin, depressions, rampant unemployment, starvation, wars for oil, etc. The price of oil is predicted to double, or triple, or go even higher.Yet, the reality is that none of those terrible things happened even though the price of oil went up 10-fold in less than a decade, in the 1970s. I lived through it, and many of you did, too. This chart (Figure 6) shows the oil price went from $3.50 per barrel to $35 between 1973 and 1980.We coped. We survived. We built better cars and conserved.

It is very instructive to examine this price chart, and while I can’t go into all the details, I can say that $32 was the price Saudi Arabia chose for oil in 1980. That was the highest price they could get without triggering the USA building our coal-to-liquids plants.

However, it is a fact that today, $80 per barrel is the same as that $32 in 1980, adjusted for inflation. Saudis maintain the price by adjusting production, and bring the price down to $80 as soon as possible. This happened in 2008, most recently. If the price of oil gets much above $80, we will drill for and produce much more oil, just like we did the last time that oil price shot up.We found oil in Alaska, the North Sea, Indonesia, and other places. Therefore, we will not see a doubling of oil price ever again. The threat of converting US coal to oil is simply too real. We know how. And, we could do it.

Figure 6: World Crude Oil Price

(Nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation)

(Click image for enlarged view)

Fifth, many more options exist today compared to 1980. Among these are Hybrid vehicles, algae-to-oil, CTL, GTL, CNG vehicles, directional drilling, 3D seismic. [note, CTL is Coal-to-Liquids, GTL is Gas-to-Liquids, CNG is Compressed Natural Gas, 3D is Three-Dimensional imaging -- RES]

In summary, Peak Oil is not a problem. Demand is decreasing, supply is increasing, and there are far more options today.

Turning next to Energy Policy, the absolutely most important point is that we must take the long view and not be short-sighted. It is critical that the US be prepared for that day when we will desperately need our domestic oil. That day when our foreign supplies are cut off yet again, and this time we are in a prolonged world war, similar to World War II. To meet that day, we must have oil in our own lands. Every president since Truman has known this to be true, and therefore have made so much of the USA offshore off-limits to drilling. The West Coast, East Coast, and eastern Gulf of Mexico are off-limits to drilling. Much of the on-shore lands are also off-limits, including the ANWR. We know the oil is there. We don’t need that oil right now. Preserving that oil for the future is critical, and that is why Drill, Baby, Drill is Dumb, Baby, Dumb. (as an aside, this phrase drew spontaneous applause, much to my great surprise. – RES)

Next we must maintain a vital oil industry. It is critical that the US maintain the ability to drill, produce, refine, and transport oil and oil products to meet that dreaded day. We must attract and retain highly qualified and motivated personnel in the entire oil industry.

Next, we must develop 1 million barrels per day of Coal-to Liquids production using our domestic coal reserves. The Canadians have done something similar with their oil sands, even though they lost money for the first few decades. They went up the learning curve, reduced their operating costs and now are somewhat profitable. We must do the same with our coal.

Next, there are many policy options to increase supply and decrease demand. National speed limits will decrease demand by as much as 20 percent. Raising gasoline taxes are politically unpopular but will decrease demand. Mandating higher CAFÉ standards and government rebates for hybrid vehicles also decrease demand. There are many, many other policy options we could employ. By the way, the US already has more than two dozen federal laws regarding energy policy.

But, the most important supply-side policy choice is to promote recycling of CO2 by assisting the algae-to-oil processes. Here are a few photos of this technology. It works. This makes oil a renewable resource. [photo not included in this blog, due to copyright violation. Readers are encouraged to do an Internet search on images for "algae to oil." -- RES]

Another policy option is bio-ethanol. Mandating Corn-based ethanol is one of the dumbest things our government has ever done and should be repealed as soon as possible. (more applause at this statement. – RES)

Finally, all of the above has been based on OPEC maintaining their hold over world oil price. That is likely to change. OPEC’s new role is uncertain due to the recent events in the Middle East, particularly the change in governments in oil-producing countries. No one knows how this will all turn out, but it is very likely that the new governments will break away from OPEC and produce all the oil they can. That will decrease oil prices, in fact, we may see prices drop all the way to $20 or even $10 per barrel.

To conclude, we see that the data simply does not support the Peak Oil theory. Furthermore, even if oil were someday to be in short supply, there are many policy options to reduce oil consumption and increase oil supply. The most critical point is to not use up our domestic reserves but keep the oil in the ground as security against that day when we will need it most.

Thank you, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions. -- End prepared remarks.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

Grave Concern over Nuclear Power in Japan

UPDATE 1: Monday March 28, 2011, a 6.5 Earthquake hits northeastern Japan. See details after the original posting. -- end update 1.

Original Post . Thus far, the radiation exposure at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has been slight. However, Japan’s NHK English-language site is reporting radiation 10 million times higher than normal. CNN just 20 minutes ago reported the same.

The concern is that no water, which contains radioactive particles, should exist in the turbine building. The fact that it does exist there indicates the second line of defense, the reactor shell, and the last line of defense, the containment structure, have been breached due to fuel rod meltdown. No one knows when or how badly these were breached. Nor can we say that the breach is already as bad as it will get. Aftershocks from the main earthquake continue, and act like small hammers, beating away at an already weakened concrete and steel structure. Any meltdown material inside the reactor and containment structure can leak. Adding water at this point may make the situation worse. The water may turn to steam, and increase the pressure or must be vented to the atmosphere. Steam venting to the atmosphere appears as white smoke. Increased pressure in the reactor, or containment, will likely increase the leakage rate.

There is also a report that the ocean near the stricken plant has higher than normal levels of radiation. This also is an indication that something is leaking somewhere, and that is not good.

I’m pulling for the Japanese workers and the engineers and management who are making the decisions. I’m hoping that the above is the worst news that we will read. I suspect, though, that the continuing aftershocks will worsen the breach or breaches and more and more radioactive material will seep out. When the radiation readings reach too high, no workers will be allowed in. And that is of grave concern.

This link shows an earthquake map of Japan, with intensities indicated by color of the dot. There are many small earthquakes still, each adding to the stress of the stricken and leaking reactors.

Update 1: Another large aftershock at 6.5 magnitude has hit off Japan’s northeast coast. Timing was 07:23:56 a.m. local Japan time on Monday, March 28, roughly one hour ago as I write this.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc0002cqa.php

Now the difficult time begins, as the already weakened reactor structures are jolted by yet another fairly large earthquake. I can only hope that the breached containment structures hold, and don’t release yet more radioactive materials.

The small hammers I wrote about above have just swung a fairly large hammer. -- end Update 1.

.

Peak Oil and US Energy Policy

Abstract of Peak Oil and Energy Policy – for Tulane Law School Environmental Law Summit April 2, 2011, by Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Update:  Link here for full speech with slides (end update)

The simple, but absolute truth is this: every atom of carbon on the Earth stays on the Earth. Oil is made of carbon plus hydrogen and trace elements. The carbon is still here; all of it.

There are but three solutions to oil depletion: 1) Use less, 2) Find more, and 3) Find alternatives. Presently, we as a civilization are doing all three with oil. Until very recently, recycling transportation fuel was not an option.

Peak Oil predictions, while made sincerely and repeatedly since the 1950s, have never come true. This is a sure sign that the basis for Peak Oil prediction is false. It is also said that oil is a non-renewable resource, that it will someday be exhausted. New technology, however, has made that false. Just as we know how to recycle rusted iron into new iron and steel, algae-to-oil technology recycles CO2 from the atmosphere back into oil. Oil combustion is one of the sources of CO2. The only limitations to recycling CO2 to oil are energy input, adequate land, and costs. The energy is from sunshine and therefore is free.

Technology improvements in oil discovery and production provide more oil each year, even at relatively low oil prices. Higher oil prices will result in much more oil discovery. Technology improvements in automotive and truck technologies allow societies to consume smaller amounts of oil as time passes.

The most important aspect of a National Energy Policy is not to be short-sighted, but instead focus on the long view. It is far better to import oil from countries with ample supplies, than to deplete our domestic reserves. We will need those domestic reserves when our imports are cut off, and we face a prolonged military conflict such as World War II. Restrictions on domestic oil drilling are, therefore, very much in the nation’s best long-term interest.

The US has many laws related to a national energy policy, both federal and state. Recently, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated large amounts of domestically-produced ethanol as a gasoline substitute. It also mandated Federal fleets use alternative fuels. In a different federal law, the CAFÉ standard was increased from 25 to 35 miles per gallon.

OPEC sets the price of oil to maximize revenue but discourage development of oil alternatives. OPEC set the price at $32 in 1980 and has generally maintained that price, adjusted for inflation and excepting short-term departures. This price was chosen to discourage coal –to-- liquids plants by oil-consuming nations. Canada’s oil sands were developed even though incurring a loss initially. Other technologies for alternatives are also being developed, such as gas-to-liquids.

U.S. Energy Policy should focus on the critical, long-term issues, and let the market sort out short-term winners and losers through competition and innovation. The Energy Policy must ensure the US maintains a viable domestic oil industry, capable of quickly increasing production if need be. It is critical that we attract and retain qualified personnel with the requisite oil industry know-how. Another critical, long-term issue is feedstock for petrochemicals, lubricants, asphalts, and specialty oil products.

If we must use an Energy Policy to manipulate oil consumption and resources, there are many, many alternatives. Speed limits, gasoline taxes, and CAFÉ standards have great impact on consumption. It is crucial that we not encourage diesel fuel for vehicles. We have technology to achieve 100 mpg or greater, but the cost per vehicle is high. If reduced oil importing is a critical goal, government also should subsidize after-market hybrid drive systems on newer vehicles.

OPEC’s choice of $32 in 1980 for oil price served them well for 25 years, but now various technologies have changed the game. Oil reserves are increasing almost as quickly as oil consumption. Oil consumption per vehicle-mile is decreasing due to technology and government mandates. A calamitous Peak Oil event will not occur, as technology has changed the game. That is very good for the long term interests of the United States.

Reconsider Nuclear Power - Is It Ever Safe?

Below is the text of a post I made on nuclear power, from July 2009, titled "Nuclear Nuts." It seems appropriate to bring this to the fore, since the Japanese nuclear reactors have begun having serious problems. The pro-nuclear crowd is, for the most part, congratulating themselves over how well the Japanese nuclear reactors have held up, with only a few (six or eight or so) having any problems. Plus, they point out, it was not the March 11th earthquake that caused the problem but the giant tsunami that followed it.

I'm an engineer. I know what engineers can do, and I know their limitations. I'm also an attorney, with a law practice that deals with engineers and the myriad of issues that arise in engineering. I'll expand this post over the next few days as my time permits, but for now, the following observations.

First, no plant has ever been designed to withstand what natural forces can dish out. The earthquake in Japan was a 9.0, yet we have evidence of larger earthquakes occurring. The tsunami was 10 meters (30 feet, more or less), yet we have evidence of much, much larger tsunamis in the past. As but one example, there is a tsunami that will smash the entire US West coast from Hawaii, when a portion of the big island collapses into the sea. It is not a matter of IF, but a matter of WHEN. The tsunami will be hundreds of feet high. There are at least six nuclear power plants along the west coast, with four reactors right on the beach in California at San Onofre, and at Diablo Canyon. What Japan is dealing with now, California will be dealing with then.

Second, even the Japanese designs were not sufficient for the earthquake and tsunami that followed. The large initial quake was followed by many smaller aftershocks. It is also apparent that insufficient fuel was available for the Japanese reactors' emergency diesel generators, so even if they had generators that still worked, they would have been out of fuel.

Third, concrete containment structures may or may not maintain their integrity after a large earthquake and multiple aftershocks. It appears that the world is about to learn if the Japanese concrete containment has leaks or not, following the reactor core meltdowns.

Fourth, evacuating people in Japan involved a few hundred thousand people. For the San Onofre plant, which is near San Diego and suburbs of Los Angeles, there are likely millions of people who must be evacuated. That is a logistical problem of immense proportions.

Below, "Nuclear Nuts" addresses the question of nuclear plant safety. I did not include the safety and radiation release aspects of an earthquake plus a tsunami when I wrote that in 2009. Clearly, they are not safe when subjected to such stresses.

Another aspect of nuclear power plant safety must be mentioned. The plants are getting old, and things deteriorate, break, malfunction, and wear out with age. The Japanese are finding that old plants, (40 years old is one reactor with a melt-down), just don't work after an earthquake. The reactors in the USA are also from the 1970's and a few in the 1980s, so are also in the 40 year age bracket. Some are receiving extended operating licences for their third twenty-year period, meaning they will operate to age 60. This is a recipe for disaster.

Yet another aspect of a serious malfunction is a total loss of grid power, then the loss of cooling water, and having spent nuclear fuel stored on-site. The spent fuel also produces heat that must be removed by pumping water through a pool where the fuel is stored. When that water no longer circulates, the spent fuel also overheats.

-- Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

March 14, 2011 at 11:31 p.m. PDT

Marina del Rey, California

Nuclear Nuts, reproduced here and found on SLB here.

A few weeks ago [in June, 2009]I crossed the internet path of one internet nuclear advocate [the "gentleman" hereafter], a self-proclaimed “knowledgeable nuke” and one who fervently believes that nuclear energy is “safe, reliable, and affordable, a huge boon to mankind.” He is an advocate for very small nuclear power plants, with thousands to be built and located in city neighborhoods and industrial facilities.

Further, this gentleman states that nuclear power via atomic fission does not release any deadly materials in an uncontrolled fashion into the environment, unlike burning fossil fuels. [note: this is false, just ask the Japanese]

And last, the gentleman states that I am dead wrong when I stated that atomic energy is the most dangerous and toxic form of energy man has ever devised.

I have run across his type before: a true zealot, a true believer, and one who is not to be swayed by the force of any evidence supported by facts, as his mind is closed to any new or contrary information.

So, knowing in advance that this is a hopeless endeavor, that is, persuading the gentleman and others of similar ilk of the error of his beliefs, I press on, but only this one time. I have far too many things to accomplish in this life to waste more time arguing with one who will not listen to compelling arguments. Taking his assertions in order, “1) safe, 2) reliable, 3) affordable, and 4) a huge boon to mankind.”

Is nuclear power safe? As an attorney highly familiar with negligence and liability, both strict and otherwise, nothing is perfectly safe at all times. Safety is a matter of degree. Measuring sticks one can use to determine the level of safety include how many safeguards are required, how many injuries or deaths occur, and how the law views the matter. For example, driving a car may be considered safe. Yet a car (at least in the U.S.), must have quite a number of safety features before it is allowed to operate on the roads. These safety features include side impact doors, crash-absorbing bumpers, frame crumple zones, air-bags, seat belts, padded headrests and dashboards, the list goes on and on. In addition, there are laws for operating motor vehicles that are designed to increase safety, such as no talking on cell phones and no texting while driving, stopping required at red lights and stop signs, speed limits, operating the headlights at night, not driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol, and others. Yet thousands of people are killed or injured each month while driving. Even though driving a car kills people, driving is not considered an ultra-hazardous activity under the law.

An ultra-hazardous activity is defined under the law as “an activity that necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land or chattels of others which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care, and is not a matter of common usage.” Examples of ultra-hazardous activities include blasting, other uses of explosives, radioactive materials, and certain chemicals.

Nuclear power from fission uses radioactive elements, and is by definition an ultra-hazardous activity. The legal consequence of this is that no matter what happens, and no matter the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, the owner of the ultra-hazardous material is at fault when the plaintiff is harmed by the ultra-hazardous material or activity.

Next, safety can be measured by the amount of harmful material released into the environment, and the harm resulting from that material. Nuclear power plants have exploded (Chernobyl), have leaked radioactive water into the ground and streams (numerous times), and have sunk to the bottom of the sea in submarines, thereby poisoning the surrounding seas. The preparation of nuclear fuel leaves in its wake devastating damage to the environment, as for example the uranium mines in the U.S. Southwest. The Kerr-McGee plant that processed plutonium is another example of nuclear radioactive material that poisoned people, as the Karen Silkwood lawsuit clearly showed.

From the above, it can be seen that nuclear power is anything but safe. The industry makes claims to a safety record, but in reality the record is not yet written. Many thousands of tons of deadly radioactive waste material, as spent fuel rods, are stored in the more than 100 operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. These deadly radioactive wastes will likely be processed in one form or another someday, and the accidents, radiation burns, early deaths, radiation sicknesses, and long-term health consequences such as cancers from radiation have not yet occurred. But they will.

The removal from service and disassembly of many of the oldest nuclear power plants have also not occurred, with the attendant disposal of the radioactive portions of those plants. How many more radiation-related illnesses and premature deaths will occur at that time?

Further, nuclear fission that occurs in power plants produces the raw material for nuclear bombs: plutonium. No amount of denial by pro-nuclear forces can alter that fundamental physical fact. Also, the other, non-plutonium portion of spent nuclear fuel can be used to deadly effect in a dirty bomb, in which conventional explosives are wrapped in nuclear fuel and exploded. The resulting spread of toxic radioactivity is deadly to lifeforms. For those who deny that nuclear power plants produce bomb material, why is there so much angst in the world over some nations acquiring nuclear power plants, such as North Korea and Iran?

Point two, is nuclear power reliable? One must put the question in context, reliable in relation to what? If the comparison is to intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind, or solar, nuclear power is a bit more reliable. But compared to coal-fired plants, nuclear is no more reliable.Compared to gas-fired plants, it is no more reliable. And, compared to load-following gas-fired plants, it is less reliable. No utility can place a phone call to the nuclear plant on its grid during a peak power situation and ask the operators to crank it up another 20 percent for the next few hours, but a gas-fired plant can easily do that. No nuclear plant can be brought from a cold condition to full generating power within an hour, as can a gas-fired peaker power plant. The nuclear plant is designed to run at a steady output, and no other. Furthermore, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can, and does, order nuclear power plants to cut back production or shut down entirely for various reasons. This certainly adversely affects the reliability.

Third, is nuclear power affordable? Many experts thought so in the 1970’s, but few would agree today. In fact, with a 2008 / 2009 cost estimate of $17 to 20 billion for a 2200 MW twin-reactor plant, nuclear power is one of the most expensive options around. That cost estimate was made before the NRC issued a new ruling, that every new nuclear power plant in the U.S. must be designed and built to withstand the impact of a large commercial aircraft. That alone will increase the construction cost by another 10 percent or more. As Craig Severance, CPA, has written, to justify the enormous initial cost and long construction time, the sales price of nuclear-generated power from a new plant must be 25 to 30 cents per kwh. By my estimates, when the aircraft impact design features are included, that will likely be 30 to 35 cents per kwh. In stark contrast, power from a new gas-fired plant is around 12 cents, and from a new coal-fired plant 9 to 10 cents.

Also under the subject of affordability, the gentleman claims that U.S. states with the highest nuclear power generation have the lowest costs of electricity. He cites the southeastern states for this proposition. The opposite turns out to be the case. In all modesty, I took a look at published, reputable data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency, EIA. From my engineering days, I have simple yet adequate skills in plotting data points on a graph, and determining the coordinates of the best-fit linear trend line through those points (see Figure 1 below). In all fairness, developing a trend-line is rather easy these days, when one uses a commercial spreadsheet such as Microsoft’s Excel™.The trend-line shows a positive slope, indicating that power price increases as the percentage of nuclear power generation increases in a state. The data showed that 31 U.S. states have nuclear power plants, with the lowest percent of total generation in Ohio at 6 percent, and the highest in Vermont at 70 percent. Interestingly, the average price for residential retail power in Ohio was 9.5 cents, and in Vermont was 48 percent higher, at 14.1 cents per kwh, in 2007. Connecticut was the highest of all, at 19.1 cents per kwh. The slope of the trend line shows a 0.75 percent increase in power price for a 1 percent increase in nuclear power generation in the state. For a 15 percent increase in nuclear power, the average power price will increase a bit more than 0.9 cents per kwh, or roughly 10 percent of the 2007 price nationwide. For those who advocate increasing nuclear power up to the level achieved by France, 80 percent, this chart clearly shows that would increase the average power price in the USA by 40 percent.

Yet, this data for 2007 uses power produced from mostly aged, nearly-paid-for nuclear power plants.New nuclear plants would, as shown above, require much higher power prices and would increase the cost of power to customers by much more.

Figure 1.

Power price increases 0.63 cents per kwh

for each 10 percent increase in nuclear power

This brings me to the gross unfairness of nuclear power on electricity prices. The poor and those on fixed incomes suffer the most from high power prices, as they have few options but to pay the price or do without. This is dangerous to health and safety in extreme heat and extreme cold.

Fourth and finally, is nuclear power a huge boon to mankind? Given the above, that nuclear power is by definition ultra-hazardous, produces vast quantities of toxic, radioactive wastes that can be used to manufacture nuclear bombs and dirty bombs, is not reliable due to mandatory power reductions or shutdowns, and is one of the most expensive forms of power on the planet that causes grossly disparate effects on the poor and those on fixed incomes (the elderly), the answer must be an emphatic and resounding NO.

The only thing positive about a nuclear power plant is the fuel is cheap. But, there are energy sources that are cheaper still. Four of those energy sources are solar, wind, wave, and ocean current.A fifth is geothermal, but it is very limited. Yet a sixth is hydroelectric, but there is virtually no possibility of increase. The natural resources of those first four power sources are enormous, and have scarcely been tapped to date. Each has features to recommend it, and each has certain drawbacks. But the drawbacks to not include the use of ultra-hazardous materials, do not include generation of deadly toxic wastes that endure for decades or centuries, and do not include power sales prices at 35 cents per kwh or more. Even the reliability issue is minor and getting smaller with new developments. Innovative and cost-effective storage systems are under development and testing in the national laboratories for wind, wave, and solar, which will forever make moot the reliability issue. Ocean current will not require energy storage systems, as the ocean currents flow no matter what is happening in the environment around them.

In conclusion, the propositions that nuclear energy is safe, reliable, affordable, a huge boon to mankind, and releases no toxics to the environment are clearly wrong. The facts clearly show this. No amount of dreaming or wishing or hoping by the gentleman or anyone else with similar opinions will change that.

UPDATE 1 (Nov 4, 2009): After several months and many comments, it is instructive to compare my assertions and facts to the beliefs stated by some of the commenters. First, much more natural gas has been found, just as I said. So much so that gas storage in the U.S. is completely full, and gas prices are very low. So much so that wind power projects are at a reduced rate because wind power generally replaces gas-fired power. Europe is drilling for and finding gas in their shale deposits, especially in Poland. New LNG import terminals are being delayed due to the vast amount of natural gas now available in the US. No need to import it if we can open a valve on land.

On the nuclear power plant front, South Texas Nuclear Project's proposed expansion is on the ropes - due to cost. This is just as I predicted. The cost estimate was $13 billion, and just recently was increased to $17 billion. The City of San Antonio is rethinking their involvement, and postponing their decision. How could such a thing happen, since nuclear proponents insist (indeed, shout it out loud) that such plants are proven technology with well-known cost estimates?

A second major event rocked the new nuclear power plant world this week, as the Areva company (the French vendor for the Finnish plant under construction) has just received a slap across the face for inadequate safety systems. The design must be revised to satisfy the nuclear regulatory agencies from France, Finland, and U.K. How could that be, since we are equally assured by the nuclear proponents that such plants' designs are safe? One would think that the design as approved was truly safe. Apparently not.

And a further point on the cost increase to withstand an impact from a large commercial aircraft. Some commenters stated that all 103 of the US plants already meet that safety standard. This is not true. The new safety standard applies to more than just the reactor dome, it also applies to the cooling system, and spent fuel storage.

It is also increasingly apparent, after a very cool summer and early killing frost, increasing polar ice at both poles, and almost zero hurricanes in the Atlantic, that CO2 has nothing to do with the earth's temperature. If the IPCC and AGW alarmists were correct, the increased CO2 (from 350 all the way up to 388 ppm) should have roasted the earth already. We should already have islands underwater (where are they?), seaports and seashores disappearing (where are they?), an early Spring and late Fall (not in the northern hemisphere, nor the southern), many more hurricanes (did not happen), and Arctic ice almost gone (it is increasing back to the 2005 level). [end update 1]

Where Is the Drought from AGW?

Per the dogma of AGW believers, more CO2 in the atmosphere is to create a warmer world, where droughts will predominate. Specifically in California, the geniuses in the legislature (and Gov. Schwarzennegger) passed the absurd AB 32, predicated on a rapidly warming climate that would, among other things, create drought and reduced snowpack in California. Hmmm...apparently, the snowpack didn't get the word this year. In fact, all across the Western US, the snowpack is already above normal, with several storms dropping more snow and rain since this (see below) was written on Feb 24, 2011. From this link,

"Current water supply forecasts and outlooks in the western United States are for above average snow melt runoff volumes for most basins. This includes the following major river basins as of February 1, 2011.

• Colorado River - Median forecast inflow to Lake Powell is 113% of average
• Columbia and Snake Rivers - Median forecast at the Dalles is 103% of average
• Missouri River - Median forecast at Toston is 105% of average
• California - Median forecasts range from 95% to near 150% of average

Major exceptions to the above average forecasts include basins in the Lower Colorado River and the upper Rio Grande where forecasts are for below normal runoff. These forecasts reflect the very active series of storms that affected much of the western United States in the second half of December 2010 and the second half of February 2011. This series of storms produced very significant mountain snow accumulations over most of the western United States. In many cases snow water equivalent readings are already at or near their average annual peak values with another 1-3 months of accumulation possible."

California's snowpack was measured on March 1, and the results are much above normal. From the press release:

"Department of Water Resources (DWR) hydrologists today confirmed that water content in California’s mountain snowpack is well above average. Manual and electronic readings indicate that statewide, water content is 124 percent of normal for the date, and 109 percent of the April 1 seasonal average."

What is also true is that California's water system is letting perfectly good fresh water run out of the lakes, into rivers, and out into the ocean. Farmers are understandably frustrated over this. The water is running out into the oceans to make room for all the snowmelt that will occur in the warmer Spring season. What California desperately needs are more dams and more lakes, storing more fresh water for use during the dry season. The state has an abundance of hills and mountains with their valleys, all ready to be dammed and turned into lakes. Does anyone think that will happen? Not in this lifetime, not with this citizenry and governance, and not with the environmental rules in place. Meanwhile, the fresh water runs into the ocean, the farmers receive less water than they could profitably use, and cities are under water conservation mandates. Desalination plants are either under construction or under review for future construction.

One supposes that, eventually, the facts will outweigh the belief system. The world is not getting warmer, sea levels are not rising any more than usual, snowpack is not disappearing, droughts are not happening, yet CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. And Californians are having to live with AB 32 partially in place and the remainder looming on the very near horizon: January 2012 will see most of its draconian provisions in place, killing the economy and eliminating thousands of jobs, while "saving" the world from a fictional "problem."

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Eureka CA Headed for Record Cold - Ice Age?

This is an update to my earlier post on Eureka, California, experiencing a rapid cooling such that an Ice Age (locally) is imminent. Looks like I was wrong. They aren't supposed to have a hard freeze until 2030, or thereabouts. Yet the National Weather Service has issued the alert for Eureka for tonight, calling for a hard freeze in the 20's F. That's approximately 20 years ahead of schedule.

The text of the NWS announcement follows:

URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE EUREKA CA

 330 PM PST SAT FEB 26 2011  

...RECORD COLD TEMPERATURES EXPECTED THIS MORNING...  

.CLEAR SKIES AND CALM CONDITIONS COMBINED WITH A VERY COLD AIR MASS FROM CANADA 

WILL BRING RECORD COLD TEMPERATURES TO THE AREA TOMORROW MORNING.  

CAZ001-002-271230- /O.NEW.KEKA.HZ.W.0003.110227T0800Z-110227T1800Z/ 

REDWOOD COAST-MENDOCINO COAST- 330 PM PST SAT FEB 26 2011  

...HARD FREEZE WARNING IN EFFECT FROM MIDNIGHT TONIGHT TO 10 AM PST SUNDAY...  

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN EUREKA HAS ISSUED A HARD FREEZE WARNING...

WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM MIDNIGHT TONIGHT TO 10 AM PST SUNDAY.  

* EARLY MORNING TEMPERATURES WILL DIP INTO MID TO UPPER 20S BEFORE   

SUNRISE SUNDAY MORNING.

It would be prudent for the local government to assess their preparedness for prolonged periods of ice and snow. Do they have on hand sufficient snow plows? Large dump trucks with appropriate tires to spread "grit" to improve motorists' traction? Rock salt supplies and warehouses in which to store it? (Rock salt does not do well stored outdoors where rain can fall on it...) Ice breakers in the harbor?

Given the strict environmental requirements of California law, Eureka should probably (this is NOT legal advice) start rather soon on the environmental impact studies related to removing quantities of ice and snow in an acceptable manner. Perhaps they could confer with officials of another heavily-regulated-city-by-the-frozen-bay, Boston, on this matter.

Looks like sales of warm clothing will be on the upswing in Eureka. Bundle up. I suspect that an Ice Age is not a fun time. Eureka could be the canary in the coal mine on all this "CO2-induced, man-made global warming."

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

(where it will also be rather cold tonight...below 40 degrees F...that's near the record for us, too)

Tulane Law School and Peak Oil

I have the pleasure of being invited to speak at Tulane Law School's Summit on Environmental Law and Policy, held on April 1st and 2nd of 2011 at the law school in New Orleans, Louisiana. I am very much looking forward to this prestigious event. (link here)

My speech will be as one of three panelists on the topic of Peak Oil, to be held April 2 at 11:45 a.m.. The session is titled, Are We There Yet? The Peak Oil Question. I am on record as stating that Peak Oil is not only not here yet, it will not occur. The other two panelists will, I suspect, take the opposing view.

This is shaping up to be a very interesting time to be discussing Peak Oil, and the energy policy implications of a Peak Oil event. I refer to the recent events in the Middle East, where political systems are in a state of change. The price of oil worldwide has increased as a result, with gasoline prices here in Marina del Rey jumping 40 cents per gallon in just two weeks.

I will add more to this post as time allows. If you are in New Orleans that weekend, this should be a most fascinating summit.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California